EPA910/B-94-005
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Watershed Section
December 1994
<>EFV\ A Watershed Assessment
-------
EPA 910/B-94/005
A WATERSHED
ASSESSMENT PRIMER
F.D. EUPHRAT and B.P. WARKENTIN
Oregon Water Resources Research Institute
Oregon State University
This report was prepared for Region 10, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Seattle, Washington, under EPA Assistance No. X-000650-01-5.
1994
-------
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under assistance agreement X-000650-01-5 to Oregon State University. It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as an EPA
document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Additional copies of this publication may be obtained from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., WD-139, Seattle, WA 98101.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Input from technical specialists at universities and agencies was coordinated by the Oregon
Water Resources Research Institute. Dr. F. Euphrat wrote much of the final report. K. Tarnow
gathered background material and drafted some sections. R. Hildreth provided material on the
legal basis for watershed assessment. S. Bauer, Boise, Idaho, provided the sections on grazing
lands and on mining. Professor W. Huber at Oregon State University provided the section on
storm water and urban watersheds. P. Cass and H. Van Zee provided the scientific editing; J.
Preble and K. Bartron did the word processing.
Professors R. Beschta and S. Gregory at Oregon State University and L. MacDonald and J.
Stednick at Colorado State University provided materials on specific methods and on evaluation of
methods used in forested landscapes. Dr. C. Frissell, Oregon State University, provided
evaluations of the methods based on selected criteria. Dr. G. Grant and Dr. F. Swanson, U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, B. McCammon, U.S.
Forest Service Region 6 in Portland, and W. Megahan, National Council of the Paper Industry for
Air and Stream Improvement, provided material on cumulative watershed effects and on how
cumulative watershed effects analysis is being used. Professor J. Scott, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, University of Idaho, provided information on gap analysis. Professors J. Boyle, H. Li, J.
Good, R. Jarvis and W. McComb at Oregon State University provided evaluations of different
methods for assessing watershed conditions. Individuals with responsibility for land management
decisions in agriculture, Forest Service, BLM, Parks Service, and Indian Tribes gave information
on methods they use and land management changes on the basis of watershed analysis.
The workshop "Stream Habitat - Application of Geomorphic and Ecological Principles" at
Oregon State University, January 26-28, 1993 provided the opportunity for input from Dr. J. Karr
on the Index of Biotic Integrity, Dr. K. Sullivan on the TFW process, and K. Jones on the Fish and
Wildlife Service watershed assessment.
Members of the Project Steering Committee outlined the study and posed the questions that
needed to be considered. The members were:
• Robert Beschta, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon;
• Christine Kelly, Watershed Section, EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington;
• Elbert Moore, Chief, Watershed Section, EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington;
• Benno Warkentin, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon;
• Jim Weber, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon; and
• Roger Wood, Oregon DEQ, Portland, Oregon.
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee for this project reviewed drafts, and
provided detailed written reviews and comments during a meeting on April 28, 1993. Members
were:
• Bill Brookes, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon;
• David Carter, USDA-ARS, Kimberly, Idaho;
• Bruce Cleland, Risk Evaluation Branch, EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington;
• Fay Conroy, Water Quality Engineer, Washington Department of Transportation;
-------
• Tom Davis, Montgomery Engineers, Beaverton, Oregon;
• Dave Duncan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho;
• Jim Ferguson, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation;
• Gary Gallino, U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon;
• Karl Gebhardt, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho;
• Richard Harris, SEAlaska Corporation, Juneau, Alaska;
• Christine Kelly, Watershed Section, EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington
• Paul Ketchum, 1000 Friends of Oregon, Portland, Oregon;
• Mike Kuehn, U.S. Forest Service, Region 10, Juneau, Alaska;
• Hiram Li, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon;
• Clarence Maesner, USDA-SCS, Portland, Oregon;
• John Marsh, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon;
• Bruce McCammon, U.S. Forest Service, Region 6, Portland, Oregon;
• Dale McCullough, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Portland, Oregon;
• Michael Mclntyre, Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, Idaho;
• Walt Megahan, NCASI, Port Townsend, Washington;
• Peter Paquet, Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon;
• Alisa Ralph, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, Washington;
• Dick Robbins, Portland Water Bureau, Portland, Oregon;
• Ken Stone, Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington;
• Rick Stowell, U.S. Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, Montana;
• Bolyvong Tanovan, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon;
• Howard Thomas, USDA-SCS, Portland, Oregon;
• Ivan Urnovitz, Northwest Mining Association, Spokane, Washington; and
• Larry Wasserman, Skagit System Cooperative, LaConner, Washington.
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
If water is to be available for various beneficial uses, it must be protected from non-point
source pollution resulting from different land uses. Effective protection strategies are specific, goal-
oriented management techniques based on watershed impact assessment. This report reviews the
basis for watershed analysis and different watershed assessment systems, distinguishing between
inventories and predictive models. The report summarizes several innovative systems and includes
references and brief analyses of underlying concepts and methods of assessment. Some examples
of watershed management based on assessment are given.
Watershed assessment, focusing on beneficial uses, may concentrate on either the stream
channel, the watershed terrestrial ecosystem, or both. Assessments must be appropriate to the
beneficial use, the size and time scale of events which degrade that use, and the time, money, and
expertise available to the watershed assessors. It is important that assessments include all parties
and interests within a given watershed; ecologic and hydrologic processes are not bound by
property lines. Watershed management decisions affect lands beyond the immediate set of owners.
The cross-property ramifications of watershed assessments and decisions are rooted in the
nature of watershed beneficial uses. Most watershed uses are downstream from the source of the
impacts. These uses cross property and jurisdictional lines. People who are affected by these
impacts often have little power to change upstream uses except through state or federal legislation.
The federal basis for analyzing entire watersheds in both assessment and management is
contained in numerous statutes, most notably NEPA, the Clean Water Act, and the Coastal Zone
Management Act. Additional strength for this approach is found in the Endangered Species Act.
A key watershed concept in these laws is concern over cumulative effects. In watersheds,
cumulative effects are driven downstream and downhill, are generated by a variety of human
actions, and may affect the entire array of beneficial uses.
Existing water quality measurement systems are often adequate to assess watershed impacts
for particular beneficial uses. In other cases, where pollution effects derive from multiple sources
and affect a range of beneficial uses, more stream- or land-oriented assessment systems are
appropriate. Such systems are particularly appropriate in cases of habitat degradation.
Assessment systems can be seen as part of a larger prediction and monitoring program.
Assessment, analysis, implementation, and monitoring of results are all necessary in validating
predictions. Monitoring the effectiveness of watershed programs allows managers and the public to
witness not only the degradation, but the watershed improvements as well. Adjusting subsequent
management based on effectiveness of previous results is called "adaptive management," which is
an explicit part of some watershed assessment approaches.
Adaptive management assumes that there is uncertainty in predicted watershed responses.
In order to reduce overall risk, some assessment systems identify critical habitats with higher
relative risk to the watershed, to species, to beneficial uses, or to society. Systems that couple new
management strategies with previous results allow more meaningful decision making under
uncertainty, with feedback to allow managers to change programs and improve the results over
time.
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. WHY WATERSHEDS? 1
1.2. WHY WATERSHED ASSESSMENT? 2
1.3. THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT 4
2. THE WATERSHED APPROACH 5
2.1. WATERSHEDS 5
2.2. STREAMS AND WATERCOURSES 10
2.3. BENEFICIAL USES 11
2.4. IMPACTS 11
2.5. ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION 12
2.6. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT 13
2.6.7. Threshold of Concern 14
2.6.2. Ecosystem Integrity 14
2.6.3. Habitat Condition 15
2.7. CRITICAL NON-POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION 16
2.8. RISK ANALYSIS 17
3. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM SELECTED LAND USES 17
3.1. CROP AND LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE 17
3.1.1. Sources 17
3.1.2. Compliance 19
3.2. GRAZING LANDS 20
3.2.1. Classification of Grazing Lands 21
3.2.2. Inventory 21
3.2.3. Monitoring—Uplands 22
3.2.4. Monitoring—Riparian Areas and Water Quality 22
3.2.5. Implications for Grazing Management 23
3.3. MINING 24
3.3.1. Effects of Mining 25
3.3.2. Control of Mining Impacts 25
3.3.3. Assessment Procedures 26
3.4. URBAN WATERSHEDS AND STORMWATER 27
4. THE POLICY BASIS FOR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT 29
4.1. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) 30
4.2. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) 31
4.3. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA) 32
4.4. THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA) 32
4.5. FEDERAL MANDATES FOR AGRICULTURE: THE SCS 33
4.6. FEDERAL INTERESTS IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 34
4.7. STATE INTERESTS IN WATERSHEDS 35
5. CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE MONITORING SYSTEM 36
5.1. OVERVIEW 36
IV
-------
5.2. CONTEXT
5.2. 1. Actor to Receptor
5.2.2. Tune and Space
5.2.3. Flow Paths
5.2.4. Causal Links
5.3. CONSTRAINTS
5.3.1. Goals of Inquiry
5.3.2. Time
5.3.3. Access
5.3.4. Baselines in Tune or Space
5.3.5. Funding the Measurements
5. 3. 6. Number and Stills of Workers
5.4. USING THE ASSESSMENT
6. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS: CATEGORIES AND EXAMPLES
6. 1 . INVENTORY METHODS
6.1.1. Water Column
6.1.2. Stream Channel Features
6.1.3. Watershed Land, Vegetation, Biota, and Habitat Inventories
6.1.4. Integrated Inventories
6.2. PREDICTIVE METHODS
6.2.1. Expert Systems
6.2.2. Regression Methods
6.2.3. Deterministic and Physical Models
6.2.4. Probability Approaches
6.3. COMPARISON OF METHODS
6.4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
7. 1 . FORESTED LANDS
7.1.1. U.S. Forest Service
7.1.2. Private Forested Lands
7.2. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
7.3. CROPPED LAND IN AGRICULTURE
7.4. INDIAN TRIBAL LANDS
7.5. PARKS
7.6. STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES
7.7. THE PUGET SOUND PLAN
7.8. A WATERSHED APPROACH IN THE COEUR D' ALENE RIVER BASIN
7.9. THE WISCONSIN WATERSHED PROGRAM
8. CONCLUSION
LITERATURE CITED
37
39
39
41
41
42
42
43
45
46
47
48
49
50
53
53
56
59
62
64
64
66
69
70
71
71
73
73
74
74
75
75
76
76
76
78
79
80
81
83
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A; Methods for Watershed Assessment A-l
APPENDIX B: Additional Watershed Analysis Literature B-l
APPENDIX C: Legal and Policy Analysis for Integrated Watershed Management,
Cumulative Impacts, and Implementation of Non-Point Source Controls C-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Watershed Land Uses and Associated Non-Point Source Impacts
TABLE 2. Number and Length of River Channels and Their Watersheds in the United States
(excluding tributaries of smaller order).
TABLE 3. Screening Questions for Watershed Assessment Selection 52
TABLE 4. Some Comparisons of Watershed Assessment Methods 72
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Watershed 7
FIGURE 2: Stream Characteristics for Watershed Analysis 8
FIGURE 3: Time and Space Scales for Watershed Assessment 10
FIGURE 4: Decision Making Path for Watershed Assessment Systems 38
VI
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. WHY WATERSHEDS?
Every land area on the planet is part of a watershed. Rain and snow falling on land
feed streams and replenish groundwater. Precipitation onto water surfaces, such as lakes and
rivers, also enters watershed flow. As water moves in surface or subsurface flows, it
combines into progressively larger streams and rivers, local water tables, and regional
aquifers. Because flow paths are not discrete and there is significant interchange between
groundwater and surface water flows, watersheds are a useful level for organizing both
assessments of water quality and responses to water pollution.
Watersheds are the sum of their surface features of hillslopes and channels, and their
underground flow paths. Water precipitates as rain, snow, hail, fog, or dew from the
atmosphere. Some water is evaporated, some transpired by plants, some held in the soil by
capillary action, and the remaining "surplus" water moves "downhill" in response to gravity.
Water flows along paths created by plants and animals, soil processes, the underlying geologic
structure, and the water itself. Water alters its flow paths, and ultimately determines the
channels of streams, the courses of rivers, deltas, valleys, and hillslopes. The power of water
moving downhill allows it to suspend material. Water also dissolves material.
Watersheds support all human land uses, from wilderness area to city. People alter the
nature of watershed surfaces and flow paths, change the volume of flowing water and
groundwater, and add particles and solutes to water. Water pollution occurs in watersheds.
Atmospheric water can carry pollutants that fall with precipitation and affect local water
quality. Falling rain and melting snow move downhill as water driven by gravity, carrying
both particles of and chemicals from plants, animals, soil, rock, and applied compounds.
Many of the human-induced changes restrict other uses of the water, and conflict with
established and future "beneficial uses." Table 1 shows a range of land uses and the pollutants
that may be associated with them.
Table 1. Watershed Land Uses and Associated Non-Point Source Impacts
Impacts
heavy metals
low flows
nutrients
oil, grease
pathogens
peak flows
pesticides,
herbicides
sediment
solvents
Land Uses
Urban
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mining
X
X
X
X
Farming
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Range
X
X
X
X
X
X
Forestry
X
X
X
X
X
X
Wilderness
X
-------
When pollution occurs on watershed surfaces, it travels downhill or downstream until it
is trapped, destroyed, or reaches the ocean. Trapping mechanisms vary as widely as pollution
sources, and include consumption by biota, adsorption onto soil particles, and settling in
waterways. Pollutants trapped in sediments stored in a stream channel may later be re-
entrained. Biological or physical processes may break down pollutants, reducing them to
beneficial, benign, or harmful constituents. Transport into the ocean remains the fate of those
pollutants not otherwise entirely consumed or trapped.
The transport of water pollution components downhill and downstream is a watershed
process. The environmental impact from those pollutants becomes part of the watershed's
condition and may feed back into the watershed's processes. To maintain or improve water
quality, we need to assess problems, develop responses, and predict changes at the watershed
level. This is a new perspective on an old task: we already assess streams for fisheries, water
for chemistry and pathogens, and soil for fertility. The new perspective is one of integration,
combining existing data collection methods within a new framework of analysis.
Not all environmental pollution problems are amenable to watershed analyses. Smog,
for instance, has water and vegetation quality impacts, but is transmitted through "airsheds."
Migratory birds may be the unwitting targets of heavy metal contamination, and concentrate it
within their migration corridor. Subsurface water transmission within volcanic areas may not
follow surface watershed boundaries. These examples suggest that it is important to be aware
of the bounds of the environmental problem before beginning any analysis, and that while
watershed assessment may be more inclusive than many other systems, impact analysis
demands good observation and clarity in problem definition.
The impacts affecting water move downstream, commonly as sediment, turbidity, heat,
or chemicals. In addition to specific pollutants, changes in the volume and/or timing of flows
are also impacts. These impacts do not occur in isolation, but act together.
The concentration of effects may create secondary impacts which maintain or expand
through positive feedback. An urbanized area, for example, may have oil and grease from
streets, increased water temperature from reduced riparian cover, and increased peak flows
from paved surfaces discharging directly into channels. In this example, increased flows erode
banks increasing the volume of flow with the bank material itself; the increased flow then
further erodes the banks. Chemical impacts from oil and grease, increased evapotranspiration
from increased temperature, and undercutting banks from erosion all combine to limit
revegetation and reduce riparian cover. Streambank erosion rates are determined by the
combination of impacts. This combination or concentration of individual upstream impacts on
a downstream site is considered a cumulative impact.
-------
Downstream management may also create upstream effects. Anadromous fish, for
example, which rear inland but grow in the ocean, may no longer be able to migrate upstream,
die, decompose, be eaten, and have their nutrients redistributed across the landscape. At an
ecosystem level, this severs the nutrient flow from the ocean to the terrestrial watershed. This
kind of ecosystem-level impact has the potential to be severe over large areas and long time
frames.
As with upstream effects, downstream impacts may, in combination, become
cumulative. The combination of upstream and downstream impacts may also generate
cumulative effects on habitats, species, ecosystems, and watersheds. Impacts on anadromous
fish provide an example of a joint-upstream/downstream cumulative effect, with impacts from
dams, fishing, and pollution affecting the fish downstream, and increased temperatures,
increased sediment, and decreased woody debris affecting fish habitat upstream.
We are not concerned as a society with all resources. We choose to emphasize those
particular elements of nature, in this case water and watersheds, that have "beneficial uses" for
us. The protection of beneficial uses has been codified in a set of laws in the United States,
focusing specifically on water, species, coasts, and less specifically on "the environment."
States can develop additional standards with enforcement provisions for the maintenance of
water quality and beneficial uses. In general, the federal government has delegated primary
responsibility for water quality monitoring and enforcement of water quality standards to the
individual states. The Clean Water Act of 1972, with its amendments, directs the preparation
of plans for the control of non-point source (NFS) pollution (sec. 208) and for a holistic
approach to NFS pollution management (sec. 319). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) recognizes that a holistic approach to watershed pollution requires inclusion of
both non-point and point sources.
This report will present an array of strategies with which to assess both NPS and point
source pollution at the watershed level. The report does not propose a "magic bullet" with
which to assess watersheds. No single best method exists. Instead, this report will offer
examples of watershed assessment procedures and guidelines to help assessors select an
appropriate system. In all cases, watershed assessments must be based on recognized or
anticipated beneficial uses, measurement constraints, institutional constraints, and
implementation constraints.
These constraints suggest where headway must be made if "better" analysis or
implementation is to occur. Yet these constraints have sometimes been quite inflexible
because watersheds are large and complex, owners feel strongly about private property rights,
good science is expensive, good regulation is both difficult and expensive, and not all players
are interested in either fairness or outcomes based on public interest. Local expertise in
watershed history, beneficial uses, current impacts, and present management will also be
crucial in developing an assessment strategy.
-------
One can assess watersheds from many points of view. Assessment and management of
these complex landscape units is an expensive and important undertaking, and it is critical that
users and owners cooperate prior to the assessment. The choice of assessment method is a
critical step because, in isolating the problem, the assessment can pre-determine the range of
possible management remedies.
This report concludes that continued monitoring and refined assessment should follow
any management changes. Continued assessment completes the cycle of "adaptive
management," allowing managers to both respond to mistakes and to receive recognition for
successes. Inventory procedures are useful; repeated inventories to fine-tune management
decisions are extremely useful.
1.3. THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS DOCUMENT
This document is for people who may need to conduct a watershed assessment because
they need to inventory, analyze, and reduce impacts to fisheries, structures, water quality, or
aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems. Because water pollution flows downhill, concern for
watersheds has flowed uphill. As downstream beneficial uses and public works lose value due
to individual and cumulative effects of watershed management, downstream users seek to gain
information about, and authority over, upstream practices. Watershed assessment is a priority
for landowners, regulators, and the public, all of whom make land management decisions.
Landowners and their representatives engage in land development, resource use, water
conveyance, and sometimes wildlife management. These people are often directly responsible
for the quality of the land, its animals, and its vegetation. They usually have strong economic
constraints and goals, because they generally manage the land for a profit.
Individuals in regulating agencies may only control compliance, focusing on the
negative aspects of others" actions. They are often required to follow lofty but unspecific
agency goals focusing on a geographically diffuse resource; they frequently restrict actions
(and profit) as agents of the public trust. Agencies frequently have both management and
regulatory roles, with different sets of people in each role. Sometimes, the roles are combined
in individuals. Individuals with combined roles have greater freedom to plan the elements of
land management, but ultimately respond to a supervisor and to agency guidelines.
The public has a role in watershed assessment and, ultimately, in land management.
They are the users of the "beneficial uses" derived from private and public lands. The public
represents itself in special organizations such as water agencies, counties, or affinity groups
that have concern but little direct authority over resource management. It is increasingly
important that the public be included in resource management decisions, to maintain the
beneficial uses and to represent themselves within watershed assessment, restoration, and
regulation. Well-informed citizens increase the value of a watershed assessment due to the
expertise they bring, the time and energy they provide, the definition they give to the inquiry,
and the ease they may bring to implementation if they have been part of the process.
-------
This document briefly discusses watershed processes and policy, focusing on the
assessment link in the decision-making chain, at the cusp of policy and practice. Assessment
should be considered a survey instrument, for environmental inventories and/or impact
prediction. Watershed managers need to know about watershed assessments because they will
either have to use or respond to them. Understanding how assessments work, what choices
were made in the selection of a specific system, and what alternative approaches are available,
should be useful to managers and regulators alike.
This document organizes representative assessment strategies. It assumes that managers
are responsible for data collection and analysis, and are interested in the reasons why data must
be collected, what physical and biological processes can be monitored at a watershed level, and
how the data should be collected in order to be useful.
This report is written for all these people. Watershed assessment is the link between
watershed law and the land. Because watersheds include all lands, watershed assessment
techniques are valid, theoretically, in all places. Specific programs for watershed management
and assessment are already in place in urban, rural, agricultural, range, and forest areas.
Because watersheds are the physical, hydrologic link between the atmosphere, the soil,
particular ecosystems, and the oceans, watershed assessment issues are important to all land
and water managers and regulators.
Finally, this document is not meant to stand alone; greater detail is always necessary.
Land managers and regulators must continue to use their own expertise, the specific codes and
legislation that determine pollution levels and mandate best management practices, and the
many references on water pollution and land assessment strategies. This document is designed
as a signpost, to point readers to effective approaches for assessment of their own, unique
watershed.
2. THE WATERSHED APPROACH
2.1. WATERSHEDS
Watersheds are drainage basins (Figure 1). They range from the smallest unit, the
unchanneled "zero-order" basin, through to the largest drainages on the planet (Table 2).
Watersheds may be broken down into smaller, contributing sub water sheds, or assessed as
whole units. In many cases it is impractical to assess a complete basin. The Columbia River,
for instance, drains over one hundred million acres. Smaller subwatersheds within the larger
watershed or river basin are more useful planning units because they have greater homogeneity
in land use, vegetation, ownership, and government authority. These subwatershed "planning
units" or "assessment units" range from thousands to over a hundred thousand acres. In most
cases these units are themselves watersheds, but may also be defined as a set of subwatersheds
not including drainage areas upstream, downstream, or across the basin; in these instances, the
planning units may follow subwatershed boundaries, but are not designed to be stand-alone
assessment areas.
-------
Table 2. Number and Length of River Channels and Their Watersheds hi the United States
(excluding tributaries of smaller order).
Order*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Number
1,570,000
350,000
80,000
18,000
4,200
950
200
41
8
1
Average
Length
(miles)
1
2.3
5.3
12
28
64
147
338
777
1,800
Total
Length
(miles)
1,570,000
810,000
420,000
220,000
116,000
61,000
30,000
14,000
6,200
1,800
Mean
Drainage
Area,
Including
Tributaries
(square miles)
1
4.7
23
109
518
2,460
11,700
55,600
264,000
1,250,000
Representative
Watershed
Alsea
Umpqua
Yakima
Kuskokwim
Columbia
Mississippi
a The definition is that of Strahler. Order 1 is a channel without tributaries; order 2 is a
channel with only order 1 tributaries, but includes the length segment between the junction upstream of
order 1 channels and the junction downstream with another order 2 channel. (Adapted from Leopold et
al., 1964.)
Watershed assessment focuses on those elements that affect beneficial uses. Generally,
the elements of beneficial uses are contained in the hydrologic, biologic, and topographic
features of the watershed. These elements can characterize or determine water flow, sediment
flow, vegetation change, wildlife habitat, and pollution sources (Figure 2). Assessments must
also consider social factors of ownership and political boundaries. Together these elements
give a picture of a watershed as a hydrologic unit and as an ecosystem with human influences.
Watersheds define flow paths for more than water; they are paths for nutrient cycling,
vegetation changes, and geomorphic processes. Watersheds define the limits of aquatic
habitats, and of the fish, reptiles, insects and other invertebrates endemic to those habitats.
Watersheds collect and transmit rainfall with entrained atmospheric chemicals. And, when
altered by human action, watersheds change their "natural" flow paths accordingly.
The characteristics of a watershed are determined by its geology and tectonic forces,
climate and precipitation, biota, time, and unique history. The biotic components of the
watershed, the plants and animals, are themselves dependent on the habitat created within the
watershed. In addition to habitat, watersheds provide sources, paths, and boundaries for
nutrient cycling intrinsic to the sustenance of plants and animals.
-------
Figure 1: Watershed
-------
Figure 2: Stream Characteristics for Watershed Analysis
wx
/ '
HEADWATERS
• Zone of erosion
Food source: riparian vegetation
and insects
• Stream structure dominated by
erosion, bedrock, and woody
debris
Habitat: spawning area for fish
I „>
MIDDLE REACH
Zone of transport and floodplam
development
Food source: imported from
upstream and riparian vegetation
Stream structure dominated by
large rocks and woody debris, and
by channel-forming processes
• Habitat: rearing area for fish
•
•CB «
LOWER REACH
Zone of deposition ana extensive
floodplam development, delta
development at confluences with
larger water bodies
Food source: largely imported
from upstream; plankton (primary
production)
• Stream structure dominated by
channel-building processes
• Habitat: migration comdor
8
-------
Humanity tends to perceive watersheds from a utilitarian perspective: range, forestry,
urbanization, recreation, agriculture, water development, mineral extraction, or other human
uses. Meanwhile, the watershed's characteristics also determine a level of physical, chemical,
and biological functions. The functions that enable the watershed to adjust to natural and
human disturbances give it resilience. In general, warmer climates, deeper soils, more
precipitation and richer subsoil form a watershed with faster growth and more biotic activity,
resulting in a relatively more resilient environment. But both human impacts and natural
disturbances may alter the environment beyond the watershed functions" ability to reconstruct
the environment over years, decades, or even millenia. The watershed will adjust to those
impacts by creating a transitional environment.
A "natural" set of transitional environments are responses to impacts from tree fall,
landslides, fire, flood, drought, pests, diseases, volcanoes, meteors and the like. Human
impacts on the same environments may be strikingly different, particularly over time, and
create environments "not found in nature," or new to the watershed. Examples are roads,
timber harvesting, introduced species, farming, and fire control. A new set of responses is
engendered with each new impact, and the resulting environment may or may not be desirable
for people and the other species that share the watershed. In each case, impacts elicit
responses.
Responses to human versus natural impacts differ because watershed functions are
adapted to respond to natural disturbances, not to human disturbances. While natural
disturbances often lead to greater diversity in watersheds, human disturbances often simplify
watershed drainage patterns or biodiversity. Similarly, "healthy" watersheds may recover
from large scale, long-term natural disturbances more robustly than from human impacts of a
similar scale. Because responses take place over a range of time scales, it is difficult to learn
much from a single watershed condition assessment. Because impacts can result in cumulative
effects, it may take many years for a watershed to effectively stabilize. Some forms of human
impact such as severe erosion following mining may exceed the ability of a watershed to
stabilize within human time scales.
Any analysis of watershed condition needs to assess the variability of watershed
functions and characteristics over time and space. A stable or healthy watershed is not defined
by a no-change condition, but includes varying species composition, erosion rates, and stream
morphology that occur in response to disturbances. Natural communities are not absolutely
stable over time. Environmental variability prevents consistent equilibrium (Wiens, 1977).
Managers and watershed assessors should recognize that environmental changes, natural or
human-induced, will always favor one suite of biota or beneficial uses over another — whether
this is good or bad for the watershed may be a "judgment call," determined by the perspective
of the observer.
-------
In response to the range of variation in watershed functions, many different tools are
available to assess watersheds. They range from point-in-time-point-in-space analyses, like
water samples, to very-long-term-very-large-space approaches, like sediment budgets.
Managers gain different knowledge from their application, and, in fact, are generally already
using some tool which yield the daily knowledge they need. Timber stand surveys, wildlife
transects, soil analyses, road maintenance checks, airphoto surveys, stream gauging,
precipitation monitoring, and stream habitat surveys are all watershed analyses with implicit
time and space scales. Figure 3 compares some of these approaches in their respective time
and space frames.
Figure 3: Time and Space Scales for Watershed Assessment
10,000
1,000
100
10
Sediment Budgets
Water Balances
Photo & Map Analysis
Stream Assessment
Water Samples
10
100 1,000
Acres
10,000 100,000
2.2. STREAMS AND WATERCOURSES
A watershed's most apparent flow paths are shown by flowing streams and non-
flowing watercourses. Together, these create the watershed's surface drainage pattern, or
stream network. A stream network results from the erosion processes on the original
landscape, reflecting the hardness of its rocks, faults and joints in the geology, and historical
human and biologic processes on the landscape. Stream processes shape the watershed,
creating alluvial flats, streamside erosion, and in-channel features.
10
-------
Because streams concentrate flowing water, they also concentrate watershed pollutants.
Pollutants that travel in solution or at the same rate as water may not concentrate over time.
If, however, pollutants travel only at high flows, they may become stored within the stream
system, stranded by previous flows, and awaiting sufficient transport velocities in the future.
Sediment accumulation, for instance, is extremely flow-dependent.
Streams are also important habitat elements within watersheds. Gravity moves soil and
vegetation into the stream channel providing both food and habitat for aquatic species. A
particularly important element of the stream habitat is woody vegetation; the leaves are food
for stream species, the living vegetation furnishes cover, and the large downed wood provides
in-stream structure for habitat, food, sediment trapping, and bank protection.
2.3. BENEFICIAL USES
As locations for all land use activities, watersheds are also the sites for all beneficial
land uses. Water is used for domestic, agricultural, and industrial supply, for recreation,
power generation, and in-stream uses such as navigation and the maintenance of habitats.
Outside the stream channel, watersheds are used for forest or agricultural production,
recreation, greenbelts, sediment trapping, noise reduction, mining, grazing, urban
development, and wildlife habitat. Beneficial uses are defined by human use.
Beneficial uses are those which may be justified as having a value, either as a public
trust or as property. Hildreth et al. in the Appendix to this report, note the legal standing of
"target resources," specifically mentioning Native American subsistence rights and stating that
it is reasonable that standing may be expanded to include wildlife species and species diversity,
watersheds, recreational use, soil retention, and water quality.
In California, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act gives the State Water
Resources Control Board "[A]uthority... to protect public trust uses and prevent waste,
unreasonable use, [and] unreasonable methods of use... of said water." Beneficial uses which
are specifically protected in the Act are "...domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial
supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and
enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves."
When a beneficial use, or the ability of a user to receive a continued beneficial use, is
degraded, an impact has occurred. This may be an individual or a cumulative impact. If the
degradation makes the use no longer possible at some level, that impact becomes a "significant
adverse effect." It is important for watershed assessment strategies to identify beneficial uses,
both present and potential, so that future impacts may be meaningfully assessed.
2.4. IMPACTS
Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Congress mandated
that the Federal government review the environmental impact of proposed projects. NEPA
uses the terms impacts and effects interchangeably, but we will distinguish them: impacts are
the actions which cause effects. NEPA identifies project as an action, or a set of actions,
which produce a suite of environmental impacts. Impacts may or may not have effects which
are considered significant. Impacts may be on-site or off-site. Some impacts may affect
11
-------
long-term site productivity. Some impacts may cause "irreversible or irretrievable
commitments of resources," or an unrecoverable loss of beneficial use.
Cumulative impacts are defined in NEPA as the effects of several projects over time,
from the past into the foreseeable future. An undesirable effect, by this definition, restricts
project developers from putting forth a series of incremental projects for individual review,
while avoiding responsibility for the impacts of the completed series. The nature of
watersheds, to receive and concentrate water from a large area, implies that both in law and in
fact, they will receive and concentrate water-borne or gravity-driven cumulative effects. The
expressions of impacts at the watershed level in terms of sedimentation, flow, organic debris,
or other channel characteristics are termed cumulative watershed effects (CWE's). Williamson
and Hamilton (1987) have prepared an annotated bibliography of the earlier literature.
2.5. ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION
Pollution can be defined as a resource in the wrong place at the wrong time. In
practice, water pollution is a broad spectrum of conditions that limit the ability of water to
provide beneficial uses. Organic and inorganic materials are "typical" pollutants that can be
measured within a sample of water. Less easily quantified are changes in the condition of
streams, such as increased heat, reduced flows, increased peak flows, or accelerated natural
erosion. Harder still to address are species changes due to introduced exotics, habitat changes
due to built structures, or reduced species use of habitat due to external conditions. While
these last changes are not strictly pollution, they do reflect a change in the nutrient cycles of
the watershed and a reduction in beneficial uses.
Alaskan law gives a good general definition of pollution, linking it to resources and
recognizing a continuity between surface water, land, and subsurface water. The inclusion of
aquatic insects as wildlife and altered flow as pollution extends the sense of this language to
include a broad spectrum of watershed resources. The Alaskan statute reads:
Pollution means the contamination or altering of waters, land or subsurface
land of the state in a manner which creates a nuisance or makes waters, land or
subsurface land unclean, or noxious, or impure, or unfit so that they are
actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health,
safety or welfare, to domestic, commercial, industrial, or recreational use, or to
livestock, wild animals, bird, fish, or other aquatic life (Alaska Stat. sec.
46.03.900).
Watershed assessments are part of a response to the Water Quality Act Amendments of
1987, which highlighted the need to control, "in an expeditious manner," both point and non-
point sources of pollution. Point sources are traced to a single "pipe" or single source, and
have traditionally been the target of water quality agencies. Point sources are typically
controlled through prescription and water quality standards, leaving the choice of specific
mitigation method to the producer.
12
-------
Non-point source (NFS) pollutants originate with an action or set of actions that
produce pollutants over a wide area. Typical non-point pollutants are oil and grease from
urban runoff, fertilizers and pesticides from farm runoff, or sediment and elevated water
temperatures from forestry activities. Reduction in NFS pollution is normally achieved
through prescription, with the resource user installing on-the-ground "best management
practices" (BMPs).
2.6. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT
Because many processes that degrade watersheds cannot easily be defined as pollution
and because NEPA is intended to address significant environmental impacts within Federal
jurisdictions, it is important to define significant impact within the context of relevant statutes
and authority. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) uses "significant" as a threshold
for the application of cumulative effects analysis. "...Cumulative impacts can result from
individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time" (40
C.F.R. 1508.7 and 1508.27).
Greater specificity is shown in the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
(CEQA). The regulations define "significant adverse impact on the environment" as:
A substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the
physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air,
water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic and
aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be
considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic
change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether
the change is significant (California Administrative Code. Title 14, Div. 6, Art.
20, sec. 15382).
CEQA guidelines for "impacts normally deemed significant" address streams,
watersheds, and water quality and define impacts as those activities that will have a substantial,
demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, interfere substantially with the movement of any
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, substantially degrade water quality, contaminate
a public water supply, cause substantial flooding, erosion, or siltation, expose people or
structures to major geologic hazards, or substantially diminish habitat for fish, wildlife, or
plants (Remy et al., 1990). These guidelines demonstrate a hierarchy of significant adverse
impact, and by extension, cumulative effects. The most localized changes are the specific
deterioration of water quality, scaling up to broad effects such as the extinction of a species.
In order to determine the environmental health of a watershed under a variety of
impacts, certain concepts have been articulated to describe the elements of watershed change.
These concepts include the threshold of concern, ecosystem integrity, and habitat condition.
13
-------
2.6.1. Threshold of Concern
In some physical and biological contexts, there are thresholds which, when crossed,
change the nature of the system. An example of such a threshold is a population dropping
below the recovery level. Similar thresholds exist in watersheds — a stream affected by
intense management and flooding can abruptly widen and aggrade its channel, or over-
nutrification of a lake may cause an algal bloom and subsequent die-off. Natural systems may
possess buffers to minor fluctuations but may not have the resilience to recover from major
changes.
This concept of resilience has been incorporated in some models of cumulative impacts.
Key indicators might be used to alert managers to possible thresholds beyond which cumulative
impacts become significant. Some cumulative impacts appear to have a threshold beyond
which very large changes can occur. A threshold value can be fraught with uncertainty
because impacts are cumulative, and frequently unqualified, and the key indicators are site
specific. In addition, environmental changes are often gradual, instead of catastrophic.
Frissell (1992) argues that thresholds can be misused by land managers. By assuming
that natural systems have buffers, managers can affect those systems within an uncertain or
somewhat arbitrary tolerance level. Such tolerance levels rarely leave an adequate margin for
cumulative effects, "acts of God," or error. The possibility that a landslide might occur from
a particular timber harvest can only be generally predicted by evaluating potential landslide
factors and estimating the likelihood of failure. As Rice states, "The manager must decide
what is an 'acceptable risk' of causing a slide by logging" (Rice et al., 1984).
2.6.2. Ecosystem Integrity
The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) has the objective "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (§ 101). This inclusion of
biological integrity suggests application at many levels, from individual species up to the
watershed. The term "ecosystem integrity" refers to a broad concept used to indicate
watershed and stream "health." Karr et al. (1986) list the factors affecting ecosystem or biotic
integrity: energy sources, water quality, habitat structure or quality, hydrology or flow
regime, and biotic interactions. Karr and Dudley (1981) define ecosystem integrity as:
The capability of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and
functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region....A
system protecting integrity can withstand, and recover from most perturbations
imposed by natural environmental processes, as well as many major disruptions
induced by humans.
14
-------
The most effective approach to restoring and maintaining resources may be to protect
ecosystem integrity. Levin and Kimball (1984) state:
The health and integrity of the ecosystem must be the ultimate concern of
environmental regulation. If its basic functions are threatened, all species in
that ecosystem are threatened. Individual species may be lost and lamented, but
most are replaceable from the viewpoint of ecosystem function. However, if
the overall productivity of the system is affected, or its capacity to maintain the
flow of energy or the cycling of chemical elements necessary for life, the
consequences may be catastrophic.
Halting chemical degradation of water does not ensure the restoration of
ecological or biotic integrity. The ability of a water system to sustain a
balanced biological community is the best indicator of its health, yet that ability
is largely unprotected by present monitoring and assessment techniques (Karr et
al., 1986).
Rowe (1992) contends that species can take care of themselves if the ecosystems remain
intact. Lee and Gosselink (1988) broaden this concept to promote a landscape approach,
which can include adjacent interacting ecosystems. They suggest that a landscape approach
can conserve the valued functions and biota of smaller subsystems.
Definitive measures of ecosystem integrity are hard to find. Researchers use a variety
of methods that incorporate some of the following characteristics: they measure an essential
component of ecosystem integrity; they reflect social or public values of the resource; and they
attempt to use indicators that are measurable and credible within financial, temporal, and
technical constraints.
2.6.3. Habitat Condition
Habitat is a determinant of an ecosystem's health and stability. Habitat can be a
limiting factor in determining the abundance, diversity, and survival ability of the biological
community. The habitat itself must be diverse. For fish, different habitats are required for
rearing young, as refugia from predatory species and adverse environmental conditions, and as
migration corridors. Habitat structure necessary for salmonids includes gravels for spawning,
pools for rearing, cool water high in dissolved oxygen, and adequate inputs of riparian
biomass to maintain an aquatic insect population. Downed logs, leaves, flying insects and
eroding soil all form the stream and fishery habitat.
Many current and past land use practices had adverse effects on the stream
environment, reducing the present and potential structure. In the 1960's and 1970's, streams
were "cleaned" of woody debris to allow better fish passage, greatly reducing habitat
elements. Similarly, logging or clearing in riparian zones reduces future debris necessary for
structure and food. Sediment settles in pools, reducing space for fish and potentially
increasing average stream temperatures. Sediment also reduces the area of available spawning
gravels and can affect the overall survival of young fish.
15
-------
Without essential habitat structure, many forms of aquatic life are
eliminated from streams. Thus, non-point control efforts that produce high
water quality (physical/chemical conditions) may fail to produce a water source
with high biotic integrity if suitable physical habitats are absent (Karr and
Dudley, 1981).
2.7. CRITICAL NON-POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Watershed assessment is of greatest value when it identifies site-specific remedies for a
watershed, improving beneficial uses in a cost effective manner. Similarly, assessing
cumulative effects of watershed impacts is most meaningful when specific sources of
degradation are tied to specific impacts within a specific frame of time and space. Because
non-point pollution sources may be derived both from large areas and from small, discrete
zones of impact, an important consideration in determining cause and effect is determining the
source of impact. The answer is not trivial, because the remedies for wide-scale small impacts
are very different from localized, intense impacts.
The general approach to reducing the non-point pollution has been Best Management
Practices (BMPs), which are to reduce incremental amounts of pollution over a very large
area. BMPs tend to be situational prescriptions, and range from purely voluntary to
mandatory, depending on the physical and institutional setting of activities. Critical areas
require site specific prescriptions to staunch the flow of non-point pollution, but many be
outside the normal implementation of the water quality regulatory process. Thus, critical areas
can be contributing to cumulative impacts and reducing beneficial uses, but not be singled out
for special assessment or remediation. This imbalance leads logically to the propagation of
cumulative effects and the continued reduction of beneficial uses within the frame of "standard
practices."
Critical non-point sources may result from natural instabilities, human impacts, or a
combination of the two. Landslides in unstable terrain, for instance, generate extensive
amounts of sediment but are often beyond remediation. Critical non-point sources of sediment
from human activities are roads that fail, large sediment deposits in stream courses that fail
over time, and runoff from dairies and feedlots, from eutrophic ponds that "spill over" into
streams, or seepage from aggregations of septic systems. Some elements of present
management remain as critical sources affecting ecosystem integrity, for example riparian zone
modification, sediments and chemicals from farm land and road runoff.
Watershed assessments should key first on easily identifiable point and non-point
sources as determined by maps and airphotos. On-the-ground analysis will test the initial
findings through physical measures of the impact. Tributaries bearing volumes of sediment
will have depositional features and turbidity unlike other tributaries; high nutrient loads may
be identified through algal blooms and water samples. Undoing old practices, repairing scars
from accidents, identifying natural and other exceptional sites will be a useful outcome of
watershed assessment. Site-specific remediation of critical non-point sources will potentially
reduce cumulative effects and allow the watershed to better assimilate other non-point sources.
16
-------
2.8. RISK ANALYSIS
Many of the processes that need to be described in watershed assessments are
probabilistic events. Because of the level of unpredictability (weather, future activities, etc.)
and uncertainty (impact pathways, magnitude of impacts, etc.), the best assessment of potential
impact from cumulative effects will be in the form of a risk assessment.
Uncertainty arises from our conceptualization (models) of how ecosystems function,
from the stochastic nature (unpredictability) of natural events, and from measurement errors
(Suter et al., 1987). Through computation of the magnitude of uncertainty in different
components of the analysis, a risk assessment expresses uncertainty as the probability of
occurrence of an undesired event (Hunsaker et al., 1990).
Risk assessment is increasingly being used in water resources management and non-
point source pollution control. Since absolute predictions regarding impacts from the
cumulative effects of a wide variety of actions are beyond our capabilities, the relative
predictions provided by a risk assessment may be the most reliable decision-making tool at this
time. "Risk analysis can provide a more rational basis for decisions that may otherwise be
highly subjective, by (a) emphasizing probabilities and frequencies of events and (b) explicitly
quantifying uncertainty" (Suter et al., 1987).
3. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FROM SELECTED LAND USES
A current emphasis in water quality protection is control of non-point sources of
pollutants that arise from land-water interaction. Non-point source impacts vary with land
uses, and practices for satisfactory protection of water quality are often specific to those land
uses.
MacDonald et al. (1991) present a good summary of the influence of forest land uses
on water quality. The considerable literature on water quality impacts of crop and livestock
agriculture is summarized in section 3.1. Less information has been collected and evaluated
for grazing lands, mining, and urban land uses. This chapter presents information on these
uses.
3.1. CROP AND LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE
3.1.1. Sources
Land used for crop production and for raising livestock is a major source of non-point
pollution to surface waters and to groundwater. Land under cultivation has an exposed surface
without protection of vegetative cover for at least part of a year. Five major sources of non-
point pollution are water and wind eroded sediments from tillage of dryland, water eroded
sediments and nutrients from irrigated land, nutrients lost from systems of production for high
value crops, pesticides and other chemicals used in crop production, and manure from animal
production.
17
-------
Cropped Land
Dryland
Irrigated
wind erosion
-sediment
-pesticides
water erosion
-sediment
-nutrients
-bacteria
-pesticides
water erosion
-sediment
-nutrients
-pesticides
tail water
-sediment
-nutrients
-pesticides
Livestock
Beef and Dairy
-nutrients
-BOD
-bacteria
Confined Feeding
-nutrients
-BOD
-4>acteria
Small Farms
-nutrients
-BOD
-bacteria
Soil erosion rates from winter rainfall in the Pacific Northwest can be high. Soil loss
of 25 tons per acre is not uncommon; even with modest delivery ratios, this delivers a large
volume of sediment to streams (Busacca et al., 1993). Erosion from furrow irrigation can be
considerably higher.
Large inputs of fertilizer and pest-control chemicals are used on high-value crops. For
example, row crops can receive applications up to 350 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year,
only about half of which is removed in the crop. Livestock produce large amounts of manure,
with a high biological oxygen demand (BOD) for decomposition, a high content of bacteria, a
high content of nutrients and a high content of some salts. For example, a cow produces 11
tons of manure per year. A typical manure application of 25 tons per acre of cattle manure
can contain 250 Ibs of N and 35 Ibs of P. A 10-ton application of chicken manure can contain
400 Ibs of N and 200 Ibs of P.
While the total area in small farms ("hobby farms" of 5 to 10 acres) is not large, the
per acre non-point pollution often exceeds that from large, commercial farms (Godwin, 1994).
Inputs of fertilizer and chemicals are not as closely controlled by economics, stocking rates of
livestock often exceed the capacity of the land to decompose the manure, and the animals often
have direct access to small streams.
18
-------
Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are usually considered as point sources,
so their discharge would be subject to permits. Dairy farms are installing waste handling
facilities to store manure during periods when application to the land is not feasible, for
example, during winter months in the Northwest. The number of dairy cows often exceeds the
capacity of the land; the crops grown cannot use all the nutrients in the manure. This is a
major source of nitrate in groundwater. Cattle feeding operations generate large amounts of
manure in a limited area, leading to high loading of nitrates.
The use of cropped land for waste disposal can lead to pollution. Sludge from sewage
treatment plants is routinely applied to soils, often at rates that exceed crop requirements for
nitrogen (Elliott, 1986). The rate of release of nitrogen during decomposition of the organic
sludge depends upon temperature and moisture conditions in the soil. The amount of nitrogen
available from sludge in the spring is, therefore, uncertain, which leads many farmers to also
apply commercial fertilizer at usual rates. This leads to a large excess of nitrogen, which can
leach to groundwater. Additionally, sewage sludge contains varying concentrations of heavy
metals such as lead, copper, and zinc. The capacity of land to accept sludge from facilities
which mix industrial and domestic wastes is limited.
3.1.2. Compliance
Control of soil erosion has been an issue of agricultural policy since the dust storms of
60 years ago. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was set up to provide technical
assistance, the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) provide the local organization
and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) administers federal cost-
share dollars for conservation practices. The resurgence in the 1970s and 1980s of federal
programs to prevent soil erosion had as much to do with maintaining farm income as with
saving soil. Erosion control has now been replaced as the main concern by water quality from
non-point sources (for example, the 1990 Farm Bill). Recent concepts of watershed or
ecosystem management, if implemented, would be very effective in control of erosion.
Erosion control is not something that can be solved once and then forgotten; it must be an
integral part of every crop production system.
The USDA (USDA, 1989; USDA-SCS, 1990) has a coordinated program of technical
assistance, demonstration and cost-sharing to decrease non-point pollution through initiatives
such as the 90 Hydrologic Unit Areas and 15 Demonstration Projects for impaired watersheds.
The problem has been to achieve the cooperation required for successful implementation.
Other USDA activities include the Small Watershed and Flood Prevention Program to decrease
loading of sediment and chemicals to streams, a Crop Residue Management Action Plan to
provide information for erosion control on highly credible land, and cooperation with other
agencies in the Salmon Initiative in the Northwest. The SCS Field Office Technical Guide is
the source for information on conservation technology.
An earlier program was the USDA (ASCS in consultation with EPA) Rural Clean
Water Program, initiated in 1980 for ten years, to address agricultural non-point source
pollution on a watershed scale (Gale et al., 1993). Best management practices were
implemented on 21 watersheds, and effects on water quality were monitored. Landowner
participation was voluntary.
19
-------
There is little good information on how effective the incentives and cost-sharing of
BMPs have been in erosion control (Zinn, 1993). There is evidence that they are imperfect
because they reach only a part of the landowners. Studies based on questionnaires show that
when asked if erosion is a problem, most farmers will agree, but when asked if erosion is a
problem on their farm, they disagree (Steiner, 1990).
3.2. GRAZING LANDS
Management of cumulative effects from rangelands must address both the indirect
effects that occur on the uplands and direct water quality impacts that occur in the stream-side
zone. The typical grazed landscape in the West consists of narrow riparian zones surrounded
by vast arid uplands. The conflicts between grazing and water quality converge at the riparian
zone where the results of poor management on the uplands (erosion, sedimentation, water
quantity) combine with direct impacts to the riparian zone (stream banks and riparian
vegetation).
The impacts on water quality arise from the combined effects of altered watershed
function and direct impacts to the stream and riparian zone from livestock use (Kauffman and
Krueger, 1984; Clary and Webster, 1990). Livestock are attracted to riparian areas because of
succulent forage, easy accessibility, shade, and a reliable water supply (Skovlin, 1984). A
watershed has three primary hydrologic functions that are modified by overgrazing (Bedell,
ed., 1991): 1) capturing precipitation where it falls, 2) storing water in the soil profile, and 3)
safely releasing water as subsurface flows in springs and seeps or into groundwater. Water
infiltration rates (capture of water) are influenced by plant cover that reduces raindrop impact
on the soil, plant litter and organic matter that absorb moisture, and plant cover that traps
snow near the soil surface. Water stored in the soil profile is released slowly to the water table
to maintain the riparian zone and to increase summer stream flows. Reduction or elimination
of vegetation alters watershed function and promotes surface runoff. Increased runoff
increases upland sheet and rill erosion resulting in stream sedimentation. Increased peak
runoff also increases stream energy for bank erosion, downcutting, and gully formation.
Decreases in water infiltration and storage reduce low summer flows critical to water quality,
fisheries, and wildlife.
Grazing has potentially detrimental effects on the water column, stream banks, stream
channel, and riparian vegetation (Platts, 1991; Elmore and Beschta, 1987). Heavy grazing and
trampling affect stream habitats by reducing or eliminating riparian vegetation, changing
streambank and channel morphology, and increasing stream sediment transport (Clary and
Webster, 1990). Sediment, fecal bacteria, and nutrients may also increase in grazed
watersheds. Overgrazing causes a shift from willow and sedge plant communities, which
protect stream banks, to shallow-rooted grasses and forbs. Stream channels in overgrazed
riparian zones become wider and shallower and have fewer bank undercuts. Overhanging
vegetation is reduced and stream temperatures increase due to the decreased shade. Increased
temperature due to reduced streamside vegetation may be responsible for the gradual shift from
salmonids to non-game fish in many Western streams (Platts 1991). All these alterations
decrease the habitat available to support fisheries and other aquatic life.
20
-------
The process of assessing watershed health and water quality effects in rangeland is
organized into three major steps: 1) classification and stratification, 2) inventory, and 3)
monitoring. Classification organizes the landscape into similar units for inventory,
monitoring, and management. Inventory provides a basic description of the stream and range
condition using rapid qualitative methods. Monitoring uses quantitative methods to detect
changes in water quality over time.
3.2.1. Classification of Grazing Lands
Most classification procedures utilize a hierarchical system to organize similar
landscape units, for example, vegetative type, climatic zone, and plant association.
Classification is based on identifying the climax community or "potential natural community''
which should occur on the site in the absence of impacts. The BLM and SCS utilize the
Standard Ecological Site Description procedure (USDA-SCS, 1976; USDI-BLM, 1990),
which has been recently updated for application to riparian-wetland sites (Leonard et al.,
1992).
Riparian classification systems identify units based on riparian community types, a
dominant overstory species and the most characteristic undergrowth species (Padgett et al.,
1989). These community types are the vegetative expression of soils, climate, hydrology, and
landform characteristics. A BLM work group reviewed eleven riparian classification systems
that are currently in use and provided a description to cross walk these systems (Gebhardt et
al., 1990).
A stream classification system (Rosgen, 1993) based on geomorphology has become
widely accepted as a logical means to stratify and catalog stream types. Stream types are
identified on the basis of entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel materials, and
slope. The stream type system provides a framework to establish objectives and management
prescriptions based on site-specific characteristics.
3.2.2. Inventory
The procedures adopted by BLM and SCS serve as an example of watershed inventory
methods for rangelands. In 1982, BLM adopted the Range Site Inventory procedure described
in the SCS National Range Handbook (USDA-SCS, 1976). An interdisciplinary team collects
data on soils, climate, hydrology, and vegetation to develop the ecological site description
(Leonard et al., 1992). The site description provides the basis for evaluating site potential.
This information can be used to extrapolate monitoring information and provide analyses for
management decisions.
Inventory and monitoring procedures have been developed separately for riparian areas
because of the unique interactions between the water environment and streamside soils and
vegetation. Examples of riparian inventory and monitoring procedures are described by
Meyers (1989) for the BLM and in the Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide (USDA Forest
Service, 1992) for the Intermountain Region of the Forest Service. These methods evaluate
the potential riparian plant community type and selected characteristics of the aquatic resource,
such as bank stability and substrate composition.
21
-------
3.2.3. Monitoring—Uplands
Monitoring methods are an extension of inventory procedures, but are quantitative and
resource intensive. Three basic approaches are utilized to monitor upland resources: soil and
water relationships, vegetation, and methods that evaluate the soil resource itself (Bedell and
Buckhouse, 1994).
Soil and Water Relationships address the watershed objective of producing well-
functioning quantity, quality, and timing of water flows. Infiltration of water into the soil
profile is a critical measure. Infiltration plots on micro-watersheds measure surface runoff
and subsurface percolation from actual or simulated rainfall events. Infiltration can also be
measured using lysimeters or ring or bucket infiltrometers.
Vegetative Measures address the function of vegetation in capturing precipitation and
influencing soil infiltration. Managing vegetation is the primary tool used by land managers
and livestock operators to improve watershed health; hence, vegetative measures have received
the most attention. Range managers have developed a number of approaches to quantify soil
and vegetative characteristics, such as pace and line transects and point frames. Important site
parameters include: percent bare soil, plant canopy cover, plant basal cover, plant density,
plant weight, plant frequency, species composition, species utilization, and residual vegetation
(Bedell and Buckhouse, 1994). Methods to measure these parameters are described in range
manuals such as Range Research: Basic Problems and Techniques (Cook and Stubbendieck,
1986) or agency procedures manuals.
Soil Characteristics at a site bear directly on the site's capacity for water infiltration.
These characteristics include soil movement, surface rock and/or litter, pedestalling, flow
patterns, and rill and gully formation (Bedell and Buckhouse, 1994). A periodic description of
the characteristics can be useful in assessing the site's capability to capture and store water.
3.2.4. Monitoring—Riparian Areas and Water Quality
In this report "riparian area" is defined to include the water column, the stream
channel, the stream banks, and the wetted soils on which characteristic riparian vegetation
grows. Cause and effect analysis should target the limiting factors for existing and desired
beneficial uses in the waterbody. In the western United States, cold water biota, for example,
salmonid species, are often the most sensitive beneficial use; therefore, the assessment should
address their water quality and habitat needs. Other beneficial uses of concern are recreational
uses and domestic water supplies, which are impacted by nutrient enrichment and pathogenic
bacteria from livestock waste.
Water column characteristics that may be evaluated include temperature, shade,
nutrients, fecal contamination, and flow modifications. Bank stability, bank undercut,
overhanging vegetation, channel morphology, pool quality, and substrate sedimentation can be
measured to assess impacts on stream bank stability and associated habitat values. The
diversity and health of the streambank vegetation is assessed using standard vegetative
measurement techniques. "Greenline" community composition is assessed by cataloging the
riparian community types associated with the streambank. Woody species health is evaluated
by classifying the percent of plants in each age class, for example, sprout, mature, decadent,
22
-------
dead. Utilization of forage within the riparian zone is measured to provide relationships to
livestock grazing. Typical methods to assess riparian condition and fisheries habitat have been
described by Platts et al., (1987) and Meyers, (1989). Bauer and Burton (1993) recently
reviewed monitoring procedures for assessing impacts of grazing and recommended ten
protocols which address changes to water quality, stream banks, and riparian vegetation.
The BLM has recently completed a method to assess Proper Functioning Condition in
riparian areas (Prichard ed., 1993). The concept is to achieve an advanced ecological status,
except where resource management objectives would require an earlier succession stage.
Attributes of hydrogeomorphology, vegetation, erosion/deposition, soil, and water quality are
described for the existing situation (State A) as well as for the watershed in properly
functioning condition (State B).
Another approach under consideration is a procedure called Integrated
Watershed/Landscape Analysis: An Ecosystem Approach (Janes, personal communication,
1993). This approach would evaluate physical and biological properties of the upland and
riparian zone for an integrated model. Watershed condition could then be grouped into
categories based on watershed condition and vulnerability to disturbance.
Some new methods for assessing rangeland health have been published by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) (Committee on Rangeland Classification, 1994). The NAS
approach classifies rangelands into categories of healthy, at-risk, or unhealthy, in order to
identify the need for changes in range management. The report utilizes a Site Conservation
Rating that can be used to compare with a threshold for recovery and to develop management
objectives based on the "desired plant community." These methods are land-health based and
would need to incorporate the special water quality functions of riparian areas in order to
provide a holistic approach to watershed assessment.
3.2.5. Implications for Grazing Management
Successful management of cumulative effects on rangeland will address both the needs
of the livestock operator for year-round forage and the legal requirements for healthy
watersheds and restored water quality required by the Clean Water Act. Grazing management
strategies have traditionally prescribed distribution of livestock over time (seasons) and space
(pastures) based on average forage conditions in the allotment. Grazing strategies such as
rest-rotation and deferred methods are prescribed on the basis of maintaining vegetative vigor.
This approach has generally failed to protect water quality because livestock graze riparian
areas more heavily than adjacent upland ranges.
The continuing impacts of grazing on riparian areas have lead several authors to
evaluate the compatibility of traditional grazing strategies with riparian values and function
(Platts, 1989; Kovalchic and Elmore, 1992). Riparian areas will be overgrazed with passive,
continuous grazing (season-long), and under programs of deferred rotation or rest-rotation
grazing (Kinch, 1989). These evaluations consistently find that grazing use levels are one of
the most important factors in designing grazing strategies that protect riparian values.
23
-------
The Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) process has been used as a
conflict resolution tool to involve the owners, managers, and resource users as a team to
develop a resource management plan for an area. This approach provides a way to address
economic, social, and technical issues within an organized planning framework (Anderson and
Baum, 1987; Anderson, 1991).
3.3. MINING
Mining the vast mineral resources of the western states has played an important role in
shaping settlement, and has left its mark on the landscape. Surface mining can be placer
mining, which includes sluicing, panning, and dredging, or open-pit mining. Underground
mining removes ore from a system of tunnels and shafts. Beneficiation of minerals is done by
physical and chemical processes.
The U.S. Mining Laws Act of 1872 granted land-use priority to mineral extraction on
all public lands not specifically withdrawn from mineral extraction. As a result, some 300
million hectares, or 68 percent of all public lands, are open to mining (Sheridan, 1977).
Localized impacts of mining tend to re-occur as historic mining districts are continually re-
evaluated and re-developed. Extraction and beneficiation of minerals generates 1-2 billion
tons of mine waste per year. Most of the waste is from phosphate, copper, iron ore and
uranium mining (U.S. EPA, 1986).
Historical mining activities have eliminated stocks of fish from entire drainages, for
example, anadromous runs of steel head and salmon in Panther Creek, a tributary of the
Salmon River in Idaho. Abandoned mines may present long-term water pollution hazards,
which are not uniformly regulated. These mined areas may contribute significantly to
cumulative watershed impacts that must be addressed in watershed assessment.
Surface mining alters the landscape by removing vegetation and organic topsoil,
thereby exposing large areas of land surface to erosion. Non-alluvial deposits are extracted by
strip and open-pit mining. Both operations disturb aquatic habitats if they block or redirect
surface flows, accelerate sediment delivery to streams and lakes, accelerate metals
mobilization, or disrupt groundwater flows. Cyanide heap leaching is a form of open-pit
mining that chemically extracts gold and silver from large quantities of low-grade ores. Heap
leaching is often used to re-work historical tailings, and thereby continues the disturbance in a
drainage basin over time.
Extraction of deposits by placer mining requires direct disturbance of streams and
streamside areas. Historically, hydraulic mining used water under high pressure to remove ore
from alluvial gravels, hence such mining drastically altered the land surface and carried large
quantities of sediment into streams. Restoring these areas to support beneficial uses may be
impossible because the dredged material takes up more space than it originally occupied, and
because the fine-grained organic fractions needed for re-vegetation have been moved.
24
-------
3.3.1. %ffects of Mining
The mining components that contribute to ground and surface water pollution include
(Idaho Dept. Lands, 1992):
1) Roads
2) Open pits, quarry sites
3) Waste dumps, spent ore dumps, topsoil and ore stockpiles
4) Domestic and solid waste disposal facilities
5) Mill tailings impoundments
6) Settling ponds, process water ponds, slime ponds
7) Exploration operations
8) Maintenance of facilities
9) Petrochemical and miscellaneous chemical storage.
Sediment is a primary pollutant from these non-point source activities. Deposition of
sediment on the stream bottom eliminates habitat for aquatic insects and fish by reducing the
permeability of spawning gravels, reducing dissolved oxygen, and blocking the interchange of
subsurface and surface waters.
Acid mine drainage can occur where sulfides are found. Sulfides exposed to moisture
and air readily oxidize to form sulfuric acid. Effluent waters may have a low pH that is
directly toxic to aquatic life. The primary metals released to streams by mining operations are
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
zinc (Nelson et al., 1991). These metals exhibit lethal and sublethal effects on
macroinvertebrates and fish.
Drastic changes may occur to stream hydrology and physical characteristics where
surface mining alters the vegetation, soils, and subsurface materials. When the infiltration
capacity of soils is reduced, overland and channel runoff lead to high peak stream discharges
with subsequent channel erosion. In placer and dredge-mined areas, entire riparian areas have
been replaced by unvegetated gravel piles with unnatural forced meanders and straight reaches
with high gradient. These alterations have removed natural stream function and habitats
necessary to support fish and wildlife.
3.3.2. Control of Mining Impacts
Mining, because of the ubiquitous nature of its environmental impacts, is regulated by
numerous state and federal laws. However, these laws are often inadequate to restore and
protect water quality, since they do not address the cumulative watershed impacts of current
and past mining activities.
25
-------
Mining falls under the provisions of numerous federal statutes, including the Clean
Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Air Act. The Clean Water Act requires
NPDES permits for point source pollution. Surface runoff is regulated as a point source under
the Storm Water Regulations; there is debate whether it should be controlled as non-point
source pollution under Section 319 of CWA. Mine operations on federal lands require
operating permits which comply with the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The federal Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 requires mining activities to minimize disturbance to fish, wildlife
and related environmental values. The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, amended in 1986 by the Superfund
Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA) provides the authority for the cleanup of
hazardous substances. CERCLA clearly assigns the liability for cleanup to owners, operators,
and generators of wastes. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the
generation and proper disposal of hazardous waste. Mining wastes are excluded from RCRA
subtitle C due to the Bevill Amendment. The EPA Office of Solid Waste is formulating
options for State Mining Waste and Materials Management Plans as an alternative to federal
regulation under RCRA.
Mining falls under state laws that address mined lands reclamation, dam safety, stream
channel protection, and water quality regulations. Because of the overlap of state and federal
regulations, many states have attempted to develop one-stop permits for mining. This
approach should improve the control of pollution to soil, air, and water, and include
cumulative impacts from mining.
3.3.3. Assessment Procedures
Assessment methods need to be tailored to the type of mining and impacts that are
taking place; however, some general guidelines are useful. Individual site characteristics
should be evaluated to design a monitoring program. These characteristics include climate,
topography, geology, soils, seismicity, hydrology-hydrogeology, and elevation, slope, and
aspect (Idaho Dept. Lands, 1992).
Runoff conditions are influenced by both climate and soil properties. Thus,
information on total annual precipitation, storm/flood frequency, and seasonal temperature
extremes is needed for evaluating runoff characteristics. Moreover, topography and geology
provide information to evaluate runoff patterns, the stability of mine sites and facilities, and
the sediment potential. Soil type and texture influence compaction, infiltration, resistance to
erosion, and suitability for revegetation. Information on standing, flowing, and ground water
within the mine site is used to assess surface and ground water discharges. Elevation, slope,
and aspect all affect runoff and weathering characteristics.
Water chemistry monitoring focuses on the impacts of sedimentation, acid generation,
mobilization of toxic metals, and petrochemical and reagent discharges. Sediment is measured
directly as suspended sediment or indirectly as turbidity. Acidification is evaluated by
measuring changes in pH. Heavy metals are measured as total metals in transported loads, and
as dissolved metals to evaluate toxitity to aquatic life. Toxicity is evaluated based on indicator
invertebrate and fish species in the drainage. Information on hardness and pH is required to
26
-------
determine appropriate metal criteria (U.S. EPA 1986). Water chemistry monitoring should be
supplemented by biological monitoring since site characteristics may modify metal toxicity.
Biological monitoring should evaluate effluent toxicity and impacts to the benthic and
fish communities. Macroinvertebrates are very sensitive to acid and toxic metal pollution.
Evaluations use individual species indicators or community metrics for more subtle effects
(Plafkin et al., 1989; U.S. EPA, 1990; Barbour et al., 1992). The benthic macroinvertebrate
community integrates the effect of variable pollutant concentrations over time that cannot be
detected by grab water quality sampling. Attached algae are also very sensitive to metal
toxicity, and methods to evaluate periphyton are available (Aloi, 1990; Bahls, 1993). Chronic
effects to the growth and reproduction of fish can be evaluated in addition to evaluating acute
toxicity. On-site bioassays can be used to account for the synergistic and antagonistic effects
of the stream water.
Physical and habitat monitoring are also required. Streams that receive flow from
roads, open pits, and waste dumps should be evaluated for sediment deposition and changes in
sediment transport characteristics. Methods used to evaluate sediment deposition include
cobble embeddedness, percent surface fines, and Wolman pebble count. A recent procedure,
the Riffle Stability Armour Index (Kappeser, 1993), may prove useful for the evaluation of
cumulative impacts of mining on aggradation and degradation of a stream channel.
Stream habitat measures are applicable to some types of surface mining such as dredge
and placer mining. Protocols that address channel shape, for example, width/depth ratios,
streambank stability, pool quality, and stream side vegetative composition may be useful tools
depending on the specific impacts (Platts et al., 1987; Bauer and Burton, 1993).
Water quality assessment is an on-going process that provides information to revise
assumptions in the management plan. The first step is to critically review and evaluate the
existing information that resides within various agency files. Data bases are developed for
water quality, location of tailings, ore deposits, and mine portals. LANDSAT is being used to
inventory mine tailings and spent ore deposits. Data for point sources and for non-point
sources can then be used to develop a waterbody wasteload allocation. A comprehensive water
quality plan, similar in scope to a Total Maximum Daily Load and Waste Load Allocation, can
then be completed.
3.4. URBAN WATERSHEDS AND STORMWATER
Urban land uses generate non-point source pollutants that can influence water quality
through oxygen demand, nutrients, toxics, heavy metals, bacteria, and sediment and heat from
paved surfaces. Such sources should be managed on a watershed basis. For example, urban
non-point source contributions must be included in the overall Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL). Urban watershed management is strongly influenced by federal legislation,
especially the NPDES program that requires permitting for stormwater outfalls. Combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) are a major problem in many older cities. CSOs discharge a mixture
of stormwater and sewage to receiving waters during storm events when interceptor and
treatment plant capacity is exceeded. Management of urban runoff quality must be integrated
with management of urban runoff quantity, and quality controls must be compatible with
27
-------
drainage and flood controls, often a difficult task in older cities. Retro-fitting of flood control
devices for enhanced water quality represents a major need for established urban watersheds; it
is often not clear how this is best attained.
Assessment methods for urban runoff quality vary from straightforward data analysis to
complex models (Donigian and Huber, 1991). From the modeling standpoint, there has been a
lack of emphasis on biological indicators other than those commonly treated as a chemical
constituent (for example, BOD, bacteria). Thus, water column chemistry is the primary focus,
with special consideration given to sedimentation problems. Habitat considerations are seldom
addressed, although there are instances of salmon run restoration (for example, Bellevue,
Washington).
Management options for urban watersheds are many, including various forms of
stormwater storage, infiltration, treatment and source control (for example, Urbonas and
Roesner, 1986; Roesner et al., 1988; Torno, 1989). Storage options include retention (with
subsequent infiltration and evaporation of the stormwater), detention in ponds with permanent
water storage ("wet ponds"), or detention in ponds that are dry between storm events ("dry
ponds"). Constructed wetlands offer another storage option that enhances sedimentation and
nutrient removal. In-line storage (storage in the sewer system itself), concrete tanks, and even
deep tunnels have been employed in older cities. Sedimentation during storage of stormwater
provides some treatment to decrease pollutants. Storage of combined sewage is used to detain
the runoff for subsequent treatment at the municipal sewage treatment plant, although there
may be some pollutant reduction during detention as well. Secondary flow devices such as
swirl concentrators are sometimes used to concentrate solids in the portion of flow diverted to
treatment.
Developing urban areas must decide whether to employ distributed storage, that is,
smaller ponds at several development sites, or to utilize a larger, regional facility. The former
option has the advantage of control closer to the source, but suffers from maintenance
problems if the ponds are not publicly owned. The latter option enjoys economies of scale and
simpler public maintenance, but requires a larger segment of public land and may offer control
far from the source. Maintenance is the key to successful stormwater control in urban areas
for any structural method.
The predominant difference between urban and non-urban watersheds is the abundance
of impervious area from roofs and streets, as well as the hydraulically improved drainage
system of channels and pipes. Enhancement of infiltration is thus another mitigation option
through ponds, overland flow, and porous pavement. Overland flow in roadside swales has
the additional advantage of paniculate removal.
Treatment via sedimentation is a part of any storage control, and high-rate treatment
(for example, dissolved air flotation), screening, and/or chlorination is sometimes employed
for CSOs. Nutrient removal is usually through a biological mechanism as part of wet ponds
and wetlands options. Treatment that is not a part of a storage scheme is usually too expensive
for implementation. Sedimentation from construction site runoff and other urban activities is
best controlled at the source on a site by site basis. Some states (for example, Maryland,
Delaware) have excellent, enforceable regulations for sediment control.
28
-------
Source control through public education and regulatory vigilance has great potential for
pollution reduction, especially elimination of illicit connections to storm sewers from
industries. Storm sewers should not be flowing during dry weather, nor should CSOs occur
during dry weather. Illicit connections can be the cause of such phenomena, as well as
uncontrolled infiltration and inflow into the sewers.
Although federal laws drive the regulatory process, local governments must pay for
management of urban watersheds. In the absence of federal dollars, innovative financing
schemes include stormwater utilities where taxes are levied on the amount of impervious
surface. Most homeowners, however, pay only a flat rate of typically $3-5 per month.
Variable rates encourage industries and commercial developments to minimize imperviousness
and provide maximum on-site control of runoff and pollution. Citizen involvement is the
primary means by which less quantifiable objectives such as habitat restoration and aquatic life
diversity in urban watercourses may be realized.
4. THE POLICY BASIS FOR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Assessments of watershed condition and cumulative effects are carried out as part of
public policy. Policy includes social goals, and the objectives required to develop and manage
environmental resources in accordance with these goals. Public policy also includes laws and
regulations, and the technical and scientific expertise available. Non-point source pollution
control on a watershed basis involves management of public and private lands. Management
changes for watershed protection on private lands are frequently undertaken on a voluntary
basis by the landowners, often with education and sometimes with incentives from public funds
or regulatory mandates.
Watershed assessments can include descriptions of the current biophysical, social,
economic, administrative, legal and political environment. Alternative policies are identified
from these assessments, followed by selection and justification of the preferred policy.
Implementation should be followed by monitoring to evaluate results. The watershed processes
that are least understood may be the most important for evaluation of policy. Pressure to
produce rapid assessments that are defensible in court works against inclusion of cumulative
effects assessment or studies of processes.
Land management changes being implemented or considered include voluntary and
incentive-based efforts to control degradation of watersheds. Improved planning and
regulatory capacity is a necessary precondition for successful implementation of a tradable
pollution rights programs (Lence, 1991; Willey, 1992). However, stringent regulations on
private land to protect water quality and avoid adverse cumulative impacts raise unique policy,
constitutional, and other legal questions. While the water quality impacts of watershed land
uses are externalities potentially subject to regulatory control, the political will and the legal
authority to apply regulatory solutions have evolved slowly. Also, current federal and state
fiscal constraints limit the resources available for staffing to administer new regulatory
initiatives designed to protect and improve water quality within a watershed. All these factors
suggest that, wherever possible, integrated watershed management should be implemented
29
-------
within existing laws and institutional arrangements, such as the EPA's Watershed Protection
Approach (Weatherford 1990).
Some examples of Pacific Northwest strategies for protecting water quality in
watersheds include: The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board Program in Oregon's
Strategic Water Management Group; Oregon and Washington's Lower Columbia River Bi-
State Water Quality Program; the National Estuary Program designation for Puget Sound and
Tillamook Bay; Idaho's Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program; and Washington's
shellfish protection legislation. Examples of local innovative programs are the Coquille River
water quality project and the Integrated McKenzie Watershed Program in Oregon.
While federal pollution control law focuses on water quality, state water law governs
the allocation of water for in-stream and out of stream uses. States own the beds of navigable
rivers and lakes, subject to the public trust doctrine, while the adjacent landowners share
ownership of the beds of non-navigable water bodies. Diversions for water uses have not been
controlled to protect water quality under federal and state pollution control laws, because a
number of small, individual uses are involved and because of a tradition of respecting water
quantity allocations as property-like rights. For example, irrigation return flows are
specifically excluded from point source control under the Clean Water Act (CWA), leaving
irrigated agriculture, the largest water user in the West, mostly uncontrolled.
Within state water law, there is now increasing legislative and judicial allocation of
water to in-stream uses such as fish, wildlife habitat, and recreation. Proposed diversions of
water from streams are also being denied or modified based on federal and state pollution
control, wetlands, and species protection legislation. Watershed approaches are possible but
not required within the current legal and institutional framework. Adequate discretionary
authority exists for improving water quality in three major areas: reduced water diversions,
reducing watershed pollutant loadings, and watershed habitat improvements.
The next sections will describe statutes that relate to watershed assessment. A more
complete discussion of the legal and policy basis for watershed approaches to water quality
protection, including cumulative effects, is given in Appendix C, "Legal and Policy Analysis
for Integrated Watershed Management, Cumulative Impacts and Implementation of Non-Point
Source Controls.
4.1. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
The concept of cumulative watershed effects was defined in the National Environmental
Policy Act in 1969 and again by the Council on Environmental Quality in 1971. A cumulative
effect, as used here, is any environmental change caused by a combination of land use
activities (Reid, 1991). This includes past as well as foreseeable future activities.
The effects of seemingly small, independently made decisions can accumulate to create
unexpected and significant consequences. Small decisions on resource use are usually made
separately, without addressing the combined consequences of the decisions, and with no
provision for analyzing the perturbations or their effects over large areas or long periods. A
simple example in forestry is the combination of harvesting, roads and reforestation activities
30
-------
in a watershed. Cumulative effects analysis has been used more widely in forestry than for
other land uses.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), federal agencies are required to
prepare preliminary environmental assessments to determine whether the proposed activities
are a "major federal action" which will "significantly [affect]...the quality of the human
environment." If so, then the agency must prepare a more comprehensive environmental
impact statement (EIS), complete with a review of cumulative impacts, in order to consider the
full range of environmental implications and alternatives.
Even if an agency action has not been formally proposed, it may still require NEPA
scrutiny under the concept of "connected actions," which are "closely related and therefore
should be discussed in the same impact statement." Such actions are "connected" if they 1)
will automatically trigger actions requiring environmental impact statements, 2) cannot proceed
unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously, or 3) are interdependent parts of a
larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Thus, connected actions
may require an agency to assess the cumulative impacts from timber harvesting, even though it
only proposed to build a logging road, since timber production would follow road
construction.
4.2. THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary statutory vehicle for protecting the quality
of ground and surface waters in the United States. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972, Section 208, called for states to develop best management practices (BMPs) to control
non-point source (NFS) pollution. Control of NPS pollution was formally listed as a national
goal in the 1987 amendments to the CWA; Section 319 called for states to develop assessment
reports and management programs to address NPS pollution. States submitting satisfactory
reports and programs to EPA became eligible for federal matching funds to implement their
NPS management programs. Section 319's voluntary compliance scheme continues Congress"
traditional deference to state law in areas such as land use regulation, which have typically
been under state and local purview.
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) Framework Document (U.S. EPA, 1991)
reflects the EPA's expanding commitment to addressing water quality problems in a
comprehensive, holistic fashion. WPA established three central goals: address NPS pollution
in a holistic manner to meet specific NPS goals based on human health and ecological risk
factors; coordinate federal, state and local NPS efforts through technology and information
sharing; and empower all levels of government to implement watershed-specific management
plans. Cumulative chemical, biological and physical effects were to be considered, and
progress assessed by developing finite NPS goals and milestones.
Where water quality does not meet the standards required for the specified beneficial
use(s), an allocation must be made for all contributing sources of pollutants. This is the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). While the TMDLs and other water quality-based approaches
appear sound, there are inherent difficulties in calculating and implementing them. Although
the EPA has a strong commitment to helping states promulgate water quality standards and
31
-------
TMDLs, few states have yet committed the financial and technical resources to actively pursue
effective water quality-based regulation.
4.3. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)
For specific watersheds and river basins, ranging in size from the Columbia-Snake to
the Klamath or smaller basins, applications and pending applications of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) have had and will have significant impacts on watershed management.
Management for protection of endangered species could significantly improve water quality.
The United States Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have consistently interpreted the
ESA as favoring species survival over other considerations.
The ESA mandates to prevent injury to designated species or their habitat apply broadly
to all private, local government, state, and federal actions on private, state, federal, or other
public lands in the watershed or basin. In assessing the risk of injury, the cumulative impact
of activities within the watershed or basin must be considered. Because a primary purpose of
the ESA is to preserve the habitats of species listed as threatened or endangered, designation of
"critical habitats" under the ESA provides a potentially powerful legal mechanism for the
protection of watershed values.
4.4. THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT (CZMA)
Section 6217 of the 1990 amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA) created a Coastal Non-point Pollution Control program that could prove significant
in maintaining and improving water quality in coastal watersheds. The leading sources of NFS
pollution in estuary waters are urban runoff and agriculture. The EPA's guidelines for CZMA
specify management measures to control NPS from agriculture, silviculture, urban
development (including construction, septic tanks, highways, bridges, and airports),
hydromodification (including dams, levees, impoundments, and shoreline erosion), and
marinas as the focus for state coastal NPS programs.
CZMA section 306(d)(16) requires state coastal programs to contain "enforceable
policies and mechanisms to implement" the states" coastal NPS programs. This requirement
distinguishes coastal NPS programs from existing NPS efforts such as the Soil Conservation
Service agricultural programs or the Clean Water Act Section 319, which are voluntary.
However, coastal NPS management measures including land use controls, will not be
enforceable under federal law; instead coastal NPS programs will be developed, implemented,
and enforced by the states under state law.
Definitions used by the states in defining their CZMA coastal zones vary. The required
boundary evaluations could be crucial in ensuring that the states use ecologically rational
boundaries to manage coastal NPS pollution. However, defining the coastal zone's inland
boundary was a very sensitive issue in the initial development of many state coastal programs
(Powell and Hershman, 1991).
Coastal states can be expected to employ both technology-based and water quality-
based approaches to NPS management. EPA's goal is to have the states immediately use
accepted management practices to reduce NPS pollution, while implementing additional
32
-------
measures to address more complex water quality problems. Improved management of NFS
pollution sources would be a major step toward the overall goal of an integrated watershed
approach to water quality problems.
The EPA Region 10 staff in Seattle have strongly urged the EPA and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to allow the Region's coastal states to take
a watershed protection approach (U.S. EPA, 1992) in implementing CMZA. Watershed
approaches allow the states to prioritize their efforts on a watershed-by-watershed basis,
increasing flexibility and efficiency in allocating the relatively small resources available for
NPS pollution control. According to Region 10 staff, "The reason for controlling non-point
sources is to meet the Clean Water Act goal of protecting the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters. This requires consideration of overall habitat issues
which are best done on a watershed basis" (Gakstatter, 1991).
4.5. FEDERAL MANDATES FOR AGRICULTURE: THE SCS
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS) were established in 1935 and 1936 to address soil erosion
resulting from agricultural practices. These Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs
authorized soil and water conservation districts to control soil erosion, to conserve and develop
water resources, and to protect water quality. The districts assist private landowners in
voluntary application of erosion control measures. In addition, the Food Security Act (Farm
Bill) of 1985 included conservation measures in sodbuster, swampbuster, conservation
compliance, and conservation reserve programs.
Federal programs under the SCS and the ASCS have the potential to fund watershed
improvement programs at the state level under Hydrologic Unit Area and Water Quality
Demonstration Project programs. The Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental
Easement Programs under the 1990 Farm Act may also be important in conserving and setting
aside riparian areas. The SCS gives assistance to state and local watershed projects through
the Small Watershed Program Grants. The ASCS administered the Rural Clean Water
Program (RCWP), created by the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act. The goal of the
RCWP was "installing and maintaining measures incorporating best management practices to
control non-point source pollution for improved water quality."
Diversions of water for irrigated agriculture have generated increased scrutiny.
Voluntary and involuntary reallocations of water for in-stream purposes are being requested.
However, the legal framework addressing agriculture's pollutant load in watersheds remains
incomplete. Irrigation return flows are exempted from the Clean Water Act's elaborate point
source discharge permit system. Control of these pollutants depends on state NPS and coastal
NPS programs, on largely voluntary and somewhat fragmented federal, state, and local soil
conservation programs, or on special state agricultural pollution control programs such as
Idaho's. Water districts serving irrigated agriculture can play key roles in implementing any
state agricultural pollution control program that is established (Davidson, 1989; Foran et al.,
1991).
33
-------
4.6. FEDERAL INTERESTS IN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Laws on management of federal public lands generally require the designated federal
land management agency to consider watershed values from a multiple-use perspective.
Within that framework, the agencies have considerable discretion to implement integrated
management approaches that protect watershed water quality, including programs coordinated
with private and public landowners upstream and downstream from the federal watershed
lands. Stronger mandates to protect watershed water quality are triggered when federal
resource protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
are applied to federal, private, and other public lands in a particular watershed. These
requirements generally support implementation of an integrated watershed approach.
The National Park Service Organic Act requires the National Park Service to preserve
the wildlife and scenery of certain congressionally-designated park areas. As urban and
resource development encroach on park lands, courts may require greater Park Service
attention to out-of-park activities injuring in-park values. The Park Service's management
policies and guidelines are not enforceable regulations so the potential for effective water
quality management, including cumulative impact analyses for in-park and out-of-park
activities, appears to be limited.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 preserves the free-flowing condition of
certain river segments for their special scenic, recreation, biologic or other values. Agencies
with jurisdiction over designated areas retain management responsibilities, and have broad
discretion in carrying out the Act's mandates. The courts have held that these agencies have a
continuing obligation to take whatever actions are necessary, including consideration of
recommendations from the EPA or state water quality agencies, to protect both the quality and
quantity of water in the designated waterbodies. The courts have upheld restrictions on the
development of hydropower and other impoundments which adversely affect wild and scenic
river values.
Since the landmark ruling in U.S. v. New Mexico (438 U.S. 696, 1978), the courts
have been averse to granting in-stream flow rights to the USFS within National Forests under
federal law as federal reserved water rights. Because in-stream flow rights are important
elements in the protection of watersheds, the courts reluctance to recognize such rights inhibits
effective water quality management in National Forests. However, under the Forest Service
Organic Act of 1897, the USFS appears to have broad authority to "secure favorable
conditions of water flows." At least one state court has interpreted such authority to extend to
the reservation of in-stream flows (U.S. v. Jesse. 744 P.2d 491, Colo. 1987). Federal
agencies also have been successful in obtaining nonconsumptive water rights under state water
law apart from any claim of a federal reserved right (State v. Morros. 766 P.2d 263, Nevada
1988).
The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act recognizes the watershed resource as a "coequal
multiple surface use," to be considered by agencies charged with managing federal lands under
the notions of sustained yield. The National Forest Management Act requires preparation of
forest-wide management plans for timber harvests within the National Forest system. These
34
-------
plans must "insure" that timber harvesting will not result in irreversible damage to watersheds,
wetlands, or water quality.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) seeks to inject more formal,
systematic land use planning into BLM's administration of mining, logging, off-road vehicles
and other uses on federal lands. Under FLPMA Section 202, BLM must abide by certain
criteria, including compliance with applicable state and federal pollution laws, when
establishing land use plans on federal lands.
The Federal Power Act allows the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to
license non-federal hydropower facilities on federal and non-federal lands. The 1986
amendments to the Act require FERC to conduct a public interest review of proposed licenses
and to give equal consideration to power development and environmental protection. At least
one court has held that FERC must consider cumulative impacts from successive projects
within watersheds when developing its comprehensive plans (LaFlamme v. FERC. 852 F.2d
389, 1988). Additionally, if the proposed power project would "significantly affect the quality
of the human environment," FERC is required to comply with the mandates of NEPA which
include cumulative impacts analyses (National Wildlife Federation v. FERC. 912 F.2d 1471,
D.C. Cir. 1990).
4.7. STATE INTERESTS IN WATERSHEDS
Watershed management and non-point source pollution control are land use issues
under state jurisdiction. The mandates of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the 1990
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act have increased interest in developing
watershed-based water quality management programs.
In Washington, a new state law designed to protect shellfish growing areas from non-
point source pollution authorizes counties to create shellfish protection districts in areas where
pollution threatens shellfish harvesting. The shellfish program will address pollution from
stormwater runoff, sewer systems, animal grazing and manure management practices, and
includes public education. The Shellfish program amended Washington's land use laws under
the Growth Management Act. Comprehensive land use plans will provide for the protection of
public water supplies and water quality in shellfish bedding areas.
In Oregon, existing programs including the Forest Practices Act, state land use goals,
the NPS pollution program, and the work of the soil and water conservation districts, are
conducive to statewide watershed management. The Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ) initiated a pollution prevention program called the Non-point Source Statewide
Management Program for Oregon, which emphasizes the use of BMPs to avoid creating
critical water quality problems in a water basin affected by a variety of non-point sources.
Objectives of the program include assessing cumulative effects mostly through the TMDL
approach under section 303 of the Clean Water Act. Riparian areas and wetlands are also part
of the NPS program (Oregon DEQ, 1991).
The Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission has established a
comprehensive statewide program of land-use planning. The 19 land-use goals are
implemented through the adoption of local comprehensive plans, which must be consistent
35
-------
with the statewide goals. Several of the land use goals include water management objectives.
Goal 5 mandates the inventory of fish and wildlife habitats, potential and approved federal
wild and scenic waterways and state scenic waterways, and watershed and groundwater
resources. Goal 6 mandates that future and existing development and land uses be coordinated
to maintain water quality standards. In 1988, the Oregon Water Resources Commission
approved a modification in the basin-by-basin planning system, adding an element on state-
wide water policy.
The Washington Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Agreement is an example of how
conflicting uses within watersheds may be resolved through participation of affected user
groups in the policy-making process. TFW is an agreement reached by consensus among
representatives of groups affected by forest practices and resulting impacts on fisheries,
wildlife, and water quality. Participants agreed that forest management should be conducted in
such a way as to maintain and protect fisheries, wildlife, water quality and quantity, cultural
resources, and timber supply. The TFW process works with the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), which regulates forest practices. A new management system to incorporate
TFW suggestions and improve coordination includes changing the structure of DNR, creating
interdisciplinary teams to evaluate technical forest practices, and improving public
participation and access to agency decision making. The TFW agreement includes addressing
cumulative impacts.
Local soil conservation districts in Idaho administer the Idaho Agricultural Pollution
Abatement Program to address agricultural NPS pollution in identified watersheds. The soil
conservation districts enter into voluntary agreements with private landowners who agree to
use BMPs to abate NPS pollution. The state provides funding for local watershed programs
through inheritance, tobacco and sales taxes.
5. CHOOSING AN APPROPRIATE MONITORING SYSTEM
5.1. OVERVIEW
Ultimately, watersheds need to be monitored to meet the goals of NEPA, the Clean
Water Act, state and regional legislation, and for the protection of existing and future
beneficial uses. Undisturbed watersheds need monitoring to provide baselines for regional
environmental quality; disturbed watersheds need monitoring to evaluate the condition and the
success of recovery strategies.
The first step in adopting a watershed monitoring system will be to agree on the goals
of the assessment, and to determine how the responsibilities can be shared among the parties.
This step is crucial because it will determine the level of commitment by various parties.
Managers will have to work with a variety of landowners, and have to cross agency and
political boundaries to conduct assessments. Watershed assessment and protection is more than
a science, it is a political step that can lead to changes in:
36
-------
access and easement land use
agency spending patterns range management
agricultural cropping patterns recreation uses
domestic animal management reservoir management
erosion control urban development patterns
fire management vegetation management
fisheries management water supplies
in-stream flow requirements wildlife management
in-stream structures
Because watershed improvement will involve many changes, it is critical that all
players be committed to implementation. Because the nature of the changes will depend on the
assessment process, commitment to implementation will depend upon the parties" involvement
in the watershed assessment.
Watershed assessments are based on a set of assumptions that are generally inherent in
the choice of assessment system. Figure 4 shows the decision making path that determines
watershed assessment choice. The path starts with the context or the statement of a problem.
Next, the managers recognize constraints to their problem's assessment. Finally, they choose
a system that reflects their interest in the present (an inventory) or the future (a model).
Unfortunately, many resource assessments are made without this level of forethought.
Managers may want to gather data because it appears useful but may lack a clear direction or
data reduction and use strategy. They may choose a system that appears to answer their needs
but is too difficult, costly, or variable to yield useful information. Resource users may
purposefully choose a system that "averages away" negative impacts, in order to fulfill
institutional and legal requirements. Even best-intentioned professionals may choose an
assessment system that yields good information, but is of limited applicability; the plan may be
impossible for others to implement, or it may require management changes not currently
available or enforceable.
5.2. CONTEXT
Recognizing the context of a problem is a critical, creative, productive, and
empowering step in beginning an assessment. It allows all parties to identify beneficial uses,
to suggest impact sources, to agree on time and space parameters, or to venture management
strategies for their watershed. Then, as a group, parties with joint responsibility for a
watershed may agree on the problems they wish to solve, the bounds of time and area that the
problems exist in, and the science that may be necessary to develop a useful assessment.
37
-------
00
recognize
context
recognize
constraints
v
choose
system/s
beneficial
uses
time frame
space frame
causal links
expertise
time
money
sediment budget
water balance
road inventory
H implementation
inventory
channel morph.
invertebrates
streams
T
land use inv.
source targeting
watershed
f
structure inv.
w 'life surveys
biota
T
NCASI
TFW
mixed
/
model
1 1
expert sys. regression
TFW
NCASI
AGNPS
USLE
CDF
1
physics
Stanford
Moore et al.
\
,
probability
Monte Carlo
flood freq.
-------
The hidden benefit from discussions of context is hearing the other parties' perspectives
directly, and putting a human face on a given point of view. Individuals are easier to work
with than stereotypes. General concepts necessary to understand the context of watershed
assessment are discussed in the following sections.
5.2.1. Actor to Receptor
Effects occur when beneficial uses receive impacts created by given actors. The
fragility, resilience, or restoration capability of given beneficial uses all vary with regard to
different impacts. Similarly, the ability of agencies, communities, or particular restoration
techniques to control given actors also varies.
Identifying actors and receptors allows the assessment of impacts to be viewed in
context. Identification allows the assessor to make the statement "Actor A is affecting
Receptor B, limiting its ability to provide Level C of beneficial use." When framed within
time and space parameters and by incorporating probabilities of occurrence, identification of
actors and receptors begins the search for assessment strategies.
It is rarely simple to make definitive statements about watershed impacts. Generally,
individual impacts combine to reduce a beneficial use, and it is very difficult to identify
individual sources of degradation. The development of an impact assessment to reduce the
degradation requires recognition of both the specific agents of change and the resources or uses
that they are affecting. The Washington State Forest Practice Board's (WFPB) "Standard
Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis" developed under the Timber, Fish and
Wildlife Agreement (TFW) approaches this problem with "statement-building," giving a
specific structure for impact-defining language (WFPB, 1994). Another example is the
method (Megahan, 1992) developed for the National Council on Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI) of the Pulp and Paper Association.
5.2.2. Time and Space
Different assessment systems imply different contexts of time, space, and point of view
(Levin, 1992; Euphrat, 1992). Sampling procedures vary from point-in-time/point-in-space
water samples to long-term/large scale assessments of geologic and human-induced processes,
as in a sediment budget. Given the complexity of watershed analysis, larger scale analytic
methods are often appropriate. Cumulative effects analysis requires the assessor to evaluate
impacts into the foreseeable future. Case law for logging in California requires evaluation ten
years into the future. In-stream methods are often still applicable, particularly in
understanding the processes such as sediment transport, where much of the total annual
movement may occur in only a few days. In-stream sampling may represent longer time
periods and larger areas than the particular point of the sample.
As one watershed differs from another, so do the development of watershed processes,
the benefits they produce, and their responses to impact. Benefits are measured with specific
scales such as animal-unit-months, board-feet per acre per rotation, gallons per minute of
water, annual salmon runs, and visitor-use-days. Measurements of watershed processes and
impacts need similar specific measurements, such as large woody debris per mile of stream,
39
-------
inches of rainfall per year, water temperature, miles of road, or tons of sediment per
subwatershed per century. Because the benefits derived from watersheds are closely tied to
watershed processes, monitoring has been expanded in many cases to processes and impacts.
The result is a monitoring system that can better analyze the resource, doing so by measuring
data at varying scales and perspectives. In too many cases, data are still poorly integrated
through management agencies, collected redundantly, collected and "lost," or collected
without the knowledge of other parties. Creation of information systems for watersheds,
including data of many scales and disciplines, allows meaningful watershed analysis.
In response to the need for watershed assessment at different aerial scales, the Federal
Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) identified analysis methods for regions
(state, multi-state), hydrologic provinces and river basins (thousands of square miles),
watersheds (tens to hundreds of square miles), and sites (up to hundreds of acres) (FEMAT,
1993). The TFW assessment approach suggests initial surveys for basins of 10,000 to 50,000
acres, with more in-depth study of smaller areas, which require greater expertise and planning
time (WFPB, 1994).
With longer and more integrated records, resource managers get a better picture of
seasonal and annual variability, and of different components that affect the benefits provided
by the resource. A better data base ultimately allows managers to distinguish between trends
in watershed health with natural variability and seasonal cycling. A good statistical base to
support data collection will make it robust enough for different kinds of analyses. Data
collection is the heart of the interpretations required for adaptive management practices for
watersheds.
Watershed assessment requires monitoring a range of processes and their interactions to
interpret cumulative effects. To determine the source of sediment in a stream, for instance,
one can monitor sediment production from all sources such as streambanks, roads, wildlands
and developed areas. To determine why fish populations are decreasing, one can monitor local
catch, returning fish, hatchery inputs, habitat condition, precipitation, and sedimentation. A
long-term and complete record allows managers to respond to problems according to their
relative size and duration, and not to focus exclusively on the most visible symptom of
environmental change. Because short-term, small-area phenomena are the easiest to measure
(a photo, a water sample, or a single bird survey are examples), the public and managers often
make decisions based on a scale that is ineffective in resolving the actual problem. A range of
watershed assessment tools are shown relative to their time and space scales in Figure 3.
The diminution of effects over time and distance compounds the problem of watershed
assessment. A severe impact may create a profound initial effect, then generate smaller effects
as it recovers over time. Similarly, the measured effect is greatest in the immediate area of
impact, and reduces as the area of assessment increases downstream or across the landscape.
Reduced impacts do not go away, however, and may be important elements in long-term
cumulative effects far from the time and date of the initial impact. Assessing the effects of
habitat impacts should cover a time scale as long as a full maturation cycle for vegetation, the
periodic population cycles of a fishery, or the centuries or millenia level for long-term changes
in sedimentation. All of these scales recognize the importance of infrequent, high impact
events, and the inherent variability of the resource over time and across the landscape.
40
-------
5.2.3. Flow Paths
Another important perspective in impact assessment is the definition of the paths of
impact flows relative to specific beneficial uses. This perspective is useful in understanding
both the reduction in beneficial use and the nature of the assessment strategy that will be
necessary. Impacts may concentrate, disperse, or be evenly or unevenly distributed across the
landscape. Environments and their beneficial uses may be resilient or impacts may be
irreversible. All of these factors are elements of an impact's context.
Some impacts accumulate in watersheds, and hence are particularly amenable to
watershed analysis. As material moves downhill through the stream system, the channel
concentrates some of the impacts. Sedimentation is a good example of concentrated impacts,
as is eutrophication from in-stream grazing. Storm sewers also act like streams, collecting oil
and grease in their runoff. In these cases, impacts or particular pollutants may be evaluated in
the stream system.
Dispersed effects, such as air pollution, noise, some forms of fertilization, or exotic
plants and animals, are free from entrainment by water, but may have important impacts on
watersheds. These effects are normally measured by surveys or transects reflecting
concentrations and accumulations across the landscape.
Unevenly distributed impacts are also measured by surveys. Roads and landslides, for
instance, may be measured in photos. Leaking underground storage tanks are located and
assessed from maps and monitoring wells. Vegetation patterns are determined from maps,
photos, and ground surveys. Wildlife patterns, including the presence, absence, or densities,
are measured by transects of both animals and their indicators.
5.2.4. Causal Links
Causal mechanisms, or links, are those factors which transmit impacts from a project
or natural process to the beneficial use. In some cases, we can clearly envision how that
mechanism works. Urban oil and grease, for instance, is washed off the streets into storm
drains and moves from the storm sewers into receiving waters. Even when the mechanism is
apparent, however, the larger picture may not be easily discerned. What percent of oil is
directly poured into sewers and what percent originates as runoff from the streets? In this
case, the causal mechanism for pollution is both in the physics of oil and water and in the
habits of urban populations.
Assessment systems must recognize which causal links are important to the resource of
concern, and within which time frame or spatial boundary they operate. Regulators may not
be able to address pollutant sources originating on private property, for instance, and are even
less able to limit "acts of God." The greatest problems arise when causal links are incorrectly
assumed. Incorrect assumptions can allow real problems to increase while the assessment
system registers no change.
Some indicators imply causality, but their use may not be generally valid. The Forest
Service's Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) (Haskins, 1983) was developed to indicate the
potential of increased water flows from timber harvesting areas, but has been used as an
41
-------
indicator of cumulative watershed effects and sedimentation. The connection between physical
changes measured by the ERA and those changes which it is supposed to indicate are not
physically based. The indicator is appropriate for what it explicitly measures: roads,
landings, and timber harvest history in a defined watershed.
Some assessment systems recognize causality. The TFW system evaluates actions,
watershed process input derived from those actions, and the resulting effects within time and
space frames, with conditions and modifiers (WFPB, 1992). The FEMAT report describes
watershed analysis with components of watershed conditions, likely impact mechanisms,
existing impacts, altered conditions (effects), and pathways of influence along which impacts
propagate (FEMAT, 1993). In both these systems, the analysis of causal links between
previous impacts and current conditions becomes the basis for predictions of future
environmental change.
5.3. CONSTRAINTS
Research information is needed to form prescriptions, but watershed conditions
continue to degrade during the time of the investigation, changing the ultimate prescription.
Research must be responsive to the managers" needs on a short time scale. Mac Donald et al.
(1991) offer guidelines for water quality assessment that address the question of constraints to
research. They evaluate systems with reference to the time, money, and expertise necessary to
conduct the assessment. Their purpose is to direct managers to the program that will meet
their objectives within explicit constraints.
Because watersheds are relatively large and contain long-term features, a research
program must be limited in scope if it is to develop practical answers. The main constraints to
watershed assessment include the goals of inquiry, time, area and access, funding, personnel,
and baselines. Clear goals of inquiry are based, in part, on local political, social, and
traditional settings, and constrain watershed assessment because they require community
involvement prior to initiating any other actions; in return, effective community involvement
alleviates other constraints. Time becomes a constraint when the processes being affected by
impacts are cyclic, sporadic, long-term, have extreme variations in intensity, or have long
recovery periods. Area and access determine the physical scope and ease of the assessment's
implementation. Funding is a perennial constraint, because it increases landowners" short-
term costs for unpredictable or non-cash, long-term gains. Personnel may limit the choice of
assessment systems because of individuals" expertise, their field training, and the experience
needed to collect data. Baselines constrain research because there are few undisturbed
watershed ecosystems that have been monitored over time, and because the data that have been
collected may not fill present information needs. These individual constraints are described in
greater detail below.
5.3.1. Goats of Inquiry
The most useful data is that collected for a specific purpose. The data is sought to
answer a specific problem, is double-checked in the field, and analyzed when brought back to
the office. The data become an important element in the solution of a larger problem.
42
-------
Often, certain beneficial uses have already been degraded when a watershed assessment
begins. Those degradations may have occurred under a variety of management practices, and
thus are effects from a suite of cumulative impacts. As people try to determine "the source of
the problem," they frequently consider single answers to the most pressing or obvious impact.
Experience shows that simple cause and effect relationships are rare in watersheds.
The size, natural processes, time frame, and variety of both uses and impacts within
watersheds preclude simple answers. In fact, oversimplification is an easy way to assign
blame to the other person. It is important, therefore, to have extremely clear goals of inquiry;
the purpose of the watershed assessment must be stated at the outset.
A useful form of inquiry is the scientific method, or hypothesis testing. The objective
of the study can be stated clearly in a sentence, which may then be proved or disproved by
data within statistical bounds of certainty. The study can be duplicated by other researchers,
who should reach the same conclusions. Causal links must be justified by literature, analysis,
or the study itself.
Many watershed studies fail to meet the requirements of these parameters. General
indicators of a condition may not be justified, the number of replicates within the study are not
statistically strong, and the relationship between reductions in beneficial uses and pollution
indices may be unclear over relevant time scales and areas.
The most difficult aspect of watershed assessment may be forging agreement among the
involved parties on the goals of the inquiry. People may not reach consensus on the present or
future quality and importance of a specific beneficial use. The parties must agree on
acknowledged, presumed, and suspected causal links that hamper a beneficial use because the
study can only answer the questions which it asks. All parties must agree that the answers
developed from the study will be useful enough to act on, and that the participants in the study
are acting in good faith.
Section 6 of this report will introduce a variety of watershed assessment methods,
representing different approaches to watersheds, to science, and to goal-directed inquires.
Each approach was created in response to a specific set of goals which are described in the
original reference. Many approaches were developed as field methods and designed to be
easily applied by non-technical personnel. Different goals demand different approaches, with
different levels of resolution, areas of focus, assumed causal links, levels of staffing and
expertise, and amounts of funding. These constraints are revealed in the data and in the types
of recommendations yielded.
The key to the selection of a system for a particular watershed will be determining the
intrinsic goals of inquiry. All these watershed assessment systems were designed to meet
specific criteria, and to yield recommendations within specific policy environments.
5.3.2. Time
Watershed processes are slow. The geomorphic processes of watershed formation may
have taken millions of years to form the current landscape. Other long-term phenomena
include natural erosion rates, floodplain formation, old terrace formation, and stream channel
movement. Soils are also slowly developing features, forming over hundreds to tens of
43
-------
thousands of years on floodplains and hillslopes. An old soil may be the product of a million
years of evolution in an isolated environment.
Vegetation processes are more rapid than geologic processes but are still long-term
compared to policy decisions. A coniferous forest may reach a "climax" ecological stage in
200 to 500 years, having passed through serai stages of grasses, brush, hardwoods, and other
conifers. The habitat in that forest environment takes longer to develop because it requires the
elements of decay up to and including the late serai stage, including downed large wood,
standing dead trees, large wood in stream channels, and gaps in the mature forest created by
fire, windthrow, or disease.
The extreme events that mark habitat creation within forests may be catastrophic,
occurring in a brief time span relative to the age of the forest. Similarly, geomorphic
processes include important channel-changing, soil-building, stream-modifying events that
happen quickly, but have impacts for decades, centuries or millennia. Landslides, extreme
floods, and intense storms are natural events which may strongly affect watersheds. Examples
of human events of this magnitude include road building, dam building, or river
channelization.
Other events may occur gradually and be dependent on the seasons or individual years.
Lakes undergo seasonal changes in dissolved oxygen based on their shape, depth, temperature,
and plankton populations. Turbidity tends to "spike" with the first storms of the year,
reflecting soil disturbances during the dry season. Insect populations in streams may be
depressed following high flows, then increase as substrates stabilize and their numbers recover.
Biological impacts of cattle on streams are probably greatest when water flow is lowest,
temperature highest, and at the end of the grazing season.
This general discussion of time constraints is intended to emphasize that watershed
assessments must recognize the role of timing with respect to specific measurements. An
assessment system must focus on only those components that reflect meaningful change in the
management regime, based on causal links. In some cases, however, watershed processes are
dominated by different sets of causality at different times. Sedimentation, for instance, may
be dominated by human actions most years, but cumulatively dominated by rare, extreme
natural events. Under these conditions, it may be extremely difficult to develop prescriptions
since much of the research effort will be spent on distinguishing "natural" from "human-
caused" events. Similarly, data from one year cannot be assumed to be representative of
"average" processes. Processes that are predominant during most sampling periods may not
dominate the long-term physical balance.
Long-term phenomena can most usefully be addressed with baseline studies that look
for trends and with short-term studies tied directly to management actions. Sedimentation
may be observed with "synoptic" studies that identify sources by looking in many places at the
same time. Determining whether those rates are actually low or high would require a long-
term study, which is useful research for understanding the ecosystem, but too lengthy for
immediate management prescriptions.
44
-------
Inventories of processes must reflect the time spans associated with those processes. A
sampling scheme must consider both incremental and catastrophic alterations to the
environment. Assessments must recognize the difference between average and dominant
change, avoiding both reliance on extrapolations of short-term catastrophic data and
underestimations of impact determined by incremental phenomena. In practice, this means
that watershed research must be both long- and short-term and that managers must be willing
to commit to studies of both catastrophic processes and incremental trends. Research funding
must recognize this need as well, and encourage both baseline and goal-oriented studies.
5.3.3. Access
Watershed assessments, perhaps more than other resource inventories, are dependent on
good access to large areas. Watersheds frequently have multiple owners, multiple
management goals, and a range of resource activities. The most extensive activities usually
occur in headwater areas while the most intensive activities occur in the lowlands. For
example, the Willamette basin has forestry, range, and wilderness activities in the headwaters
of the eastern Coast Range and the western Cascades; it has a broad belt of agriculture with
scattered towns on the alluvial plain; and it meets the Columbia at Portland in an urban area.
Each activity has different owners, with varying goals and sensitivities about providing access
to watershed managers, researchers and the public.
Access is a reflection of the area included within the assessment. Analysis of large
scale landscape phenomena, such as cumulative watershed effects, demand assessment of off-
site impacts. This level of survey is termed "watershed" or "basin level" in the FEMAT
report, and "Level 1" within the TFW protocols. Analysis of processes, impacts and effects
requires thousands of acres because the long-term, episodic nature of watershed phenomena
must be documented over long periods and large areas for process rates to be measured and for
predictions to be meaningful.
Some assessment systems are more dependent than others on access. In-stream
sediment sampling can generally be done from a public roadway, off a bridge in the lower
portions of a stream. Fish sampling, however, requires good access and permission.
Evaluation of roads requires access and a working relationship with the road owners. Wildlife
sampling or sediment budgets may require good, all season, all hour access to limited areas,
identified from maps or photos.
Targeting techniques and synoptic measurements are most dependent on good access.
Targeting is generally done for critical site analysis. Targeting requires extensive ground
checking of photos coupled with overland hiking to trace problems to their sources. Similarly,
synoptic measurements require extensive simultaneous access to very specific points
throughout the headwaters of a watershed.
Modeling methods are the least dependent on access, though they, too, require field
data and ground checking. Some models are meant to be used with relatively little field data,
such as the regression models and probability approaches which assume reactions similar to
those measured under controlled conditions. Expert systems, on the other hand, are clearly
dependent on field visits.
45
-------
The ability to gain access can be the critical element of a watershed inventory. In
practice, the critical "place to be" will always be just across the fence from easy access, but
this should not defeat the watershed analysis. Good relationships among all parties involved in
the watershed ease the assessment process. In addition, watershed researchers depend upon
each other to maintain good relations with the people of the watershed. Access is made easier
when the participants are honest, courteous, and share questions and results.
5.3.4. Baselines in Time or Space
Implicit in impact assessments is a comparison to "normal" conditions. This
comparison is frequently very difficult to make, because the parameters that the manager
wishes to compare were not specifically measured in the past. Even in cases of the most
obvious impact, for example where a dam has stopped a salmon run, it is nearly impossible to
find or reconstruct data from the past with the accuracy of present-day data. This puts the
assessor in a difficult position. Management recommendations must respond to a set of real
conditions, but a lack of historical data prevents an accurate assessment of change.
Predicting the future effects of current changes is similarly hampered by lack of data.
Each watershed is unique, and projecting future impacts of management changes may be most
accurate when based on the watershed's responses to impacts in the past. Without accurate
records, impact prediction becomes guesswork.
Several assessment approaches are used to overcome the lack of baseline data. Space
can be substituted for time, one can use the protocols of the past, or one can use past data sets
as indicators of conditions. Each of these methods suggests that monitoring should be
conducted under strict protocols and directed towards resources of present and future concern
to create a useful record of today's conditions for future watershed assessors.
Substituting time for space means using a present-day watershed that is similar to a
watershed in the past, in order to understand those past conditions. This is often possible for
small watersheds. Forest Service Research Natural Areas are specifically kept in "baseline"
condition, as are many areas in state parks, National Parks, Bureau of Land Management
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service refuges, and private
and non-governmental preserves. These areas are relatively small, may not presently keep
records, or may be strongly affected by management practices in the past and preserved for
restoration purposes. In many cases, however, for a clearer view of the watershed's past, it is
useful to see if "reserve" areas physically similar to the study site are available.
The ecoystem concept (Hughes and Larson, 1988) is a spatial framework for assessing
and managing regions that have similar variations in selected environmental characteristics. It
is neither possible to manage on a site-specific basis, nor desirable to manage on a national
basis. Ecoregions group naturally similar ecosystems, and hence stratify the parameters of
interest (for example, water chemistry or biota). These regions have similar ecological
potentials and hence can be managed in a similar way. The attainable environmental quality
for a region is based on an assessment of conditions in minimally impacted reference sites
within the ecoregion. An evaluation by EPA (EPA, 1991b) concluded that classification into
ecoregions was a valid and useful tool in management for water quality.
46
-------
The need for good ecologic, hydrologic, and geomorphic data from undisturbed and
recovering areas will increase in the future, as state and federal agencies implement
biodiversity programs. Representative data from specific ecosystems will become part of
"desired future condition" parameters, in an effort to balance resource production and
biodiversity goals. While searching for baselines as part of a watershed assessment, one
should look to local and national biodiversity organizations for local sites; these may not be
identified as research or protected areas, may not be watersheds, but may add significant
baseline data to the watershed assessment effort.
If a reserve area shares characteristics with the study watershed, a number of questions
may be answered. What are its fisheries like? How does it respond to sediment? What are its
stream channels like? For a given impact assessment system in an undisturbed area, how
much "natural" impact is apparent? How are undisturbed areas significantly different from the
"disturbed" area? Which sampling protocols can be used on both the baseline site and the
study site for assessment into the future?
Sticking to the protocols of the past is a useful but limited tool for assessments of large
areas in relatively short time frames. One can use previous relevant to the study's goals, and
then re-sample the site .using the same methods used in the past. This system allows direct
comparison to past records in order to show real change. Examples are comparisons of aerial
photos, ground photos, maps, water records, mining data, stream cross-sections, forest
inventories, hunting and fishing accounts, and engineering surveys for dams, pipelines, or
roads. The limitations of this approach are: specific data sets may have little bearing on the
present perceived problem, data collected in the past do not necessarily meet today's quality
assurance standards, and rates of change cannot be determined with only two data points.
Past data are most useful when collected often, carefully, and for a specific purpose.
This creates a data set that may be compared directly, without variation in resolution, error, or
area. A good example of this is map comparison to determine river changes in a floodplain.
Maps were made regularly for reappraisal of property lines, with good resolution and at
frequent intervals. Overlaying current maps with maps of the past illustrates changes and rates
of change in the stream's shape, course, overall gradient, and perhaps riparian zone.
Managers can best use past data sets as indicators of conditions if they are categorically
aware that indicators describe trends, not reality. Fish harvest, for instance, is an indicator of
fish population, but not linked to population in a causal manner. Total fish abundance is one
factor, but so are the fishing effort, fishing technique, and the methods and biases of the
original data collection. Indicators can be useful if their limitations are acknowledged and the
goals of inquiry stay the same as in the past.
5.3.5. Funding the Measurements
Research includes scoping, literature review, testing of survey instruments, statistical
assessment of a sampling method to assure robust results, diligence of trained crews, good data
analysis, careful write-up, and publication. Many studies may be too ambitious,
encompassing more than available resources allow.
47
-------
Planning a study requires development of a budget that will support data collection,
analysis, and publication. Many studies end in masses of data collected, sitting in drawers,
unanalyzed. Good planning is economic planning, within the constraints of the institution,
with solid commitment to complete the entire research process.
Time is one monetary constraint, effort is another. Sampling studies vary in their
requirements for field time, equipment, sample analysis, laboratory expenditure, and expert
consultation. The key to understanding potential costs lies in sample design and in the number
of samples necessary for analysis. Water samples, for instance, may be so variable that a
study requires many samples, possibly increasing the expense beyond the study's usefulness.
A biologic indicator for the same parameters may have less variability, thus requiring fewer
samples for the same degree of certainty; the trade-off would be in the causal link between the
measured value and the impact for which it is a surrogate.
Other inventory methods require high capital outlay, but are statistically robust
elements of a long-term monitoring program. Geographic information systems (GIS) can
accommodate many sampling methods after initial start-up costs are met. Stream stations or
weather stations have high start-up costs, but will generate relatively low cost, very high
quality data for many years. The statistical strength of such data will be greater than single
samples because data collection followed robust, long-term protocols.
Another cost lies in getting to field sites. In many instances, the greatest cost of a
study will be the field time, including per diem and travel time required to reach each site.
Many studies and inventories accommodate this expense by sampling many elements at each
site. If it takes a day to reach a plot, then it is important to get as much data as possible per
plot. This can lead to collection of irrelevant data or data for which there is no reduction
scheme. Adhering to established protocols that are part of a data reduction process reduces
this loss of time and money.
Money or institutional commitment thus becomes a dominant constraint to research. In
watershed assessments, field research in which teams of trained people go to many places over
time may be the most expensive component. Models, using previously collected data, may be
the most cost efficient. Stream sampling, with repeat visits to a specific site where impacts
concentrate, is a mid-cost approach.
5.3.6. Number and Skills of Workers
The skill level of workers determines the amount of oversight required in the field, the
level of training needed, and the salary cost per day. Some assessment methods such as GIS,
stream insect identification, or geologic and soil investigations require individuals with
specialized skills. Other techniques rely less on skills and more on repetitive investigations,
such as measurement of stream features, road investigations, or logging and agricultural
surveys. The experience of a senior researcher may be required to establish monitoring sites
or to negotiate access to private lands. The complexity of the task alone does not determine
the ability needed for field work.
48
-------
Relatively complicated sampling at one station, such as stream sampling for suspended
sediment, may benefit from a group of skilled workers who effectively repeat a protocol.
Some research is highly dependent on worker interpretation, such as keying aquatic insects to
the family, species, or subspecies. In those cases, it may be critical to have one worker or a
closely associated set of workers conducting the research, to reduce "non-sample error" in the
analysis.
The need to have data over several seasons also demands continuity and cross training
among personnel. Stream temperatures over a year, for example, are not comparable if
samples are taken using different protocols. Much of the initial development of watershed
assessment protocols must address documentation of procedures, field identification of sites for
revisits, and training workers to know both the local systems and develop useful alternatives
when those systems become impossible. It is important to recognize the large cost of getting
the researcher to the site, so personnel must maximize the value of each field visit.
Skills that are most commonly associated with watershed assessment range from the
physical sciences to computer skills to biological sciences to social sciences. When putting
together a scoping team, consider the following specialties:
Physical Science
- hydrology
- geomorphology
- civil
engineering
- water quality
engineering
Biological Science
- botany
- forestry
- range
ecology
- fisheries
biology
- aquatic
entomology
- soil science
Social Science
- economics
- sociology
- human
ecology
- meeting
facilitation
- environmental
planning
Computer Science
- CIS
- statistics
- sampling
5.4. USING THE ASSESSMENT
A distinction in responsibility is made between measurement of effects and decisions on
significance. The proper use of science is in measurements and in the analysis of alternatives.
Blurring of measurement and decision is one of the weaknesses of various aggregated indexes.
Evaluation of significance is part of the problem identification process in recent
assessment methods. The expert systems approach to identifying problems, and to determining
cause and effect relationships contain evaluations of significance. It is generally agreed that
evaluation of significance should not be left entirely to the experts. A public participation
stage must be built into the process to bring public values into the consideration (Thompson,
1990).
49
-------
A cumulative watershed assessment procedure needs an amount of detail necessary for
a particular problem in the particular watershed. This need is one reason for an initial level of
screening. However, a potential weakness in using the assessment is that the initial screen can
miss subtle but significant problems. The screen, therefore, must respond to very specific
questions to prevent a superficial evaluation at the first level. A second critical need is for
standards to be set at a level that provides adequate protection.
A question often arising in decisions based on watershed assessment is what to do when
there is not enough information for good decision-making. One approach is to be conservative
and give the benefit of the doubt to natural processes, favoring evidence showing disturbance
by potential activities. Another approach is to wait and see what the results of the potential
activities will be. Adaptive management allows changes in the implementation of a plan when
new information becomes available.
6. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS: CATEGORIES AND
EXAMPLES
Reid (1991) and Megahan (1992a) evaluated different methods used for cumulative
watershed effects analysis. Euphrat (1992) compared different methods in the field. Each of
these reviews found that different watershed assessment systems are appropriate for assessing
conditions for different beneficial uses because of the different time scales, areas, and physical
processes that determine these uses. Categories of assessment systems help define needs for
evaluating the state of the resource, the mechanisms of pollution, and the implementable
solutions.
This section focuses on the categories shown in Figure 3, initially distinguishing
between inventories and models. Inventories have been grouped by their survey objectives:
streams, physical watershed elements, and mixed surveys. Models are distinguished according
to their form of modeling: expert opinion, statistical relation, physical modeling, and
probability. Choosing among these forms enables inventory and model users to choose
appropriate methods to fit present needs and define future management tools.
Cumulative effects analysis is frequently a combination of an inventory and expert
opinion. It takes this form because NEPA asks for the impact of a project and its cumulative
effects when combined with past projects (inventory) and with foreseeable future projects
(expert opinion). One must evaluate the state of the resource in order to predict the impact of
the proposed project and other future projects on beneficial uses.
A complete watershed assessment system includes an inventory method and an analysis.
Megahan (1992a) grouped methods for cumulative watershed effects assessment on the basis of
watershed processes. He identified tiers in the watershed assessment process, with an initial
screening for scoping and targeting, followed by a detailed assessment of watershed processes
and physical responses. Most of the methods Megahan reviewed concerned physical
characteristics such as erosion, sediment yield, and channel condition, and analysis was geared
towards a prediction of geomorphic responses to impacts from logging. Other watershed
analyses, for other goals, will probably take a similar form:
50
-------
1) Problem identification: some beneficial use has been degraded to the point where
restoration is desired.
2) Scoping: a quick inventory shows where critical areas of degradation exist, and
initial assessment proposes links to land management activities.
3) Inventory: a detailed inventory focuses on the likely source areas and looks for
causal links to the degradation.
4) Analysis: with the addition of geographical, statistical, and scientific information,
the hypotheses can be tested.
5) Prediction: following confirmation or denial of the causal links between
management and degradation, and investigation of other processes found during
inventory and analysis, analysts predict the impacts of proposed projects.
6) Monitoring: after prediction of watershed responses and implementation of
management, watershed characteristics are monitored to validate or disprove the
predictions based on the analysis.
The survey by Megahan indicated that scoping and inventory should be used together
for maximum effectiveness. Scoping may consider all possible cumulative watershed effects,
evaluate the hazards and risks, and provide an indication of the causal links between land use
and downstream effects. Increasingly detailed analyses further define the nature of these links
and necessary impact reduction strategies.
Approaches for watershed assessment should be selected on the basis of short- and
long-term goals. Broad regional differences in physical processes should be stratified to
provide a starting point for the scoping process and to focus the analysis on specific resources.
A checklist such as the "criteria" questions in Table 3 should be used to screen needs and
watershed assessment systems. These questions are a starting point, and should be elaborated
for specific assessments. A Socratic approach to assessment through responses to "critical
questions" is intrinsic to the TFW Assessment method as well, clustering relevant questions
within specific assessment modules (WFPB 1994). Framing the assessment as a set of
questions allows the inquiry to be goal oriented, to reflect issues raised by experts, and to be
tailored to the individual site. A common set of questions also allows the watershed
assessment group to clarify its goals and constraints.
Many watershed assessment methods have been used only by their authors, as
applications to specific problems. These methods often come from research groups and are
directed at specific problems. Much of the documentation is in journals. These methods are
primarily research efforts to increase understanding of the functions and relationships in
watershed ecosystems. Land management and regulatory agencies have attempted to
standardize methods and test them under a range of conditions. Watershed assessments are
now "standardized" within some divisions of the U.S. Forest Service and state forestry
agencies for cumulative watershed effects, and the EPA for wetlands assessment. Other
"standardized" methods have been proposed for agricultural and range watersheds.
51
-------
Table 3. Screening Questions for Watershed Assessment Selection
1.
Which beneficial uses of water and/or the watershed does the method
consider?
2.
Does the method involve all affected parties?
What is the public's role in the assessment?
4.
Does the method identify watershed processes and lead to
understanding of causal links?
5.
Does the method incorporate the spatial and temporal variability in the
watershed?
6.
Can the results of the assessment by this method be used to make
management changes?
7.
Does the method evaluate the risk to beneficial uses from impacts?
8.
Does the method assess the resilience of the landscape?
9.
Does the method identify biological diversity and existing watershed
resources?
10.
Does the method identify the "best watersheds" or the watersheds
closest to their potential, which can be used for future baselines or
reference sites?
11.
Is the method restricted to a particular region or land use?
12.
Has the method been validated using independent data?
13.
What tools must be available to use this method?
14.
How much work will data collection and analysis require?
15.
How many seasons are necessary for repeated field measurements?
What technical skills are required for the analysis?
16.
17.
What skills will be required of personnel for the different phases of the
research, analysis, and write-up? .
18.
What are the initial and continuing costs of the assessment?
52
-------
6.1. INVENTORY METHODS
A watershed inventory determines the condition of a watershed, can provide
information on its processes, and can predict its ability to yield beneficial uses. If the
watershed's processes are limited by environmental factors such as temperature, geology, or
human impacts, a watershed inventory can identify the most critically affected resources and
sites for potential improvement. Though still far from offering a perfect description of
watershed processes, watershed inventories are an excellent tool for improving assessors"
understanding of the resource.
Watershed inventories are management tools designed to gain information and identify
thresholds for management decisions. The most simple inventories measure specific physical
features such as water quality, tree volume, or road mileage. Inventories are more complex
when they include biologic or geomorphic features, such as in-stream samples of fish or
insects, mapping of ecological units, or delineating and dating landslides and in-stream
sediment. Each measurement requires the judgment of experienced researchers. Several
watershed assessment inventories now being developed attempt to include specific
measurements for elements that have been measured subjectively in the past.
Many inventory methods are described in detail in MacDonald et al. (1991) Monitoring
Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. This document is available with a computer program (PASSSFA) that can be used to
choose inventory methods based on the perceived problem and the limitations of time, money,
and technical expertise. This publication also gives relative values for the cross-correlation
between different parameters of water constituents, stream features, and aquatic and riparian
biota in response to silvicultural impacts.
6.1.1. Water Column
A common method of watershed condition assessment is water sample analysis. This
method focuses on pollutants dissolved or suspended in the water. Protocols are well
established for water chemistry, temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen
demand, and bacterial pollution. The choice of parameters and protocols depends on the
beneficial uses for the water in the stream and on the presumed contaminants that may
indirectly affect those uses.
Use of water sample analysis assumes that the water column integrates the range of
actions in the watershed. There are obvious limitations to this assumption, as flows and land
uses change with season and weather. Specific parameters vary during the year. For instance,
sampling for sediment in the water column is best done during high flows; sampling for metal
concentrations is best done at the times when sources are contributing directly; and sampling
for bacteria is best done either at low flows, when pollution is not diluted, or during storms,
when rivers receive runoff directly. For all pollutants which affect beneficial uses, it is
important to know both the peak and the range of concentrations.
53
-------
Beneficial uses may not have a strong causal link to water quality parameters.
Temperature and dissolved oxygen are important for anadromous fish habitat, for instance, but
generalization across the stream's geography and the fish's life cycle are not possible. While
many water column constituents may be measured in any given sample, the timing of sample
collection, the statistical frame of the sample, the history of sampling, and the interpretation of
the results will determine the usefulness of the data as an indicator of watershed conditions.
Lake assessment is generally limited to water column sampling. An excellent reference
for lake methods is the EPA's Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual (Simpson,
1991). This handbook ties specific methods for sediment, algae, nutrients, oxygen,
acidification, and bacteria to citizen access and involvement opportunities.
Specific water sampling methods may also be found in the series Standard Methods for
the Examination of Water and Wastewater. published by the American Public Health
Association (1985). Protocols are also available from specific state water quality agencies and
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). It is particularly important to follow protocols for water
column sampling because the results can then be compared with legal definitions of water
quality.
The next sections describe several parameters measured in the water column.
a) Sediment
Sediment is often the NPS pollutant of greatest concern. Sediment comes from many
sources: agriculture, forestry, road surfaces, construction, off-road vehicle use, mining,
urban activities, and erosion by the stream of its bed and banks. Because of the variety of
sources which produce it, sediment is often a result of cumulative effects in the watershed.
When sediment begins to significantly change the stream channel, it may signal that the
watershed's cumulative effects have crossed a threshold, from simple additive effects to
synergistic effects.
Interpretation of the amounts of sediment found in the water column can be an effective
way of assessing upstream impacts. In addition to measuring the results of a range of
activities, in-stream sampling may be done far from the source, on lands with good access,
and in relatively safe conditions. Suspended sediment sampling can also be used for remote
sites or sites without access. Field and laboratory work is relatively inexpensive. Samples can
be taken from a series of storms (one point, many times), or from the entire watershed in a
synoptic approach (many points, one time).
Hand sampling methods allow the researcher to assure that the sample was collected
well, an advantage over automatic samplers in small streams. Automatic samplers can take
samples integrated through the water column at intervals proportional to flow, and therefore,
to transport of sediment. Thomas (1991) presents approaches to automated sampling and
improving its accuracy. Edwards and Glisson (1988) give standard field methods developed
by the USGS.
54
-------
b) Turbidity
Turbidity, the opacity of the water measured by its capacity to block light, is a useful
measure for assessing watersheds. Turbidity is linked to the production of fine sediments from
a watershed and has a direct impact on the beneficial uses of water. Clarity of water is an
important quality of drinking and recreational waters, is biologically important to fish for
sighting prey, and is a limiting factor to aquatic plants which receive light through the water
column.
Turbidity may be measured on water column samples. Because the finest material
creates the water's opacity, samples do not necessarily require integration across the flow.
Turbidity is easy to measure, but does not relate directly to suspended sediment. Relative
turbidity-suspended sediment relationships vary from watershed to watershed, season to
season, and within a storm itself. Turbidity, however, becomes a useful measure of sediment
transport when calibrated to processes within a given watershed (Beschta, 1983).
c) Pesticides and Petroleum Products
Herbicides and pesticides may enter waters from forestry, agricultural, or urban sites.
Petroleum products, particularly oil, gasoline and solvents, are pollutants generally associated
with urban areas. Diesel fuel and other oil-based agents may be mixed with pesticides as an
"inert" carrier for application on forests or agricultural crops.
These chemicals may be assessed in water column samples. Unlike sediment, however,
their peak concentrations will not be a function of flow but rather of time and method of
application, rainfall, and irrigation. This makes the usefulness of a single point-in-time,
point-in-space sample dependent on timing and access. Testing for herbicides entering
streams from aerial forest applications, for instance, is done on-site during the spraying.
Chemical analysis for these pollutants may cost hundreds of dollars and require several
weeks. Concentrations of specific compounds will not give information on the interaction or
cumulative effects of the compounds on biota. Direct biological testing using insects, fish, or
other bioassay procedures may be a more effective method to determine the watershed impacts
of chemical pollution. These methods are discussed under 6.1.2(c), Biological Assessments.
d) Nutrients and Pathogens
These common watershed pollutants are normally tested by water column analysis.
Sources include septic system leaching, broken sewer systems, grazing, feedlots, agriculture,
and wildlife. Pathogens reduce water quality by their effect on consumers; nutrients reduce
water quality by fertilizing algae populations which reduce available oxygen, decrease
available light, and strongly modify the stream habitat.
The evaluation of the nutrient load of a stream or lake should not be limited to water
column sampling. The nutrient response should be apparent in algal levels and in the mix and
diversity of fish and insect species. Pathogens may also result in changes within biological
populations. Nonetheless, our overwhelming societal concern over water quality for drinking,
fishing, and contact recreation will continue to demand evaluating pathogens by laboratory
analysis of water samples.
55
-------
6.1.2. Stream Channel Features
A second group of inventory methods measures the physical and biological
characteristics of stream channels. These methods concentrate on stream cross-sections,
sediment storage, bank stability, amount and placement of large woody debris, and the
arrangement of vegetation in and over the channel. These components are often difficult to
measure and they change with events in the watershed. Stream features are strongly related to
beneficial uses, however, particularly to fish habitat in the Northwest. The bed and banks of
streams are also useful predictors of future conditions; sediment, vegetation, and flow are
interrelated, and severe impacts may deepen and prolong the effects through positive feedback
mechanisms.
The most common approaches to stream assessments are categorization, checklists,
insect and fish sampling, and indexes. Repeated assessment of the same stream under the
same conditions will show the changes taking place. These methods require managers to go
into the stream channel, to conduct "open-eye and open-minded monitoring" (MacDonald and
Smart, 1992). A good watershed assessment requires the researchers to familiarize themselves
with the stream, its watershed, its condition, and is uses.
a) Categorization
A stream may be evaluated section by section, or reach by reach, to give managers an
idea of its value for fishery production, geologic stability, or flooding potential. During the
last ten years, state and federal agencies have conducted many stream surveys. Typically, a
group of technically-trained people walk the stream and note characteristics of the channel and
habitat. The surveys use categories or checklists.
Statistically, stream segments are highly variable. Each segment has a different
watershed area and cumulative history. Many measurements and many hours of analysis are
necessary to obtain meaningful information. The costs of these surveys are relatively high and
a crew can complete only a limited number of miles of stream during a field season.
Individual biases (non-sample error) may also affect results because different people see and
describe the same scene differently.
The Hankin and Reeves (1988) stream inventory is a good example of a survey
approach for fisheries. It uses "calibrated ocular estimation" of cobble embeddedness and
other stream channel features. Crews are hired for the summer and trained for the specific
observations required for these estimates. The method yields fairly specific descriptions of
stream segments. The disadvantage is the lack of a connection between the observations and
possible management decisions.
A commonly used survey method that focuses on the physical characteristics of streams
(Rosgen, 1985) categorizes streams according to stream gradient, sinuosity, width/depth ratio,
channel materials, entrenchment, confinement, and soil/landform features. The Rosgen
surveys include information on debris flow and vegetation. The observations are useful in
developing an overall assessment of a stream or a set of streams relative to each other.
56
-------
While the Rosgen approach develops physical data for streams, the Pacific Rivers
Council (1992) has developed a watershed assessment system based on biological data, or
ecosystem functions, as part of a restoration strategy. This inventory concentrates on finding
ecologically diverse and relatively undamaged watersheds. The inventory identifies watershed
refugia and downstream habitats critical to existing populations. These "good sites" are
evaluated for corridor creation within the stream network. The strategy was devised for
protection of salmon, but could be expanded to other plants and animals. The Council sees
watershed resource evaluation and restoration as part of a legal framework for management
policies on public or private land.
Each of these methods categorizes streams in terms of potential habitat for fisheries,
either directly or indirectly. They yield what is essentially a map of problem areas, restoration
opportunities, and "good" habitat. These methods are useful as site-specific scoping tools.
b) Checklists
Checklists have been developed to reduce arbitrariness in the assessment of forest
streams. Two important checklists are the Forest Service Northern Region (1975) (also called
the Pfankuch) method and the California State Department of Forestry's "Addendum 2" to the
Forest Practice Rules (1991). Both stress the physical stability of small steam channels,
focusing on second order streams. Both methods list criteria so that researchers may "rate"
the channel, resulting in a value between Excellent and Poor. These checklists are good ways
to look at headwater streams, but the user must be cautious when interpreting the results. The
checklists are designed around a specific environment, so may have hidden biases towards a
particular notion of a "healthy" stream.
Checklists that have scores do so by giving weights to different stream conditions.
These weights may introduce significant biases into results by over-representing some features
at the expense of others. Thus, as with categorization, checklists are best used repeatedly in a
specific geographic area.
Checklists are relatively repeatable and are designed to be used by people from a broad
range of disciplines. They demand a hard look at stream features which may have previously
gone unnoticed. Checklists indicate where erosion or scour problems are occurring in the
watershed but do not link those features to probable causes.
c) Biological Assessments
Biological stream assessment methods are based on the idea that the biota itself is the
best integrated measure of habitat quality. As stated by Brooks et al. (1991):
The primary advantage of biological indicators is that they presumably
integrate the impacts of water pollution over time. This continuous record
typically is not available from chemical sampling protocols. Whereas chemical
parameters have proved useful for monitoring point source discharges into
surface waters, biological and physical measurements appear to be better for
assessing the effects of more dispersed impacts such as non-point source runoff,
incremental losses of wetlands, and changes in land use along riparian corridors
and throughout watersheds.
57
-------
Counts of individuals and species of fish or larval insects can help characterize stream
productivity or relative degradation. Biological methods that measure other forms of biota or
other measures of the biotic community, for example quantifying plankton, algae, riparian or
aquatic plants, may be similarly useful in larger streams. All these approaches consider the
flora and fauna of the steam to be indicators of watershed health. As with other methods,
biological sampling does not indicate why problems are occurring, only the severity of the
impact.
Merritt et al. (1984) give an excellent introduction to biotic stream sampling
techniques, including equipment and sampling problems. Interpreting the response of insect
populations to silviculture, agriculture, and urbanization is addressed in Erman et al. (1977),
Dance and Hynes (1980), and Jones and Clark (1988), respectively. The small number of
samples relative to the variability of the steam and its biota is a difficult problem which these
papers address.
Fish are an extremely useful biological indicator of watershed health because they
directly represent a beneficial use of the stream. A major drawback with anadromous fish
sampling, however, is distinguishing between in-watershed and out-of-watershed impacts.
Also, sampling is difficult and can cause physiological stress to the fish. Methods of fish
counting include trapping during migration, counting returnees to a hatchery, electrofishing,
and counting by observation.
Two standardized methods for combining fish and other biological data are the Ohio
EPA Biological Criteria Program and the Index of Biotic Integrity, also from Ohio. The
Biological Criteria Program developed numerical "biocriteria" for each of the ecological
regions in the state by using fish and macroinvertebrate data from more than 300 "least
impacted" state reference sites (Yoder, 1991). These biocriteria have been incorporated into
the state water quality standards. Through examination of biological and chemical data,
habitat analysis, and source information, an effort was made to diagnose the probable causes
and sources of impairment. The Ohio EPA has learned through experience that some patterns
among indices correspond to particular impact types and they are developing these "biological
response signatures" to assist with the identification of impact sources.
The purpose of the Biologic Criteria Program is to assess water body condition, and
diagnose probable causes and sources of water use impairment. The method utilizes biological
information in multivariate indices (for fish, aquatic invertebrates, and habitat) to reveal
patterns of biological community response. Target values for each index are determined by
sampling at a reference site, which is in a reasonably pristine area of that ecoregion. Sampling
is done over time at specific locations through the ecoregion to determine if the sites are
attaining the legally defined biocriteria scores and to identify patterns of response that may
indicate impacts and their sources.
This assessment process is a pragmatic, simple approach that has great merit provided
natural variation due to biogeographic and other site-specific factors are taken into account.
The data-rich approach can provide confidence in interpreting the nature of ecological stress,
but it does not yield stream segment-scale variation data. Regional studies would be required
to adapt this system to the Pacific Northwest.
58
-------
The Index of Biotic Integrity was developed to assess the biological integrity of streams
(Karr et al., 1986). It integrates 12 attributes (metrics) of stream fish assemblages that
together indicate the biotic integrity of the stream. Metrics fall into three broad categories:
species composition, trophic composition (feeding strategy), and fish abundance and condition.
The value of each metric is compared to the value estimated from sites located in a similar
geographic region on streams of similar size having minimal human disturbance. The sum of
the 12 ratings yields an overall site score. This index requires regional tailoring by
experienced biologists and physical scientists (Miller et al., 1988).
d) Physical Stream Indexes
In searching for a strong connection between fish habitat and physical features, some
researchers have chosen to measure very specific stream characteristics as indexes of stream
quality. Lisle has suggested that impact may be measured by the degree of pool filling in
small streams or the quantitative measure of sediment in gravels (Lisle, 1987; Lisle and Eads,
1991). Other characteristics of the physical stream can be quantified, such as cross-sectional
changes of the bed, particle size of the bars and riffles, pool-riffle ratio, sinuosity, or width of
the stream channel or riparian vegetation zone. These are the individual characteristics which,
when combined, develop an approach similar to the categorization system spelled out by
Rosgen (1985). Grant (1988) suggests using photographs to measure changes in stream
canopy, and from that, assess changes in flow regimes and their impacts on the stream.
Flow changes are a useful index of stream response. The input/output ratio of rainfall
to runoff over the course of a storm, a season, or over decades, may be measurable,
significant, and indicative of accompanying ecosystem changes (Harr et al., 1975; Euphrat,
1992).
The advantage of physical stream measurements is that they are more statistically
robust than other methods. They are better able to test the significance of assumed
relationships. They are more closely connected to on-the-ground practices than other methods
because they measure features that are associated with impacts. The challenge remains to find
or create indexes of physical features that relate directly to biological productivity. The
existing methods appear to provide a good mid-level of assessment; they are relatively quick,
inexpensive, and easy to apply and interpret for a given watershed.
6.1.3. Watershed Land, Vegetation, Biota, and Habitat Inventories
The simplest inventories are tallies of specific features within a watershed. From such
tallies one can calculate the total length of road miles, the total acreage of farm, forest, urban
areas, or the condition of a specific land-based resource like old-growth forests. The tallies
may be done from maps or photos. The data may be displayed on overlays or geographic
information systems (CIS) and be addressed in a sophisticated fashion through logical quenes.
The quality of the data improves with more "ground truth," increased resolution, and diverse
historical sources of data.
Inventories of watershed features can provide useful answers to practical questions.
How many streams are crossed by unimproved roads within a watershed area? What is the
original and present condition of the watershed's vegetation? Who owns the old-growth
59
-------
forests? Where is the potential goshawk habitat? What watersheds comprise the present deer
wintering range? How many acres of a farming watershed will need nematicide this year?
What is the expected pesticide application in this watershed? Where will urban discharge of
oil and grease be a problem?
Obviously, the quality of the answers will depend on the quality of the data. CIS
displays are being developed by many counties, states, federal agencies, non-governmental
agencies, and corporate landowners. Consultants are putting together systems to yield
information for their clients. Several agencies are creating systems to collate information and
to develop access to that information. Watershed assessors should check with the parties that
manage lands within and adjacent to their area of interest; a CIS with some inventory elements
may already exist.
One common physical watershed inventory method tied to management of forest lands
is the USFS Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) system (Raskins, 1983). This method gives
specific impact values and decay factors to land management practices and assumes that roads
are permanent features. It is not tied to watershed processes, however, though it has been
used as a threshold indicator. Because ERA is not causally linked to pollution, it is better used
as an index of disturbance than as a cumulative effects predictor.
A sediment budget is a causally-based inventory for assessing sedimentation sources.
Different watershed features such as roads or landslides have different erosion rates and
different rates of sediment transmission to the stream system. Soil types and land management
are also strata which differentiate erosion rates. Sediment budgets are useful because they can
provide the "big picture" in assessing individual source areas in large watersheds over long
time scales. Excellent references on sediment budgets are available, notably Dietrich et al.
(1982).
Other inventory methods useful for determining watershed condition or impacts are soil
surveys, timber inventories, wildlife surveys, topographic and geologic maps, and special use
maps created for the assessment of a particular feature. Photographs may also be useful for
determining landslide frequencies, riparian cover, and drought, wind, or insect damage. In
short, combining available information may give researchers a good picture of watershed
condition. Inventories may be used for planning or assessment of the watershed. They may
also be coupled with stream or feature-specific data to create a mixed-method analysis for
predication of watershed conditions.
Using existing watershed inventories is relatively inexpensive when data have already
been collected for different purposes. Inventories can give a historical base to impact
assessment. Spatial data can be entered into a CIS to make scales match, to point out data
gaps and discrepancies, and to conduct tabulations and queries. CIS is a useful tool for
watershed analysis, allowing assessors to create new layers of information by overlaying,
weighting, or otherwise manipulating existing data. From a CIS, researchers may also
develop planning model inputs to predict growth of timber, yield of sediment, access.
The Watershed Classification/Aquatic Biodiversity Subcommittee of the Oregon
Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (AFS) convened in 1990 to address concerns about
the rapid decline of native aquatic species in the Pacific Northwest. Their Biodiversity
60
-------
Strategy is the result (Bottom, 1991). Their intent was to develop protocols to identify aquatic
ecosystems, communities, and populations that are in the most immediate need of protection or
restoration. The first phase of the Strategy identifies critical aquatic habitat areas in Oregon
where protection, management, or restoration can serve immediate fish biodiversity objectives:
(1) locations where native fauna are at immediate risk or sensitive to future disturbances, (2)
relatively unaltered watersheds that represent the best remaining examples of native aquatic
ecosystems, and (3) connecting corridors that provide essential links between healthy
populations. The AFS would compile the information and draw maps to target biodiversity
protection and restoration efforts. This method represents a quick approach to identifying sites
in a large region in order to develop priorities for protection and restoration. The process is
entirely an expert system inventory. It may provide a good idea of where the "best of the
last" ecosystems remain and where extensive degradation has eliminated all natural habitat
and/or biotic communities. This method is not recommended as an alternative to a more
focused, basin-specific assessment.
Croonquist and Brooks (1991) proposed another ecological watershed inventory, using
avian and mammalian guilds as measures of watershed biodiversity. Their purpose was to
assess impacts to a landscape using bird and mammal communities in riparian-wetland areas as
cumulative effects indicators, and to provide a more efficient environmental impact assessment
technique than a single-species approach. The interest in the response of wildlife communities
to watershed disturbances arose from the need to determine the feasibility of wetlands
restoration efforts.
Avian and mammalian guild inventories use information that reflects species sensitivity
to disturbances, assigning species to a specific response guild. Response guilds are groups of
species that respond in a similar manner to habitat perturbations. Biological monitoring of
guilds is conducted in conjunction with analyses of landscape patterns to identify changes in
the functional characteristics of wildlife communities in response to habitat changes. Guilds
are based on habitat requirements, and can serve as a screening tool for identifying habitat
condition or determining which habitat factors are important in management decisions. An
understanding of how groups of species respond to environmental impacts can illustrate what
aspects of the habitat must be restored in order for guilds to recolonize an area.
The avian and mammalian guild response method requires good region-specific
baseline data. The system is practical only for resident species since response of migratory
species may reflect changes in other parts of their migratory range. The method has limited
applicability because species respond differently to different impacts. The greater the range of
impacts considered, the weaker the sensitivity of each response guild.
A third ecological inventory watershed approach is the Gap analysis program (GAP)
(Scott et al., 1991; Davis et al., 1990). This method was developed to identify watersheds and
larger areas'most in need of protection of their biological resources. Gap analysis is CIS-
based- it defines resource values of the habitat on-site, and also defines habitat requirements
for species within a larger area. Gap analysis looks at the habitat component of watersheds It
is a strategy to manage for biodiversity, and to identify unprotected critical habitats that link
two or more pools of protected habitat. Gap analysis can answer questions on how land use
61
-------
changes would affect biodiversity. It is an alternative to incremental attempts to save
threatened and endangered species.
The Gap analysis involves identifying habitat features such as vegetation, animal
species, landscape features, landownership, and climate. Vegetation is the most widely used
indirect measure of biodiversity. This information is compared in digitized overlays to
determine if the habitat is suitable for a range of species. It identifies the gaps in habitat for
species. It also identifies whether existing protected areas can maintain biodiversity. The
approach uses patterns of "species richness."
Gap analysis is a program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, being tested by
cooperative Fish and Wildlife research units in 22 states. It is also being conducted by non-
governmental organizations and environmental groups. Gap analysis includes some or all of
the following components:
1) map existing vegetation,
2) show distributions of native animal species,
3) determine extent and importance of areas that have native species richness,
4) compare distributions of native vegetation communities with existing land uses,
5) compare places of species richness with existing land uses, and
6) provide data as part of a national biodiversity strategy.
All inventories can become part of a larger inventory data base. Land, vegetation,
biota, and habitat inventories can also be used as overlays with in-channel surveys and water
quality data.
6.1.4. Integrated Inventories
Many watershed assessment methods take aspects of different inventory systems and
combine them to meet specific assessment objectives. These methods try to overcome
difficulties of scale and natural variability to develop conclusions at the local landscape level.
Integrated inventories provide a landscape ecology perspective that has measures of both the
physical environment and its ecological integrity.
For example, when biological evaluations are considered in conjunction with chemical
and physical measurements, they may provide insight into the ecosystem's relative health and
the source areas of biological degradation. The Ohio EPA method detected 50 percent more
impaired waterbody segments after incorporating biological criteria into their existing chemical
and physical monitoring program. This integrated approach has also been able to recognize
response patterns that have been helpful in diagnosing probable causes of impacts (Yoder,
1991).
These "mixed" inventory methods combine expert opinion with measurements in order
to guide the assessment process and to achieve a higher level of certainty in tracing causal links
to impacts. Two important mixed inventory methods are the State of Washington's Timber^
Fish and Wildlife (TFW) approach and the National Council on Air and Stream Improvement
for the Pulp and Paper Industry (NCASI) cumulative effects analysis (WFPB, 1994; Megahan,
1992). Both methods are based on watershed functions and assess the impacts on cumulative
62
-------
effects. TFW and NCASI incorporate methodologies that account for large variability in time
and space and are tailored to meet legal requirements. Both systems allow expert opinion to
guide the inventory process and target the likely problem, the likely causal relationships, and
the characteristics of the watershed that need to be measured in detail. Experts then interpret
the results of inventories to develop management and implementation options.
Another example of a mixed method inventory is the SEAlaska Rapid Habitat
Assessment (Martin et al., 1990). This approach combines a stream categorization approach
with a watershed inventory and expert opinion to fill in the causal links. The process is
designed to be rapid and to find local causality between stream categories and watershed
conditions. The SEAlaska Corporation contracted with Pentec Environmental Consultants to
conduct a study of water quality and habitat conditions of seven streams on SEAlaska land in
Southeast Alaska. The study was in response to an EPA request for comments and
information on inclusion or deletion of the streams from lists of waters determined to have
impaired water quality. These streams had previously been classified as "impaired" based on
best professional judgment but without site-specific data. The purpose of the study was to
assess the quantity and quality of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat using water quality
and habitat conditions as indicators. Constraints required a method using a one-time visit with
no previous site data.
Water quality and habitat conditions in streams with timber harvest were categorized
along a set of physical gradients. Cobble embeddedness and bank stability were used as
indicators of sedimentation and turbidity; large woody debris was used to indicate channel
stability and habitat quality for fish rearing. The inventory was then coupled with watershed
information. This one-time comparative study of streams with divergent management histories
provided data on the range and magnitude of past human impacts. The lack of natural
variation as a factor in this approach, however, may create false readings in areas with a
diverse natural history.
In terms of the categories used here, mixed methods such as TFW and NCASI are both
inventories and models because they can incorporate predictions, implementation, and a
monitoring loop for self-assessment. Coordinated Resource Management Plans (CRMP), a
tool used by the BLM and the SCS largely for rangeland, are also driven by problem
identification, followed by research, implementation, and further monitoring. Mixed methods
are the most flexible, the most site specific, and the most responsive to local needs and
expertise; they are also the most difficult to implement.
All assessments ultimately become integrated inventories when combined with people's
judgments of what to measure, what is important, and where money should be spent.
Committing to a subjective analysis following data collection suggests that accumulating data is
not the goal of inventories; data are the basis for present decisions on research priorities and
restoration needs, and predictions of future impact. As people become aware of the problems
facing watersheds, they will need field work to check the quality of the inventories, to test the
validity of causal assumptions, and to inject their own biases, knowledge, and experience into
the watershed assessment.
63
-------
6.2. PREDICTIVE METHODS
While inventories show what exists in a watershed, predictions suggest what may
happen based on some level of expert knowledge, previously established relationships, physical
laws, or probability. The distinction between inventory approaches and predictive models is
important; many cumulative effects evaluations are evaluations of what has occurred rather
than what may occur. The assessment of past effects and the prediction of future impacts are
frequently juxtaposed in watershed assessment strategies though there is no causal connection
between the two. It is important that managers and researchers know the source and the
quality of their watershed evaluations.
6.2.1. Expert Systems
Expert systems include both expert opinion and computer models developed to act as
experts. Expert systems are the most common approach to watershed impact prediction. They
give professionals a chance to incorporate their knowledge and experience in the assessment of
a complicated problem without the need to justify or codify that opinion in regression-based or
physics-based algorithms. This is not a deficiency, but a reasonable response to the great
diversity of natural systems, human impacts, and the variety of natural processes involved in
water pollution and watercourse degradation.
Expert systems start with data collection. They may be highly selective in data
requirements, following protocols such as the TFW approach, or less selective and driven by
the questions raised within the context of a particular watershed, as in the NCASI approach.
Ultimately, the experts must respond to a question, such as the following query on cumulative
effects framed by the California Department of Forestry (1991):
Will the proposed project, as presented, in combination with the impacts of past and
future projects, as identified ... and with the interactions rated ... have a reasonable
potential to cause or add to significant cumulative impacts to the watershed resources?
Yes (after mitigation)
No (after mitigation)
No (no reasonably potential significant effects).
Thus, experts have to form an opinion and be prepared to offer supportive data for
their judgments. No matter how clearly defined the process is, however, an expert opinion
remains an opinion, including the professional or personal biases of the expert. This
subjectivity of experts can be reduced through strict evaluation protocols, peer review, or
significant personal responsibility or liability over the fate of the resource.
A flexible and expert-driven approach is the TFW Prototype Watershed Analysis
program in the State of Washington (WFPB, 1994). TFW was developed in Washington State
by timber landowners, government, and environmental and native groups for nonfederal forest
lands. TFW watershed analysis is based on the assumption that fish production is directly
related to the type, amount, and quality of habitat available for use and that several dominant
64
-------
processes (sediment production, water runoff, river-channel dynamics, and the interaction of
riparian forests) determine fish habitat condition.
The method evaluates forest management impacts on fish habitat, and predicts habitat
sensitivity to future management scenarios. Watershed processes and resources are inventoried
to locate and map hazards, evaluate sediment delivery, and assess impacts to sensitive stream
resources. The components of the model include:
1) Sediment budgets: determined by sediment sources and erosion processes.
2) Hydrology: based on precipitation intensity and duration, rain or snow events,
evapotranspiration, surface and subsurface flow, and water storage in soils.
3) Riparian functions: determined by the role of vegetation in and adjacent to streams
(shading and large woody debris).
4) Channel response: based on the delivery, transport, and storage of sediment and
large woody debris in the channel.
5) Fish habitat: determined by a relationship between physical changes in stream
morphology and suitability for fish.
Interpretation of this information allows development of location-specific analyses
linking forest practices and watershed processes to effects on the resource. This approach
integrates numerous physical and biological concerns. But the method begins with present
conditions and does not evaluate past impacts.
Assessment modules such as those within the TFW are being designed by NCASI to
clarify the process of watershed prediction with protocols. NCASI focuses on geomorphology,
while the TFW approach focuses on fish habitat protection. NCASI begins upstream and looks
down; TFW starts downstream and looks up. NCASI's method is intended to assess
cumulative watershed effects for private landowners, aimed primarily at forestry land uses but
also applicable to grazing lands (Megahan, 1992). The program is designed to develop
reproducible, defensible, and accountable methods for conducting cumulative watershed effects
assessments. The goal of NCASI is to implement a set of protocols for use on private lands,
using a tiered approach. An initial level is a screening evaluation to assess watershed
sensitivity, evaluate existing conditions, document the existence of important downstream
watershed values, and define the important causal links between management actions and
beneficial uses. NCASI gives special attention to the existence or risk of cumulative effects
determined to be unacceptable, which cannot be controlled through management. Delineation
of sensitive areas is based on regional stratification of hydrologic and geomorphic processes
and local inventory data such as geologic maps, soil surveys, channel morphology
descriptions, vegetation surveys, and topographic maps. A detailed analysis quantifies the
linkages between resources and management. This assessment will lead to performance
criteria, response thresholds, and a plan to monitor and evaluate performance. This last stage
allows feedback for adaptive management. The NCASI method seeks to be cost-effective by
determining the intensity of measurements within the screening procedure. Intensive
quantitative measurements will be used only where required to answer specific questions.
The EPA has developed protocols for assessment of wetland ecosystems. As with the
previous two methods, this EPA protocol begins and ends with expert opinion to develop
65
-------
prescriptions for future management and monitoring (Leibowitz et al., 1992a). The wetlands
method addresses regional risk assessment and watershed planning. It identifies the effects that
result from wetland impacts. The method has been tested using some hypothetical cases, for
example, to provide information on the risk of valued habitat loss, and to identify habitat areas
for protection as part of the development of a State Wetland Conservation Plan in Washington
(Abbruzzese et al., 1990). The method was used by Gabriel (1992) to assess the status of
Oregon's Willamette Valley wetlands.
The EPA Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment is a proposed method
for evaluating the cumulative effects of individual impacts, rating priority watersheds for
restoration and protection in NFS abatement programs, and assessing regional risk in
watershed planning (Leibowitz et al., 1992b). It combines "best professional estimates" with
"best available information." After the goals are determined, synoptic indices are chosen and
landscape indicators become the basis for assessment. The results are best presented as maps
of the indices. Managers can use this information to make land use decisions.
Expert systems for prediction of impact to specific environmental components will
probably proliferate over the next decade. They are relatively fast and cheap, use available
information, and provide understandable results. Their downfall is in their essential
subjectivity. Experts, like their systems, must be accountable for developing reasonable
recommendations and predictions.
6.2.2. Regression Methods
In some cases, particularly for agricultural lands, there is extensive data from which to
derive empirical relationships. If these relationships are statistically strong, it is possible to
develop predictive models describing the relationships with simple equations or graphs. Often,
a set of equations uses site specific data to yield a specific answer about the resource of
concern.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) to compute rill and sheet (intertill) erosion is
an example of the regression approach (Wischmeier, 1976; Mitchell and Bubenzer, 1980).
The USLE is based on 6 factors, given in the form:
A = RKLSCP
where A = soil loss (tons/acre)
R = rainfall-runoff erosivity factor
K = soil credibility factor, based on texture
L = slope length factor
S = slope steepness
C = cover-management factor
P = erosion control practice factor
USLE is the basis for soil erosion prediction elements used in regression-based watershed
models. USLE is limited to one watershed element or one eroding surface at a time. Whole
watershed approaches connect elements in a more inclusive or complete model. Whole
66
-------
approaches are best for problem and sensitivity analysis and for actual quantification of
pollution.
The Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE), now replacing the USLE, is a
process-based model (Renard et al., 1991). RUSLE has a new R factor that is more accurate
for the rainfall/erosion conditions of the western U.S., a seasonally-variable K factor to
account for changes in stability of soil structure, new L and S algorithms reflecting rill and
interrill erosion, and new P values for rangelands and for effects of subsurface drainage.
A more completely process-based model, from the Water Erosion Prediction Project
(WEPP), is now being tested for implementation (Laflen et al., 1991). This is a procedure to
quantify detachment, transport and deposition of sediment. A "watershed version" that
computes sediment transport, deposition and detachment is designed to be applied to field-size
watersheds.
Another regression model with watershed applicability is the Agricultural Non-Point
Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) (Young et al., 1989) which estimates soil loss and nutrient
production as NPS runoff for a set of connected landscape units. The AGNPS model was
originally developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the USDA to simulate
sediment and nutrient transport from agricultural watersheds in Minnesota. It is now used
primarily by the Soil Conservation Service of the USDA. AGNPS predicts water quality in
watersheds using a computer simulation of sediment and nutrient transport.
AGNPS divides an agricultural watershed into geographic cells. Each cell is assigned a
value representing the sediment and nutrient production that can be transported via overland
flow to the stream. The model simulates the transport of sediment, nutrients, and flow from
the headwaters of a watershed to the outlet for a single storm event. Information from the
watershed outlet can be used to assess the potential pollution hazard from the entire watershed,
while the output information for each cell can be examined to locate those local areas within a
watershed that contribute the greatest amount of pollutants to a waterway.
Conceptually, the model would be useful anywhere. Considerable data are required to
calibrate the model parameters and re-shape algorithms to represent realistic responses for a
given watershed. The method begins to address the spatial complexity of source areas,
sensitivity, and potential routing of impacts from the location of activities. The model does
not address in-stream routing, fate, or effects of pollutants. These uncertainties increase with
size and complexity of watersheds.
While AGNPS was developed specifically for agriculture, other systems have been
developed for silviculture, with the goal of quantifying cumulative effects and fisheries
impacts The Klock model (Klock, 1985) is a cumulative effects predictor, based on land use,
climate, erosion, and watershed sensitivity. It was developed to respond to concerns about
potential cumulative watershed effects on downstream aquatic ecosystems from multiple
management activities over time and space. The model provides an index of the condition
within a watershed in relation to the implied risk of further degradation from additional
forestry activities.
67
-------
An index of watershed condition is calculated using an equation that incorporates
ecosystem parameters using several coefficients, which together calculate the cumulative
effects risk of past, current, or future forest practices. The coefficients include:
1) site erosivity energy potential (based on precipitation),
2) surface erosion,
3) slope stability,
4) hydrologic sensitivity,
5) topographic factor,
6) area of activity, and
7) total area of watershed.
Coefficients were developed to represent conditions in forested central Washington
watersheds. This method is useful as a relative rating of sediment yield among small basins.
It assumes that large basins will not respond if the small basins'do not. The method does not
address sediment routing or the sensitivity of different stream segments to changes in the basin
nor does it include large woody debris or human impact.
While the Klock model may be faulted for being too general, a model can also be
extremely specific, and hence less useful for overall watershed assessment. The USFS
Sediment/Fish Model, also called the R-l/R-4 method, focuses entirely on fishery impacts to
trout and salmon from land use practices (Cline et al., 1981; Stowell et al., 1983). The
Reeves" Limiting Factor Analysis is designed specifically for coho salmon (Reeves et al.,
1989). These models get strength from their specificity, and serve as examples for connecting
impacts to beneficial uses. Reid (1991) notes:
When [cumulative impact assessment] methods originate from management
agencies, they tend to be simple, incomplete, theoretically unsound,
unvalidated, implementable by field personnel and heavily used. When they are
developed by researchers, they are more likely to be complex, incomplete,
theoretically sound, validated, require expert operators, and unused. Only in
the cases of the R-l/R-4 method and the Limiting Factor Analysis have
management and research backgrounds been combined to produce
methods...(that) rank among the highest in defensibility, scientific basis, and
utility.
The Sediment/Fish model was developed by the USFS and university researchers for
application in the Idaho Batholith. The method predicts the impacts on fish survival as a result
of forest practices that affect sedimentation rates in streams. Sediment yield in the
Sediment/Fish model is extrapolated from results of local research that relates erosion rates to
land use. Coefficients are developed to represent the change in sediment yield that would
result from proposed harvest practices. The impact on fish survivability is estimated relative
to current conditions using relationships between sediment yield and substrate embeddedness,
between substrate embeddedness and fish habitat, and between habitat quality and fish
response. If natural siltation levels are known, and conditions prior to the project are
measured, then the incremental effect of a planned project can be predicted. This method
68
-------
relates land use activities directly to resource response. The approach is appropriate in areas
where deposition of fine sediment is the major impact on fish and where sediment is eroded
primarily by surface erosion on logged sites and roads.
Reid (1991) notes that the Sediment/Fish model is not complete in evaluating
cumulative impacts because it addresses only one type of impact resulting from one type of
source. Insufficient attention is given to error and other sources of variation and to the
differing sensitivity of species to changes in sediment. Results from the model give a broad
estimate of trends and impacts rather than precise predictions of change.
The limitations in the Sediment/Fish model are those of regression models in general.
They are good for relatively homogeneous areas and for predictions based on coefficients of
impact. When critical sites are important, or when many of the watershed's processes do not
follow the model's assumptions, they are poor predictors. As with most systems, if
researchers go into the field, model in hand, and test its assumptions in small areas, they can
best judge its applicability.
6.2.3. Deterministic and Physical Models
Deterministic models of watersheds simulate hydrologic processes with a series of
submodels representing such watershed parameters as precipitation, water storage, water loss,
and water flow (Larson et al., 1982). These models have generally been used for predicting
large watershed river response, as in the Stanford watershed model, the USDA HL-74 model,
the SCS TR-20 model, the SSARR model, HEC-1 and ANSWERS. Newer versions of these
models often include sediment transport. Deterministic models are appropriate for flood
modeling, for reservoir sediment prediction, and for water yield studies. They have not, at
this time, been used for the prediction of watershed impacts on beneficial uses, but they have
that potential.
The In-stream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), a deterministic model for
stream processes coupled with a habitat module, has been used extensively on federal projects
(Bartholow and Waddle, 1986). This approach connects the rising water in a stream to the
habitat elements it creates or reveals. Trie IFIM relies on separate modules for habitat
response. While this may not be the ideal methodology for stream habitat or watershed
assessment, it is in wide use. Researchers and managers need to evaluate it as an alternative
approach.
Physical models of watershed processes can be useful for prediction of phenomena
where adequate data exist and over which researchers have tight controls. These models start
from first principles: gravity, soil permeability, soil hydraulic conductivity, and the surface
tension of water. At this time, their applicability is still being tested on small watersheds but
the complexity of processes and the variability of the landscape present real limitations to
model practicality. Moore et al. (1988), for instance, suggest developing predictive models of
surface and subsurface flow for modeling solute and sediment transport, based on digital
elevation models. While some landscape components such as solar radiation may be
effectively predicted with this form of input data, other components, such as the transmissivity
of soil, rely heavily on assumptions of uniformity. At some time, it may be possible to
69
-------
account for variations in soil depth, rock fractures, and small topographic features. Real
world experience shows that accelerated erosion is a site specific phenomenon, often
determined by the location of roads and stream channels within the unique melange of the
landscape. Biodiversity components and processes are equally complicated, site specific, and
difficult to model. Goodrich and Woolhiser (1991) state:
Modeling efforts or evaluations based on simulated input-output data may
be used to gain model insight but are of little real world value....Those model
evaluations which utilized observed data, do not paint an encouraging picture of
our ability to model catchment response.
The best application for physically-based models will be where data is strong and the
surface has little variability, including rainfall variability. Coupling these specific models with
specific data on road drainage, field runoff, or other measurable parameters will yield useful
answers to questions about watershed beneficial uses.
6.2.4. Probability Approaches
Planning the size of a drainage culvert for a road is a probability analysis. The input
information is the size of the watershed, the estimated concentration time for the watershed,
and the maximum expected storm size for a given period of years. This is a prediction of
watershed response, from the perspective of the road. More sophisticated methods may be
called risk analysis, particularly when applied to beneficial uses. Lewis and Rice (1990) give a
method for prediction of landslides occurring from forestry or road construction activities
based on degrees of certainty.
Other problem assessments determine the likelihood of a "worst-case" scenario. Such
assessments are important in pollution control. What is the probability of a carload of
pesticides falling into the river? What will be its effect on beneficial uses? Worst-case
analysis is important because the unlikely event may have profound and lasting effects on
watersheds compared with small scale, more frequent impacts. Cumulative impact predictions
should incorporate these scenarios so that managers consider catastrophic events.
At this time, there are watershed assessment systems that statistically rank the
probability of landslides or flooding events. The TFW Assessment addresses probability in an
expert system and develops matrices of "likelihood of delivered impacts" versus "resource
vulnerability," using this to develop recommendations for management (WFPB 1994). The
EPA has developed a risk-based framework to minimize the loss of wetland functions. It
includes risk assessment, risk management and follow-up monitoring to evaluate effectiveness
(Leibowitzetal., 1992). Risk assessment includes stressor/response relationships and
exposure assessment The framework responds to the need to focus environmental protection
efforts on those problems that pose the greatest risk and in those areas where greatest risk
reduction can be achieved.
From the beneficial use perspective, actual and relative probability analysis is a useful
route for research and a challenge for managers. CIS-based watershed analyses may be the
most effective approach in the arena of risk assessment because they allow overlays of
70
-------
beneficial uses, likely impacts, and potential effects. Nonetheless, it will always be up to
people, including the land managers, the public, and the political process, to determine the
amount of risk society wishes to take.
6.3. COMPARISON OF METHODS
Table 3 listed some questions that could guide selection of a method for watershed
assessment. A sample of these questions has been used in Table 4 to show how the different
methods could be evaluated as a first step to choosing the appropriate method for a particular
situation.
6.4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
It must be acknowledged that predictions are imperfect and that outcomes may not
match predictions under any assessment system. This important fact must be recognized in
those cases where beneficial uses suffer unrecoverable losses due to poor predictions. In order
to maintain a sustainable environment, we need to inventory resources, predict impacts,
implement management, monitor outcomes, and change our strategies when necessary. This
complete loop is the essence of adaptive management.
Adaptive management treats management programs as experiments. Rather
than assuming that we understand the system that we are attempting to manage,
adaptive management allows management to proceed in the face of uncertainty.
Adaptive management uses each step of a management program as an
information-gathering exercise whose results then are used to modify or design
the next stage in the management program. In adaptive management, there is
direct feedback between science and management such that policy decisions can
make use of the best available scientific information at all stages in its
development (Halbert, 1991).
Adaptive management is described in the TFW and NCASI approaches, which aim to
improve models with future data. It is addressed in the FEMAT report, and may be found in
some CRMPs. In some ways, adaptive management may be seen as injudicious, because it
allows present management to continue, within constraints, until a red flag is raised on
mistakes. The adaptive management concept presumes that the high impact activities which
are measured will not lead to unrecoverable changes.
Managers taking these approaches must recognize that some mistakes in prediction are
inevitable, and the ensuing loss may be essentially permanent. To limit the severity of losses,
it may be prudent to apply other strategies in selecting "experimental" zones, using, for
instance, the AFS or Gap approaches. Identification of critical habitats, and the processes
which maintain them, at the beginning of watershed assessment can offer those habitats
protection from activities which have the potential to cause significant, long-term damage.
71
-------
Table 4. Some Comparisons of Watershed Assessment Methods
Method/
Assessment
Stream
Classification
Physical
Stream
Characteristics
Watershed
Characteristics
Gap Analysis
Water Column
Runoff and
Precipitation
Sediment
Budget
Integrated
Systems
Expert Systems
Regression
Methods
Physical
Models
Probability
Models
Inventory
or Model
inventory
inventory
inventory
inventory
inventory
inventory
inventory
both
model
model
model
model
Frequency of
Assessment
five to ten yean
initial
assessment and
as resources
change
initial
assessment and
as resources
change
initial
assessment, as
resources
change, or with
new information
depends on
parameters
IS minute to
daily
once in detail,
yearly update
as necessary,
depending on
critical resource
once, with
updates
once
once
once
Area of
Assessment
second to
fifth order
watersheds
first to
fourth order
watersheds
third to fifth
order
watersheds
large; limits
defined by
ecosystem
second
order and
larger
third order
and larger
watersheds
small area
details, up to
large
watersheds
third order
to fifth order
varies
varies
varies
varies
Information
Needed
application of
survey
cross-sections,
plan maps or other
measures
geology, soils,
vegetation, roads,
land use,
topography, and
stream system
•
ecological
components
in-stream samples
taken within a
sampling system
gage data
field data,
airphoto*, stream
data possible
same as watershed
characteristics
varies
varies; some
methods require
great detail
detail on physical
elements
historical records
as available or
created by
interpolation
$Cost
medium to low
medium startup,
low to medium
continuing
increasingly high
with resolution;
CIS helpful
increasingly high
with resolution;
CIS helpful
moderate to high
for frequent data
collection;
analysis varies in
cost
medium startup,
low continuing
high startup, low
continuing
moderate for
survey, high for
analysis
low to moderate
low
high: field data
needed to fill in
detail
moderate: limited
data sets restrict
analysis
People Cost
several people,
specialist to train,
coordinate and analyze
several people for each
survey, specialist to
train
specialist for setup,
technician to maintain
specialist for setup and
analysis, technician to
maintain
high, requires people
on site at critical times
low but often, high for
large area or large
floods
several personnel
startup, annual updates
high, requires both
field data and
specialists for analysis
moderate: specialists
for analysis of
previously gathered
information
low: methods are
designed to be applied
by nonspecialists
high: requires
specialists through the
process
moderate: specialists
needed for setup
Assessment Results
current conditions,
relative changes
changes in channel,
bed, banks and cover
geology, soils,
stream channels, and
ecologic information
ecological cores,
buffers, corridors ant
hot spots
chemical and
physical parameters
of water quality at
points in time
runoff timing, flood
frequency
source specific
erosion rates
probable responses o
resources relative to
proposed impact
likely impacts based
on experts" opinions
and existing data
likely impact with
respect to the model's
design
detailed information
limited to model's
specific inputs
likely variation of
measured resources
into the future
72
-------
7. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Ideas can have strong intuitive appeal, yet not affect decisionmaking
because they lack any explicit operation formulation. Cumulative impact is
such an idea...The notion that individually insignificant actions can produce
major change through the accumulation of effects is compelling enough to have
influenced federal legislation ...initiated court action, and produced international
meetings. Yet constraints remain more obvious than any specific approach or
method for implementing this idea in natural resource regulation and
management (Preston and Bedford, 1988).
Methods of watershed assessment identify and rate the magnitude of potential or actual
impacts. Implementation of watershed management practices requires an assessment of the
significance of these impacts, and the risk or probability of occurrence. A major concern is
how, and how well, impact magnitude can be interpreted as impact significance. Magnitudes
are based on measurements, but significance is based on an aggregation of the effects of
different impacts and includes other factors such as costs. Determining significance requires
public participation to incorporate values.
The following sections provide some examples of how land managers and public and
private groups use watershed analysis to make watershed management decisions for different
land uses. Programs of land management agencies and some state non-point source programs
are reviewed.
7.1. FORESTED LANDS
Megahan (1992) summarized the watershed condition assessment methods used on
forested lands into six categories. The methods are used singly or in combination.
1) Monitoring for effectiveness of best management practices with an evaluation
based on a threshold established for each monitoring element. These
evaluations are often water column measurements, but may include physical
and/or biological measurements, and habitat surveys.
2) Screening based on questions in a checklist to evaluate hazards and risks.
3) Indices based on factors influencing the geomorphic performance of a
watershed.
4) Use of an interdisciplinary team of technical specialists to evaluate watershed
conditions, processes, and status of the watershed. This procedure identifies
anticipated effects, with the results then used to modify management.
5) A combination of 2, 3 and 4 into an Equivalent Roaded Area procedure. This
method may include an assessment of watershed sensitivity based on potential
changes, a field investigation of the physical characteristics, and the
establishment of a threshold to guide changes in management.
6) Approaches based on an assumption that forest management activities affect one
or more basic geomorphic processes such as streamflow or sediment production.
These processes are monitored.
73
-------
The Equivalent Clearcut Acres procedure, based on peak flows that could cause
channel disturbance, is a hydrologic recovery procedure. The runoff curve number used by
USDA-SCS to estimate storm runoff hydrography is used for watershed management
planning. The Universal Soil Loss Equation has been adapted for use on forest lands. The
recent Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation and the Watershed Erosion Prediction method
now being tested by USDA are also being adapted to forested lands. A stability analysis to
evaluate probability of occurrence of shallow landslides is used in some cumulative effects
assessment procedures. A procedure to estimate annual sediment yields from watersheds, both
under natural conditions and with various types of disturbance, is used in a number of forests.
The procedure also includes modules on erosion from roads and sediment delivery to streams.
7.1.1. U.S. Forest Service
The Forest Service carries out watershed condition assessments under the overall
guidelines of cumulative effects assessment requirements. Different Regions and different
Forests use somewhat different methods and calculate different indices, using Equivalent
Roaded Area or Equivalent Clearcut Acres. They all identify values at risk and predict the
results of a proposed action. The watershed condition assessment (inventory and assessment)
determines the level set for the threshold of concern, which then guides management practices.
7.7.2. Private Forested Lands
The control of non-point sources of pollution on private forested lands is based on
regulations at the state level. The Oregon Forest Practices Act, for example, specifies
management procedures (BMPs) for protection of streams against sediment loads. The
required BMPs are updated periodically. Cumulative effects are considered only indirectly.
Other states in the Northwest have similar regulations.
The Washington Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) procedure (Washington Forest
Practices Board, 1994) is a watershed condition assessment method that allows local input into
setting objectives. The method identifies sensitive areas and the hazards to these areas, and
provides scientifically valid information for management decisions to address these hazards.
An assessment of watershed processes leads to area-specific prescriptions, either regulatory or
voluntary, depending upon landownership. This procedure would then lead to appropriate
management actions.
There is concern that the TFW process is too complex to be widely adopted. The time
required for training and certification to obtain consistent results and the time required for on-
site evaluation are large, and the components complex. Landowners may be reluctant to use
such a method. Experience gained in this process will streamline the procedures. Sensitivity
analysis would indicate which factors require more time and which factors could be measured
or estimated more quickly.
The other difficulty, shared by most methods, is how the information will be used to
effect change. How will the tradeoffs that are identified be evaluated in the implementation on
public and on private lands? How will effectiveness be monitored and evaluated?
74
-------
7.2. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
BLM's priorities in addressing cumulative effects are to develop quantification of
hillslope processes to predict soil erosion and downstream transport of sediment. This
technique will be used to assess impacts of management practices on soil, water, and fisheries,
and to make decisions on mitigation and management plans to be implemented on BLM land.
There is an emphasis on quantitative numbers for soil erosion.
The BLM in Oregon uses a watershed condition index based on physical measurements
and estimates of erosion potential. The process defines beneficial uses, determines the risks
involved, and then determines how sensitive the particular landscape is to impacts. In general,
the BLM plans to do cumulative effects analysis based on the NCASI procedure (Megahan,
1992), that is, a screening followed by a second level of more intensive analysis. If impacts
are not found, or if they are acceptable, the analysis is complete. If impacts are significant,
another tier involving more specific measurements is used, along with models for
precipitation, runoff, and erosion.
7.3. CROPPED LAND IN AGRICULTURE
Most cropped land is under private management, where watershed protection measures
are on a voluntary basis. The landowners have the resources of research, education, technical
information and cost-sharing for watershed management provided by various USDA agencies,
such as the Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative States Research Service, Cooperative
Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS). In addition, state and federal water quality agencies are now
important sources of information, guidance, and funding.
Models are used to predict water chemistry on a field scale and on a watershed basis.
AGNPS and SWRRBWQ methods predict erosion and sediment detachment and transport
across the landscape through chemical transport and erosion model components. The SCS soil
surveys provide information for watershed assessment and water quality predictions. Most of
the concern is directed to individual farmer's fields, but some cumulative watershed effects
analysis is being undertaken on several watershed projects.
Watershed protection is implemented in some model watershed areas under the USDA
Hydrologic Unit Area and Demonstration Project programs. There are several such
watersheds in the Pacific Northwest. Benchmarks are established and monitored for water
quality goals. Watershed management is also a focus of the Highly Erodible Lands program,
again with education, technical assistance, and cost sharing, for voluntary adoption of practices
to protect the soil surface. Enforcement is limited, and comes through cross-compliance, that
is, denying participation in commodity support programs if conservation measures are not
adopted. Some financial incentives to fill wetlands or to put highly credible lands into
cultivation have also been removed.
75
-------
Other categories of non-point source pollution are addressed through best management
practices (BMPs) adapted to specific agricultural production systems. The ASCS has lists of
approved BMPs. Figure 5 illustrates how BMPs can be used and evaluated. Establishing a
clear causal relationship between BMPs and improved watershed conditions or improved water
quality is often difficult. Some long-term experiments and evaluation of this relationship are
underway through monitoring (Dressing et al., 1993).
7.4. INDIAN TRIBAL LANDS
The Indian Tribes make management decisions on tribal lands and also influence
management decisions on the ceded lands. Watershed management is an increasing concern for
these managers. Much of the concern has focused on management for fish habitat, but
forestry and agriculture are important components on some tribal lands. Physical habitat
methods are frequently used for watershed condition assessment.
Management decisions for lands on the Warm Springs Reservation in Oregon, for
example, are based on a watershed model used on National Forest lands. Coefficients for
processes such as sediment production are evaluated on the basis of Equivalent Roaded Area,
and thresholds are set which become the basis for management decisions. If an activity will
result in a threshold being exceeded, that activity is not carried out or mitigation is
recommended. Areas where the effects already exceed thresholds are managed in a way to
gradually decrease effects to below the thresholds.
7.5. PARKS
The lands managed under federal, state, and local parks are areas chosen because they
contain specific ecological features. Areas within the parks represent unique opportunities to
maintain biodiversity and ecological integrity for a range of plant and animal communities.
Parks are ideal places to conduct research on how to sustain this biodiversity. Parks may not
be representative of other lands, but they are often closer to a pristine condition. As such,
they become important in watershed assessment because they represent relatively undisturbed
ecosystems. Comparison of these systems with disturbed systems can then provide information
on what functions have been changed, and how management can restore these functions.
Watershed assessment studies are being carried out in a limited way in some parks. A plan for
a National Park Service ecological research program is described by Risser and Lubchenco
(1992).
7.6. STATE REGULATORY AGENCIES
State agencies regulating use of different natural resources employ watershed
assessment methods to reach decisions on how resources can be used. The watershed
assessment method used by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has five components:
1) Physical and biological attributes, as well as land and water uses in a watershed, are
compiled from maps and aerial photographs, 2) Fish reconnaissance inventories are used to
determine species composition, distribution and relative abundance, 3) Quantitative stream
76
-------
Figure 5. Best Management Practices Feedback Loop
Validation Monitoring:
Are standards and criteria
protecting beneficial uses?
Are standards and criteria
realistic?
Modify standards,
if necessary
Water Quality Standards,
or other criteria
Basis for developing...
Results compared to...
Effectiveness Monitoring
Best Management Practices
BMP Implementation On-Site
Implementation Monitoring
Modify implementation
process, if necessary
Implemented BMPs are
tested for their ability
to protect water quality
through...
Ferguson, James M., 1993
77
-------
inventories are used to describe type and amount of habitat using a Hankin and Reeves method
to estimate extent of each habitat unit based on stream reaches. Attributes include gradient,
substrate, woody debris, shade, in-stream cover and bank stability, 4) Other appropriate
attributes are measured, and 5) Population inventories are taken to provide information on fish
populations.
This method is part of an aquatic inventory project begun in 1990. The goal is to
develop and implement fish management plans and policies. The technical information is used
to protect critical freshwater habitat and to restore degraded habitat. A classification system
will be used to allow extrapolation to streams that were not surveyed (Jones, 1993). This
method is compatible with surveys used by other agencies. Quality control is achieved through
duplicate surveys to assess replicability of habitat surveys and measured differences within a
crew and between crews.
7.7. THE PUGFT SOUND PLAN
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, as restructured in 1985 by the Washington
State Legislature, was charged with developing and overseeing the implementation of a
comprehensive management plan for waters in the Puget Sound (Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan, 1991). The plan called for initial updates on a two year cycle, and after
1999 on a four year cycle. The enabling legislation required state agencies and local
governments to evaluate and incorporate applicable provisions of the plan into their policies
and activities. The first plan, in 1986, involved an advisory committee, a scientific review
panel, and public input from citizens in all the affected counties. The 1987 amendments to the
Federal Clean Water Act added new responsibilities under the National Estuary Program.
The goal was to restore and protect the biological health and diversity of the Puget
Sound. The Sound shares many characteristics with other ecosystems that need protection. It
is a unique resource under divided jurisdiction, with no one entity able to adequately address
the problem. Under the overall legislated mandate of the Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority, local leadership is involved on a watershed-by-watershed basis. The program
shows how the components can be put together into an action plan for non-point source
pollution control. Local committees in each county identified and ranked the watersheds. A
watershed management committee was set up to develop action plans to prevent and reduce
non-point source pollution in watersheds on a priority basis.
Watershed action plans are developed in four phases. The counties are generally the
lead agencies for each watershed management committee. The first phase consists of
watershed characterization and setting specific objectives. Current conditions are assessed,
risks and threats to beneficial uses are identified, priority problems are defined, and goals and
objectives are developed. The characterization is prepared under the direction of the lead
agency with input from a watershed management committee. An interagency river basin team
is available for technical assistance. The second phase of the action plan is the non-point
pollution control strategy that addresses priority sources and pollutants identified by the
committees. The non-point pollution control strategy is prepared, consisting of voluntary
educational and regulatory approaches for controlling the identified sources of the problem
pollutants and based on feasibility, likelihood of success, and cost. Phase three is the
78
-------
implementation strategy, including coordination with all the other agencies and programs
affecting the watershed. The implementation strategy is developed, including milestones,
financing, and long-term monitoring. The fourth phase is the review and approval of the
action plan. Public hearings are held and the action plans are reviewed and submitted for
approval.
As of this writing, 16 watershed action plans have been completed and are now in the
implementation stage. In addition, 20 more watershed action plans are being developed.
7.8. A WATERSHED APPROACH IN THE COEUR D' ALENE RTVER BASIN
Although mining is regulated by a variety of laws, no program provides a
comprehensive approach to watershed restoration in mined landscapes. Consequently, a
number of watersheds throughout the West suffer from cumulative impacts from mining and
other pollution sources which preclude attaining water quality goals.
Massive ore deposits were discovered in North Idaho's Silver Valley in the 1860s. The
Coeur d'Alene mining district was a leading producer of lead, silver and zinc for over a
century. During much of this history, mine wastes and tailings were discharged into the river
and now form unstabilized deposits in the valley floor and in stream, river, and lake
sediments. Lead, zinc, and cadmium are the primary toxic metals of concern.
The Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project (Id. Dept. Health and Welfare, 1993),
begun in 1991, provides an example of a multi-agency cooperative approach to watershed
assessment and restoration. It addresses the CWA requirements for Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDL) through an iterative procedure. It is recognized that an accurate load
allocation is not possible given the mix of point and non-point sources in the watershed.
Therefore, the conceptual approach is to utilize existing information to get a first
approximation to a TMDL; to address the obvious problems on a short-term basis; and then to
continue to analyze and to evaluate pollution sources as additional information becomes
available over time.
The Coeur d'Alene Basin Project is based on a Memorandum of Agreement between
EPA, Idaho Dept. Health and Welfare, and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. The Agreement
coordinates the authorities of the Clean Water Act (EPA and Idaho) and Natural Resources
Damage Assessment provisions (Tribe) of CERCLA. The Project is coordinated by the
Steering Committee and three additional groups — the Coeur d'Alene Basin Interagency
Group, the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and the Management Advisory Committee — which
encompass local, state, and federal agencies, and private interests.
The project framework is divided into water quality, hazardous waste
(CERCLA/RCRA), human health, and wildlife habitat protection objectives. The framework
includes the following activities:
• Gather natural resource information from existing data bases and identify
additional information needs,
• Identify and verify environmental problems using this information,
79
-------
• Identify problems that can be addressed quickly, within the next 2-3 years,
under existing federal, state, tribal and local authorities using currently
available resources,
• Take necessary short and long term actions to restore and enhance fishing,
swimming, and recreation,
• Avoid duplication of effort by coordinating state, federal, and local laws,
and
• Develop funding mechanisms to provide the Coeur d'Alene Basin project
with the ability to set priorities and implement specific projects.
A critical assumption of the Couer d'Alene program is the reliance on a multifaceted
and multidisciplinary approach to watershed assessment and restoration. The watershed
approach requires expertise in the fields of environmental quality, human health, fish, and
wildlife resources. This array of expertise is not housed in any single agency but rather is
spread across a number of local, tribal, state and federal agencies, and private parties operating
in the basin.
7.9. THE WISCONSIN WATERSHED PROGRAM
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a program for integrated
watershed management, focusing largely on non-point sources of pollution(Wisconsin
Watershed Program, 1993). Point sources are not yet satisfactorily integrated into the
program. Watersheds are identified on a priority basis, and plans are written based on
integrated resource management principles. The specific nature of these management plans
depends upon the needs of specific watersheds and also, importantly, on the interests of the
personnel and agencies working in that area. Issues could include wetlands restoration, fish
habitat, wildlife habitat, endangered species, or water quality. A master monitoring program
is included, with water chemistry data at fixed sampling points and biological data at the same
sites. This monitoring is carried out only in certain priority areas because of the large resource
requirements of such a program.
The different agencies with responsibility for aspects of these programs work together
in writing and in implementing the plan. The program presents opportunities for integrated
watershed management. Successful implementation depends upon the interests of the
participants and cooperation among agencies.
An important aspect of the success of this watershed management program is an
easement component, funded from special Stewardship Funds and non-point funds to purchase
non-point easements to remove sources of pollutants. For example, an easement could be
purchased to remove certain livestock activities from areas adjacent to a stream. These
activities would be relocated elsewhere. The funds are useful for farmers who plan retirement
and also for younger fanners who can men fund major improvements. BMPs are also funded
through the Department of Natural Resources.
The important components of the program are a commitment to identify priority
watersheds and to draw up management plans on a watershed basis, funding to encourage
-------
private landowners to participate in the non-point source pollution prevention program, and
the opportunity for agencies to work together in planning and implementing the program. A
large amount of time and energy is required to assure that all the different components of the
program are working and to assure participation from all the different people who should be
involved.
8. CONCLUSION
There is no single correct way to analyze a watershed. The "best" way depends on the
beneficial uses of the watershed, and the goals of the researchers, the landowners, the
community, and the downstream users. Significant constraints of time, money, and expertise
restrict the data collection and analysis process. Methods for watershed assessment are
experimental at present; they take different approaches, and yield different results.
It is important for watershed assessors to recognize the varying approaches to
assessment because their recommendations will result from the questions they ask. As federal,
state, and local authorities become progressively more interested in watershed management and
water quality assessment, researchers will find themselves wedged between different scientific
approaches, goal-oriented strategies, and landowners and agencies with very different
agendas. Watershed assessment begins as science but may become a political tool.
The necessary attributes of a watershed assessment strategy are:
• flexible, to focus on particular issues,
• diverse, to assess the spectrum of resources and uses,
• scientifically based, to find the causal links with degradation and thus allow
meaningful recommendations,
• robust, so they may be applied by people with limited training,
• strict, so protocols are kept and separate studies may later be compared,
• time insensitive, so they may be applied throughout the year,
• statistically strong, so they are not thrown off by variation in environmental
parameters,
• cautious, so important or sensitive elements are not overlooked,
• mutually agreed upon, so that their recommendations may be implemented,
and
• part of a long-term management strategy.
In addition, the systems must incorporate some form of prediction and adaptive management.
This approach allows for correction of errors in either implementation or monitoring
techniques.
At present the best systems appear to be those that incorporate both inventories and
expert opinion. These systems will improve with increased resolution of the inventories.
81
-------
Feedback from adaptive management will also serve to educate the assessors. As we increase
our knowledge of watersheds, we will rely less on expert opinion, and the assessments will be
less subject to differences among experts who assess risk differently.
The critical moment in selecting assessment strategies is at the stage when the goals of
the assessment must be made explicit. At this time, when consensus from watershed owners,
agencies, and users is required, the process can easily become derailed. The consequences of
a multi-year data collection project collecting the wrong data will be severe; the loss of trust,
time, and money generated by the misguided effort will hamper future assessments.
Currently, federal and state laws have joined at the watershed level, mandating
assessments of cumulative effects for the benefit of fish, wildlife, vegetation, and people. The
next goal should be finding and applying watershed assessment methods that carry out the
intent of our laws through effective assessments. With implementation and adaptive
management, we can achieve improved water and habitat quality. Watershed assessment will
document the improvement in our environment, as well as help design management and
restoration activities.
82
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Abbruzzese, B., S.G. Leibowitz and R.Sumner. 1990. Application of the Synoptic Approach
to Wetland Designation: A Case Study in Washington. U.S. EPA, EPA/600/3-90/072.
Aloi, I.E. 1990. A critical review of recent freshwater periphyton field methods. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 47: 656-670.
American Public Health Association. 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 16th Ed. Am. Pub. Health Assoc. Washington, D.C.
Anderson, W.E. 1991. Innovations in coordinated resource management planning. J. Soil
and Water Cons. 46: 411-414.
Anderson, W.E. and R.C. Baum. 1987. Coordinated resource management planning: does it
work? J. Soil and Water Cons. 42: 161-166.
Bahls, L.L. 1993. Periphyton bioassessment methods for Montana streams. Dept. Health
and Env. Services, Helena, MT, 23 pp.
Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, B.P. Bradley, C.G. Graves, and R.W. Wisseman. 1992.
Evaluation of EPA's rapid bioassessment benthic metrics: metric redundancy and
variability among reference stream sites. Environ. Tox. Chem. 11:437-449.
Bartholow, J.M. and T. Waddle. 1986. Introduction to Stream Network Habitat Analysis.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Center, Division of Wildlife and
Contaminant Research. In—stream Flow Information Paper No. 22; Biological Report
86(8). 242 pp.
Bauer, S.B. and T.A. Burton. 1993. Monitoring Protocols to Evaluate Water Quality Effects
of Grazing Management on Western Rangeland Streams. U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200
6th Ave., Seattle, WA. No. 910/R-93-017.
Bedell, T.E. (editor). 1991. Watershed Management Guide for the Interior Northwest. EM
8436, Oregon State Univ. Ext. Ser., Corvallis, OR. 67 pp.
Bedell, T.E. and J.C. Buckhouse. 1994. Monitoring Primer for Rangeland Watersheds.
U.S. EPA Region 8. 999-18th St. Denver, CO. In Press.
Beschta, R.L. 1983. Sediment and organic matter transport in mountain streams of the
Pacific Northwest. In: Proceedings of the D.B. Simons Symposium on Erosion and
Sedimentation. Simons, Li and Associates. Ft. Collins, Co. pp. 69 to 89.
83
-------
Bottom, D. 1991. Note from American Fisheries Society, Oregon Chapter, Watershed
Classification and Aquatic Biodiversity Subcommittee, 11/15/91.
Brooks, R.P, M.J. Croonquist, E.T. D'silva, J. Gallagher, and D.E. Arnold. 1991.
Selection of Biological Indicators for Integrating Assessments of Wetland, Stream, and
Riparian Habitat. In: Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. U.S. EPA, Office
of Water. EPA-440/5-91-005.
Busacca, A.J., C.A. Cook and DJ. Mulla. 1993. Comparing landscape-scale estimation of
soil erosion in the Palouse using CS-137 and RUSLE. J. Soil and Water Cons.
48:361-367.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 1991. Addendum 2 to the Forest
Practice Rules: Draft Guidelines for Assessment of Cumulative Impacts. February 14,
1991. Sacramento, CA.
Clary, W.P. and B.F. Webster. 1990. Riparian grazing guidelines for the intermountain
' region. Rangelands 12:209-212.
Cline, R., G. Cole, W. Megahan, R. Patten, and J. Potyondy. 1981. Guide for predicting
sediment yields from forested watersheds. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region,
Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT.
Committee on Rangeland Classification. 1994. Rangeland Health: New Methods to Classify
Inventory and Monitor Rangelands. National Academy Press, Washington D.C. ISBN
0-309-04879-^. 182pp.
Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range research: basic principles and techniques.
Society for Range Management, Denver, CO. 317 pp.
Croonquist, M.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1991. Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators
of cumulative impacts in riparian wetlands areas. Environmental Management.
15:701-714.
Dance, K.W. and H.B.N. Hynes. 1980. Some effects of agricultural land use on stream
insect communities. Environ. Poll. Ser. A Ecol. Biol. London. Applied Science.
22:19-28.
Davidson, J.H. 1989. Commentary: using special water districts to control nonpoint sources
of water pollution. Chicago-Kent Law Review. 65:503-518.
Davis, F.W, D.M. Stoms, J.E. Estes, J. Scepan, and J.M. Scott. 1990. An information
systems approach to the preservation of biological diversity. Int. Jour. Geographical
Information Systems. 4:55-78.
84
-------
Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Timber, Fish and Wildlife Agreement: A Better
Future in Our Woods and Streams: Final Report, Olympia, WA.
Dietrich, W.E., T. Dunne, N.F. Humphrey, and L.M. Reid. 1982. Construction of
Sediment Budgets for Drainage Basins. In: Proc. Sympos. Sediment Budgets and
Routing in Forest Catchments. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-141-.5-
23.
Donigian, A.S. and W.C. Huber. 1991. Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water Quality in
Urban and Non-urban Areas. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
EPA/600/3-91/039.
Dressing, S.A., J. Spooner, and J.B. Mullens. 1993. Watershed Project Monitoring and
Evaluation under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Proc. Watershed 93
Conference. EPA 840-R-94-002.
Edwards, T.K. and G.D. Glisson. 1988. Field Methods for Measurement of Fluvial
Sediment. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Rept. 86-531.
Elliott, H. A. 1986. Land application of municipal sewage sludge. J. Soil and Water Cons.
41:5-10.
Elmore, W. and R.L. Beschta. 1987. Riparian areas: perception in management.
Rangelands. 9:260-265.
Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of streamside buffer strips
for protecting aquatic organisms. Cal. Wat. Resour. Center, Univ. Cal. at Davis,
Contrib. 165. 48 pp.
Euphrat, F.D. 1992. Cumulative Impact Assessment and Mitigation for the Middle Fork of
the Mokelumne River, Calaveras County, California. UC Berkeley. Dissertation.
Fentress, Robert D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution, groundwater and the 1987 Water
Quality Act: section 208 revisited. Environmental Law. 19:807-839.
Ferguson, J.M. 1993. Program Coordinator, Forest Practices, Alaska Dept. of
Environmental Conservation. Personal Communication.
Foran, J.A., P. Butler, L.B. Cleckner, and J.W. Bulkley. 1991. Regulating nonpoint source
pollution in surface waters: a proposal. Water Resources Bulletin. 27:479-484.
85
-------
Forest Ecosystem Management Team. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological.
Economic and Social Assessment. USDA Forest Sendee, US Department of
Commerce NOAA, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, USDI National Park Service, and US Environmental Protection Agency.
Frissell, C. 1992. Critical assumptions in environmental assessment of cumulative impacts in
large watersheds. Dept of Fisheries & Wildlife, OSU, Corvallis, Oregon.
Gabriel, J.T. 1992. Assessing the Status of Oregon's Willamette Valley Wetlands. US EPA,
ERL, Corvallis, OR.
Gakstatter, J.H. 1991. Letter to Marcella R. Jan sen, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, Washington, D.C., Dec. 20.
Gale, J.A., P.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W. Coffey, J. Spooner, J.A. Arnold, TJ. Hoban,
and R.C. Wimberley. 1993. Evaluation of the Experimental Rural Clean Water
Program. EPA-841-R-93-005.
Gebhardt, K., S. Leonard, G. Staidl, and D. Prichard. 1990. Riparian area management -
riparian and wetland classification review. TR 1737-5, USDI, Bureau of Land
Management, Denver, CO.
Godwin, D. 1994. Integrating Best Management Practices in Small Commercial and Non-
commercial Annual Enterprises. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
OR.
Goodrich, D.C. and D.A. Woolhiser. 1991. Catchment Hydrology. US Nat. Rep. to Int.
Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. AGU. Rev. of Geophysics, Supp. 202-209.
Grant, G. 1988. The RAPID Technique: A New Method for Evaluating Downstream effects
of Forest Practices on Riparian Zones. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept.
PNW-220.
Halbert, C.L. 1991. Implementing adaptive management: a conversation with Kai Lee. The
Northwest Environmental Journal. 7:136-151.
Hankin, D.G. and G. Reeves. 1988. Estimating total fish abundance and total habitat area in
small streams based on visual estimation methods. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 45:834-
844.
Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier and F.S. Hsieh. 1975. Changes in storm
hydrographs affect road building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water
Res. Res. 11:436-444.
86
-------
Haskins, D.M. 1983. An Overview of the Use of Cumulative Watershed Impact Analysis.
Shasta Trinity National Forest. 37 pp.
Hildreth, R., M. Brown and R. Sharelson. 1992. Integrated Watershed Management,
Cumulative Impacts, and Implementation of Nonpoint Source Controls: Legal and
Policy Analysis. Appendix C of this report. (Oregon Water Resources Research
Institute, Corvallis, Oregon.)
Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1988. Ecoregions: An approach to surface water
protection. J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 60:486-693.
Hunsaker, C.T., R.L. Graha, G.W. SuterH, R.V. O"Neill, L.W. Barthouse, and R.H.
Gardner. 1990. Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environmental
Management 14:325-332.
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare. 1993. Draft framework: Coeur d'Alene Basin
Restoration Project. ID Dept. of Health and Welfare, Coeur d'Alene, ID.
Idaho Dept. of Lands. 1992. Best Management Practices for Mining in Idaho. ID Dept. of
Lands, Boise, ID. 112 pp.
Janes, E. 1993. USDI-Bureau of Land Management, Tech. Service Center, Denver, CO.
Personal Communication.
Jones, K.K. 1993. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Presentation to the Stream
Habitat Workshop, Oregon State University, January 27, 1993.
Jones, R.C. and C.C. Clark, 1988. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect
communities. Water Res. Bull. 23:1047-1055.
Kappeser, G.B. 1993. Riffle Armour Stability Index. ID Panhandle Nat. Forest, Coeur
d'Alene, ID. (Draft)
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality goals. Environ.
Management. 5:55-68.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and IJ. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing
biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural
History Survey. Special Publication No. 5.
Kauffman, J.B. and W.C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and
streamside management implications: A review. J. Range Management. 37:430-438.
87
-------
Kinch, G. 1989. Riparian area management: grazing management in riparian areas. TR
1737-4, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 48 pp.
Klock, G. 1985. Modeling the cumulative effects of forest practices on downstream aquatic
ecosystems. J. of Soil and Water Cons. 40:237-241.
Kovalchic, B.L. and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing systems on willow-
dominated plant associations in central Oregon, In: Proceedings, Symposium on
Ecology and Management of Riparian Shrub Communities. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-
289, USDA Forest Service, Int. Res. Sta., Boise, ID.
Laflen, J.M., L.J. Lana, and G.R. Foster. 1991. WEPP a new generation erosion prediction
technology. J. Soil and Water Cons. 46:34-48.
Larson, C.L., C.A. Onstad, H.H. Richardson, and K.N. Brooks. 1982. Some particular
watershed models. In: Hydrologic Modeling of Small Watersheds. Haan, C.T.; H.P.
Johnson and D.L. Brakensiek, eds. ASAE Monograph No. 5:410-436.
Lee, L.C. and J.G. Gosselink. 1988. Cumulative impacts on wetlands: linking scientific
assessments and regulatory alternatives. Environ. Management. 12:591-602.
Leibowitz, S.G., E.M. Preston, L.Y. Arnaut, N.E. Denbook, C.A. Hagley, M.E. Kantula,
R.K. Olson, W.D. Sanville, and R.R. Sumner. 1992a. Wetlands Research Plan FY
92-96: An Integrated Risk-Based Approach. U.S. EPA, ERLC, EPA/600/R-92-
060.
Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes and J.T. Irish. 1992b. A
Synoptic Approach to Cumulative Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology.
U.S. EPA, ERLC, EPA/600/R-92/167.
Lence, BJ. 1991. Weighted sum transferable discharge permit programs for control of
multiple pollutants. Water Res. Res. 27:3019.
Leonard, S., G. Staidl, J, Fogg, K. Gebhardt, W. Hagenbuck, and D. Prichard. 1992.
Riparian Area Management Procedures for Ecological Site Inventory with Special
Reference to Riparian-Wetland Sites. TR- 1737-7, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Denver, CO. 133 pp.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
W.H. Freeman and Co. New York. 522 pp.
Levin, S.A. and K. Kimball. 1984. New perspectives in ecotoxicology. Environ.
Management. 8: 375-442.
-------
Levin, S. A. 1992. The problem of pattern and scale in ecology. Ecology 73:1943-1967.
Lewis, J. and R.M. Rice. 1990. Estimating erosion risk on forest lands using improved
methods of discriminant analysis. Water Res. Res. 26:1721-1733.
Lisle, T. 1987. Using "Residual Depths" to Monitor Pool Depths Independently of
Discharge. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service Res. Note PSW-394.
Lisle, T. and R.E. Eads. 1991. Methods to Measure Sedimentation of Spawning Gravels.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Res. Note PSW 411.
MacDonald, L.H. and A.W. Smart. 1992. Beyond the guidelines: practical lessons for
monitoring. Workshop in Improving Natural Resource Management, Oregon State
University. March 10-11, 1992.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to
Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
US EPA 910/9-91-001.
Martin, D. J.,W.M. Young, Jr., S.D. Edland, T. Shin, and R.B. Morrow. 1990. An
inventory of fish habitat conditions on seven southeast Alaska streams identified by the
EPA Section 304 (1) long list. Unpublished. Interpretive Report: Project No. 00044-
001. Prepared for SEAlaska Corp., Juneau, AK. Prepared by: Pentec Environmental,
Inc., Edmonds, WA.
Megahan, W.F. 1992. A cross-section of procedures used to assess cumulative watershed
effects on forest lands in the U.S. Paper prepared for National Hydrology Workshop
"Watershed Into the 90s."
Megahan, W.F. 1992. Status of the NCASI Cumulative Watershed Effects Program and
Methodology. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 634. 24 pp. plus appendices.
Merritt, R.W., K.W. Cummins, and V.H. Resh. 1984. Collecting, sampling and rearing
methods for aquatic insects. In: An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North
America, 2nd Ed. R.W. Merritt and K.W. Cummins, eds. Kendall/Hunt, Pub. 11-26.
Meyers, L.H. 1989. Riparian Area Management: Inventory and Monitoring Riparian Areas.
TR 1737-3, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO. 79 pp.
Miller, D.L., P.M. Leonards, R.M. Hughes, J.R. Karr, P.B. Moyle, L.H. Schrader, B.A.
Thompson, R.A. Daniels, K.D. Fausch, G.A. Fitzhugh, J.R. Cammon, D.B.
Halliwell, P.L. Angermeier, and D. J. Orth. 1988. Regional applications of an index
of biotic integrity for use in water resource management. Fisheries. 12:12-20.
89
-------
Mitchell, J.K and G.D. Bubenzer. 1980. Soil loss estimation. In: Soil Erosion. MJ.
Kirkby and R.P. Morgan, eds. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 17-62
Moore, I.D., EJ. O'Loughlin and GJ. Burch. 1988. A contour-based topographic model
for hydrological and ecological applications. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms.
13:305-320.
Nelson, R.L., M.L. McHenry, and W.S. Platts. 1991. Mining. In: Influences of forest and
rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitat. Am. Fish. Soc. Special
Publication 19. 425-457.
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. 1991. Nonpoint Source Statewide Management
Program for Oregon. Portland, OR,
Pacific Rivers Council. 1992. A new strategy for watershed restoration and recovery of
Pacific salmon in the Pacific Northwest. Draft Report. Pacific Rivers Council, PO
Box 309, Eugene, OR.
Padgett, W.G., A.P. Youngblood, and A.H. Winward. 1989. Riparian Community Type
Classification of Utah and Southeastern Idaho. Intermountain Region, R4-Ecol.-89-
01, U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, UT. 191 pp.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers; Benthic Macroinvertebrates
and Fish. EPA-444/4-89-001. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
Platts, W.S. 1989. Compatibility of livestock grazing strategies with fisheries. In: R.E.
Gresswell, B.A. Barton, J.L. Kershner, eds. Practical Approaches to Riparian
Resource Management: An Educational Workshop, U.S. BLM, Billings, MT. 103-
110.
Platts, W.S. 1991. Livestock grazing. Am. Fisheries Society Special Publication. Influences
of Forest and Rangeland Management, W. R. Median, ed. 19: 389-423
Platts, W.S., C. Armour, G.D. Booth, M. Bryant, J.L. Bufford, R. Cuplin, S. Jensen, G.W.
Lienkaemper, G.W. Minshall, S.B. Monson, R.L. Nelson, J.R. Sideil, and J.S. Tuhy.
1987. Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Application to Management.
Gen. Tech. Rpt. INT-221. USDA Forest Service, Ogden, UT, 177 pp.
Powell, S.L., and M.J. Hershman. 1991. Contribution of state coastal zone management
programs to improved coastal water quality. 2 vols. Technical Report and Executive
Summary. Portland, OR: National Coastal Resources Research and Development
Institute.
90
-------
Preston, E.M. and B.L. Bedford. 1988. Evaluating cumulative effects on wetland functions:
a conceptual overview and generic framework. Environ. Management 12:565-583.
Prichard, D., ed. 1993. Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition. TR-1737-9, USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver,
CO. 63 pp.
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. 1991. Puget Sound Water Qual. Authority,
Seattle.
Reeves, G.H., F.H. Everest, and T.E. Nickelson. 1989. Identification of Physical Habitats
Limiting the Production of Coho Salmon in Western Oregon and Washington. USD A
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-245. 18 pp.
Reid, L. 1991. Research on Cumulative Watershed Effects (Draft). Pacific Southwest
Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Arcata, CA.
Remy, M.H, T.A. Thomas, S.E. Duggan, and J.G. Moose. 1990. Guide to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Solano Press Books, Pt. Arena, CA. 479 pp.
Renard, K.G., G.R. Foster, and J.P. Porter. 1991. RUSLE: Revised universal soil loss
equation. J. Soil and Water Cons. 46:30-33.
Rice, R.M, R.B. Thomas, and D.J. Furbish. 1984. Social influences on innovation in the
avoidance of logging-related landslides. In: Symposium on the Effects of Forest Land
Use on Slope Stability, May 7-11, 1984, Honolulu, Hi. C.T. O'Loughlin and J.
Pearce, eds. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center, pp. 131-138.
Risser, P.O. and J. Lubchenco, eds. 1992. Report of a Workshop for a National Park
Service Ecological Research Program. Albuquerque, NM, National Park Service.
Roesner, L.A., B. Urbonas, and M.B. Sonnen, eds. 1988. Design of urban runoff quality
controls. Proceedings of Engineering Foundation Conference, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York.
Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A Stream Classification System. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rept. RM-120:91-95.
Rosgen, D.L., 1993. A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena Verlag, Germany.
Rowe, J.S. 1992. Keynote Address The Role of Regionalization and Environmental Ethics
in Creating a Sustainable Future. Regional Landscape Change Conference. 4/8-
4/11/92. Corvallis, OR.
91
-------
Scott, J.M., B. Csuti, and S. Caicco. 1991. A Method for Assessing the Protection Needs
for Biodiversity in the United States. In: Landscape Linkages and Biological
Diversity. Island Press, Covello, CA.
Sheridan, D. 1977. Hard Rock Mining on the Public Land. Council on Environmental
Quality. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Simpson, J.T. 1991. Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. US EPA 440/4-91-
002.
Skovlin, J.M. 1984. Impacts of grazing on wetlands and riparian habitat: a review of
knowledge. In: Developing Strategies for Rangeland Management. Westview Press,
Boulder, CO. pp. 1001-1103
Steiner, F. 1990. Soil Conservation in the United States: Policy and Planning. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press.
Stowell, R., A. Esponosa, T.C. Bjornn, W.S. Platts, D.C Burns, and J.S. Irving. 1983.
Guide to Predicting Salmonid Responses to Sediment Yields in Idaho Batholith
Watersheds. USDA Forest Service. Regions 1 and 4.
Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG). 1992. Proposal: A Watershed Management
Strategy for Oregon. Final Report and Recommendations of the SWMG Policy Work
Group. Salem, OR.
Suter, G.W., L.W. Barnthouse, and R.V. O'Neill. 1987. Treatment of risk in environmental
impact assessment. Environmental Management 11:295-303.
Thomas, R.B. 1991. Piecewise SALT Sampling for Estimating Suspended Sediment Yields.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-114.
Thompson, M.A. 1990. Determining impact significance in EIA: a review of 24
methodologies. J. Environ. Mngt. 30:235-250.
Torno, H.C. ed. 1989. Urban stormwater quality enhancement - Source control, retro-
fitting, and combined sewer technology. Proceedings of Engineering Foundation
Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Urbonas, B. and L.A. Roesner, eds. 1986. Urban runoff quality: Impact and quality
enhancement technology. In: Proceedings of Engineering Foundation Conference,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
92
-------
USDA. 1989. Water Quality Program Plan to Support the President's Water Quality
Initiative, Washington D.C. 29 pp.
USDA Forest Service. Northern Region, 1975. Stream Reach Inventory and Channel Stability
Evaluation: A Watershed Management Procedure. St. Paul; U.S. Forest Service,
Northern Region. 26 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 1977. Anatomy of a Mine from Prospecting to Production. U.S.
Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report INT-35.
USDA Forest Service. 1992. Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. USDA Forest Service,
Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT. 61 pp.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1976. National Range Handbook, as amended.
Washington, D.C. 143 pp.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1990. Water Quality and Quantity. USDA, Washington,
D.C. 31pp.
USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1990. National Range Handbook. BLM Manual
Handbook H-4410-1, USDI Bur. Land Management, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985. Report to Congress: Wastes from the
Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden
from Uranium Mining, and Oil Shale. U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. Office of Water,
Regulations, and Standards, U.S. EPA, EPA 440/5-86-001, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Macroinvertebrate Field and Laboratory
Methods for Evaluating the Biological Integrity of Surface Waters. Office of Research
and Development, U.S. EPA, EPA 600/4-90-030, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1991a. The Watershed Protection
Approach: An Overview. EPA 503/9-92-001. Washington, D.C. (with accompanying
Oct. 28, 1991 Office of Water memorandum).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991b. Report of the Ecoregions Subcommittee of
the Ecological Processes and Effects Committee: Evaluation of the Ecoregion Concept.
EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-003.
93
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1992. Managing Nonpoint Source
Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (1989).
Washington, DC.
Washington Forest Practice Board. 1994. Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed
Analysis. Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Weatherford, Gary. 1990. From basin to hydrocommons: Integrated water management
without regional governance. Western Water Policy Project Discussion Series Paper
No. 5. Boulder: University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.
Wiens, J.A. 1977. On competition and variable environments. Amer. Sci. 65:590-597.
Willey, Z. 1992. Behind schedule and over budget: the case of markets, water, and
environment. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 15:391-425
Williamson, S.C. and K. Hamilton. 1987. Annotated Bibliography of Cumulative Impact
Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wischmeier, W.H. 1976. Use and misuse of the universal soil loss equation. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 31:5-9.
Wisconsin Watershed Program. 1993. Dept. of Natural Resources. Madison, WI. Personal
Communication.
Yoder, C.O. 1991. The integrated biosurvey as a tool for evaluation of aquatic life use
attainment and impairment in Ohio Surface Waters. In: Biological Criteria: Research
and Regulation. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA-440/5-91-005.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1989. AGNPS: A non-point
source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil and Water Cons.
44:168-173.
Zinn, J. 1993. How are soil erosion programs working? J. Soil and Water Cons. 48:254-
259.
94
-------
Appendix A
METHODS FOR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
Section 6 of this report discusses the generic characteristics of both inventory and predictive
methods for watershed assessment. This appendix lists additional assessment methods, with
brief summaries for some of them. This could serve as a guide to choosing appropriate
methods. The methods are grouped according to the type of measurement.
1. METHODS BASED LARGELY ON WATER COLUMN MEASUREMENTS A-2
2. METHODS BASED LARGELY ON PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
WATERSHED OR ITS COMPONENTS. — A~3
3. METHODS BASED ON MEASUREMENTS OF BIOTIC COMMUNITIES A-6
4. MIXED MEASUREMENTS A~7
5. PLANNING MODELS __ A~9
A-l
-------
1. Methods Based Largely On Water Column Measurements
Water quality problem identification in urban watersheds. Livingston, Eric H. Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, FL.
Measures pollutant loading to aquatic systems, and compares with loading that would
give desired water quality. Application of water column measurements to urban
watersheds.
Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS). US Forest
Service, 1980. An approach to water resources evaluation of non-point silvicultural
sources. (A Procedural Handbook). US EPA, EPA-600/8-80-012. 864pp.
AGNPS: A non-point source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1989. J. Soil and
Water Cons. 44:168-173.
AGNPS is a distributed-parameter, storm-event-based model that estimates runoff,
sedimentation and nutrient losses in surface runoff from agricultural watersheds.
Developed by USDA (ARS and SCS) in cooperation with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency.
Assessment of cumulative impacts to water quality hi a forested wetland landscape.
Childers, Daniel L. and James G. Gosselink. 1990. Journal of Environmental Quality
19:455-464.
Assessing changes in landscape integrity over time using structural and functional
ecosystem indices. Used historical and continuing measurements of sediment and
nutrients to document changes. Devised a management plan for improved water quality
based on the cumulative impact assessment. The plan included changing river flow
patterns, best management land practices, and vegetated buffer zones next to streams.
The method is based largely on chemistry of the water column, so is specific to part of
the watershed analysis problem.
A-2
-------
Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basins - Water Quality. USDA, SCS, 1991.
(SWRRBWQ).
Continuous simulations of hydrologic and related processes, to predict effect of
management practices on water, sediment, nutrient and pesticide yields at the basin or
subbasin outlet.
Hydrology Simulation Procedure-Fortran (HSPF).
This is a very detailed simulation model for hydrology and loading of water bodies
from non-point sources on land. It is based on the Stanford watershed model, as used
by EPA.
2. Methods Based Largely on Physical Characteristics of the Watershed
or its Components.
Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. Platts, W.S., et al., 1983.
USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-183, 71 pp.
Cumulative impact assessment in environmental planning: a coastal wetland watershed
example. Dickert, Thomas G., and Andrea E. Tuttle. 1985. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 5:37-64.
Based on managing landscape changes so the impacts remain below a critical threshold
value. The method uses susceptibility to erosion and measurement of land disturbance.
This is similar to the methods based on landscape measurements and is applied to the
planning process.
Quantifying stream substrate for habitat analysis studies. Bain, M.B., et. al., 1985. Nor.
Amer. Jour, of Fish. Man. 5:499-500.
A-3
-------
A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. Haskins, Donald M.
1986. Presented at the California Watershed Management Conference, November 18-
20, 1986. West Sacramento, CA.
The model is based on identifying sensitive landscape areas based on physical
characteristics, on identifying management activities through the Equivalent Roaded
Area, and comparing the two with a threshold of concern. The ideas are used in the
ERA method of the USFS.
A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a
watershed context. Frissell, C.A., etal., 1986. Environ. Mgmt. 10:199-214.
Summary Report for the 1988 Cumulative Watershed Effects Analyses on the Eldorado
National Forest. Kuehn, Michael H. and John Coburn. 1989. Eldorado National
Forest, CA.
Uses the US Forest Service cumulative watershed effect approach, adapted to a specific
location.
Cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis. US Forest Service, Region 5. 1988.
Chapter 20, FSH 2509.22.
Measurement of physical watershed parameters to determine effects on beneficial uses
of water. These methods contain some components of a complete watershed
assessment.
An inventory of fish habitat conditions on seven southeast Alaska streams identified by
the EPA Section 304(1) long list. Martin, Douglas J., et al., 1990. Unpublished.
Interpretive Report: Project No. 00044-001. Prepared for SEAlaska Corp., Juneau,
AK. Prepared by: Pentec Environmental, In., Edmonds, WA.
A method to assess the quantity and quality of salmonid spawning and rearing habitat in
streams. Uses measured cobble embeddedness and bank stability as indicators for
sediment, large woody debris as index of habitat for rearing, and riparian trees as
measures of shading and future large woody debris. Done with a one-time site visit.
This is a good example of a rapid assessment technique.
A-4
-------
Geomorphological watershed analysis: a conceptual framework and review of techniques.
Benda, Lee and Lynne Rodgers Miller. 1991. Prepared for Timber, Fish and
Wildlife. TFW-SH10-91-Q01. Seattle, WA.
A conceptual framework and technical guidelines for evaluating present watershed
condition and for predicting responses of hillslope and channels to changes in land use.
For forest management in mountain drainage basins. Concentrates on erosion and
channel processes, and causes (natural or manmade) of changes. Much of the material
has been incorporated into the TFW process resulting in the Washington Forest Practice
Board "Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis."
The use of the qualitative habitat evaluation index for use attainability studies in streams
and rivers in Ohio. Rankin, Edward T. 1991. In Biological Criteria: Research and
Regulation. US EPA, Office of Water. EPA-440/5-91-005.
Based on measurement of physical habitat variables for streams. Similar to other
methods of calculating indices from physical metrics.
Watershed Condition Index, Appendix 3-E: Analytical Methods. Schloss, Alan J. 1991.
Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, OR.
An index based on physical measurements.
A quantitative habitat assessment protocol for field evaluation of physical habitat in small
wadable streams. Kaufmann, P. and E.G. Robinson. 1993. Oregon State University
and US EPA ERL, Corvallis, OR. 26 pp.
A detailed protocol for quick, quantitative assessment of habitat, based on systematic
spatial sampling design and measurement of physical characteristics.
A-5
-------
3. Methods Based On Measurements of Biotic Communities
The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Gammon, J.R. 1976.
Technical Report No. 86. Water Resources Research Center, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Measurements of species distribution and diversity connected to indices used in
identifying problem areas in the river. Ideas are used in biodiversity methods.
Regional applications of an index of biotic integrity for use in water resource
management. Miller, D.L., etal. 1988. Fisheries 13:12-20.
Some adaptation is required for regions of low species richness, such as parts of the
Pacific northwest. See Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon, 1987. "Longitudinal
changes in fish assemblages and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon."
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 116:196-209.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates
and fish. Plafkin, James L., et. al., 1989. EPA 440/4-89-001. Office of Water.
Washington, D.C.
Protocols for rapid assessment of macroinvertebrates and fish, including screening
procedures and more intensive evaluations, to identify severity of impairment of
desired function in streams. These five methods include components of approaches
used by several states. Different taxonomic groups could be substituted, for example.
algal communities. Complete descriptions of protocols are given, which can be
modified for local conditions.
Use of avian and mammalian guilds as indicators of cumulative impacts in riparian-
wetland areas. Croonquist, Mary Jo, and Robert P. Brooks. 1991. Environmental
Management 15:701-714.
Based on the concept of measuring guilds, for example, groups of species that exploit
the same class of environmental resources in a similar way. This becomes part of a
Gap analysis.
A-6
-------
4. Mixed Measurements
The cumulative impacts of human activities on the atmosphere. Clark, W.C. 1985. In
G.E. Beanlands, and WJ. Erkmann, et al. eds. Cumulative Environmental Effects: A
Bi-National Perspective. Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council,
Ontario, and U.S. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
This is an excellent discussion of the background for cumulative impact assessment, on
distinguishing simple from cumulative impacts, and suggesting a synoptic approach
using expert knowledge.
General Aquatic Wildlife System (GAWS) — Implementing a fish-habitat relationship
program through GAWS. US Forest Service, Region 4. 1987. The Habitat
Express, No. 87-2. Ogden, UT.
A tiered system of stream habitat assessment beginning with evaluation of available
information (office level), then stream reach reconnaissance and finally site specific
transect measurements for areas identified as requiring cause/effect studies. Combines
physical characteristics and species diversity measurements. The concepts are used in
recent tiered approach methods.
An expert system approach to environmental impact assessment. Lein, J.K. 1989. Int. J.
Env. Studies 33:13-27.
A formalized procedure for incorporating human judgment and experience in watershed
analysis, used at a screening level.
Understanding the Minnesota river assessment project. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. 1990. St. Paul, MN.
Measurement of water column parameters of sediment, nutrients and bacteria,
identification of sources. Measuring fish populations for biotic integrity and land use
identification as a guide to stream restoration. Uses components of several methods
that have been described.
A-7
-------
Oregon nonpoint source monitoring protocols stream bioassessment field manual for
macroinvertebrates and habitat assessment. Mulvey, M., L. Caton and R. Hafele.
1992. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Laboratory Biomonitoring
Section. 1712 SW llth Ave., Portland, OR, 97201. 40 pp.
Status of the NCASI cumulative watershed effects program and methodology. 1992.
NACASI Tech. Bull. 634, NCASI, 260 Madison Ave, NY, NY.
This is a guide for development of an assessment method that could be used by private
and public land managers. It is a tiered approach with an initial screening "to assess
watershed sensitivity, evaluate existing conditions, document the existence of important
downstream watershed values, and define how changes in hydrologic processes caused
by forest management activities link to downstream watershed values. A second level
of analysis is needed when the screen predicts the existence or risk of unacceptable
cumulative effects that cannot be controlled by management solutions. An example
CWE module for dissolved oxygen is presented to illustrate the assessment process."
Integrated Riparian Evaluation Guide. 1992. US Forest Service, Intermountain Region,
Ogden, Utah, prepared by a Technical Riparian Workshop.
An assessment of riparian areas based on stratifying and classifying areas according to
their natural inherent characteristics and existing conditions. Uses a tiered approach
with three levels of increasing detail, beginning with an office-based assessment, then a
delineation of riparian areas based on field surveys, and finally quantitative data
collection to answer specific questions identified at other levels. Considerable use of
interdisciplinary teams at all three levels gives detailed protocols for measurement of
aquatic community habitat, soils, hydrology and stream dynamics, vegetation and
terrestical habitat. Defines resource ratings that can be used to effect management
changes.
Notes on cumulative environmental change II: A contribution to methodology. Cocklin,
C., et al., 1992. J. Env. Mngt. 35:51-67.
Combines a matrix structure showing the association between cause and effect with a
GIS framework for analysis of cumulative effects on a regional scale. The GIS is a
practical tool for cumulative impact assessment because it provides the ability to
compile and evaluate data collected over a long time period and over a large geographic
area
A-8
-------
5. Planning Models
Extending the capability of the component interaction matrix for addressing secondary
environmental assessment. Shopley, J., et. al., 1990. J. Env. Mngt. 31:197-218.
Identifies secondary environmental impacts that could result from proposed land uses,
and the interdependence of environmental components, through a minimum link
matrix.
A framework for incorporating stream use in the determination of priority watersheds.
Wenger, Robert P., Yue Rong and H.J. Harris. 1990. Journal of Environmental
Management 31:335-350.
Uses "fuzzy set" models to incorporate non-point source pollution measurements with
stream habitat data to identify priority watersheds. This is useful background for
thinking about watershed assessment.
Modeling the cumulative watershed effects of forest management strategies. Ziemer,
R.R., et al., 1991. Journal of Environmental Quality 20:36-42.
A standard format for use hi the analysis of environmental policy. Wescott, G. 1992. J.
Env. Mngt. 35:69-79.
Places watershed assessment in the general context of environmental policy analysis.
A-9
-------
Appendix B
ADDITIONAL WATERSHED ANALYSIS LITERATURE
This appendix contains general references not cited in the report.
The letters in brackets after each citation indicate the type of literature, as follows:
B = Background and Overview
C = Components of Methods
M = Methods
P = Policies, Programs and Planning
R = Research
Andrus, Chip. 1991. Improving Streams and Watersheds in Oregon. Oregon Water
Resources Department. [B]
Barbour, Michael T. and James B. Stribling. 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating
the biological integrity of stream communities. In Biological Criteria: Research and
Regulation. EPA-440/5-91-005 U.S. EPA, Office of Water. Washington, D.C. [C]
Bardwell, Lisa V. 1991. Problem-framing: a perspective on environmental problem-
solving. Environmental Management 15:603-612. [B]
Bella, David, Hiram Li and Ruth Jacobs. 1992. Ecological indicators of global climate
change. Proceedings of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Global Climate Change Workshop,
Corvallis, OR, 13-15 November 1990. USFWS Cooperative Research Units Center.
Washington, D.C. [B]
Benda, Lee and Lynne Rodgers Miller. 1991. Geomorphological watershed analysis: a
conceptual framework and review of techniques. Prepared for Timber, Fish and Wildlife.
TFW-SH10-91-001. Seattle, WA. [M]
B-l
-------
Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council and United States National Research
Council. 1986. Cumulative Environmental Effects: A Binational Perspective. Ministry of
Supply and Services. Canada. 175 pp. [B]
Childers, Daniel L. and James G. Gosselink. 1990. Assessment of cumulative impacts to
water quality in a forested wetland landscape. Journal of Environmental Quality 19:455-464.
[M]
Clarke, Sharon E., Denis White and Andrew L. Schaedel. Oregon Ecological Regions and
Subregions for Water Quality Management. U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory.
Corvallis, OR. [M]
Coats, Robert N. and Taylor O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on
watersheds: a hydrologic and regulatory dilemma. Environmental Management 5:147-160.
[B]
Coburn, John. 1989. Is cumulative watershed effects analysis coming of age? Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 44:267-270.
Cohrssen, John J. and Vincent T. Covello. 1989. Risk Analysis: A Guide to Principles and
Methods for Analyzing Health and Environmental Risks. United States Council on
Environmental Quality, Office of the President. NTIS. Springfield, Virginia. [B]
Craeger, Clayton S. and Joan P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina's Whole Basin Approach to
Water Quality Management: Program Description. Final report prepared for NC Division of
Environmental Management and U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation.
Western Aquatics, Inc. Durham, NC. [P]
Delong, Michael D. and Merlyn A. Brusven. 1991. Classification and spatial mapping of
riparian habitat with application toward management of streams impacted by nonpoint source
pollution. Environmental Management 15:565-571. [B]
Detenbeck, Naomi E., Philip W. DeVore, Gerald J. Nieme and Ann Lima. 1992. Recovery
of temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance: a review of case studies and
synthesis of theory. Environmental Management 16:33-53. [R]
B-2
-------
Dickert, Thomas G., and Andrea E. Tuttle. 1985. Cumulative impact assessment in
environmental planning: a coastal wetland watershed example. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 5:37-64. [M]
Dudley, Daniel R. 1991. A State Perspective on Biological Criteria in Regulation. In
Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA-440/5-91-
005. [B]
Duinker, Peter N. 1989. Ecological effects monitoring in environmental impact assessment:
what can it accomplish? Environmental Management 13:797-805. [B]
Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). 1992. McKenzie River Basin Integrated
Watershed Management Program: A Proposal for Planning and Study Funding. Eugene, OR.
[P]
Fairfax, Sally K. 1980. A brief, incomplete, and heuristic guide to thinking about legal and
institutional aspects of regulating cumulative effects of silvicultural practices on fragile
watersheds. Page 79-93 in Cumulative Effects of Forest Management on California
Watersheds: An Assessment of Status and Need for Information. Proceedings of The
Edgebrook Conference, Berkeley, CA. June 2-3, 1980. [B]
Frissell, Christopher A. 1991. Water quality, fisheries, and aquatic biodiversity under two
alternative forest management scenarios for the west-side deferral lands of Washington,
Oregon, and Northern California. A Report Prepared for the Wilderness Society. [B]
Frissell, Christopher A. 1992. Workshop on Large Basin Restoration: South Umpqua River.
Sept. 16-18, 1992. Workshop summary prepared for the Oregon Rivers Council, Eugene,
OR. [B]
Frissell, Christopher A., William J. Liss, Charles E. Warren and Michael D. Hurley. 1986.
A hierarchical framework for stream habitat classification: viewing streams in a watershed
context. Environmental Management 10:199-214. [C]
Frissell, Christopher A. and Richard K. Nawa. 1992. Incidence and causes of physical
failure of artificial habitat structures in streams of Western Oregon and Washington. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:182-197. [R]
B-3
-------
Gammon, J.R. 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 km of the Wabash River.
Technical Report No. 86. Water Resources Research Center, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN. [M]
Gosselink, James G., Gary P. Shaffer, Lyndon C. Lee, David M. Burdick, Daniel L.
Childers, Nancy C. Leibowitz, Susan C. Hamilton, Roel Boumans, Douglas Cushman, Sherri
Fields, Marguerite Koch, and Jenneke M. Visser. 1990. Landscape conservation in a forested
wetland watershed: Can we manage cumulative impacts? BioScience 40:540-551. [B]
Graham, R.L., C.T. Hunsaker, R.V. GTNeill, and B.L. Jackson. 1991. Ecological risk
assessment at the regional scale. Ecological Applications 1:196-206. [B]
Grant, Gordon E. and Fred Swanson. 1991. Cumulative effects of forest practices. Forest
Perspectives 1:9-11. [B]
Gregory, Stanley V., Frederick J. Swanson, W. Arthur McKee and Kenneth W. Cummins.
1991. An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41:540-551. [B]
Griffith, Glenn E. and James M. Omernik. 1991. Alabama/Mississippi project-geographical
research component: ecoregion/subregion delineation, reference site selection. Draft report.
EPA, ERLC, Corvallis, OR. [R]
Halbert, Cindy L. and Kai N. Lee. 1990. The Timber, Fish, and Wildlife Alternative
Dispute Resolution in Washington State. The Northwest Environmental Journal 6:139-185.
[P]
Hamilton, K. 1988. Cumulative impact assessment literature synthesis. EPA, Region 8.
Draft. [B]
Hamlett, J.M. and G.W. Peterson. 1992. GISs for nonpoint pollution ranking of watersheds.
Water Resources Update 87:21-25. [B]
Harr, R. Dennis. 1986. Myths and misconceptions about forest hydrologic systems and
cumulative effects. Presented at the California Watershed Management Conference,
November 1-20, 1986. West Sacramento, CA. [B]
B-4
-------
Harrison, John. 1992. Watershed down. Northwest Energy News ll(3):29-32. [P]
Harwell, Mark A., Christine C. Harwell and John R. Kelly. 1986. Regulatory endpoints,
ecological uncertainties, and environmental decision-making. Oceans 86 Proceedings 3:993-
998. Marine Technology Society, Washington, D.C. [C]
Haskins, Donald M. 1986. A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed
effects. Presented at the California Watershed Management Conference, November 18-20,
1986. West Sacramento, CA. [M]
Hawkins, C.P. 1992. Cumulative Watershed Effects: An Extensive Analysis of Responses
By Stream Biota to Watershed Management. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, CA. [R]
Heiskary, Steven A. and C. Bruce Wilson. 1989. The regional nature of lake water quality
across Minnesota: an analysis for improving resources management. Journal of the
Minnesota Academy of Science 55:71-77. [R]
Hohenstein, William G. 1987. Forestry and the Water Quality Act of 1987. Journal of
Forestry. May pp. 5-8. [P]
Holling, C.S., ed. 1987. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management.
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Alden Press, Oxford, London. [P]
Hughes, Robert M. and James R. Gammon. 1987. longitudinal changes in fish assemblages
and water quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 116:196-209. [R]
Hughes, Robert M., David P. Larsen and James M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference
sites: a method for assessing stream potentials. Environmental Management 10(5):629-635.
[C]
Hughes, Robert M. and James M. Omernik. 1981. Use and misuse of the terms watershed
and stream order. Pages 320-326 in Warm water Streams Symposium, American Fisheries
Society. [B]
B-5
-------
Hughes, Robert M., Eric Rexstad and Carl E. Bond. 1987. The relationship of aquatic
ecoregions, river basins and physiographic provinces to the ichthyogeographic regions of
Oregon. Copeia pp. 423-432. [R]
Hughes, Robert M., Thomas R. Whittier, Christina M. Rohm and David P. Larsen. 1990. A
regional framework for establishing recovery criteria. Environmental Management 14:673-
683. [C]
Irwin, Frances and Barbara Rodes. 1992. Making Decisions on Cumulative Environmental
Impacts: A Conceptual Framework. World Wildlife Fund. Washington, D.C. [P]
Johnson, K. Norman, Jerry F. Franklin, Jack Ward Thomas and John Gordon. 1991.
Alternatives for Management of Late-Successional Forests of the Pacific Northwest: A Report
to the Agricultural Committee and the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives. [P]
Karr, James R. 1987. Biological monitoring and environmental assessment: a conceptual
framework. Environmental Management 11:249-256. [C]
Karr, James R. 1991. Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource
management. Ecological Applications 1:66-84. [B]
Kelly, John R. and Mark A. Harwell. 1991. Indicators of ecosystem recovery.
Environmental Management 14:527-545. [C]
Kuehn, Michael H. and John Coburn. 1989. Summary Report for the 1988 Cumulative
Watershed Effects Analyses on the Eldorado National Forest. Eldorado National Forest, CA.
[M]
Lai, Ponchin. 1990. Feasibility of Geographic Information Systems approach for natural
resource management. Environmental Management 14:73-80. [B]
Landis, Wayne G. Biomonitoring: myth or miracle? pp. 17-35 in Pesticides in Natural
Systems: How Can Their Effects by Monitored? Proceedings of the Conference, held
December 11-12, 1990 in Corvallis, OR. EPA 910/9-91-011. U.S. EPA, Air Toxics
Division. Seattle, WA. [B]
B-6
-------
Larkin, P.A. 1984. A commentary on environmental impact assessment for large projects
affecting lakes and streams. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Science. 41:1121-1127.
[B]
Larsen, David P., Daniel R. Dudley and Robert M. Hughes. 1988. A regional approach for
assessing attainable surface water quality: An Ohio case study. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 43:171-176. [C]
Leopold, Luna B. 1980. The typology of impacts. Pp. 1-21 in Cumulative Effects of Forest
Management on California Watersheds: An Assessment of Status and Need for Information.
Proceedings of the Edgebrook Conference, Berkeley, CA. June 20-23, 1980. [B]
Li, Hiram W., Carl B. Schreck, Carl E. Bond and Eric Rexstad. 1987. Factors influencing
changes in fish assemblages of Pacific Northwest streams, pp. 193-202. In Community and
Evolutionary Ecology of North American Stream Fishes. William J. Matthews and David C.
Heins, editors. University of Oklahoma Press, OK. [R]
Likens, Gene E. and F. Herbert Bormann. 1974. Linkages between terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems. BioScience 24:447-456. [B]
MacDonald, Lee H. 1989. Cumulative watershed effects: The implications of scale.
Presented at the 1989 Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union. San Francisco, CA.
[C]
Meyer, Judy L., William H. McDowell, Thomas L. Bott, Jerry W. Elwood, Chanel Ishizaki,
John M. Melak, Barbara L. Peckarsky, Bruce J. Peterson and Parke A. Rublee. 1988.
Elemental dynamics in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:410-
432. [B]
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-
Solving. Committee on the Applications of Ecological Theory to Environmental Problems,
Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C. [B]
Nehlsen, Willa, Jack E. Williams and James A. Lichatbwich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the
crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho and Washington. Fisheries. 16:4-
21. [R]
B-7
-------
Odum, William E. 1982. Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions.
BioScience 32:723-729. [B]
Omernik, James M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77:118-125. [C]
Omemik, J.M., A.R. Abernathy and L.M. Male. 1981. Stream nutrient levels and proximity
of agricultural and forest land to streams: some relationships. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 36:227-231. [R]
Omernik, James M. and Glenn E. Griffith. 1991. Ecological regions versus hydrologic units:
frameworks for managing water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46:335-
340. [C]
Or shorn, John F. 1990. Quantitative modeling of the relationships among basin, channel and
habitat characteristics for classification and impact assessment. Prepared for the Ambient
Monitoring Committee: Timber, Fish and Wildlife Program. CMER Project 16D. [C]
Osbome, Lewis L. and Michael J. Wiley. 1988. Empirical relationships between land
use/cover and stream water quality in an agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental
Management 26:9-27. [R]
Phillips, Jonathan D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution risk assessment in a watershed
context. Environmental Management 13:493-502. [P]
Phillips, Jonathan D. 1991. Upstream pollution sources and coastal water quality protection
in North Carolina. Coastal Management 19:439-449. [R]
Pizor, Peter J. and Sandra M. Holler. 1987. Public participation in watershed management:
combining nominal group process and microcomputers. Water Resources Bulletin 23(5):889-
896. [P]
Plotnikoff, R.W. 1991. Unimpacted streams as referrents in ecoregion bioassessment. pp. 4-
12 MI Pesticides in Natural Systems: How Can Their Effects Be Monitored? Proceedings of
Conference, December 11-12, 1990, Corvallis, OR. EPA 910/9-91-011.
B-8
-------
Plotnikoff, Robert W. and Hank L. Dietrich. 1991. T/F/W Ecoregion Bioassessment Pilot
Project. Unpublished interim report. Environmental Investigations and Laboratory Services,
WA State Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. [C]
Rankin, Edward T. 1991. The use of the qualitative habitat evaluation index for use in
attainment studies in streams and rivers in Ohio. In Biological Criteria: Research and
Regulation. U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA-440/5-91-005. [M]
Risser, Paul G. 1988. General concepts for measuring cumulative impacts on wetland
ecosystems. Environmental Management 12:585-589. [B]
Savory, Alan. 1988. Holistic Resource Management. Island Press. Covelo, CA. [P]
Schindler, D.W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 44:6-25. [B]
Schloss, Alan J. 1991. Appendix 3-W: Analytical Methods. Bureau of Land Management,
Eugene, OR. [M]
Schlosser, Isaac J. 1991. Stream fish ecology: a landscape perspective. BioScience 41:704-
712. [B]
Sidle, Roy C. and Andrew N. Sharpley. 1991. Cumulative effects of land management on
soil and water resources: An overview. Journal of Environmental Quality 20:1-3. [B]
Sidle, R.C. 1990. Overview of cumulative effects, concepts, and issues. Pp. 103-107 in
Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, 1990 National Convention. Bethesda, MD.
[B]
Sierra Club, Oregon Trout and Oregon Rivers Council (joint statement). 1992 A Watershed
Restoration Program for Federal Lands. Press release, March 10, 1992. Portland, OR. [P]
Somers, David, Jeanette Smith and Robert Wissmar. 1991. Watershed and stream channel
cumulative effects analysis using aerial photography and ground survey data. Unpublished
interim report for WA Dept. of Natural Resources and Timber, Fish and Wildlife Ambient
Monitoring Steering Committee. [M]
B-9
-------
Stahkiv, Eugene Z. 1988. An evaluation paradigm for cumulative impact analysis.
Environmental Management 12:725-748. [B]
Suter, Glen W. H. 1990. Endpoints for regional ecological risk assessments. Environmental
Management 14:9-23. [C]
Tyus, Harold M. 1990. Effects of altered stream flows on fishery resources. Fisheries
15:18-20. [P]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Biological Criteria: Guide to Technical
Literature. Office of Science and Technology. Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-91-004. [B]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation.
Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-91-005. [B]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Biological Criteria: State of Development
and Implementation Efforts. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-91-003. [B]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions:
the TMDL Process. Office of Water, Washington, D.C. EPA 440/4-91-001. [M]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment.
EPA 630/R-92/001. [B]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Report on the Ecological Risk Assessment.
Guidelines Strategic Planning Workshop. EPA 630/R-92/002. [B]
U.S. Forest Service, Region 4. 1987. Implementing a fish-habitat relationship program
through GAWS (General Aquatic Wildlife System). The Habitat Express, No. 87-2. Ogden,
UT. [M]
U.S. Forest Service, Region 5. 1988. Chapter 20, FSH 2509.22. Cumulative Off-Site
Watershed Effects Analysis. [M]
B-10
-------
Walters, C. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan Publishing,
NY. [B]
Wenger, R.B. and Y. Rong. 1987. Two fuzzy set models for comprehensive environmental
decision making. Journal of Environmental Management 25:167-180. [M]
Wenger, Robert P., Yue Rong and H.J. Harris. 1990. A framework for incorporating stream
use in the determination of priority watersheds. Journal of Environmental Management
31:335-350. [M]
Westman, Walter E. Measuring the inertia and resilience of ecosystems. BioScience 28:705-
710. [C]
Whittier, Thomas P., Robert M. Hughes and David P. Larsen. 1988. Correspondence
between ecoregions and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Science 45:1264-1278. [R]
Whittier, T.R., David R. Larsen, Robert M. Hughes, Christina M. Rohm, Alisa L. Gallant
and James M. Omernik. 1987. The Ohio Stream Regionalization Project: A Compendium of
Results. EPA 600/3-87-025. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory. Corvallis, OR. [R]
Ziemer, R.R., J. Lewis, R.M. Rice and T.E. Lisle. 1991. Modeling the cumulative
watershed effects of forest management strategies. Journal of Environmental Quality 20:36-
42. [M]
B-ll
-------
Appendix C
LEGAL AND POLICY ANALYSIS FOR
INTEGRATED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT,
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS, AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF NON-POINT SOURCE CONTROLS
by
Professor Richard Hildreth, Mara Brown, Robert Shavelson,
with research assistance from Andrea Coffman and
manuscript assistance from Nancy Farmer
University of Oregon School of Law
Eugene, Oregon 97403-1221
(503) 346-3866
FAX: (503)346-1564
December 31, 1993
* The analyses and views presented in this report are the responsibility of the
co-authors and should not be attributed to the Oregon Water Resources Research
Institute, Oregon State University, University of Oregon, or State System of Higher
Education.
C-l
-------
BACKGROUND
This stand-alone appendix, prepared by Professor Hildreth and law students Mara Brown
and Robert Shavelson, reviews a number of legal and policy "handholds" for watershed
management. It includes investigation of the legal and policy bases for watershed approaches to
water quality management and the legal framework for cumulative impact analyses of activities in
watersheds
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Persons and Organizations Contacted
Tom Bedell, Oregon State University Rangeland Resources, Corvallis,
737-1618
Bob Doppelt, Oregon Rivers Council, Eugene, 345-0119
Deborah Evans, Public Works/Engineering, City of Eugene, 687-6839
Peter Green, Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee
Administrator, Oregon Legislature, Salem, 378-3640
Al Harkness, Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan, (208) 334-0210
Doug Heiken, Water Watch, Eugene
Ranei Nomiera, DEQ, Water Quality Division, Portland, 229-5256
Beth Patrino, WRD, Strategic Water Management Group Administrator, Salem,
378-3739
Greg Thorpe, Assistant Chief, Planning, Watershed/Water Quality Division,
North Carolina, Division of Environmental Management, (919) 733-7015
Ed Weber, Department of Agriculture, Salem
Jeff Weber, DLCD, Coastal Specialist, Portland, 731-4065
Kathi Wiederhold, Project Manager, McKenzie Watershed Program, Lane
Council of Governments, Eugene, 687-4430
Roger Wood, DEQ, Non-point Source Program Coordinator, Portland,
229-6893
Lisa Zavala, House Water Policy Administrator, Oregon Legislature, Salem
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C: TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS: A BASIC FEDERAL LEGAL REQUIREMENT 5
1.1. THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL MAGNA CART A 5
1.2. NEPA AS A PROCEDURAL MANDATE 6
1.3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND CONNECTED ACTIONS UNDER NEPA 8
1.3.1. Cumulative Impacts g
1.3.2. Connected Actions 9
1.4. CONCLUSION 10
2. WATERSHEDS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT 11
2.1. BACKGROUND 11
2.2. AN EARLY RECOGNITION OF NPS PROBLEMS: SECTION 208 12
2.3. THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987 AND SECTION 319 12
2.4. EPA's WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH 13
2.5. ALTERNATIVE NPS CONTROLS WITHIN THE CWA: TMDLs, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AND THE WATER QUALITY APPROACH 15
2.6. LmcATioN INVOLVING NPS POLLUTION 16
2.7. SECTION 404 WETLANDS REGULATION AND THE WATERSHED APPROACH 17
2.7.1. Wetlands Delineation 17
2.7.2. The Section 404 Permitting Process 18
2.7.3. The General Permit Program 21
2.7.4. Section 404 Statutory Exemptions 21
2.8. SECTION 401 AND THE STATE CERTIFICATION PROCESS _22
3. FEDERAL SOIL CONSERVATION LAW 22
4. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN OREGON AND SELECTED OTHER STATES 24
4.1. INTRODUCTION 24
4.2. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) 24
4.3. Son. CONSERVATION 25
4.4. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (DLCD) 26
4.5. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (ODFW) 27
4.6. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (WRD) 28
4.6.1. Basin Planning 28
4.6.2. Instream Water Rights 28
4.7. OREGON SCENIC WATERWAYS PROGRAM 29
4.8. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY 31
4.9. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 32
4.10. AGENCY COORDINATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT 33
4.10.1. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board 33
4.10.2. Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG) 34
4.10.3. Integrated Resource Management Approach for Watersheds 35
4.10.4. Watershed Management and Enhancement Program 35
4.11. INTEGRATED MCKENZIE WATERSHED PROGRAM 36
4.12. PROPOSED OREGON GRAZING PRACTICES ACT/WATERSHED INITIATIVE 38
4.13. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN OTHER STATES 38
C-3
-------
4.13.1. North Carolina Basimvide Approach to Water Quality Management 38
4.13.2. Washington Shellfish Protection Initiative . 39
4.13.3. Washington Timber/Fish/WildUfe Agreement 40
4.13.4. Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program 40
4.14. CONCLUSION 40
5. A NEW COASTAL NON-POINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM 41
5.1. INTRODUCTION . 41
5.2. LEGALIZATION OF NFS POLLUTION CONTROL 41
5.3. EPA AND NOAA GUIDANCE TO THE STATES 42
5.4. OREGON'S COASTAL NPS RESPONSE _^__ 43
5.5. TILLAMOOK BAY'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM 43
5.6. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS TO COMPLY wrra OREGON'S COASTAL NPS PROGRAM 44
5.7. A POLICY QUESTION FOR FURTHER EVALUATION: THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF COASTAL AND
INLAND SOURCES TO COASTAL POLLUTION 45
6. WATER LAW PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO A WATERSHED APPROACH AND CUMULATIVE
IMPACT ANALYSIS «
6.1. INTRODUCTION
46
6.2. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREMENTAL WATER LAW REFORM _ __^_ 48
6.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT APPLICATIONS RELEVANT TO WATERSHED WATER QUALITY _ 50
6.4. CONCLUSION _ _^____ _ — _ ^
7. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS AND
FEDERALLY REGULATED WATERS _ _ _ 53
7.1. INTRODUCTION _ ___ _ &
7.2. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT UNDER EXISTING FEDERAL LAND AND RESOURCE PRESERVATION STATUTES _ 53
7.2.7. The National Park System _ _ _ 53
7.2.2. The Wilderness Act of 1964 _ __ _ -55
7.2. 3. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 _ __ _ __ 55
7.2.4. Watershed Protection Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 _ _ 57
7.3. WATERSHED PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STATUTES _ 57
7. 3.1. The Multiple-Use, Sustained field Act of 1960 _ _ _ _ _ 57
7.3.2. The National Forest Sendee _ _ _ 57
7. 3. 3. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) _ __ _ __ 59
7. 3.4. Water Impoundments Under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission _ 60
8. SUMMARY _ __ _ **
REFERENCES
C-4
-------
1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS: A BASIC FEDERAL
LEGAL REQUIREMENT
1.1. THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENTAL MAGNA CART A
Spurred by the public's growing distrust of government in the midst of the Vietnam
War, and against a backdrop of oil-soaked birds and tainted shorelines caused by the infamous
Santa Barbara oil spill, Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.. in 1970 to "promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to
the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man." NEPA has been
called the nation's "environmental Magna Carta," and for good reason: the act marked a
radical shift in U.S. environmental policy by committing the entire federal bureaucracy to
maintaining environmental quality and by opening federal agency decision-making processes
to public and judicial scrutiny (Blumm in Symposium 1990).
A literal reading of the act, coupled with a review of the act's legislative history,
suggests that NEPA holds promise as a vehicle for watershed protection. In declaring national
environmental policy under section 101, Congress recognized "the profound impact of man's
activities on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment," and declared
"that it is the continuing obligation of the Federal Government...to use all practicable
means...to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive
harmony."
To achieve the directives set forth in section 101, Congress created various "action
forcing" provisions in section 102 to ensure compliance with NEPA's broad environmental
mandates. Significantly, Congress stated that "to the fullest extent possible...the policies,
regulations and public laws of the United States shall be interpreted and administered in
accordance" with NEPA's general intents and purposes. Among section 102's most important
directives is the requirement that federal agencies:
Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and
other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, a detailed statement ...on — (i) the environmental impact of the
proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action,
(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and
the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any
irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be
involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
Agencies often prepare preliminary environmental assessments (EAs) to determine
whether "a major federal action" will "significantly [affect]...the quality of the human
environment." If so, then the agency must compile a more comprehensive environmental
impact statement (EIS), complete with a review of cumulative impacts expected to flow from
the proposed action, Oregon Natural Resources Council V. Marsh. 832 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir.
C-5
-------
1987). If the EA determines that the proposed action will not significantly affect the quality of
the human environment, then the agency can make a finding of no significant impact (FONSI),
and proceed with the activity. Additionally, the regulations require agencies to prepare a
Record of Decision (ROD) identifying all alternatives considered in reaching a decision and
specifying the environmentally preferable alternative.
State legislatures in Washington, California, and several other states have enacted laws
("little NEPAs") patterned after the federal NEPA. These statutes require state and local
agencies to assess the environmental impacts of their decisions affecting the environment
including land use development approvals. To date those laws do not appear to have played a
significant role in protecting watershed water quality. See, for example. J,C. Martinez v, City
of San Diego. 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 753 (Cal. App. 1992); Concerned Land Owners of Union Hill
v. King County. 827 P.2d 1017 (1992).
Hundreds of law review articles and several books have been devoted to the theoretical
and practical implications of NEPA implementation, and many battles have been fought in the
courts over the various nuances of NEPA's purpose, scope and effect. However, this section
will be limited to a discussion of judicial interpretation of NEPA's cumulative impacts
directives as they relate to watershed protection. Yet before reviewing the cumulative impacts
case law, it is important to understand how the courts generally perceive NEPA's mandates in
a modem context.
1.2. NEPA AS A PROCEDURAL MANDATE
A plain reading of NEPA's statutory mandates suggests that Congress sought to impose
substantive requirements on agency decision-making, and the legislative history preceding
NEPA's enactment appears to support this position. For example, in response to what would
eventually become NEPA's "action forcing" provisions in section 102, a Senate Report stated
that "if [the] goals and principles [of the Act] are to be effective, they must be capable of
being applied in action...[and the general policy directives of section 101] can be implemented
if they are incorporated into the ongoing activities of the Federal Government [as required by
section 102]" (Yost in Symposium 1990). Arguably, Congress intended that NEPA's broad
policy mandates should be directly incorporated into agency decision-making, and that such
decision-making should be subject to public and judicial scrutiny.
In an early leading case, Judge Skelly Wright appeared to support this congressional
intent when he wrote that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) "seems to believe that the
mere drafting and filing of papers is enough to satisfy NEPA" Calvert Cliffs Coordinating
Comm.. Inc. v. Atomic Energy Comm'n. 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971). Yet even then,
Judge Wright's opinion castigating the AEC's regulations under NEPA contained language
suggesting that NEPA was, at its core, a procedural mandate: "[t]he reviewing courts probably
cannot reverse a substantive decision on tile merits, under Section 101, unless it is shown that
the actual balance of costs and benefits that was struck was arbitrary or clearly gave
insufficient weight to environmental values."
Subsequent decisions have expanded on the procedural nature of NEPA. In Kleppev.
Sierra Club. 427 U.S. 390 (1976), the Supreme Court interpreted section 102 so as to "assure
C-6
-------
consideration" of environmental impacts by the agencies, and adopted a lower court's decision
requiring that agencies need only take a "hard look" at environmental issues. Two years later,
the Court declared that agency decision-making cannot be judicially overturned unless it is
found to be "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act. Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. 435 U.S. 519 (1978).
Although the arbitrary and capricious standard for reviewing agency decisions appears
to preserve the possibility of substantive review under NEPA (Yost in Symposium 1990), the
Court has relied on Vermont Yankee for the proposition that "once an agency has made a
decision subject to NEPA's procedural requirements, the only role for the court is to ensure
that the agency has considered the environmental consequences." Strycker's Bay
Neighborhood Council. Inc. v. Karlen. 444 U.S. 223 (1980).
This emphasis on NEPA's procedural nature — along with the concurrent minimization
of NEPA's substantive requirements — has found further support in a recent Supreme Court
decision, Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council. 490 U.S. 332 (1989). There, the
Court summarized the current judicial perspective on NEPA's mandates when it said that
"[t]he sweeping policy goals announced in section 101...are thus realized through a set of
"action forcing" procedures [in section 102] that require agencies to take a "hard look" at
environmental consequences and that provide for broad dissemination of relevant
environmental information." The Court went on to say that "NEPA merely prohibits
uninformed — rather than unwise — agency action," and that NEPA relies on "procedural
mechanisms" rather than "substantive result-based standards" to achieve its ends.
Thus, past and recent judicial opinions have relegated NEPA to what appears to be a
purely procedural role, and the implications of this perspective for watershed protection are
far-reaching: although a court may require an agency to consider impacts to watershed values
when considering whether to move forward on a project, the courts will not substitute their
judgment for the technical expertise of the agencies. In other words, if an agency determines
that a project will cause adverse impacts to a watershed, yet still opts to proceed, the courts
generally will defer to the agency's decision on the substantive merits of the proposed action if
the agency compiles a sufficiently thorough EA or EIS.
As a result, NEPA stands apart from other environmental federal statutes: it does not
attempt to designate any specific resource for heightened protection, as do the Wild and Scenic
Rivers and the Endangered Species Acts, nor does its judicial interpretation provide a basis for
substantive review of federal land management policymaking, as do the Multiple-Use,
Sustained-Yield Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and the National Forest
Management Act. Instead, NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the environmental
implications of a proposed action, and in so doing, acts as an umbrella statute by forcing
agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions on federal lands as well as
private actions subject to federal regulatory control under the Clean Water Act and other
federal environmental laws, while also opening up the scope of these considerations to public
and judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, after over twenty years, NEPA remains one of the more
powerful levers in the federal statutory arsenal to enjoin activities which have received
inadequate agency consideration regarding their environmental effects.
C-7
-------
1.3. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND CONNECTED ACTIONS UNDER NEPA
1.3.1. Cumulative Impacts
Judicial discussion of cumulative environmental impacts has been limited almost
exclusively to NEPA caselaw. Although the Court in United States v. Alaska. 1992 U.S.
LEXIS 2548, recently held that the Army Corps of Engineers may consider cumulative
impacts when issuing permits under the Rivers and Harbors Act even if not expressly required
to do so by statute, NEPA remains the primary vehicle for cumulative impacts analysis by the
courts.
The CEQ's regulations under NEPA define cumulative impacts as:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of
the action when added to other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person
undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40
C.F.R. 1508.7).
Additionally, the regulations require that "cumulative actions," which are defined as
actions "which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively significant
effects," be considered together in a single EIS (40 C.F.R. 1500.25).
Early in NEPA's history, the CEQ promulgated guidance which emphasized the
importance of determining cumulative impacts when deciding whether a "major Federal action
significantly [affects]...the quality of the human environment" (Thatcher in Symposium).
Importantly, the regulations require agencies to assess and consider cumulative impacts not
only from other federal activities, but also from non-federal and private ones. In Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Callaway. 524 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1975), the court held that the
Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA in its proposal to dump dredged spoils off
Connecticut on the grounds that the agency had failed to consider the cumulative impacts of
other private and non-federal plans to dump spoils in that same area. Significantly, the court
refused to allow the Corps to isolate the impacts of its dumping plan from the impacts of other
dumping plans in the same geographical area.
In Sierra Club v. Kleppe. 427 U.S.390 (1976), the Supreme Court provided an opinion
which "has bedeviled agencies, courts, and litigants trying to apply NEPA's cumulative impact
obligation" (Thatcher in Symposium). There, the Department of the Interior (DOI) had
prepared an EIS for coal leasing and mining in the Montana-Wyoming Powder River Coal
Basin. The Sierra Club argued that DOI's proposed actions necessitated an EIS for the larger,
coal rich Northern Great Plains region, since the foreseeable development of that larger region
would necessarily affect cumulative impact analysis in the Powder River EIS. The lower
court, while recognizing that NEPA only required EISs for "proposals" for major federal
actions, nonetheless held that DOI should compile an EIS for the larger region.
The Supreme Court struck down the lower court's ruling, holding that an EIS is only
required for concrete "proposals" of major federal actions. In interpreting the CEQ
C-8
-------
regulations then in effect, the Court ruled that only actions actually proposed, and not those
merely "contemplated," need be considered within the scope of cumulative impacts analysis.
Essentially, the Court gave substantial deference to DOI's determinations regarding the regions
and ranges of proposals to be encompassed by an EIS. As Terence Thatcher noted "[b]y
allowing the cumulative impacts of contemplated actions to be evaluated later, the Court
seemed to endorse the kind of piece-meal analysis that Congress earlier criticized."
In a subsequent case, the court in Fritiofson v. Alexander. 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir.
1985), held that the Army Corps need not consider the reasonably foreseeable development of
sensitive wetland areas on West Galveston Island in Texas when issuing a permit to develop a
single tract of land. Although the tone of the opinion suggests that the court was sensitive to
the broad mandates enunciated in the CEQ regulations, the Court's reliance on Kleppe
produced a ruling focusing again on concrete proposals.
As a result of the above opinions, much confusion exists over whether an agency has
formally proposed an action. According to the CEQ regulations, a proposal exists "at the
stage in the development of an action when an agency...has a goal and is actively preparing to
make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects
can be meaningfully evaluated" (40 C.F.R. 1508.23). Although some courts have gone
beyond Kleppe to expand the definition of a proposal, see e.g.. National Wildlife Service v.
U.S. Forest Service. 592 F. Supp. 931 (D. Or. 1984), vacated on other grounds. 801 F.2d
360 (9th Cir. 1986) (requiring a single EIS for a timber sale plan covering 75 individual
sales), one basic rule apparently flows from the above cases: if a court finds a proposal, it will
require that all its parts be assessed in one EIS (Thatcher in Symposium). However, if a court
rules that a proposal does not exist, an EIS may still be required under the concept of
"connected actions."
1.3.2. Connected Actions
Under the CEQ regulations, "connected actions" are actions which are "closely related
and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement" (40 C.F.R. 1500.25).
Actions are deemed "connected" if they: 1) automatically trigger other actions which may
require environmental impact statements; 2) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are
taken previously or simultaneously; or 3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification.
In Thomas v. Peterson. 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985), the court considered a Forest
Service EA which found no significant impacts would arise from the construction of a forest
road. Plaintiffs argued that the Forest Service had failed to adequately consider, among other
things, the adverse effects on water quality which would result from the timber cutting that
naturally would follow the road construction. The court agreed that the road construction and
the timber harvesting were connected actions under the CEQ regulations — despite the fact that
no formal proposal had been made to cut trees — and ordered the Forest Service to consider
both actions together in its supplemental EA.
C-9
-------
1.4. CONCLUSION
Cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA may have important ramifications for
watershed protection, since it requires agencies to assess and consider a broad range of actual
and potential environmental effects expected to flow from agency decisions. Admittedly,
judicial interpretation of cumulative impacts analyses has focused more on whether such
analyses are required, and not so much on their substantive accuracy. Nonetheless, the fact
that agencies must engage in such studies is important — if for no other reason than the effects
such a requirement can have on an agency's ultimate decisions.
Judicial scrutiny of cumulative impacts on watershed values has been limited.
However, encouragement can be found in Sierra Club v. Penfold. 857 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir.
1988), which upheld a lower court's injunction on placer mining in the Birch Creek, Beaver
Creek, Fortymile River and Minto Flats watersheds in Alaska until the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) adequately completed cumulative impacts assessments for the areas.
While the court acknowledged that the injunction could be lifted upon the completion of
adequate impact studies, the case illustrates that watershed protection can be achieved—or at
least better understood — under NEPA cumulative analysis review.
Another interesting point can be gleaned from Sierra Club. In arguing for a more
comprehensive cumulative impacts assessment, plaintiffs pointed to the inevitable effects
mining would have on Native American subsistence rights in one of the watersheds. This
focus on a "target resource"— whether it be a wildlife species, a watershed or a recreational
use — may hold particular promise for influencing courts during their consideration of
cumulative impacts analyses (Thatcher in Symposium). For example, in Natural Resource;
Defense Council v. Hodel. 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988) the plaintiffs focused on the
cumulative impacts on whales and salmon which would flow from the Mineral Management
Service's (MMS) proposal to explore and drill for oil in the Pacific Ocean. By focusing on
target species whose migratory patterns would bring them into contact with activities ranging
from Alaska to southern California, the plaintiffs were able to persuade the court that the
MMS's EIS was legally deficient. As illustrated by Sierra Club, such resource target-specific
strategies can work for watershed protection, whether arguments are based on watershed
values as a whole, or on particular sub-watershed classifications, such as water quality, soil
retention or species diversity.
Finally, it is important to remember that courts today construe NEPA as primarily a
procedural statutory directive: although a court may force an agency to consider various
environmental impacts related to a proposed action, the courts are reluctant to question the
agencies" technical expertise. While there is a fine line between a court's determining the
legal adequacy of an EIS and actually replacing an agency's substantive decisionmaking
policies, the fact remains under NEPA that agencies can proceed with their proposals if they
show they've considered all practical impacts and alternatives of a proposed action.
C-10
-------
2. WATERSHEDS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT
2.1. BACKGROUND
The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal vehicle for protecting water quality
in the United States. Since its creation in 1972, the CWA has focused primarily on controlling
point sources of pollution to achieve its goals of zero pollution discharge and fishable and
swimmable waters. Under the CWA, point sources are defined as "any discernible, confined
and discrete conveyance, including...any pipe, ditch [or] channel..., from which pollutants are
or may be discharged" 33 U.S.C. 1362(14). Because point sources are easily identified and
are amenable to end-of-pipe waste treatment controls, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the states have been reasonably successful in regulating point source pollution.
However, as the control of point source discharges has improved, it has become
increasingly clear that effective controls on non-point sources (NPS) are necessary to fulfill
the CWA's lofty mandates. In 1987, EPA reported that of the total polluted surface waters in
the United States, NPS were responsible for 76% of lake pollution, 65% of stream pollution,
and 45% of estuary pollution (EPA 1987), and today, between 30-50% of the Nation's waters
fail to meet applicable water quality standards. (ORC Draft 1992). In Oregon, NPS pollution
from urban run-off and agricultural and silvicultural activities is responsible for approximately
60-70% of the state's water pollution (Fentress 1989).
To understand why, after twenty years under the CWA, NPS pollution continues to
plague our nation's waters, it is helpful to look at how water quality regulation has evolved in
the U.S. Prior to 1972, Congress relied primarily on a water quality based approach to
regulate pollution discharges. Under that approach, ambient water quality standards were to
be established within receiving waters, at levels which would protect certain uses of the
waterbody — for example, fishing, swimming or industrial use. Thus, the water quality
approach allowed dischargers to pollute to the extent that water quality standards were not
violated and designated uses of the waterbody were not disrupted.
However, establishing water quality standards for all of the Nation's navigable waters
proved overly burdensome due to a lack of resources, incentives, technical information and
understanding. In 1972, Congress recognized the need for greater water pollution controls,
and responded by shifting the regulatory emphasis of pollution control from the ambient water
quality approach to a technology-based, effluent limitations approach. Under the CWA's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), EPA received authority to issue
discharge permits containing effluent limitations for specific pollutants. Simply put, effluent
limitations define the amount of pollution allowed under a permit based on available treatment
technologies. Importantly, no one may discharge a pollutant from a point source without a
permit.
Yet despite Congress' shift to a technology-based approach, it recognized the merits of
a water quality approach, and retained the latter's objectives to create a two-tiered regulatory
structure. In short, if a discharger abides by his permit limitations, and yet the receiving water
C-ll
-------
is still violating its water quality standard, then EPA, the states or even citizens can move to
have the discharger's permit modified to protect the water quality.
This dual regulatory approach is particularly important with respect to NFS pollution.
Because the CWA's enforceable effluent limitations apply only to point sources, NFS
discharges typically escape regulation under the CWA. However, because water quality is still
a primary objective of the CWA, approaching the NFS problem from a water quality angle
appears to be the best if not only way to control NFS pollution under federal law. While EPA
and the states still face the same daunting task of calculating and implementing water quality
based controls that hindered the pre-1972 water quality approach, increased information,
understanding and resources are paving the way for effective water quality based management
of NFS.
2.2. AN EARLY RECOGNITION OF NFS PROBLEMS: SECTION 208
Despite the heightened attention NFS pollution receives today, NFS problems are not
new. Twenty years ago, Congress illustrated its concern with NFS pollution in section 208 of
the CWA, codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 1288, by asking states to prepare
comprehensive, areawide waste treatment management plans. The plans were to include
measures for identifying NFS pollution from a variety of sources, and methods and procedures
— including land use controls —t o abate NFS pollution. These plans were to be developed
with the help of EPA NFS guidance, required under CWA section 304(f). Importantly, the
plans were to be developed on an "areawide" basis, leading many states to consider NFS
problems on a watershed level.
Yet while section 208 was an important step in getting states to recognize their NFS
responsibilities, the program has been criticized, most notably for its lack of enforcement
power. Although EPA has authority under the CWA to impose civil and criminal penalties for
point source violations, EPA doesn't possess the authority to compel states to submit section
208 plans.
2.3. THE WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1987 AND SECTION 319
Congress responded to section 208's shortcomings in the Water Quality Act (WQA) of
1987 by adding a new goal to the CWA's national policy provisions:
[I]t is the national policy that programs for the control of non-point sources
of pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to
enable the goals of [the CWA] to be met through the control of both point and
non-point sources of pollution.
The WQA also created a new section 319 in the CWA, which required states to prepare
assessment reports to identify areas with NFS problems, to enumerate the categories of NFS
pollution, to list the processes by which states would identify the best management practices
(BMPs) needed to control NFS pollution, and to discuss the state and local programs available
or necessary to improve water quality through NFS controls. Section 319 also required states
to develop management programs to document how and when states would address their NFS
C-12
-------
problems. To facilitate state efforts to develop the reports and plans, section 319 provided
states with various financial incentives, and EPA issued a national NFS guidance document
(EPA 1987). As a result, all states currently have approved NPS assessment reports, and most
have approved management programs. Under CWA §518, several Native American tribes
have prepared or are currently preparing §319 reports and programs for reservation lands.
Yet despite the existence of approved state and tribal NPS reports and programs, the
lack of EPA authority to enforce section 319 goals has led some to criticize the program as
simply an extension of section 208 (Pedersen 1988). Because NPS controls typically require
modifications in land uses, many believe that sections 208 and 319 are ineffective because
Congress is wary about intruding into areas of law — such as land use planning — which are
typically reserved for states and localities. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell illustrated
this congressional deference during debates on the WQA, when he said that section 319 "does
not provide for Federal intervention in State and Local planning decisions," that it does not
"direct" states to adopt enforceable NPS regulatory programs, and that "[i]f a State decides it
does not want a program to control non-point source pollution, that is it" (133 Cong. Rec. S.
1698 (daily ed. Feb. 4, 1987)).
Nonetheless, the WQA Amendments do provide some notable advancements for NPS
controls. Significantly, section 319 contains a federal consistency provision similar to that
found in the Coastal Zone Management Act, which requires states to review federal financial
assistance and development programs to ensure that they comply with state NPS management
programs. Additionally, section 319 emphasizes ground water protection in the identification
of BMPs, and provides additional funding for ground water management.
Importantly, section 319 focuses on a holistic approach to NPS management, by
requiring states to develop NPS controls on a watershed by watershed basis. Although EPA
has yet to promulgate regulations under section 319, and the legislative history surrounding
section 319 is virtually silent on the watershed NPS approach, EPA now has committed
resources toward promoting a holistic, Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) to control NPS
pollution (EPA 1991; EPA News-Notes #21, 1992). This watershed approach may be
incorporated into state water quality management plans to facilitate a more coordinated
management scheme for addressing both point and non-point sources. Many states and
affected interest groups have responded to EPA's watershed agenda, and rapid advancements
in water quality understanding and management — on a watershed basis — are forcing new
strategies that will shape water pollution control into the next century.
2.4. EPA's WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
In October 1991, EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds released a
finalized document entitled "The Watershed Approach (WPA) Framework Document" (EPA
199Ib). The document positively reflects EPA's expanding commitment to address water
quality problems in a comprehensive, holistic fashion, and with sufficient resources and
coordination, the WPA could play an important role in protecting watershed values.
C-13
-------
The WPA recognizes that past and current efforts focusing on water quality have fallen
short for several reasons, including failing to address overall ecological and habitat health,
neglecting to consider cumulative impacts from different types and sources of pollution, and
not taking the opportunity to involve all levels of government in cooperative decision-making.
In response to these and other recognized short-comings, the WPA establishes three
central goals. The primary goal is to reorient EPA and other federal, state and local programs
to address watershed protection in a holistic manner. This goal would encourage state and
local governments to establish and meet specific point and non-point source goals in target
watersheds based on human health and ecological risk assessments.
The WPA's second goal would complement the first, with EPA promoting watershed
coordination efforts among the various levels of government involved. This would involve
developing and sharing technical resources, fostering the integration of federal, state and local
management schemes, and providing support for local governments.
The third goal summarizes the direction of the WPA, and states that it will empower all
levels of government to implement watershed-specific management plans; encourage
consideration of cumulative chemical, biological and physical effects throughout the
watershed; enhance coordination among interested parties; and enable states and EPA to assess
progress by developing finite goals and milestones.
EPA will attempt to realize these goals by embarking on a two-pronged implementation
approach. In the short term, EPA will manage regional watershed projects in areas where
risk-based targeting suggests the strongest need. These watershed protection projects (WPP)
form the core of EPA's WPA, and involve a broad array of information gathering and
dissemination, multi-program integration, ecological and health assessment and coordinated
program implementation within specific watersheds. Importantly, each WPP will contain
distinct schedules for implementation, which will prove valuable in gauging the overall
success/failure of each WPP. Additionally, within each WPP, EPA will assign a "champion"
to coordinate and execute all levels of information gathering, planning and implementation for
EPA in that watershed.
In the long term, EPA will attempt to effect institutional changes among the various
layers of involved governments by enhancing statewide assessment and geographic targeting
programs; focusing relevant agency attentions on targeted watersheds; involving public
participation in developing comprehensive watershed plans; and working with the appropriate
groups to develop continuing educational programs. A fundamental step in implementation
will occur when EPA Regional Offices submit to EPA Headquarters their "comprehensive
Regional Framework[s] for Action." These documents should give the Regional Coordinators
firm footing to move forward on their WPPs for targeted watersheds.
Despite the inherent technical, logistical and legal difficulties in attacking water quality
problems at the watershed level, EPA appears firmly committed to meeting the task head-on.
With sufficient funding and continued commitment, the WPA could prove to be an effective
program for protecting watersheds. However, while EPA coordination and technical support
are essential to the success of any integrated watershed approach, the fact remains that without
mandatory programs aimed at controlling imprudent land management patterns and their
C-14
-------
resulting NFS run-off, a watershed approach will almost certainly fail to effectively attain and
preserve water quality within a basin.
Thus, in the course of the WPA implementation, EPA should make every effort to
persuade state and local governments of the importance of installing regulatory programs
aimed at combating NFS pollution. These programs could come in various forms, ranging
from a straight mandatory regulatory approach, to an incentive/disincentive approach aimed at
individual landowners or specific categories of land uses, to a polluter-pays tax. Admittedly,
such efforts will be met with opposition, but without them, the potential benefits of a
watershed approach could fall prey to the same indifference and noncompliance which have
plagued the EPA's current voluntary compliance/cooperative management non-point source
agenda.
2.5. ALTERNATIVE NFS CONTROLS WITHIN THE CWA: TMDLs, WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS AND THE WATER QUALITY APPROACH
The CWA gives the states primary authority to set water quality standards "to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." While
the standard setting process is quite complex, the general purpose of these standards is to
protect the range of uses which have been designated to a waterbody — for example,
protection of fish and aquatic life, protection of public drinking water supplies, etc.
Water quality standards form the primary legal authority for controlling NFS pollution.
Unlike point sources, which are subject to mandatory effluent limitations that are technology-
based, controls on NFS pollution (such as BMPs) are not mandatory under the CWA, and thus
NFS controls must be based on the CWA mandate to meet water quality standards. This
reliance on the water quality approach to address NFS pollution under the CWA will continue
unless Congress or the states require certain mandatory controls on NFS sources.
Yet while the water quality approach appears sound in theory, in practice it is quite
difficult to implement. Under the CWA, states must identify all waters for which technology-
based effluent controls on point sources are not enough to ensure compliance with water
quality standards. Then, states must calculate a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each
waterbody failing to meet its water quality standards.
To understand the TMDL process, it is necessary to know a few basic terms and
concepts: "Loading Capacity" is the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can receive
without violating its water quality standard for that pollutant; "Waste Load Allocation" (WLA)
is the portion of the loading capacity to be allocated to point sources; and "Load Allocation"
(LA) is the portion of the loading capacity to be allocated to non-point and background
sources. Because the TMDL is the maximum daily amount of a pollutant which can be
discharged without exceeding a waterbody's loading capacity with a factor of safety, the
TMDL is equal to the sum of all WLAs and LAs. In other words, NFS pollutants plus
background pollutants (LAs), plus point source pollutants (WLAs), can never exceed the
receiving water's TMDL (Thompson 1989).
There are practical and logistical problems with establishing water quality standards and
TMDLs. For example, if a specific stream segment is violating its water quality standard for
C-15
-------
bacteria, the state must determine how much bacteria the stream can naturally assimilate before
it exceeds the standard (Loading Capacity), then it must attempt to locate all point and non-
point sources of bacteria that affect the stream (typically all sources within the watershed) and
allocate limitations on the amount of bacteria they individually may discharge without violating
the TMDL (WLAs plus LAs). As a result of financial and technical restrictions, few states
have water quality standards for traditional NFS pollutants — such as pesticides and nutrients
— and even fewer have attempted to calculate TMDLs for NFS pollutants. One notable
exception is Oregon, where the state entered a consent decree on June 3, 1987 to calculate
TMDLs for phosphorus and ammonia for the Tualatin and ten other Oregon rivers.
Significantly, EPA has made a strong commitment toward helping states establish TMDLs
(EPA News-Notes #21, 1992), and as monitoring information and implementation programs
improve, the importance of TMDLs in regulating NPS will continue to grow.
Another potentially important section of the CWA regarding NPS and water quality
involves EPA's "antidegradation" policy, under which states must act to ensure that all
"existing instream uses" must be "maintained and protected." (40 C.F.R. 130.12). This
policy requires states to ensure that both point and non-point discharges will not degrade the
uses of a waterbody below the levels for which it was designated — for example, if a river has
a designated use of fishing, the state must ensure that use is preserved by limiting discharges.
Unfortunately, EPA has only recently begun to focus on its antidegradation policy, and states
have been slow in responding. (ORC Draft 1992).
2.6. LITIGATION INVOLVING NPS POLLUTION
Few courts have been presented with the issue of enforcing water quality standards
against NPS discharges. In Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n v. Peterson. 565 F.
Supp. 586 (N.D.Cal. 1983), affd in relevant part. 795 F.2d 688 (9th Cir. 1986), the court
ruled that timber harvesting in the Chimney Rock section of the Six Rivers National Forest in
California would violate the CWA by exceeding the turbidity and suspended solids water
quality standards established by the state.
However, subsequent decisions by the same court illustrate that this area of law is not
particularly well settled. In Oregon Natural Resources Council v. U.S. Forest Service 834
F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1987), the court refused to enforce water quality standards against a
proposed logging operation, stating that "it is not the water quality standards themselves that
are enforceable [under the CWA], but it is the "limitations necessary to meet" those
standards" which are enforceable. Thus, because the CWA does not contain any mandatory,
technology-based standards on non-point sources — BMPs are strictly discretionary under
sections 208 and 319 — the court effectively ruled that citizens could not enforce the CWA to
prevent NPS discharges which caused violations of water quality standards.
Yet while the ONRC v. USFS decision appears to be a substantial setback to groups
attempting to preserve water quality from NPS discharges under the CWA, the decision in
Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Lvne. 882 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1989) contains language
which suggests that NPS dischargers can be found in violation of state water quality standards.
The appeals court refused to overturn the lower court's determination that a proposed timber
sale in the Hell's Canyon National Recreation Area would not violate Oregon water quality
C-16
-------
standards. The issue wasn't whether a NFS discharge could be found to violate a water quality
standard, but whether the ONRC had supplied enough proof to show that a violation would
actually occur. Importantly, the court did not reject outright ONRC's argument that NFS
discharges from timber operations could violate water quality standards, but instead focused on
whether ONRC had proved that the violations would in fact occur. The court said a[p]roper
implementation of state-approved BMPs will constitute compliance with the CWA unless
water quality monitoring reveals that the BMPs have permitted violation of...water quality
standards." Because the requisite proof was lacking, the court allowed the sale, but the tone
of the opinion suggests that NFS dischargers can be held accountable under the CWA for
violations of water quality standards. Despite the ambiguity of the above decisions, water
quality enforcement appears to be the best avenue for legally controlling NFS discharges,
particularly on federal lands as discussed further below.
2.7. SECTION 404 WETLANDS REGULATION AND THE WATERSHED APPROACH
Wetlands serve a variety of important functions in maintaining, preserving, and
controlling water quality and quantity, and as a result, play an important role in protecting
watershed values. Wetlands provide habitat for a variety of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
improve water quality and combat sedimentation by acting as natural filtration systems,
recharge groundwater supplies through natural percolation, act as storm buffers and flood
controls for vulnerable upland areas, and provide numerous recreational, aesthetic, and
scientific values.
Yet despite the important roles wetlands play, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
estimates that at least 53% of the wetlands in the lower 48 states have been destroyed within
the last 200 years (Dahl 1990). And despite the presence of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1344, and other wetland protection statutes (for exampleT the Estuarine
Areas Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act,
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and the swampbuster and other provisions in the 1985
and 1990 Farm Bills), current estimates for wetlands losses range from 200,000 to 500,000
acres per year (Dahl 1990).
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a permit system to regulate the dredging and filling
of the Nation's navigable waters. Several important court decisions, including Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Galloway. 392 F. Supp. 685 (D.D.C. 1975), and United States
v. Riverside Bayview Homes. 474 U.S. 121 (1985), expanded the federal government's
jurisdiction over navigable waters as including fresh and saltwater wetlands, mudflats, sloughs,
and other traditionally non-navigable areas. As a result, section 404 is the primary wetlands
protection law in the United States. Unfortunately, as the wetlands figures above suggest,
section 404 and related statutes have been less than perfect in protecting and managing the
nation's wetlands.
2.7.1. Wetlands Delineation
Defining exactly what constitutes a wetland has been a source of heated political and
scientific controversy, particularly since President Bush's 1988 campaign promise of "No Net
Loss to Wetlands." Prior to 1989, the four federal agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands —
C-17
-------
the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) —each had their own
definitions and methods for delineating wetlands. However, after ten years of interagency
negotiation and cooperation, the agencies jointly adopted the Federal Manual for Identifying
and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands in January 1989. The 1989 Manual attempts to
standardize the delineation of wetlands in the field by establishing three criteria for designating
wetlands areas — hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetlands hydrology (Zinn &
Copeland 1991).
While the 1989 Manual represented a compromise between conservative COE wetlands
definition and a more liberal FWS definition, it came under immediate attack from real estate,
agriculture, mineral, and oil and gas interests because it greatly expanded the COE's
jurisdiction over wetlands from about 100 million acres to over 200 million acres in the
continental U.S. (Corday 1991). As a result of the intense political pressure surrounding the
1989 Manual, EPA published a proposal for a new manual in August 1991 (56 Fed. Reg.
40,446 (1991), which sought to reduce the COE's 1989 wetlands jurisdiction by up to 50%.
While EPA's proposal may have appeased some of the industry interests which had
lobbied for change, it stirred a frenzy of lobbying by environmental groups and prompted
numerous hearings on Capitol Hill regarding wetlands science, functions, and values. In fact,
many have fingered section 404 wetlands delineation as a primary factor in thwarting
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act during the last Congress. However, the most
mischievous blow came on August 17, 1991, when the House of Representatives passed an
appropriations bill (HR 2427; Pub. L. No. 102-104) which prohibited the COE from using
monies to implement the 1989 Manual. As a result, the COE must now rely on its own 1987
Manual to delineate wetlands until a new manual is devised, while the other three agencies (for
example, EPA, SCS, FWS) continue to use the 1989 Manual. The Clinton administration has
proposed consolidation and greater coordination in the administration of the 404 program
while continuing to honor a "no net loss" policy.
2.7.2. The Section 404 Permitting Process
Congress gave the COE primary authority over section 404 because the COE was
already administering a waterway obstruction permitting program under section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. § 403 (Corday 1991). Because the COE is a highly
decentralized agency, its section 404 program management is delegated to its 36 district and 11
division engineers (ORC 1991), who are responsible for processing about 15,000 individual
permits each year (Zinn & Copeland 1991). About 10,000 of these individual permit
applications are issued, about 500 are denied, and the remaining 4,500 are canceled by the
COE, withdrawn by the applicant, qualify for exemption or fall under a general permit.
Under the current permitting process, the COE makes initial findings on permit
requests to determine whether the proposed activity constitutes a "discharge," for example,
whether it will convert saturated or aquatic land to dry land by changing bottom elevations (33
C.F.R. 323.2(e)). Because the regulatory definition of such a conversion is so narrow — only
"discharges" of "dredge and fill material" into U.S. "waters" resulting in "conversions"
require permits — countless acres of wetlands continue to be lost due to draining, dredging,
C-18
-------
hole digging, and channeling activities which fall beyond current regulatory boundaries (GAO
1991).
If the proposed activity requires a permit, the COE district engineer conducts a "public
interest review," in which she/he opens the process to public comment, and weighs the
benefits of the proposal against its reasonably foreseeable adverse impacts (33 C.F.R.
320.4(a)(l)). This balancing test requires the COE to consider not only economic and
aesthetic factors, but also the proposal's potential effects on wetlands, fish and wildlife values,
historic properties, land use, navigation, recreation, flood plains, energy needs, and,
importantly, water quality.
According to COE regulations, the COE's decision "should reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources" and "[n]o permit will be
granted...unless the district engineer concludes...that the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh the damage to the wetlands resource" (33 C.F.R. 320.4). Thus, in most cases, a
permit will be granted unless the district engineer finds it contrary to the public interest. The
ORC has criticized this aspect of the COE's decentralized decisionmaking, stating that a public
interest determination is "a rather lofty determination for a district engineer to make" (ORC
1992).
Although Congress delegated to the COE the primary responsibilities for administering
the section 404 permit program, it recognized the COE's historical tendencies favoring
wetlands development (Corday 1991). As a result, Congress gave EPA the power to veto
COE permit approvals which could be shown, after public notice and comment, to have "an
unacceptable adverse effect" on wetlands (33 U.S.C. § 1344(c); 40 C.F.R. 231.2(e)). While
the EPA's veto authority has been upheld by the courts, see, for example, Bersani v.
Environmental Protection Agency. 850 F. 2d 36 (2d Cir. 1988), cert, denied. 489 U.S. 1089,
109 S.Ct. 1556 (1989), EPA had vetoed only seven permit decisions nationwide as of 1991
(Corday 1991).
Additionally, pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. § 662 eL.
seq.. the COE must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) before issuing a permit, and give full consideration to the
comments and suggestions from these agencies when deciding whether a permit should be
issued (33 C.F.R. 320.4(c)).
States may also play a significant role in wetlands determinations. For example, a state
may assume responsibility for wetlands permitting in areas not subject to traditional federal
tests for navigability (that is, those areas not suitable for interstate or foreign commerce) (33
U.S.C. § 1342(h)). Also, under section 401 of the CWA discussed below, the COE must
receive a certification from the state that the proposed permit will not violate, among other
things, state water quality standards, before a permit may be issued. Furthermore, if a state
has an approved coastal zone management plan under the Coastal Zone Management Act, then
the state can object to a permit, and the COE's only recourse is to appeal the objection to the
Secretary of Commerce (16 U.S.C. § 1456(c)).
C-19
-------
In addition to these safeguards, Congress also required the COE to adhere to EPA
permit issuance guidelines in the COE's public interest review process (33 U.S.C. § 1344 (b)).
These guidelines set out four primary criteria. First, no permit may be issued "if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic system" (33 C.F.R. 230.10(a)). As illustrated by the court in Friends of the Earth v.
Hintz. 800 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1986), the COE has broad discretion in determining what is a
"practicable alternative," and may consider such factors as costs and existing technology when
making its determination (33 C.F.R. 230.10(a)). And according to a 1988 GAO report, the
COE rarely relies on the "practicable alternatives" test as the sole basis for rejecting an
application, apparently because COE places undue emphasis on what is reasonably practicable
from the perspective of an applicant (GAO 1988).
The second EPA criterion states that "no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters" of the U.S. (33
C.F.R. 230.10(c)). Third, no discharge shall be permitted if it contributes to a violation of a
state water quality standard, violates toxic effluents standards, jeopardizes an endangered
species or violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act (33 C.F.R. 230.10(b)). Lastly, "no
discharge...shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which
will minimize potential adverse impacts...on the aquatic system" (33 C.F.R. at 230.10(d)).
Yet despite the apparently restrictive language in the EPA guidelines, COE retains
considerable latitude on interpreting and implementing them. For example, the COE has not
developed a consistent, program-wide approach to calculating cumulative impacts, although
such analysis would appear to lie at the heart of at least three of the four criteria outlined in the
EPA guidelines. As the GAO points out, the COE's reliance on case-by-case cumulative
impacts determinations has resulted in significant disparities in wetlands delineations and
permit approvals (GAO 1988). These disparities, coupled with GAO's finding that the water
quality goals of the CWA are often compromised under section 404 as a result of COE's focus
on short-term rather than long-term interests, do not provide encouragement for a
comprehensive watershed-type approach under the current program (GAO 1988).
Thus, as a result of the COE's broad discretionary powers, the COE approves the vast
majority of the 15,000 annual individual permit applications it receives. And despite the fact
that the COE typically includes environmental safeguards in many of its permit approvals, the
fact remains that most techniques to mitigate the adverse impacts of wetlands development are
scientifically questionable (Zinn & Copeland 1991). Despite a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement between the COE and EPA clarifying the specific sequence of actions necessary to
mitigate adverse impacts in section 404 proposals, the feasibility of applying this sequencing
approach within a viable "no net loss" agenda has yet to be proven (Zinn & Copeland).
Accordingly, the COE's administration of the section 404 individual permit program
continues to allow the loss of our Nation's wetlands, and using the current section 404
individual permit program to preserve water quality through a watershed approach would be
unlikely to succeed.
C-20
-------
2.7.3. The General Permit Program
The 1977 amendments to the CWA authorize the COE to issue general permits for
activities that are similar in nature which will cause only minor individual and cumulative
adverse impacts (33 U.S.C. § 1344(e)). These permits may be issued on a national, regional
or statewide basis, after public notice and comment.
Currently, the COE has 26 nationwide permits (see 33 C.F.R. 330.5(a) for listings), 22
of which do not require landowners to inform the COE of their activities as long as they
comply with various conditions (that is, no discharges near public water supply intakes; no
discharge of toxics) and management practices (that is, no discharges in spawning areas)
required of all general permits. Some of the activities authorized under general permits
include the placement of navigational aids, bridge building, and construction of fisheries
spawning and harvesting devices (ORC 1992).
One of the most controversial general permits, dubbed the "isolated wetlands" permit,
allows discharges into wetlands which are smaller than ten acres in size, and which are located
above the headwaters (for example, waters with an average annual flow rate less than five
cubic feet per second) of non-tidal (or "isolated") waters (33 C.F.R. 330.2(b)). As ORC
notes, the determination of where a discharge takes place is significant, since a discharge
above the headwaters may not require an individual permit, while the same discharge at a
lower point on the river may (ORC 1992). Since an estimated 17 million acres of wetlands are
affected each year by the "isolated wetlands" permit, the headwaters distinction is obviously
important.
2.7.4. Section 404 Statutory Exemptions
In the 1977 amendments to the CWA, Congress provided six distinct exemptions from
the section 404 permit program. Under section 404(f), these exemptions are for:
1) normal farming, silviculture, and ranching activities;
2) emergency reconstruction and general maintenance of dikes, dams, causeways,
bridges, breakwaters, and transportation structures;
3) construction or maintenance of farm or stock ponds, or irrigation ditches;
4) temporary sedimentation basins on construction sites;
5) construction and maintenance of farm and forest roads, or temporary roads for
moving mining equipment, so long as aquatic impacts are minimized; and
6) discharges with respect to any activity for which a state has an approved section 208
areawide waste management treatment plan.
As their language suggests, these exemptions operate to remove a substantial amount of
otherwise regulatable activity from the mandates of section 404. However, Congress
recognized the broad loophole it was creating with section 404(0, and responded by subjecting
all such exemptions to a "recapture clause," which essentially limits the exemptions to specific
C-21
-------
activities which had either 1) been on-going at the time the amendments were passed; or 2)
which would not interfere with the flow, circulation, or reach of navigable waters (for
example, have negligible impacts).
As a result of the recapture provision, the courts have generally construed the
exemptions narrowly, see for example. United States v. Akers. 785 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1986),
and United States v. Larkins. 852 F.2d 189 (6th Cir. 1988), and typically will not allow
activities which attempt to convert expansive wetlands areas, or which attempt to shift original
land use activities (for example, harvesting wheat) to new types not in use at the time the
amendments passed (for example, harvesting water-intensive salt hay). Despite the courts"
restrictive interpretation of the recapture clause, these exemptions nonetheless operate to
exclude many activities which adversely affect wetlands values and water quality (ORC 1992).
2.8. SECTION 401 AND THE STATE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Under section 401 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, an applicant for a federal permit or
license to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge to state waters must first obtain a
certification from the state that such discharge will comply with the state's water quality
standards and effluent limitations. Such activities may include hydropower licensing under
authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee (FERC), individual and general
wetlands permitting under CWA section 404, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits for point source discharges under CWA section 402.
Section 401 is a potentially powerful tool for states pursuing a watershed-based water
quality approach, because judicial review of state certification decisions begins in the state
courts. The United States Supreme Court recently affirmed a Washington Supreme Court
decision approving use of the 401 certification process to establish minimum stream flows.
State v. PUD No. 1. 121 Wash. 2d 179, 849 P.2d 179, affirmed. 1994 West Law 223821
(May 31, 1994). The Oregon Supreme Court recently approved a similar use of the 401
certification process. City of Klamath Falls v. EOC. 3180 r. 532, 870 P. 2d 825 (1994).
3. FEDERAL SOIL CONSERVATION LAW
The problem of soil erosion resulting from agricultural practices has been recognized
by the federal government since the 1935 creation of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and
the 1936 creation of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) as part of
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The passage of the Food Security Act
of 1985 (Public L. No. 99-198, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 3801-3845) included conservation
measures: "the so-called sodbuster, swampbuster, conservation compliance, and conservation
reserve programs" (Tabb and Malone 1992). These measures linked federal subsidies
administered by the USDA with conservation measures also administered by the USDA.
Although compliance with the conservation measures is still voluntary, a fanner who does not
comply with the measures will not receive federal aid.
In 1990, Congress passed the "Conservation Program Improvements Act" which
reauthorized the conservation provisions of the 1985 act and created new conservation
provisions. The 1990 reauthorization "significantly amended the existing programs, expanding
C-22
-------
the scope of the conservation reserve program while broadening the exemptions in and
weakening enforcement of the swampbuster and sodbuster programs" (Tabb & Malone 1992).
The sodbuster provision is a soil conservation measure requiring that farmers not put any
highly erodible land into production without the implementation of a conservation plan. The
provision applies to the production of "agricultural commodities" on land that was not in
production between 1981 and 1985. For erodible land that was already in production between
1981 and 1985, full implementation of a conservation plan is to be underway by 1995. The
swampbuster provision is aimed at conservation of wetlands by cutting off USDA price and
income supports for "any person who produces an agricultural commodity on wetlands
converted after December 23, 1985, or who, after December 23, 1990, converts a wetland by
any means so as to make possible the production of an agricultural commodity on such
converted wetland" (Tabb & Malone 1992). USDA and EPA regulations regarding prior
converted wetlands can be found at 7 C.F.R. Part 12 and 40 C.F.R. Parts 110, 112, 116, 117,
122, 230, 232 and 401. The 1990 act included a provision which allows gradual sanctions on
"good faith violators." See National Wildlife Federation v. Agricultural Stabilization Service.
955 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992).
The 1990 act also created the Environmental Easement Program. A landowner enters
into a contract stipulating that he or she will not use the land for agricultural commodity
production, but put the land toward "less intensive use" and apply conservation practices. The
landowner must enter into the contract for no less than ten years, and no more than fifteen
years. In exchange, the landowner receives "50% of the cost of establishing water quality and
conservation measures...and annual rental payments to compensate for the retirement of the
land during the period of the contract" (Tabb & Malone 1992). The conservation reserve
program included more than 34 million acres (Center for Resource Economics 1991).
The Environmental Easement Program allows the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire
easements on land placed in the conservation reserve, land under the Water Bank Act (16
U.S.C. § 1301), and any other cropland that contains riparian corridors, or critical habitat, or
contains other environmentally sensitive areas. The landowner is responsible for implementing
conservation measures on the easement, and may be eligible for up to 100% reimbursement for
the cost of implementing the conservation measures. Further, the land in the easement may
still be used for hunting and fishing (Tabb & Malone 1992).
Federal programs associated with the Soil Conservation Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service have the potential to fund watershed improvement
programs at the state level. The Conservation Reserve Program and the Environmental
Easement Programs under the 1990 act may be important parts of conserving and setting aside
riparian areas. The Soil Conservation Service gives assistance to state and local watershed
projects through the Small Watershed Program Grant (16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. §
701-1 and 42 U.S.C. 1962 et. seq.; 7 C.F.R. Parts 620 et seq. and 660). The Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service administers the Rural Clean Water Program, created by
the 1977 amendments to the Clean Water Act, for "installing and maintaining measures
incorporating best management practices to control non-point source pollution for improved
water quality" (CWA § 208(j)(l), 33 U.S.C. § 1288(j)(l), 7 C.F.R. Parts 700 et seq.).
C-23
-------
4. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN OREGON AND SELECTED
OTHER STATES
4.1. INTRODUCTION
As a result of the mandates under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and the 1990
reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act — discussed in the next section — state
water quality agencies are beginning to develop watershed-based water quality management
programs. For example, as Oregon continues to develop its NFS pollution program, the
Governor's Strategic Water Management Group is developing statewide watershed
management guidelines.
This section focuses on state policies and management programs that seek to implement
the federal Clean Water Act, as well as several proposed or recently established programs
which address watershed management. Programs in Oregon, North Carolina, Washington,
and Idaho that address NFS pollution and watershed management are reviewed.
4.2. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ)
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the state agency
responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act (ORS 468.730). DEQ's efforts to control
non-point sources (NFS) of pollution began under section 208 of the Clean Water Act. Under
section 208, DEQ coordinated statewide studies of such non-point sources as "irrigation return
flows, erosion in dry land wheat-farming areas, fecal-waste impacts on shellfishing,
streambank erosion, groundwater pollution, and urban runoff1 (DEQ 1991b). The section 208
studies resulted in the implementation of "control strategies" to reduce the non-point sources
of pollution identified.
The Water Quality Act of 1987 amended the Clean Water Act to require that states
"identif[y] those...waters within the [sjtate which, without additional action to control non-
point sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be expected to attain or maintain applicable water
quality standards or the goals and requirements of this Act" (Section 319, 33 U.S.C. 1329).
The section 319 mandate resulted in the 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Non-point
Sources of Water Pollution, including the compilation of a computerized database "containing
information about NPS-linked water quality on 28,000 miles of rivers and streams as well as
in many lakes, estuaries, and bays, and shallow groundwater aquifers" (DEQ 1991b). DEQ
also developed a Non-point Source Statewide Management Program for Oregon (DEQ 1991b).
DEQ's NPS implementation program is a pollution prevention program, with an
emphasis on best management practices (BMPs) that can be put into place to avoid the creation
of critical water quality problems in a water basin affected by a variety of non-point sources.
Establishing a TMDL for a water basin or for a particular river can result in moratoriums on
human pollution-causing activities in the watershed until pollution prevention measures are
developed. The threat of an injunction on certain activities in a watershed may be a public
incentive to assist in the development of and compliance with prevention measures in the form
of best management practices.
C-24
-------
The NFS Program includes a list of program strategies and objectives which "will be
incorporated into interagency action plans" (DEQ 1991b). These include "monitoring,
assessment, [and] evaluation" such as continuing the evaluation of waterbody and watershed
conditions that started with the 1988 assessment. Other objectives include looking at
cumulative effects through the TMDL approach under section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
Riparian areas and wetlands are also part of the NPS program. DEQ also proposes to look
into an ecoregion approach: "Although watersheds are the principal unit of geographic
organization of the NPS program at present, the concept of ecoregions holds great potential for
the development and application of BMPs, the refinement of water quality standards, and the
future organization of NPS programs" (DEQ 199Ib).
DEQ's 1988 non-point source inventory resulted in the identification of eleven
different sources of NPS pollution: Range - 21.3%; Forestry - 17.4 %; Agriculture - 17.4%;
Recreation - 13.8%; Natural - 9.7%; Mining - 5.2%; Transportation - 4.8%; Urban Storm
Water - 3.8%; Construction - 3.3%; Municipal - 2.4%; Industrial - 0.8% (DEQ 1991b).
DEQ categorized these sources into five land use groupings: agriculture, forestry, grazing and
range management, urban development, and recreation. The management program includes an
assessment of the "activities" encompassed by those land uses, the "contributions of that land
use to statewide NPS-caused water quality problems...and the typical kinds of NPS pollution
resulting from those land use practices" (DEQ 1991b). For each of the land use areas,
designated management agencies work with DEQ to develop Best Management Practices. For
example, the Oregon Department of Forestry is responsible for best management practices
under the Oregon Forest Practices Act, discussed below.
DEQ also has performed an extensive study of the Coquille River basin with funding
from the EPA's Near Coastal Waters Program. The "Action Plan for Oregon Estuary and
Ocean Waters" was chosen as one of three pilot programs from around the country to
demonstrate the management of water quality in coastal waters. The Coquille River basin has
been designated by DEQ as a "Water Quality Limited" waterbody. The TMDL established for
the Coquille does not include non-point sources, but DEQ has worked with other agencies to
develop measures to reduce non-point sources of pollution into the Coquille (DEQ 1991a).
4.3. SOIL CONSERVATION
Soil and water conservation districts in the state are authorized by the legislature to
conserve natural resources, including to "control and prevent soil erosion, control floods,
conserve and develop water resources and water quality" and to work with "landowners, land
occupiers, other natural resource users, other local government users" and state and federal
agencies to carry out legislative policy (ORS 568.225(1),(2)). As a unit of local government
in the state, soil and water conservation districts may seek approval from the Oregon
Department of Agriculture to implement land use regulations to further the goals of soil
conservation and erosion prevention (ORS 568.630).
A 1979 Iowa Supreme Court decision which may be persuasive in any challenges to the
Oregon statute is Woodbury County Soil Conservation District v. Qrtner. 279 N.W. 2d 276
(1979), which upheld an Iowa statute requiring private landowners to comply with provisions
to prevent soil erosion. Ortner held that these regulations were not unconstitutional takings of
C-25
-------
private property but that they were within the police power of the state. The statutory
regulations were found to be "reasonably related to carrying out the announced legislative
purpose of soil control, admittedly a proper exercise of police power." M- at 279. More
recently, in Leroy Land Development v. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 939 F. 2d
696, (9th Cir. 1991), a private land development corporation challenged the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency's requirement that in order to develop property off the shore of Lake Tahoe
on-site and off-site mitigation measures would be required. The mitigation requirements were
part of an earlier settlement between Leroy and TRPA for the granting of a building permit,
and Leroy claimed the mitigation requirement was an unconstitutional taking. In holding that
the mitigation requirement was not a taking, the Ninth Circuit cited the Supreme Court opinion
in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. 483 U.S. 825 (1987), which held that "a land-
use regulation would not constitute a taking so long as it substantially advanced a legitimate
state interest and did not deny the property owner economically viable use of the property."
Id- at 698. The mitigation measures "would ameliorate erosion, destabilization and other
adverse environmental effects caused by Leroy's development and thus directly further the
governmental interest underlying the application of the relevant TRPA regulations to Leroy's
development" M- at 698. (1991). As these opinions indicate, because soil erosion control
regulations typically allow reasonable land uses and do not cause physical intrusions by
government or the public onto the land, they are not likely to be struck down as takings by
state or federal courts applying the Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council. 112 S. Ct. 288 (1992), or its opinion in Kaiser-Aetna v. U.S.. 444
U.S. 164 (1979).
4.4. DEPARTMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (DLCD)
As authorized by the Oregon legislature (Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197), the
Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has established a comprehensive
statewide program of land-use planning. The 19 land use goals are implemented through the
adoption of local comprehensive plans which must be consistent with the statewide goals. The
Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) reviews local plans for goal
consistency. State agencies and special districts must comply with the statewide goals and
must act consistently with LCDC approved local comprehensive plans.
Several of the goals incorporate water management into land use plans. Goal 5: Open
Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources, and Goal 6: Air, Water and Land
Resources Quality, call for the incorporation of water resources into the comprehensive plans.
Goal 5 directs local comprehensive plans to "conserve open space and protect natural and
scenic resources." It also mandates inventory of the "location, quality and quantity" of
resources such as "fish and wildlife areas and habitats," "potential and approved federal wild
and scenic waterways and state scenic waterways," and "water areas, wetlands, watersheds,
and groundwater resources."
Goal 6 may be important in looking at statewide watershed management in that it
mandates that future development and existing development and land uses be coordinated to
maintain water quality standards. Future development must be planned so that resulting wastes
and discharges in combination with wastes and discharges of current development do not
C-26
-------
"threaten to violate, or violate" federal and state environmental quality standards. "With
respect to the air, water, and land resources of the applicable air sheds and river basins
described or included in state environmental quality statutes, rules, standards and
implementation plans, such discharges shall not (1) exceed the carrying capacity of such
resources, considering long range needs; (2) degrade such resources; or (3) threaten the
availability of such resources."
Planning guidelines for Goal 6 include: "4. Plans should buffer and separate those
land uses which create or lead to conflicting requirements and impacts on the air, water and
land resources." Buffering techniques could include riparian protection and restoration, and
zoning regulations which include riparian setback requirements. Another Goal 6 guideline
recommends state and local agency coordination: "6. Plans of state agencies before they are
adopted, should be coordinated with and reviewed by local agencies with respect to the impact
of these plans on the air, water, and land resources in the planning area."
Goal 16 and 17 focus on the coast. Goal 16 mandates that local comprehensive plans
"recognize and protect the unique environmental, economic, and social values of each estuary
and associated wetlands; and to protect, maintain, where appropriate develop, and where
appropriate restore the long-term environmental, economic and social values, diversity and
benefits of Oregon's estuaries." Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands, includes the "management of
these shoreland areas"...."[be] compatible with the characteristics of the adjacent coastal
waters...." "Shoreline" is defined as "the boundary line between a body of water and the
land, measured on tidal waters at mean high, high water, and on non-tidal waterways at the
ordinary high-water mark."
4.5. DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (ODFW)
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 635, Division 415 contains rules implementing
the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Policy of the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The
Habitat Mitigation Policy supports the Oregon Wildlife Policy, ORS 496.012, and the Food
Fish Management Policy, ORS 506.109, "through the application of consistent goals and
standards to mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife habitat caused by land and water development
actions" (OAR 635-415-500). The Department of Fish and Wildlife will "require or
recommend, depending on habitat mitigation requirements and opportunities provided by
specific statutes, mitigation for losses of fish and wildlife habitat resulting from land and water
development actions" (OAR 635-415-010). According to Oregon Insider, Issue No. 48,
October 14, 1991, the guidelines developed by ODFW will assist staff "in making their
mitigation recommendations on permits issued by other state agencies." Further, Oregon
Insider reports that "it is not unusual for state agencies to require developers to offset or
mitigate the damage their activities have on fish and wildlife habitat."
In 1985 ODFW developed fish and wildlife habitat protection criteria to implement the
Wildlife Policy. These are also used by ODFW to evaluate environmental impact statements
on federal lands within Oregon, including those lands managed by the federal Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). In November 1990, ODFW submitted to BLM a document entitled:
"Plan Review Criteria to Conserve Fish and Wildlife Resources on Bureau of Land
Management Forest Lands in Western Oregon." The document includes guidelines for
C-27
-------
"riparian habitats," "aquatic habitats," and "meadows, freshwater wetlands, and natural
openings" within forest environments. The forest plan review criteria ODFW outlines for
each of the major areas of concern are a combination of best management practices and
management directives.
The habitat mitigation policies may be useful in a comprehensive watershed
management program for coordinating the land use practices of other agencies with respect to
their cumulative impacts on water quality and wildlife habitat. Department of Fish and
Wildlife staff may be very helpful in on-the-ground monitoring of watershed areas. Further,
ODFW staff already have experience in working with the public on watershed management
issues through the Salmon and Trout Enhancement Program, a program designed to involve
the public in salmon and trout protection and enhancement efforts.
The Department of Fish and Wildlife also establishes criteria for the designation of
lands as riparian lands for the purposes of allowing private landowners tax relief in exchange
for limiting the uses to which that land is put. The lands under consideration must be zoned
for agriculture or farm uses and not be within an urban growth boundary. Tax relief in
exchange for habitat conservation may also be a useful tool in managing watershed areas
impacted by private lands.
4.6. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (WRD)
4.6.1. Basin Planning
WRD separates Oregon into 20 different drainage basins, including three for the
North, South and Mid Coast regions. In 1987, the Water Resources Department created a
Resources Management Division which is to "develop, coordinate and integrate state programs
and policies; conduct investigations into the characteristics and uses of ground water and
surface water; and conduct contested case hearings." In 1988, the Water Resources
Commission approved modification of the basin-by-basin planning system, and adopted "a
new state-wide water policy element" (WRD 1987-88). The basin planning process continues
with the added element of state-wide water policies, similar to the land use planning Goals.
4.6.2. Instream Water Rights
In 1987, the Oregon legislature passed the Instream Water Rights Act, providing a
mechanism for balancing fish and wildlife habitat needs and recreational interests with
traditional water uses which have mostly focused on out of stream withdrawals. Oregon's first
major water laws were enacted in 1909. These first laws provided a procedure for making
determinations and keeping records of the water rights to the surface waters of the state that
were initiated prior to February 24, 1909. These were called vested water rights.
The 1987 legislature also created a state instream water right program. SB 140
required the Water Resources Commission to convert existing minimum streamflows to
instream water rights. Instream water rights are different from minimum stream flows in that
they cannot be waived by WRC during a time of water shortage.
C-28
-------
Under ORS 537.332 to 537.360, public uses of water can be protected by the issuance
of water rights. Instream water rights are held in trust by the Water Resources Department for
the benefit of the people of Oregon. Public uses are broadly defined to include conservation,
maintenance and enhancement of fish and wildlife and aquatic life, fish and wildlife habitat
and any other ecological values. Public benefit also includes recreation, pollution abatement
and navigation. Public benefit means a benefit that accrues to the public at large rather than to
a person, a small group of persons or to a private enterprise. The act also established a
process for reserving water for future out-of-stream use for economic development. An
instream water right does not diminish the public ownership of the waters of the state, nor does
an instream water right take away or impair any permitted, certificated, or decreed water use
right vested prior to the date of the instream water right.
The act also specifies that the use of state waters for multipurpose storage or municipal
uses or by a municipal applicant for a hydroelectric project shall take precedence over an
instream water right, except if the instream water right was converted from a minimum stream
flow requirement, or resulted from a lease or transfer of an existing water right.
The instream water right laws include an incentive for water right holders to conserve
water. (ORS 537.470). However, 25% of the conserved water generally will be allocated to
the state for instream or other purposes. The statute also allows a person to purchase or lease
an existing water right or portion of a water right or accept a gift of a water right for
conversion to an instream water right. Any water right purchased pursuant to the 1987 act will
retain the priority date of the water right purchased, leased or received as a gift. Any person
may lease an existing water right for use as an instream water right for a specified period
without losing the original priority date (ORS 537.340).
Three state agencies can apply for instream water rights. Oregon Department of Fish
and Wildlife (ODFW) has the authority to request certificates for instream water rights in
which there are public uses relating to the conservation, maintenance and enhancement of fish
and wildlife or fish and wildlife habitat. When ODFW applies for instream water rights, of
primary importance is the protection of federally and state listed threatened and endangered
species. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) may be granted a water right to
protect and maintain water quality standards. The Department of Parks and Recreation may
request a certificate for instream rights to state waters in which there are public uses relating to
recreation and scenic attraction. When applying for instream rights, Parks gives priority to
streams designated as a state Scenic Waterway or national Wild and Scenic River (ORS
536.336).
4.7. OREGON SCENIC WATERWAYS PROGRAM
The Oregon Scenic Waterways System was created through an initiative measure
enacted by the voters of Oregon in 1970. ORS 390.815 establishes that "the people of Oregon
find that many of the free-flowing rivers of Oregon and Waldo Lake and lands adjacent to
such lake and rivers possess outstanding scenic, fish, wildlife, geological, botanical, historic,
archaeologic, and outdoor recreation values of present and future benefit to the public." The
statute further stipulates the policy that the "construction of dams and other impoundment
C-29
-------
facilities...should be complimented by a policy that would...protect and preserve the natural
setting and water quality of the lake and such rivers and fulfill other conservation purposes."
The definition of "scenic waterway" includes Waldo Lake and rivers or river segments
which are currently designated as scenic waterways under the statute, "and includes related
adjacent land" (ORS 390.805(1)). "Related adjacent land" is defined as "all land within one-
fourth of one mile of the bank on the side of Waldo Lake, river or segment of river within a
scenic waterway, except land that, in the department's judgment does not affect the view from
the waters within a scenic waterway" (ORS 390.895(2)). "Scenic easement" is defined as "the
right to control the use of related adjacent land...for the purpose of protecting the scenic view
from waters within a scenic waterway; but such control does not affect, without the owner's
consent, any regular use exercised prior to the acquisition of the easement, and the landowner
retains the right to uses of the land not specifically restricted by the easement" (ORS 390.805
(3)).
While the statute may be effective to control potential uses of adjacent riparian lands,
the criterion for controlling uses of the scenic easement is limited to "protecting the scenic
view" as opposed to protecting water quality. Furthermore, the statute does not affect land
uses initiated prior to designation of the waterbody as a Scenic Waterway which may limit the
use of the Scenic Waterways Program in a comprehensive watershed program to protecting
riparian areas from future land uses which may adversely affect water quality, but will not be
instrumental in remedying current adverse land uses.
The statute also states that "the free-flowing character of these waters shall be
maintained in quantities necessary for recreation, fish and wildlife uses" (ORS 390.835). The
statute prohibits dams, reservoirs, the construction of impoundment facilities or placer mining
activities on waters within scenic waterways (ORS 390.835). Water diversion activities not
previously permitted must be approved by WRD as consistent with the Scenic Waterways
System policy. Removal-Fill activities are likewise prohibited unless the Division of State
Lands (DSL) finds the activity is compatible with the Scenic Waterways designation (ORS
390.835). The Parks department is mandated by statute to develop rules for the management
of adjacent lands. Statutory guidelines for these rules include: "(b) [fjorest crops shall be
harvested in such manner as to maintain as nearly as reasonably is practicable the natural
beauty of the scenic waterway; (c) [o]ccupants of related adjacent land shall avoid pollution of
waters within a scenic waterway" (ORS 390.845).
In 1988, the Oregon Supreme Court decision in Diack v. City of Portland. 306 Or.
287, 759 P.2d 1070 (1988), prohibited uses upstream of a scenic waterway that would affect
the scenic waterway. The Diack decision primarily affected water quantity issues. Prior to
Diack. the Water Resources Commission restricted the application of the scenic waterway act
to the designated portion of a waterbody, whereas, after Diack. the Commission "must also
consider scenic waterway values when considering proposed appropriations upstream of a
scenic waterway" (Murray 1991). At the time of the decision, minimum stream flow
requirements to "maintain recreation, fish, and wildlife uses" for only one scenic waterway in
the state had been determined. Thus, in 1989 the Commission put a freeze on all applications
for water diversions which were in or upstream of a scenic waterway until minimum flows
could be determined (Murray 1991).
C-30
-------
The impact of Diack on water quality as opposed to water quantity is not as clear
(Murray 1991). Non-point sources such as siltation resulting from timber harvesting adjacent
to a waterway impacts the quality of the waterway for fish habitat. Erosion as a result of
grazing practices has adverse impacts on fish habitat as well. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality would be responsible for monitoring these non-point source effects on
fish habitat (Murray 1991).
Controversies have arisen between river users and adjacent landowners stemming from
the establishment of the lower Nestucca River Scenic Waterway which has been designated as
a Scenic Waterway from "below the McGuire Dam downstream to its confluence with East
Creek (near Elaine); and...Walker creek from its source downstream to its confluence with the
Nestucca River" (ORS 390.826 (11)). The Scenic Waterways process is one that does not
necessarily involve adjacent land-owners in the decision to designate a waterbody, as would be
the case in a citizen initiative which is also authorized by the statute. Conflicts between
recreational users and landowners would most likely develop if such a process were used to
designate a complete waterbody for protection.
While the primary purpose of the land use controls imposed on adjacent riparian areas
is to protect the scenic view from the waterway, the Scenic Waterways System does coordinate
land use and water quality to some extent. The language in the statute calling upon adjacent
landowners to "avoid pollution of waters" in a Scenic Waterway may not be strong enough to
have any significant impact on improving water quality. However, to the extent that the
Scenic Waterway Program does add some protection for specific waterways, it may be useful
for certain reaches of a waterbody as part of a comprehensive watershed program.
4.8. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
The 1991 Legislature in Senate Bill 1125 directed the Board of Forestry to review its
water classification and protection rules and, where appropriate, make amendments. In
conducting this review, SB 1125 established a new and clear target for water quality standard
achievement that needed to be considered. This target is that best management practices
adopted by the Board are to ensure compliance with state water quality standards to the
maximum extent practicable.
Consistent with this direction, in April 1994, the Board of Forestry adopted new water
classification and protection rules that will become generally effective September 1, 1994.
These new rules achieve significant improvements in riparian habitat protection.
Among the key components of the rules are:
1) A process is provided for the Board to adopt special protection rules for water
quality limited (WQL) streams or streams with threatened and endangered aquatic
species. This supplements the ability to meet obligations on WQL streams, and
provides a prompt response should additional forest species be listed at either the
state or federal level. This process can facilitate compatibility with a watershed
approach to resource management under these conditions.
C-31
-------
2) All fish-bearing streams will be provided a riparian management area that includes
vegetation retention as compared to the current standard of vegetation retention
being applied only to those streams with "significant" fish use. The rules commit
the Department of Forestry (with the help of the Department of Fish and Wildlife)
to a comprehensive fish use survey of forest streams. Based on the surveys
completed during the summer of 1993, such a comprehensive survey might increase
by as much as 30% the miles of forest streams that will receive protection
consistent with fish use. Some years will be required to complete a survey of this
magnitude, and the rules provide an interim process under which fish use is
assumed up to the first barrier to fish migration.
3) The new water classification system, identifying seven geographic regions,
distinguishes between streams that have fish or domestic use, or neither; and in
each case whether the stream is of large, medium or small size, based on water
volume. Significant wetlands, stream-associated wetlands, other wetlands, and
lakes are classified by size.
4) A new approach of conifer basal area instead of number of trees is used to establish
the required vegetation retention. The volume of conifer that will be retained along
fish-bearing streams, especially large fish-bearing streams, is substantially
increased over the current standards.
In addition to the conifer retention requirements, for all fish-bearing, all domestic
use and all other medium and large streams, the first 20 feet from the stream will
generally not have any tree harvesting allowed unless stand restoration is needed.
5) The proposed rules provide incentives for landowners to purposely place large
woody debris in streams to provide immediate enhancement of fish habitat. Other
alternatives are provided to address hardwood dominated sites, site-specific
conditions and large scale catastrophic events.
6) Proposed rules related to harvest practices, road construction, skid trail location,
stream crossings, and fish passage are strengthened considerably. Fish passage will
now be required for both juvenile and adult fish, up and downstream, during
periods when fish passage would normally occur. Stream crossings will need to be
designed for the 50-year storm event, rather than the current 25-year storm event
standard.
4.9. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
In passing SB 1010, the 1993 Legislature provided for the Oregon Department of
Agriculture (ODA) to be the lead state agency working with agriculture to address non-point
source water pollution. Under the bill the department is authorized to develop and carry out a
water quality management plan for any agricultural and rural lands where a water quality
management plan is required by state or federal law (for example, TMDL basins, groundwater
management areas, coastal zone management area). The plans may require actions on the land
necessary for the prevention or control of water pollution resulting from agricultural activities
C-32
-------
and soil erosion, including but not limited to construction, maintenance and clearance, and
agricultural and cropping practices. If people refuse to comply with the requirements of the
plan, the department may assess civil penalties for violations. The mechanism for addressing
concerns of the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) and the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) are identical to the mechanism in the Forest Practices Act.
Senate Bill 1008 transfers the Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) program to
ODA, allowing ODA to perform any function of the EQC or DEQ relating to confined animal
feeding operations. Enforcement authority includes authority to inspect any CAFO and
authority to assess civil penalties against violators.
4.10. AGENCY COORDINATION AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
The Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board and the Strategic Water Management
Group are two state agencies which serve to coordinate the activities of other natural resource
agencies and serve as channels for state funding of watershed or ground water projects.
4.10.1. Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board
The 1987 Legislature created the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB).
The Board consists of 10 members. There are five voting members made up of the
chairpersons from the Environmental Quality Commission, the State Fish and Wildlife
Commission, the State Board of Forestry, the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission,
and the Water Resources Commission. The remaining five are nonvoting members and
include the director of the Oregon State University Extension Service, the Director of
Agriculture, and representatives from three federal agencies: the Bureau of Land Management,
the United States Forest Service and the Soil Conservation Service (ORS 541.360).
Prior to the formation of the Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board,
representatives from diverse interest groups with a stake in watershed issues had been meeting
for a year as the Oregon Watershed Improvement Coalition. The coalition included four
members from the Society for Range Management, five from the Oregon Cattlemen's
Association, one each from the Oregon Rivers Council, the Oregon Forest Industries Council,
the Oregon Small Woodlands Association, the Izaak Walton League, and the Oregon
Environmental Council, two from Oregon Trout, and one publicist (Anderson 1991). The
council used methods previously established by the Coordinated Resource Management
Process (CRMP). The CRMP process began in Oregon in 1949 with the "Soil Conservation
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Eagle Valley Conservation District, and five ranchers
who grazed their livestock in common on the Dry Gulch grazing allotment in eastern Baker
County" (Anderson 1991). The goals of the early CRMP process were to coordinate resource
management practices on public and private land, to coordinate grazing and forest practices,
and to address wildlife habitat issues. The CRMP process itself involves consensus-based
decisionmaking and implementation of resource management practices. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. section 4321 etseq.. emphasizes
coordination among agencies. NEPA was instrumental in broadening the interest from federal,
state, and local agencies and organizations and individuals considering the CRMP process
(Anderson 1991).
C-33
-------
GWEB is directed to conduct a watershed enhancement program which "coordinates
the implementation of enhancement projects approved by the board with the activities of the
Natural Resources Division staff and other agencies, especially those agencies working
together through a system of coordinated resource management planning" (ORS
541.370(l)(a)). The Watershed Enhancement Board is funded by the legislature to oversee
and fund local watershed enhancement projects. The Board must encourage the use of
nonstructurai methods to enhance the riparian areas and associated uplands of Oregon's
watersheds (ORS 541.370(1)0))- The Board is primarily staffed by the Water Resources
Department, and receives technical assistance from other state natural resources agency staff.
The establishment of GWEB emphasizes the need for greater agency coordination with respect
to the projects of individual agencies affecting watersheds. The statute mandates that GWEB
maintain a "centralized repository" of natural resource agency documents of projects affecting
watersheds.
4.10.2.Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG)
In 1987, the State Legislature created the Strategic Water Management Group (SWMG)
(ORS 536.100). The 14-member group consists of the following members or their designees:
Governor
Director of the Department of
Environmental Quality
State Fish and Wildlife Director
Director of the Department of
Energy
Director of the Division of State
Lands
State Geologist
Director of the Parks and
Recreation Department
• Director of the Executive Department
• Water Resources Director
• Director of Agriculture
• Director of the Department of Land
Conservation and Development
• State Forester
• Assistant Director of the Health Division
of the Department of Human Resources
• Director of the Economic Development
Department
Originally one of the primary functions of SWMG was to monitor hydroelectric power
projects pending before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In addition, SWMG
would work toward establishing a "comprehensive plan for improving, developing and
conserving Oregon's waterways." The elements of the plan include "all state statutes,
interstate compacts and constitutional provisions establishing policy for or regulating
waterways, water use and fish and wildlife...all state agency rules, policies and plans related to
the use or management of waterways in Oregon...all local comprehensive plans...insofar as the
plans govern the use or management of waterways in Oregon... and "all appropriate state
agency or local government water-related data, inventories of river basin resources and
C-34
-------
evaluations of the anticipated demands for these resources." The comprehensive plan
represents the "state's planning to improve, develop and conserve Oregon's waterways; the
needs and uses of all Oregon rivers; and the state's own balancing of the competing uses of
Oregon waterways" (ORS 390.835).
SWMG is also responsible for coordinating agencies and processing requests for
funding ground water projects. SWMG has statutory authorization for the creation of
Groundwater Management Committees which will identify an area of groundwater concern and
develop and promote a local action plan for the area of concern (ORS 536.135). The local
action plan includes the identification of practices contributing to deterioration of ground water
quality and the non-point sources of pollution that are a threat to ground water quality. The
local action plan will also evaluate and recommend alternative practices for dealing with non-
point sources of pollution and recommend Best Management Practices for preventing these
sources of pollution (ORS 536.135).
SWMG, through the Groundwater Management Committees, will then designate a lead
agency for development and implementation of the action plan aimed at improving ground
water quality. The designated agency then determines whether amendments to city or county
comprehensive plans will be needed, and may adopt rules to carry out the plan. Two or more
agencies affected are authorized to consolidate rule-making proceedings (ORS 536.165).
4.10.3. Integrated Resource Management Approach for Watersheds
As opposed to the creation of a new agency or council to direct management of water
resources, both GWEB and SWMG represent the "enforced" coordination of existing avenues
of water management-natural resource agencies, state and local government information
sources and data bases and local comprehensive plans. From a standpoint of government
efficiency, utilizing the bureaucratic structures already in place and directing them toward a
common end may be the most effective way to manage watershed water quality. At the
initiation of Governor Barbara Roberts, one of the groups formed under SWMG has become
the forum for directors of state natural resource agencies to discuss the feasibility of combining
several of the state natural resource agencies into one Department of Land and Water. One of
the critical issues in these discussions is whether this coordination will result in added layers of
bureaucracy, making public involvement and public access to information more difficult, or
whether the merger can effectuate the goals of greater communication and coordination which
is an area needing improvement within the existing state agency structure. SWMG and GWEB
reflect a trend toward integrated resource management which appears to be the most effective
way of coordinating individual agency efforts associated with watershed management.
4.10.4. Watershed Management and Enhancement Program
SWMG, in conjunction with Water Resources Department, has developed an outline
for an Oregon Watershed Management and Enhancement Program. The goal statement calls
for the implementation of a "consistent and integrated process to guide watershed-based
resource planning." Water managers at all levels of government as well as interested citizens
will be involved in "development, implementation and monitoring of watershed action
programs" (Strategic Water Management Group 1992). The outline establishes criteria for
C-35
-------
identifying high priority watersheds as well as outlines the process for program development
and implementation. The outline contains a list of proposed watershed management tools,
including "organizational," "descriptive," "implementation," and "protection" tools, and
funding sources. The proposed management tools are the result of "votes" cast by members of
the Strategic Water Management Group at the June 16, 1992 meeting. Finally, the outline
includes a summary of existing local, state, and federal watershed management tools.
The implementation of the watershed program will be primarily through a partnership
between state and local government. For each priority watershed a local "Watershed Council"
will be established. Membership on the Watershed Council will include "representatives of
(1) local government, (2) non-governmental organizations, and (3) private citizens, including
but not limited to: representatives of local and regional boards, commissions and agencies;
Indian tribes; public interest group representatives; private landowners; industry
representatives; and academic, scientific and professional community." A focus of the
Watershed Council is to prepare a Watershed Action Program which will be reviewed and
adopted by SWMG. The Watershed Council is responsible for implementing, evaluating and
monitoring the program, with the oversight of SWMG. This approach will be tested under
1993 Oregon legislation appropriating $10 million for watershed restoration in northeastern
and southwestern Oregon.
In the section on Proposed Watershed Management Tools, priorities were determined
by vote of SWMG members for each of five management areas. For organizational tools a
majority of the members voted for more involvement of the Governor's Watershed
Enhancement Board at the state level, and at the local level, the watershed council idea
received the most votes. Descriptive tools identified as high priorities included data
management by watershed, coordination of state Geographical Information Service (GIS)
databases through a state GIS service center, and the need for long-term watershed
monitoring. Some priorities for implementation tools included use of reduction of waste and
inefficient practices, water marketing to encourage the reallocation of water, and a focus on
riparian management through the creation of voluntary conservation easements, and easing the
livestock pond process. For protecting watersheds, enforcement of instream flows and
education were identified as having a high priority. Funding options identified included use of
incentives, as well as disincentives, and 1991 legislation, HB 3213, "which authorized soil and
water conservation districts to charge fees for activities in water quality limited basins."
4.11. INTEGRATED MCKENZIE WATERSHED PROGRAM
Lane Council of Governments (L-COG), under contract with Lane County and the
Eugene Water and Electric Board, evaluated the potential for an integrated watershed
management program for the McKenzie River. The April 1992 Scoping Report took a broad
look at the McKenzie watershed to describe the geography and physiography, identify the
watershed boundary, suggest possible subbasin boundaries, and start to identify affected
interests. Also completed was a review of the existing studies and databases of information
currently available on the McKenzie watershed, and identification of the affected local, state
and federal agencies which might be involved in a coordinated program (Lane Council Of
Governments 1992).
C-36
-------
Examples of competing demands on the McKenzie watershed identified in the scoping
report are: domestic water supply, hydropower, public access, agriculture, scenic values,
wildlife and fisheries habitat, recreation, private property rights, forestry, and sand and gravel.
Because of the varied interests affected by and having an effect on the watershed resource, the
scoping report determined that the development of an integrated watershed management
program is the most effective way to manage the resource while avoiding intensification of
competing demands. The existing management efforts are not presently coordinated, and
doing so would allow for coordination of natural resources data-bases, as well as coordination
of decisionmaking. Public involvement was also identified in the scoping report as being
important in the creation of the management program.
The focal issue addressed by this investigation into comprehensive management was
"Protecting water quality within the entire watershed while balancing competing demands for
use of land and water." The scoping report has identified some of the major issues stemming
from this overall concern which would be addressed by a comprehensive management
program. With respect to private property rights, issues such as "preventing takings," "public
support for an acquisition program but not for a regulatory program," and "managing public
access on private lands adjacent to the river," have been identified. Forestry and agriculture
issues include "impacts of forest and agricultural practices and road building on water
quality," "requiring best management practices," and "effects of irrigation on water quality
and quantity." Other issues include recreation, transportation, hydropower, wildlife habitat,
and agency coordination and planning. Also noted by the scoping report were "creating new
laws, guidelines, policies, etc., when existing ones are not being enforced," "using hazardous
materials at individual and commercial/industrial establishments," and "wellhead protection."
The scoping report looks at several case studies which have been divided into two
types, "watershed studies" and "watershed programs." Whereas a watershed study is a
compilation of information and data that may "guide decisionmaking " about a watershed, a
watershed program is "an administrative and planning structure which has been established to
facilitate coordination or implementation of a watershed plan or study." Included in the
watershed studies reviewed in the report was the West Eugene Wetland Special Area Study,
March 1991, and the Upper John Day River Basin Master Water Plan Working Paper, 1990.
Watershed programs included the Bull Run Watershed in Portland and the Cedar River
Watershed for Seattle, Washington.
The scoping report recommends a study structure which incorporates a policy
committee of decisionmakers from lead agencies, a project manager, a technical advisory
committee and a citizen advisory committee. Funding is to come primarily from federal
sources; identified sources are the USDA Cooperative River Basin Study program and the
NPPC "Model Watershed Program."
The McKenzie Watershed Project was recently appropriated $700,000 by a
Congressional Subcommittee in the 1993 Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development
and Independent Agencies budget. Some of the money has been used to compile a computer
database with information from federal, state and local agencies which have jurisdiction over
some aspect of the McKenzie watershed.
C-37
-------
4.12. PROPOSED OREGON GRAZING PRACTICES ACT/WATERSHED INITIATIVE
Senator Dick Springer, Chair of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources
Committee created a Senate Sub-Committee on Grazing to discuss the possibilities for the
enactment of a Grazing Practices Act or Watershed Initiative Legislation in Oregon during the
1993 Legislative Session. Such legislation was not enacted, but discussions continue in
anticipation of the 1995 legislative session.
4.13. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT IN OTHER STATES
Other examples of state approaches to the problem of non-point source pollution come
from North Carolina's basinwide approach to water quality planning, Washington's legislation
managing non-point source pollution for improved shellfish quality, Washington's
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement, and Idaho's Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program.
4.13.1.North Carolina Basinwide Approach to Water Quality Management
In order to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act, including sections 201 (c),
208, 303(d), 303(e), and 319, North Carolina has initiated a basinwide approach to water
quality management. For each of 17 water basins in the state, the North Carolina Division of
Fjivironmental Management (NCDEM) will adopt a basinwide management plan. The plan
includes a general basin description, current status of water quality and biological
communities, and an assessment of existing pollutant sources and loads. The plan also
includes identification of major water quality concerns and priority issues, long-term
management goals and strategies, recommended Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and
management actions, and plans for implementation, enforcement and monitoring (Creager and
Baker 1991).
As the basis for future management decisions, the long-term management strategy will
"define the rationale, decision analysis framework, methods, and criteria to be used for all
decisions regarding the allocation of assimilative capacity among point and non-point
sources." "Assimilative capacity" is the total amount of point source and non-point source
pollutants a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding established water quality standards
(Creager and Baker 1991). The long-range planning incorporates techniques such as "agency
banking" of assimilative capacity and pollution trading among dischargers. Also utilized is a
process called "industrial recruitment mapping," which is a type of land use planning
recommendation for the basin, linking industrial land uses with the basin's assimilative
capacity for specific types of discharges. NCDEM also indicates that local landowners and
local agencies will be consulted in order to increase the plan's success (Creager and Baker
1991).
The long term goal of each basin plan "is to promote the optimal distribution of
assimilative capacity...that (1) achieves the highest possible level of water quality for the
lowest possible cost and with the minimum possible disruption of long-term economic growth
and development, (2) maintains water quality at or above that required to achieve long-term
water quality goals and objectives... and (3) represents, to the degree possible, a fair and
equitable distribution of assimilative capacity among potential users." The use of techniques
C-38
-------
such as agency banking and recruitment mapping will facilitate this goal (Creager and Baker
1991).
Implementation of the basin plans may take several years. The process begins with the
compiling of information, identifying priority issues, collecting biological and physical data on
the basin, and selecting management options for the basin, with the last phase of
implementation being the issuing of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. The basin planning process is an ongoing one, with the length of time
varying with the types of point and non-point sources affecting a basin, and the amount of
coordination needed among state agencies. NCDEM will develop guidelines for the basin
plans to facilitate comparison between basins and establish uniformity for the data, table, and
figure formats used in each plan.
A major focus of the basinwide planning process is the coordination of data among
agencies and the utilization of Geographic Information Systems. North Carolina's Center for
Geographic Information Analysis is a key component of the data management aspect of the
program. A 1991 report estimated that approximately $390,000 would be needed to
implement centralized data management. In addition to administrative needs, including
additional staff people, the Final Report notes that technical improvements are also needed,
such as better water quality models, improved estimates of pollutant loads from stormwater
runoff, and additional information on the "relationship between land use/landscape ecology
and water quality" (Creager and Baker 1991).
4.13.2.Washington Shellfish Protection Initiative
A new law designed to protect Washington's shellfish growing areas from non-point
source pollution was signed by Governor Booth Gardner in early April 1992. The bill
authorizes the legislative authority of counties to create shellfish protection districts where NFS
pollution threatens shellfish harvesting. The shellfish program established by the county to
deal with NFS pollution will include "requiring the elimination or decrease of contaminants in
stormwater runoff, establishing monitoring, inspection and repair elements to ensure that on-
site sewage systems are adequately maintained and working properly, assuring that animal
grazing and manure management practices are consistent with best management practices, and
establishing educational and public involvement programs to inform citizens of the causes of
the threatening non-point source pollution and what they can do to decrease the amount of
such pollution" (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2363, Sec. 2 (1992)). The county may
create a shellfish protection district or may submit the proposal for voter approval. In the
event that the Department of Health has closed or downgraded the classification of a shellfish
growing area within a county, the county must establish a protection plan within 180 days of
the downgrade or closure. The act also directs counties to work with conservation districts "to
draft plans with landowners to control pollution effects of animal waste" (Engrossed Substitute
House Bill 2363, Sec. 5 (1992)). Funding for the shellfish protection programs can come
from county tax revenues, reasonable inspection fees or service charges, or from federal, state
or private grants.
The act also amended Washington's land use program under the Growth Management
Act. Comprehensive land use plans "shall provide for the protection of the quality and
C-39
-------
quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies and the quality of the marine water in
shellfish growing areas" (Engrossed Substitute House BUI 2363, Sec. 11 (1) (1992)).
4.13.S.Washington Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement
The Washington Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement (TFW) is an agreement reached by
consensus between representatives of persons affected by forest practices that result in impacts
on fisheries, wildlife and water quality. Participants agreed that forest management should be
conducted in such a way as to maintain and protect fisheries, wildlife, water quality and
quantity, cultural resources and timber resources. As a result of the TFW agreement and
recommendations made by participants, changes may arise in statutes, regulations, and forest
management techniques. The TFW agreement works with the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), which regulates forest practices. A new management system to incorporate
suggestions of the TFW agreement and improve coordination includes changing the structure
of DNR, creating interdisciplinary teams to respond to technical forest practices, and
improving public participation and access to agency decision making (TFW Agreement 1987).
The TFW agreement includes addressing cumulative impacts. Forest practices will
reflect the need to monitor cumulative effects in watersheds through Resource Management
Plans to identify and resolve "problems in those basins to deal with cumulative effects, or
baseline regulations which anticipate cumulative effects" (TFW Agreement 1987).
4.13.4.Idaho Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program
Local soil conservation districts in Idaho administer the Idaho Agricultural Pollution
Abatement Program to address agricultural NPS pollution in identified watersheds. The soil
conservation districts enter into voluntary agreements with private landowners who agree to
comply with BMPs to abate NPS pollution. The state provides funding for local watershed
programs through inheritance, tobacco, and sales taxes.
The Pollution Abatement Program is centered on a feedback loop concept, contained in
the Idaho groundwater plan. Water quality resources are identified, a corresponding BMP is
applied to address the protection of the resource, followed by evaluation and modification of
the BMP if necessary to reach the desired benefit (Harkness 1992).
4.14. CONCLUSION
Existing programs in Oregon including the Forest Practices Act, the statewide land use
goals, the NPS pollution program, and the work of the soil and water conservation districts,
are conducive to statewide watershed management. Integration of existing programs and
coordination among state agencies and between state and local government and private
landowners will be challenges for a statewide management program such as that being
developed by SWMG.
Washington's TFW agreement is an example of how conflicting uses within watersheds
may be resolved through participation of affected user groups in the policy-making process
itself.
C-40
-------
5. A NEW COASTAL NON-POINT POLLUTION CONTROL
PROGRAM
5.1. INTRODUCTION
The 1990 amendments to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) created a
Coastal Non-point Pollution Control program which could prove very significant in
maintaining and improving the water quality of coastal watersheds. For estuarine waters,
current best estimates show that of the approximately 75% of waters assessed, 10% are
threatened and 35% are impaired (Memorandum in U.S. EPA 1991b). The leading sources of
NPS pollution in estuarine waters are urban runoff and agriculture. Some of the coastal NPS
provisions are viewed by agency and congressional staff as a model for improved responses to
NPS pollution to be included in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
The 1990 amendments require coastal states to develop programs to protect their coastal
watersheds from non-point source pollution. Modest grant funds are provided to support the
coastal state efforts, and fiscal sanctions apply to states that do not comply. States that fail to
submit approvable plans by 1996 will have portions of CZMA and Clean Water Act grant
funds withheld. Coastal NPS programs must be coordinated with the states' CWA NPS
pollution programs and water quality standards.
5.2. LEGALIZATION OF NPS POLLUTION CONTROL
New CZMA statutory provisions reflect Congress' increased concern about coastal
watershed water quality. CZMA section 302 finds that "Land uses in the coastal zone, and the
uses of adjacent lands which drain into the coastal zone, may significantly affect the quality of
coastal waters and habitats, and efforts to control coastal water pollution from land use
activities must be improved." Under section 303(2)(B) state coastal programs are to provide
for "the management of coastal development to improve, safeguard, and restore the quality of
coastal waters, and to protect natural resources and existing uses of those waters." Section
306(d)(16) specifically requires state coastal programs to contain "enforceable policies and
mechanisms to implement" the states" coastal NPS program. This requirement distinguishes
coastal NPS programs from existing NPS efforts such as the Soil Conservation Service's
agricultural programs and Clean Water Act (CWA) section 319. However, coastal NPS
management measures including land use controls will not be enforceable as a matter of
federal law; instead, in the tradition of other components of state coastal programs, they will
be developed, implemented, and enforced by the states as a matter of state law.
Under section 6217(e) of the 1990 CZMA reauthorization act, codified at 16 U.S.C. §
1455b, state coastal zone boundaries will be evaluated as to whether they extend inland "to the
extent necessary to control the land and water uses that have a significant impact on coastal
waters of the state." Coastal state definitions of their CZMA coastal zones vary greatly. The
mandated boundary evaluations could be crucial in insuring that the states use ecologically
rational boundaries to manage coastal NPS pollution. However, defining the coastal zone's
inland boundary was a very sensitive issue in the initial development of many state coastal
C-41
-------
programs, so some reluctance to modify them on the part of the states can be expected (Powell
and Hershman 1991).
Section 6217 also requires the states to identify land uses which individually or
cumulatively may degrade coastal waters and critical areas in which new or expanded land uses
require special additional management measures. Section 6217(a)(2) makes it clear that state
coastal NFS programs, once they are developed "shall serve as an update and expansion" of
the state's CWA section 319 NFS program for the coastal waters they cover.
5.3. EPA AND NOAA GUIDANCE TO THE STATES
As required by section 6217, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
published Coastal Non-point Source Pollution Management Measures Guidance for use by the
states in developing their coastal NPS programs. Section 6217(g)(5) defines management
measures as "economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants
from existing and new categories and classes of non-point sources of pollution, which reflect
the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best
available non-point pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria,
operating methods, or other alternatives."
The EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have
jointly issued Coastal Non-point Source Pollution State Program Guidance. According to
CZMA section 306(b)(2) state coastal NPS programs must be submitted to NOAA and EPA
for approval within thirty months after EPA issues the final management measures guidance in
January, 1993. EPA's guidance specifies management measures to control NPS from
agriculture, silviculture, urban development (including construction, septic tanks, highways,
bridges, and airports), hydromodification (including dams, levees, impoundments, and
shoreline erosion), and marinas as the technical basis for state coastal NPS programs.
Measures are included which address wetland and riparian area protection and the use of
vegetated filter strips in conjunction with a variety of land uses. The guidance does not
impose numerical limits on NPS pollution or address the overall question of coastal economic
growth and development.
Under EPA's coastal NPS guidance, the states will employ both technology-based and
water quality-based approaches to NPS management. The EPA's goal is to have the states get
the management measures on the ground in a short period of time to reduce NPS pollution
while implementing additional measures to address known water quality problems. In turn,
improved management of NPS pollution sources would be a major, if not the single most
important, step toward the overall goal of an integrated watershed approach to water quality
problems.
The EPA Region 10 staff in Seattle have strongly urged EPA and NOAA headquarters
staffs in Washington, D.C. to allow the region's coastal states to take a watershed protection
approach (EPA 1992) in implementing section 6217. This would allow the states to prioritize
their efforts on a watershed-by-watershed basis, and thus provide them with flexibility and
efficiency in allocating the relatively small resources available for NPS pollution control.
According to Region 10 staff, "The reason for controlling non-point sources is to meet the
C-42
-------
Clean Water Act goal of protecting the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters. This requires consideration of overall habitat issues, which is best done on a
watershed basis" (Gakstatter 1991) (emphasis added).
5.4. OREGON'S COASTAL NFS RESPONSE
With some conceptual and fiscal reservations, Oregon coastal program and water
quality staff have responded to the federal coastal NFS program. DLCD director Dick Benner
has stated that managing on a watershed basis is what section 6217 is all about. However, the
abilities of both DLCD and DEQ, as the state's water quality agency, to respond to section
6217 could be hampered by Measure 5 staffing cutbacks.
DLCD comments on EPA's proposed management measures guidance expressed
concern about the feasibility in Oregon of implementing section 6217(b)'s core requirements at
the anticipated federal funding levels. Section 6217(b)'s core requirement is that the states
implement NFS management measures complying with EPA's final guidance for all their
coastal waters regardless of any linkage to identified coastal water quality problems because of
the enormous difficulty of establishing cause and effect linkages between land use and water
quality. Subsection (b) also requires a second tier of state coastal NFS pollution control efforts
that focus on coastal land uses that are recognized contributors to coastal water quality
problems. DLCD expects that second tier measures which are specifically applied to identified
water quality problems will work better than the core requirements under which communities
and individuals are expected to change their activities without a clear idea of the reason for
doing so. To make the core requirements work, an extensive information and education
program will be necessary prior to implementation. DLCD also expressed concern about
NOAA's methodology for reviewing state coastal program boundaries.
With these perspectives in mind, DLCD applied for federal coastal program
enhancement funds in spring 1992 under CZMA section 309 to carry out a watershed-based
water quality protection program. While the program was not funded under section 309, it
could be implemented when coastal NFS funds become available. The water quality sections
of existing coastal county plans will be the starting point. The program will verify the
existence of coastal NFS problems and revise local comprehensive plans to control NFS
pollution in coastal watersheds based on a state agency adopted coastal watershed protection
policy. A Coastal Watershed Assessment will be prepared for each drainage basin starting
from DEQ's 1988 Non-point Source Assessment. To move beyond water quality data to
assess watershed quality, coastal land uses will be digitally mapped and basins and sub-basins
that need increased watershed protection will be identified. Model local ordinances and a
Coastal Watershed Protection Manual also will be developed. The clear intent is to move
beyond past water quality control efforts to true total watershed management.
5.5. TILLAMOOK BAY'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Nationally the section 6217 coastal NFS program is viewed as assisting the National
Estuary Programs (NEP) designated by EPA under CWA section 320 in coping with NFS
problems. Such coordination is mandated by section 6217(a)(2). Management plans for NEP
estuaries such as Puget Sound, Casco Bay in Maine, Buzzard Bay in Massachusetts, and
C-43
-------
Chesapeake Bay identify and propose remedies for NPS pollution. However, the plans, even
when approved by EPA, remain advisory only. Thus the section 6217 program can assist state
and local governments involved with NEP estuaries with implementation and enforcement of
NPS pollution controls.
Tillamook Bay on the northern Oregon coast recently was designated under the NEP
program. EPA designation brought $150,000 in federal funds the first year, and will bring a
maximum of $2.5 million over 4 years. Tillamook Bay water quality suffers from excessive
sedimentation and bacterial contamination that has forced periodic commercial shellfish harvest
closures. A well-designed and executed NPS management plan for Tillamook Bay could serve
as a model watershed based approach for both the NEP and section 6217 programs.
5.6. FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY OBLIGATIONS TO COMPLY WITH OREGON'S COASTAL
NPS PROGRAM
The 1990 CZMA amendments support coordinated state agency approaches to
watershed water quality in several important ways. CZMA section 306(d)(15) was added to
require that by November 5, 1993 state coastal programs include "a mechanism to ensure that
all State agencies will adhere to the program," including the program's enforceable policies
regarding coastal NPS pollution developed under section 6217. Section 6217(b)(6) itself
requires that the state's coastal NPS program include "mechanisms to improve coordination
among State agencies and between State and local officials responsible for land use programs
and permitting, water quality permitting and enforcement, habitat protection, and public health
and safety" including mechanisms such as joint project review and memoranda of agreement.
In Oregon, state agency consistency with the state's coastal program and statewide land
use planning Goal 6's mandate to avoid degrading the state's river basins is already required
by provisions of the state land use planning law. With improved implementation and
enforcement, those provisions could provide the legal foundation for Oregon's compliance
with section 306(d)(15) and section 6217(b)(6).
In addition, the CZMA's federal consistency provisions as strengthened by the 1990
amendments can be used by state coastal program agencies such as Oregon's DLCD to review
federal actions anywhere in state watersheds including both water and upland areas for coastal
zone water quality impacts. The federal actions covered include federally funded and
permitted activities of non-federal actors as well as federal construction and public lands
management activities. Under CZMA section 307 as amended in 1990, any such federal
action whether inside or outside the coastal zone "affecting any land or water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone" must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the state's
coastal program with only limited exceptions. Thus states which develop strong coastal NPS
policies pursuant to section 6217 are provided with both procedural and substantive bases for
subjecting federal actions affecting the coastal zone to those and other relevant policies of the
state's coastal program.
Congress also is requiring specific federal programs to be carried out consistently with
state coastal NPS programs as well as state CWA section 319 NPS management programs.
For example, for federally aided highway construction under the Intermodal Surface
C-44
-------
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, section 1057 deals with erosion control during highway
construction in the following way:
(a) DEVELOPMENT. The Secretary [of Transportation] shall develop erosion
controls guidelines for States to follow in carrying out construction projects funded
in whole or in part under this title.
(b) MORE STRINGENT STATE REQUIREMENTS. Guidelines developed under
subsection (a) shall not preempt any requirement made by or under State law if such
requirement is more stringent than the guidelines.
(c) CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PROGRAMS. Guidelines developed under
subsection (a) shall be consistent with both non-point source management programs
under section 319... and... guidance under section 6217(g)...
CWA reauthorization legislation could require EPA to be consistent with its own
actions and the actions of the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation under the coastal
NPS and highway legislation respectively. These legal linkages to coastal and section 319
NPS controls, if consistently inserted by Congress into federal program legislation, could
strengthen NPS management significantly. The inclusion of such provisions in federal
legislation governing the management of national forests and other federal public lands
discussed below would support application of state coastal NPS program requirements under
the CZMA consistency requirements discussed above to federal public lands and apply state
section 319 NPS management to federal public lands as well.
5.7. A POLICY QUESTION FOR FURTHER EVALUATION: THE RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS
OF COASTAL AND INLAND SOURCES TO COASTAL POLLUTION
Given the limited federal and state resources available to manage coastal water quality
on a watershed basis, it becomes quite important to determine the relative contributions of
upriver versus coastal pollution sources to coastal water quality problems. A recent journal
article (Phillips 1991) reached the following conclusions based on research in North Carolina:
A watershed-based approach to water quality management is necessary for
protecting coastal water quality, but the relative importance of inland pollution
sources on estuaries is often overestimated....The over-estimation of upstream
contributions is attributable to a failure to recognize that many estuaries have
little or no inland drainage area, the confusion of basinwide pollutant loading
with pollutant delivery to estuaries, the low delivery ratios for many pollutants
within drainage basins, and disproportipnately high pollutant delivery for
sources within the coastal zone....As a general rule, resources expended on
pollution control within or near the coastal zone will result in more coastal
water quality improvement per unit effort than resources expended upstream....
This is not to say that the watersheds that feed estuaries should be ignored
by coastal water resource managers....More important, water quality in inland
sections of a basin should be of equal concern to that of coastal waters. But
C-45
-------
there is no denying that where estuarine water quality is the sole concern, the
greater pollution control per unit effort is achieved by giving priority attention
to sources in and near the estuary.
If these views reflect scientific consensus and they are equally applicable to Pacific Northwest
estuaries, they have important implications for coastal water quality management in general
and for the design and implementation of state coastal NFS programs in particular.
6. WATER LAW PRINCIPLES RELEVANT TO A WATERSHED
APPROACH AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.1. INTRODUCTION
While pollution control law focuses on water quality, state water law governs the
allocation of water quantities from rivers and lakes for both instream and out of stream uses
such as irrigation. In addition, the states own the beds of navigable rivers and lakes (subject to
the public trust doctrine discussed below), while the adjacent landowners share ownership of
the beds of non-navigable water bodies.
Obviously, diversion of significant quantities upstream will affect water quality
downstream, yet traditional western state water law tends to ignore those quality effects so
long as the upstream diversion is otherwise for a beneficial use. This includes diversions
completely out of the basin which eliminate any possibility of significant return flow to the
river after the beneficial use. Even where there are significant return flows, quality problems
may be increased because the return flow is of lesser quality due to salts, fertilizers, pesticides,
sediments, etc., than the water diverted. Furthermore, critical characteristics such as
temperature and chemical composition are affected when water is diverted or held in a
reservoir. Each diversion can increase the concentration of natural or human-caused
contaminants in the water that remains. Pumping water from a well can draw pollutants into
previously uncontaminated ground water aquifers which themselves contribute to surface
stream flows. Individual water uses may not seriously affect the quality of water in a stream
or aquifer, but the cumulative effects may be quite serious.
Two reasons such water uses have not been controlled in order to protect water quality
are the number of small, individual uses that are involved and a tradition of respecting long-
used state water quantity allocations as property-like rights in designing much more modern
federal and state pollution control laws. Even with increased emphasis on NFS pollutants,
those laws still tend to focus regulation on point source discharges by industrial waste and
municipal sewage dischargers rather than diversions which adversely affect water quality. In
addition, irrigation return flows are specifically excluded from point source control under the
CWA, leaving pollution from agriculture, the largest water user in the West, mostly
uncontrolled. (National Research Council 1989).
Fortunately, water law is evolving toward greater recognition of the linkages between
quantity allocations and water quality. Within state water law, one finds increasing state
legislative and judicial recognition of quantity allocations to instream purposes such as fish,
C-46
-------
wildlife, habitat, and recreation. (Western Governors' Association 1986). One also finds
proposed diversions being rejected or modified based on federal and state pollution control,
wetlands, and species protection legislation. This section of the report reviews those trends for
developments of special significance to watershed approaches to water quality and cumulative
impact analysis.
In a previous Congress one bill to reauthorize the CWA would have shifted EPA's
focus from pollution control to stream quality management. As Senator Mark Hatfield
recognized, such a shift would have significant implications for traditional state control over
water allocations. In response, he introduced a bill which would have established a fourteen-
member Western Water Policy Review Commission to undertake a comprehensive review of
western water resource problems and programs. The Commission would have reviewed the
respective roles of the states and the federal government and decided whether additional
federal water storage projects were needed. A comprehensive review of all water laws would
have been performed as well. According to Senator Hatfield:
We must continuously work toward a doctrine of conservation and wise use
of our finite water resources. Coordination and interrelation of competing water
uses and needs such as agriculture, urban consumption, industry, recreation,
and fish and wildlife is the primary goal of the [proposed] Western Water
Policy Review Act (Hatfield 1992).
Pending such a comprehensive review, western state water law continues to evolve
incrementally in directions supportive of watershed approaches sensitive to cumulative impacts
on water quality. Under principles of prior appropriation, those who diverted a river's flow
first for a beneficial use such as irrigation or municipal water supply are protected in low flow
years against other competing uses of the flow, including instream needs. However, in
England and eastern states of the U.S., the courts apply the very different principles of
riparianism which classically confined rights to use water to landowners adjacent to the river
for uses within the watershed. California applies riparianism together with its prior
appropriation system. For example, Deetz v. Carter. 43 Cal. Rptr. 321 (1965), protected the
domestic water uses of downstream riparians against an upstream riparian's agricultural
diversion.
As water law professor Dan Tarlock has commented:
From the beginning, western courts rejected the watershed limitation, but
many recent... [decisions] modify the law of prior appropriation and reintroduce
the... watershed protection rule in the form of a premise that river systems
should be managed on an ecosystem basis....These [decisions]...reflect the
transition of the West from an irrigation economy to a series of urban and
environmental oases. They also reflect the decay of the progressive era
understanding that water conservation equals...storage and the emergence of an
environmental ethic for water management. (Tarlock 199la).
C-47
-------
6.2. OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCREMENTAL WATER LAW REFORM
Illustrative of this trend is a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision. Most state water
allocation statutes, including Oregon's, authorize the diversion permit granting authority to
weigh the public interest in deciding whether to grant a permit. In State v. Morros. 766 P.2d
263 (Nev. 1988), the Nevada Supreme Court determined that watershed protection through
maintenance of lake water levels sought by federal agencies for recreation and fishery purposes
was consistent with the public interest. With such precedents as part of state water law,
watershed protection becomes a legitimate basis for administrative denial or conditioning of
permits to avoid adverse watershed impacts.
Also illustrative are recent California court decisions interpreting California water law
in ways much more sensitive to watershed values, instream uses, and cumulative impacts on
water quality than has been traditional in the West. While these decisions are indicative of the
ways water law could evolve in other western states such as Idaho, Oregon, and Washington,
no other western state's courts have gone so far as California in those directions. In fact, a
1993 Washington Supreme Court decision refused to apply the public trust doctrine to a
dispute between competing private water users on a river. Rettkowski v. Department of
Ecology. 122 Wn. 2d 219 (1993).
Applying the public trust doctrine to prior appropriation water law, California courts
are reviewing long-established and proposed new diversions for their impacts on watershed
flora, fauna, habitat, water quality, and even air quality. In National Audubon Society v.
Superior Court. 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346 (1983), cert, denied. 464
U.S. 977 (1983), the California Supreme Court found that the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power's decades of previously approved diversions of water from the feeder stream
of Mono Lake were open to reexamination to insure protection of such public trust values.
Nearly a decade later, the operational meaning of this decision is still under both
judicial and regulatory review, but interim protection for stream flows into Mono Lake was
provided by other litigation under California's Fish and Game Code sections 5937 and 5946
requiring Los Angeles to release sufficient water to protect fisheries in the feeder streams.
California Trout. Inc. v. State Water Resources Control Bd.. 207 Cal. App. 3d 585, 255 Cal.
Rptr. 184 (1989); California Trout. Inc. v. Superior Court. 218 Cal. App. 3d 187, 266 Cal.
Rptr. 788 (1990).
In April 1991 in the public trust action Superior Court Judge Terrance Phinney ruled
that the lake level must be stabilized at 6,377 feet and that Los Angeles cannot divert any
water from the four feeder streams until the lake, at 6,375 and falling in the drought summer
of 1991, rose two feet. In the Matter of Mono Lake Water Rights Cases. Nos. 2284 and
2268, Superior Court of El Dorado County, April 17, 1991. Thus Los Angeles lost about
50,000 acre feet of its water supply, but the state legislature appropriated $60 million for
replacement supplies. It will most likely be spent on water conservation projects, the
conjunctive use of groundwater, and water rights purchases in the southern San Joaquin
Valley.
C-48
-------
In United States v. State Water Resources Control Bd.. 182 Cal. App. 3d 82, 227 Cal.
Rptr. 161 (1986), the California intermediate court of appeal applied the public trust doctrine
and California constitutional and statutory provisions regarding public water uses in ruling that
state water quality standards requiring minimum flows to protect the ecological functions of
the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta could be established even though they might interfere with
the previously established water entitlements of private, federal, and state projects. To date
the court's suggestion for basin wide management has not been implemented by the state water
resources board. The board's first report suggested that water saved through user conservation
measures be used to maintain the required salinity balance but major water users forced the
board to reexamine its conclusions. In May 1991 the board issued a water quality plan to
establish salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen water quality standards under CWA
section 303(c)(2)(A). But in September 1991 the Region IX federal EPA administrator found
that the plan was inadequate and refused to approve the salinity and temperature water quality
standards (Western States Water, No. 904, Sept. 13, 1991). The delta's future remains a key
issue in California water law and politics and, according to Professor Tarlock, "no allocation
or reallocation decision that affects water quality there can pass muster until these concerns are
addressed." (Tarlock 1991b).
Efforts to protect water quality in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta also
involve complex issues of federal and state authority over water resources. In 1978 the
California Water Resources Control Board had ordered the federal Bureau of Reclamation's
Central Valley Project to reduce its diversions in order to protect the delta's water quality.
Water districts that had contracted for project water argued that the board's order was an
unconstitutional impairment of the district's contracts with the Bureau because it would result
in a cutback in water deliveries. But the California intermediate court of appeal rejected that
challenge as part of its decision cited above. See also Madera Irrigation District v. U.S.. 985
F.2d 1397 (9th Cir.), cert, denied. 114 S. Ct. 59 (1993).
The board's order as it affected the Bureau was supported by the 1978 decision of the
U.S. Supreme Court in California v. United States. 438 U.S. 645 (1978). There the Bureau
had applied to the board to impound 2.4 million acre-feet of water from California's
Stanislaus River as part of the Central Valley Project's New Melones Dam. Environmental
concerns centered on the dam's inundation of a nine-mile pristine stretch of white water that
was the most rafted in the west. The California board imposed various conditions on the
Bureau's operation of the project including conditions prohibiting full impoundment until the
Bureau was able to show firm commitments or at least a specific plan for the use of the water,
prohibiting collection of water during periods of the year when unappropriated water is
unavailable, requiring that a preference be given to water users in the water basin in which the
dam was located, and requiring storage releases to be made so as to maintain maximum and
minimum chemical concentrations in the San Joaquin River and protect fish and wildlife. The
U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Bureau's challenge to the constitutional and statutory validity
of the board's conditions. Under the current wording of the federal Reclamation Act, state
conditions imposed on Bureau projects are valid unless they directly conflict with provisions of
the federal legislation authorizing the particular Bureau project involved.
C-49
-------
More recently, a California trial court applied the California Supreme Court's Mono
Lake public trust doctrine decision discussed above to the East Bay Municipal Utility District's
request to make a new diversion of water for municipal water supply at Folsom Dam on the
American River 23 miles upstream from where it joins the Sacramento River. Environmental
Defense Fund v. East Bav Municipal Utility Dist. (No. 425955, Superior Court, Alameda
County, Cal., Jan. 2, 1990). The decision was the culmination of nearly two decades of
litigation. See Environmental Defense Fund. Inc. y, E^t Ray Municipal Utility Dist.. 52 Cal.
App. 3d 828, 125 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1975), affM, 20 Cal. 3d 327, 142 Cal. Rptr. 904, 572 P.2d
1128 (1977), rev'd. 439 U.S. 811 (1978), decision on remand. 26 Cal. 3d 183, 161 Cal. Rptr.
466, 605 P.2d 1 (1980).
In his 1990 trial court decision, Judge Richard Hodge relied on the public trust doctrine
and California Constitution Article X, section 2 which limits diversions of California waters to
beneficial uses. He imposed a physical solution that permitted the diversion but imposed strict
downstream flow maintenance requirements primarily to protect Chinook salmon on the
ground that the species is particularly affected by the vicissitudes of water flow, temperature
and composition, and that there was sufficient data to permit an informed decision regarding
the flow regimen required for its protection. He allowed the diversion based on his
determination that municipal water quality was a significant consideration and that the
upstream point of diversion was "appreciably superior" from the water quality perspective.
Included in his decision (which has not been appealed) was the appointment of a special master
to monitor compliance with the physical solution's requirements, to develop further reliable
data as to those flows required to protect public trust values, and develop a workable flow
regimen for drought years (Somach 1990).
These California decisions illustrate the potential watershed water quality benefits, still
mostly unrealized at this time, that can be achieved through judicial, legislative, and regulatory
reform of traditional western state water law. However, despite the generally incremental
nature of those processes, the time required for changes resulting in watershed water quality
benefits may be no longer than the time for such changes to occur under most of the legal and
policy paths discussed in this report. More immediate and radical changes with potential
watershed benefits may come from the application of species protection legislation, mainly the
federal Endangered Species Act, to private, local, state, and federal water diversion projects as
discussed next.
6.3. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT APPLICATIONS RELEVANT TO WATERSHED WATER
QUALITY
For particular watersheds and river basins, ranging in size and significance from the
Columbia-Snake to the Klamath and smaller, pending applications of the Endangered Species
Act have had and will have significant impacts on basin management. Many of those
applications could improve watershed water quality significantly. As the Spotted Owl
illustrates, once a species is designated as endangered or threatened by the Secretary of the
Interior, then management of the species and its designated critical habitat (such as a watershed
or river basin) becomes heavily oriented towards the survival of the species. The act
specifically requires federal agencies to avoid jeopardizing designated species and habitat and
C-50
-------
prohibits anyone from "taking" a designated species, with "taking" very broadly defined to
include adverse habitat impacts such as diverting water from a stream designated as critical
habitat.
Approximately 150 salmon runs with major problems have been identified in Oregon,
Washington, and California (Nehlson, et al. 1991). For ESA designated species, such as three
Snake River salmon species and the Klamath Lake sucker fish, designation means habitat
protection, and water flow management actions are implemented which can benefit water
quality significantly. For example, survival and recovery of the three designated Snake River
salmon species depends in part on implementation of significant amendments to the Northwest
Power Planning Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The amendments
include water releases from federal and other dams in the Columbia-Snake Basin timed to aid
fish survival and habitat preservation and restoration measures throughout the basin to counter
the adverse cumulative impacts of basin development on fish survival and water quality.
The United States Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have consistently
interpreted the act as favoring species survival over all other considerations. Suits have been
filed questioning whether the significant actions taken in managing the Columbia-Snake Basin
and Klamath Lake for species survival go far enough in meeting the Act's stringent mandates.
Judicial decisions and administrative actions involving river basins outside the Pacific
Northwest illustrate the Act's support for immediate drastic actions with water quality benefits.
In TVA v. Hill. 437 U.S. 153 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court applied the Act to stop
further construction on a nearly completed dam that would have flooded the only then known
habitat of the endangered Snail Darter fish. According to Carson-Truckee Water Conservancy
Dist. v. Clark. 741 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1984), cert, denied. 470 U.S. 1083, the Secretary of
the Interior in administering a federal reservoir may devote all water not otherwise contracted
for to endangered species protection, and need not sell the water to irrigators or other users.
Congress ratified that court decision in the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1990, P.L. 101-618, 104 Stat. 3289 (Tarlock 1991). gee alsp Pyramid
Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. U.S. Deot. of the Navv. 898 F.2d 1410 (9th Cir. 1990)
(Navy's water conservation practices held consistent with its Endangered Species Act
obligations).
Riverside Irrigation District v. Andrews. 758 F.2d 508 (10th Cir. 1985), upheld the
Corps of Engineers denial of a nationwide permit requested by an irrigation district to
construct Wildcat Dam and Reservoir on Wildcat Creek, a tributary of the South Platte River,
because the increased use of water which the reservoir would facilitate would deplete the
stream's flow and thereby injure a critical habitat of the endangered Whooping Crane.
California's continuing drought conditions have swung operation of the mammoth
federal Central Valley Project increasingly toward water releases and other measures for
salmon survival. In 1990, the National Marine Fisheries Service listed the Sacramento River
winter-run Chinook salmon as threatened (55 Federal Register 46515, Nov. 5, 1990). The
United States then sued the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, the largest capacity water
diverter on the river, to enjoin the district's water diversions until it adopted interim measures
such as intake screens to protect the salmon. The federal district court ordered the district to
C-51
-------
reduce its pumping rate by nearly 50%. United States v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, 788
F. Supp. 1126 (E.D. Cal. 1992).
Similar decisions have been reached under state endangered species laws. For
example, Little Blue Natural Resources Dist. v. Lower Platte North Natural Resources
District. 210 Neb. 862, 317 N.W.2d 726 (1982), held that the state Director of Water
Resources must comply with the state's endangered species law before issuing a water right for
an irrigation project that could harm critical habitat. The project ultimately was abandoned on
other grounds. See Tn m Applications A-15145. 230 Neb. 580, 433 N.W.2d 161 (1988).
Reclamation Act amendments (P.L. 102-575, 1992) also are providing increased flows for fish
and wildlife in the Central Valley Project.
Of course, federal and state agencies may exercise their discretionary authority under
other environmental laws to protect undesignated species and their habitat from the adverse
impacts of water diversion projects. For example, in November 1990, following several years
of controversy, acting under section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, the EPA Administrator
vetoed an Army Corps of Engineers permit for the construction of the proposed Two Forks
Dam in scenic Cheesman Canyon 24 southwest of Denver on the South Platte River. He cited
four grounds for his veto: (1) inundation of a prize trout stream; (2) elimination of a major
recreation area with a national forest; (3) destruction of valuable but undesignated wildlife; and
(4) the availability of less environmentally damaging sources of water supply including leasing
or exchanging water with other water rights holders, developing groundwater resources, and
installing water saving devices in Denver households. Litigation challenging the veto is
pending. An EPA veto of a Virginia water supply project on similar grounds was upheld in
James Citv County v. EPA. 12 F. 3d 1330 (4th Cir. 1993). The Oregon Environmental
Quality Commission's rejection (recently upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court) of the City of
Klamath Fall's proposed Salt Caves hydroelectric power project on the Klamath River under
section 401 of the CWA to protect undesignated trout and their habitat is a similar example.
See Citv of Klamath Falls v. EOC. 318 Or. 532, 870 P. 2d 825 (1994).
6.4. CONCLUSION
In acting under most environmental laws, federal and state agencies generally have
broad discretion with respect to how much weight to give watershed water quality and
cumulative impacts in deciding whether to approve or what conditions to impose on proposed
water development projects. For watersheds and river basins in which endangered and
threatened species and their habitat have been designated, the ESA generally is a much more
powerful legal tool for which implementation of its mandates often will maintain and enhance
water quality. Furthermore, its mandates apply broadly to all private, local government, state,
and federal actions on private, state, federal, or other public land in the watershed or basin
which could injure a designated species or its habitat. In assessing the risk of injury, the
cumulative impacts of activities within the watershed or basin must be considered. However,
not all watersheds or basins with water quality and cumulative impact problems have
designated species or habitat in them. In some of those, for example the Umatilla Basin in
northeastern Oregon, anadromous fish runs may have been eliminated prior to the significant
strengthening of the ESA by Congress in 1973. For those and other basins and watersheds
C-52
-------
without designated species or their habitat, other legal and policy paths to improved water
quality discussed in this report will have to be utilized.
7. THE LEGAL BASIS FOR WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ON
FEDERAL LANDS AND FEDERALLY REGULATED WATERS
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Federally-owned lands comprise approximately one-third—or about 732 million
acres—of the nation's land area (Coggins 1992). Although federal lands are found in all fifty
states, the majority lie in the western states, and typically fall within one of the five major
federal land "systems": national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, wilderness
areas, and other, extensive "public land" holdings.
The primary federal agencies responsible for managing these systems are the National
Park Service (NFS), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), all within the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), which is located in the Department of Agriculture (USDA). These are but
the primary agencies, and various other agencies contribute to the complex regulatory web
administering federal lands.
While the federal government holds title in fee to its public lands, the government's
stewardship of these lands is tempered by an obligation to manage them with an eye toward the
general public interest. In addition, the beds of navigable rivers flowing through federal
public lands are owned by the relevant state and are subject to the public trust doctrine
discussed above. Congress and the responsible agencies are often faced with the problems of
accommodating the various competing—and often conflicting—uses of federal lands. For
example, the commodity uses of irrigation, mining, grazing and timber uses often conflict with
the various wildlife, preservation, and recreation uses on the federal lands.
Essentially, Congress regulates the federal lands in two ways: through legislation which
classifies certain resources as particularly valuable and thus warranting certain additional
protections, or through laws which establish specific mandates on how to manage the resources
on federal lands. A third avenue exists for administrative, judicial, and citizen oversight of
activities on the federal lands in the National Environmental Policy Act. While the overlap of
federal statutory and regulatory management of the federal lands is extensive, this section will
review the various statutes and directives which fall within these general categories.
7.2. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT UNDER EXISTING FEDERAL LAND AND RESOURCE
PRESERVATION STATUTES
7.2.1. The National Park System
7.2.1.1.General
In the early part of the century, Congress recognized the importance of withdrawing
certain pristine areas from the inevitable consequences of increased population growth, energy
C-53
-------
demand, and resource extraction. As a result, Congress enacted the National Park Service
Organic Act of 1916, 16 U.S.C. § 1, which charged the National Park Service with preserving
the wildlife and scenery of certain congressionally designated park areas for the present and
future enjoyment of those amenities (Coggins 1992).
7.2.1.2.Park Service Discretion and Judicial Deference
Yet while the principal legal mandate for the Park Service was—and continues to be—
preservation, the Park Service retains considerable discretion to regulate mining claims,
grazing rights, recreation and various other land uses within and adjacent to park lands (ORC
1992). Indeed, the courts have repeatedly upheld the Park Service's discretionary management
policies, even if such policies appear to contradict the Organic Act's general preservation
directives. For example, the courts have refused to require the Park Service to close a
campground to protect grizzly habitat, National Wildlife Federation v. National Park Service.
628 F. Supp. 384 (D. Wyo. 1987), rejected an attempt to close a National Seashore to off-
road vehicles, Conservation Foundation v. Hodel. 864 F.2d 954 (1st Cir. 1989), and allowed
environmentally damaging road-building in Sequoia National Park, Sierra Club V, Hickel,
433 F.2d 24 (9th Cir. 1970), affd on other grounds. 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
In light of traditional principles of administrative law, and recognizing Congress' broad
grant of discretion to the Park Service under the Organic Act, the courts' historical deference
to Park Service policy judgments is not surprising (ORC 1992). However, as increased
urbanization and resource development encroach on park values, the Park Service increasingly
will encounter problems from external activities which threaten in-park uses, and the courts
may not tolerate Park Service actions which fail to protect parks. For example, in Sierra Club
v. Department of the Interior. 398 F. Supp. 284 (N.D. Cal. 1975), a suit was brought to force
Park Service action on private logging activities adjacent to Redwood National Park which
were causing aesthetic and ecological damage within the park. The Court ruled that the
Secretary had abused his discretion by failing to uphold his public trust obligations, and by
neglecting to take appropriate steps to curtail the injurious activities. Yet despite the positive
implications for watershed protection in Sierra Club, efforts by the federal government and
third parties to protect parks from external threats have had mixed success (Coggins 1992),
and until Congress acts to expand the Park Service's authority to regulate out-of-park
activities, watershed management within the National Park System will remain uncertain.
7.2.1.3.Park Service Management Policies and Guidelines
As part of its internal management strategy, the Park service relies on a set of
mandatory management policies, coupled with various, voluntary resource guidelines (ORC
1992 -citing NPS Management Policies (Dec. 1988)). And although these policies and
guidelines address such watershed-related concerns as water quality and quantity, floodplains
and wetlands, and federal reserved water rights, the Oregon Rivers Council (ORC) has
criticized these directives as "soft constraints on the management of rivers and riparian areas,"
which "still leave much up to managers' discretion" (ORC 1992).
According to an ORC draft report, a significant number of riverine ecosystems within
the National Park System are threatened by grazing, the lasting effects of past placer mining,
extensive recreational use, and out-of-park water diversions and impairments which interfere
C-54
-------
with in-park stream flows. Because the Park Service's policies and guidelines are not, per se,
enforceable regulations, ORC recommends that additional federal legislation is needed to
restore riparian and other watershed areas degraded by past land use practices, establish
enforceable standards aimed at controlling land uses which affect water and watershed quality,
require park managers to pursue all available legal means to counter destructive off-park
activities, and mandate plan coordination with adjacent federal lands.
7.2.2. The Wilderness Act of1964
7.2.2.1. General
The Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1131-1136, declares that certain areas warrant
exceptional protections, and should be maintained in a natural state, unaffected by man's
permanent influences. While various factors contribute to the designation of lands under the
National Wilderness Preservation System, generally the areas must be large (that is, usually
greater than 5,000 acres), roadless, and undeveloped (Coggins 1992).
Currently, the Wilderness System contains over 32 million acres of federal lands (ORC
1992), but that number could exceed 40 million acres when Congress considers
recommendations from BLM (ORC 1992).
7.2.2.2.Wilderness Management
Typically, when lands are transferred into the Wilderness System, the agency which
previously had jurisdiction over the lands retains management responsibilities. Once Congress
designates an area, many of the traditional land uses which pose threats to watershed quality
are prohibited or more strictly regulated. For example, roadbuilding and clearcutting activities
are excluded from designated areas, and other uses, such as grazing and recreation, are under
tighter regulation. As a result, when BLM or Forest Service lands are transferred into the
Wilderness System, the watersheds within them are guaranteed greater protection than if the
lands were subject to the agencies' normal multiple-use policies.
Additionally, because wilderness areas may be able to claim certain implied federal
reserved water rights, the Wilderness Act could provide an important legal basis for watershed
protection. However, the court in Sierra Club v. Yeutter. 911 F.2d 1405 (10th Cir. 1990),
vacated on procedural grounds a holding, that wilderness designation creates additional implied
water rights. Thus, whether wilderness areas will have continued entitlement to reserved
water rights — and their accompanying watershed protections — is left for Congress (Coggins
1991).
7.2.3. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968
7.2.3.1. General
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287,
establishes a system to preserve the free-flowing condition of certain riverine segments
possessing outstanding scenic, recreational, fish, wildlife, geologic, cultural and other similar
values (Gray 1988). To date, 125 river segments have been designated under the program,
comprising over 9,000 miles of waterways (ORC 1992). Because the WSRA removes many
C-55
-------
river segments from the multiple-use mandates of the federal agencies, it offers considerable
promise for holistic, watershed-based management approaches to protect water quality and
quantity. However, as will be discussed, the WSRA's limited mandates, coupled with its
grant of broad discretionary authority to local managers, suggests that further congressional
action is needed to provide a truly comprehensive watershed management approach under the
WSRA.
7.2.3.2.Management of Wild and Scenic Riven
Like the Wilderness Act, agency management responsibility of wild and scenic rivers
resides with the agency having prior jurisdiction over the resource (Coggins 1992). In cases
where other conservation statutes apply, or where agency jurisdictions overlap, interagency
coordination is encouraged, and generally, the more restrictive conservation provisions apply.
In carrying out their WSRA management duties, the USFS, BLM and other agencies
have broad discretion in establishing specific management directives (ORC 1992). However,
the statutory basis for these directives rests on the classification of each segment into one of
three sub-classes: "wild river areas," which are free of impoundments, inaccessible by trail
and essentially untainted by human imprints; "scenic river areas," which have attributes
similar to wild river areas, but which are accessible by trail; and "recreational river areas," is
the least restrictive category, and which may be accessible by trail and affected by past
development and/or impoundments (16 U.S.C. § 1273). As ORC points out, this
classification system may include, but does not require, the management of certain ephemeral
streams which are critical to watershed functions.
Importantly, the WSRA instructs federal agencies with jurisdiction over lands adjacent
to designated rivers to take whatever actions are necessary to fulfill the general purposes of the
act, and the court in Thomas v. Peterson. 589 F. Supp. 1139 (D. Idaho 1984), rev'd on other
grounds. 753 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1985), held this to be a "continuing obligation" on agencies
to protect both water quality and quantity within designated reaches. In support of this
ongoing obligation, the court in Wilderness Society v. Tvrell. 701 F. Supp. 1473 (E.D. Cal.
1988), enjoined a Forest Service salvage timber sale on lands beyond the protective corridor
established for a designated river segment, partly because the harvest would likely degrade
water quality and fish habitat within the designated area. This opinion suggests that federal
agencies must comply with recommendations from EPA and state water pollution control
boards when taking actions that could affect designated rivers (Arjo 1990).
Additionally, in order to preserve the water quality and free-flowing condition of
designated segments, the WSRA restricts the development of any impoundments by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) "on or directly affecting" any designated
area, and forbids all agencies from assisting any water development project "that would have a
direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established." Both of these
statutory directives were upheld by the court in Swanson Mining Co. v. FERC. 790 F.2d 96
(D.C. Cir. 1986).
The WSRA adds additional watershed protections to designated segments by expressly
reserving unappropriated waters in amounts necessary to fulfill the general purposes of the act.
Yet despite the WSRA's apparently restrictive mandates and the caselaw interpreting them,
C-56
-------
some have argued that the current statutory scheme is overly-discretionary for administering
agencies, and ill-suited for effective watershed management.
For example, the Oregon Rivers Council (ORC) notes that "protected areas are limited
to "segments" and arbitrarily determined riparian corridors which are not determined by their
ecological relationship to the river system" (ORC 1992). ORC also points out that the WSRA
provides little authority to prevent adverse impacts arising outside of federal jurisdiction, and
fails to confront the problem of restoring degraded rivers. In short, the ORC concludes that
the WSRA does not provide adequate legal authority for watershed protection unless an entire
river system is designated, and even then, the act can only be considered as part of any
integrated watershed management plan.
7.2.4. Watershed Protection Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
Since its enactment in 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-
1543, has played an important role in affecting federal, state and private activities on federal
lands. Because a primary purpose of the ESA is to preserve the habitats of species listed as
threatened or endangered, the act provides a potentially powerful legal mechanism for the
protection of watersheds as discussed above in connection with western water law. Recent
court actions concerning the Northern Spotted Owl, and the ensuing injunctions of logging
activities in the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest, clearly illustrate the ESA's
potential as an effective—albeit backdoor—watershed management directive.
The ESA is a highly procedural statute, and as such, provides substantial opportunity
for citizen group involvement. Yet along with the ESA's procedural requirements are a series
of rigorous substantive mandates — most notably the protection of "critical habitats" in which
listed species reside, which has led Professor Coggins to call the ESA "the closest thing to an
absolute management standard in public natural resources law" (Coggins 1992).
7.3. WATERSHED PROTECTION UNDER FEDERAL LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
STATUTES
7.3.1. The Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960
Ever since Gifford Pinchot espoused the principles of multiple-use and sustained yield
during the late nineteenth century, these concepts have been embedded in agency management
of the federal lands. However, with the passage of the Multiple-Use, Sustained Yield Act
(MUSY) in 1960, 16 U.S.C. § 528 et seq.. the watershed resource officially became a
"coequal multiple surface use," for which federal agencies were charged with managing for
sustained yield.
7.3.2. The National Forest Service
7.3.2.1.The Organic Act and the USFS's Authority over National Forest Waters
Watershed protection has been an important if not overriding priority in federal forest
management since the late nineteenth century. In the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897,
Congress declared that the national forests were "established...to improve and protect the
C-57
-------
forest within the boundaries [and] for the purposes of securing favorable conditions of water
flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of
the United States."
Yet while the phrase "securing favorable conditions of water flows" has escaped
judicial scrutiny, Professor Coggins argues that these words are synonymous with "watershed"
(Coggins 1991). Others suggest that Congress was more concerned with protecting watersheds
in the National Forests than securing timber supplies (Wilkinson and Anderson 1985).
However, in United States v. New Mexico. 438 U.S. 696 (1978), the Supreme Court denied
the Forest Service's arguments that minimum instream flows to protect aesthetic, recreational
and fish values were reserved to the U.S. within a National Forest. Importantly, the USFS
had not argued that it had rights to protect watersheds under the Organic Act, and Justice
Powell noted in his dissent that the majority opinion still allowed the USFS to retain certain
reserved instream rights for amounts of water needed for timber and "whatever other flora is
necessary to maintain the watershed."
Subsequent courts have followed the New Mexico reasoning, and have refused to
award the USFS instream rights for wildlife or recreational purposes. However, in United
States v. Jesse. 744 P.2d 491 (Colo. 1987), the Colorado Supreme Court accepted the USFS
argument that instream flows were essential "to secure favorable conditions of water flows"
under the Organic Act, and Professor Coggins suggests that the case stands for the proposition
that watershed protection in the form of favorable waterflow conditions implicates not only
minimum stream flows but also the physical structure of the stream channel.
7.3.2.2.Forest Unit Planning and Riverine Management Under the National Forest
Management Act of 1976
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1600-1616, provides a
comprehensive management scheme for the National Forest System by requiring preparation of
management plans for individual national forest units. As of 1988, the USFS had prepared the
10-year management plans required under NFMA for each of the 156 national forest units,
and as ORC points out, the implications of these plans for aquatic ecosystems are just now
becoming evident (ORC 1992).
NFMA contains several provisions which arguably limit the USFS's discretion in
determining allowable land uses and practices within the National Forests. For instance,
NFMA directs the USFS to refrain from authorizing logging operations on lands deemed
"unsuitable" under applicable forest land use plans. Unsuitability is based on "physical,
economic and other pertinent factors," and must be reviewed every ten years (Coggins 1992).
Additionally, NFMA requires that USFS forest plans "insure" that timber harvesting
will not result in irreversible damage to watersheds, wetlands, or water quality, and places
special restrictions on the use of clear-cutting extraction techniques. As Professor Coggins
explains: "the Forest Service not only must conform [timber] sales to [site-specific land use]
plans, it must also determine that each sale meets the protective statutory criteria as expanded
upon in the regulations," such as state water quality standards. Thus, in Northwest Indian
Cemetery Protective Ass'n v. Peterson. 795 F.2d 699 (9th Or. 1986), rev'd on Pther grounds,
485 U.S. 439 (1988), the court ruled that the USFS would be in violation of the CWA and
C-58
-------
NEPA even if it installed best management practices which complied with the state's land use
plan, since its road building activities would still result in violations of the state water quality
standards. Although this was a pre-NFMA case, it illustrates how a post-NFMA plan could
be struck down if it does not fulfill the disclosure requirements of NEPA, or if it violates a
state water quality standard.
Although few courts have dealt with the adequacy of NFMA-mandated forest plans due
to the long processes of plan preparation and administrative review, the court in Citizens for
Environmental Quality v. United States. 731 F. Supp. 970 (D. Colo. 1989), enjoined the
USFS from increasing timber harvest levels in the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado,
partly because USFS failed to abide by the water quality and riparian protections of NFMA.
Yet despite Citizens' potential to bolster NFMA's watershed protections, the USFS's
implementing regulations and other guidance provide only general management directives for
safeguarding riparian areas, and offer little to determine adverse effects on riverine systems
(ORC 1992; 36 C.F.R. 219 et seq.) For example, the regulations vaguely state that "special
attention shall be given to land and vegetation for approximately 100 feet from the edges of all
perennial streams" (36 C.F.R. 219.27(e)). Additionally, the regulations appear to allow
certain adverse effects on fish as long as "minimum viable" populations are preserved, which
suggests that considerable population decline will be tolerated until this minimum threshold is
attained (Anderson 1987). Other similarly vague or misreasoned directives are scattered
throughout the NFMA regulations and guidance (ORC 1992).
7.3.3. The Bureau of Land Management (ELM)
7.3.3.1. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), 43 U.S.C. §§ 1701-1784,
governs BLM's administration of grazing, mining, logging, off-road vehicle and other uses on
the federal lands. Although a primary purpose of FLPMA was to inject more formal,
systematic land use planning into BLM's management plans, FLPMA has been criticized for
being substantively vague, and BLM has yet to fulfill the statute's mandate to establish plans
for all BLM lands (ORC 1992).
Many of the statutes governing land management under the BLM generally are less
specific than those governing the USFS (ORC 1992), and over the years, BLM's land
management policies have prompted criticism from environmentalists. However, in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Morton. 388 F. Supp. 829 (D.D.C. 1974), the Court rejected
BLM's argument that a programmatic EIS would suffice to assess environmental impacts on all
BLM grazing programs, and instead required the agency to prepare numerous district-specific
EISs. As a result of the NRDC decision, BLM's subsequent decisionmaking processes have
undergone unprecedented degrees of public scrutiny (ORC 1992).
7.3.3.2.BLM Section 1712 Planning
Although a primary purpose of FLPMA is to guide BLM in its stewardship of the
public lands, many have criticized its lack of substance, schedules and content (Anderson
1987). Section 1712(c) sets out nine criteria which the Secretary of the Interior must consider
when setting land use plans and development agendas, and although each appears be a
C-59
-------
mandatory congressional charge, Professor Coggins has labeled them "remarkable for their
lack of specificity" (Coggins 1992).
Roughly, those criteria which appear to be required in section 1712 plans and which
relate to watershed and water quality protection are priority consideration for areas of critical
environmental concern (ACEC), compliance with applicable state and federal pollution laws,
and undertaking any necessary actions to prevent undue degradation of public lands. In
addition to these are a host of more general requirements such as consideration of existing and
future uses, using multiple-use/sustained yield principles, weighing long-versus short-term
benefits, and consideration of the "relative scarcity of values."
Although FLPMA apparently intends that section 1712 land use plans be binding upon
BLM, and despite FLPMA's procedural directives mandating public involvement, BLM retains
considerable discretion in setting its land use priorities, methods and topics (Coggins 1992).
Numerous courts have deferred to BLM's judgment when reviewing section 1712 plan
adequacy (ORC 1992).
7.3.3.3.Implementation of Watershed and Riparian Protection Measures
Despite Congress' apparent recognition in FLPMA that riparian and riverine areas
within BLM range and forest lands were in need of serious attention, BLM's policies and
implementing regulations do not accurately reflect this congressional concern. For example,
ORC has characterized the FLPMA regulations pertaining to fish and wildlife, and watersheds
as "too vague," and "not posting]...real management constraints]" (ORC 1992).
ORC also points out that both FLPMA and the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of
1978 (which establishes national grazing policies for the USFS and the BLM) provide
sufficient authority for BLM to protect aquatic systems from the impacts of grazing, but since
neither statute mandates the protection of these areas, BLM has been slow to implement such
programs (ORC 1992). Additionally, BLM has plainly sacrificed various watershed values for
the benefit of certain commodity extraction values (for example, timber, grazing) (ORC 1992;
Coggins 1991) — apparently in contradiction to the multiple use/sustained yield mandates of
FLPMA, yet the courts have yet to overrule BLM's discretionary management policies even
when one resource has been damaged by the overuse of another.
Furthermore, ORC has criticized BLM's national riparian and wetland policies as too
"general," and lacking "any concrete management guidelines" (ORC 1992). ORC also notes
that BLM may have some legitimate obstacles in its path toward watershed management — for
example, lack of resources to enforce plans and permits, dependence on cooperation from
grazing/logging permittees, and inability to control up-stream uses of non-federal land.
7.3.4. Water Impoundments Under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
7.3.4.1.Background
Dam and impoundment planning and building falls under the jurisdiction of a myriad of
state and federal authorities, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Agency (FERC), the
Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Soil Conservation
Service and state water resource agencies. Due to the independent historical development of
C-60
-------
each of these groups, coupled with their often divergent purposes, dam and impoundment
planning has escaped any semblance of a comprehensive, river basin type approach.
The impacts of hydropower facilities on watershed values are manyfold. Hydropower
facilities disrupt the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams, disturb the migration patterns
of anadromous fish, and affect water quality by concentrating sediment and contaminants
behind dams, among other things. Yet at the same time, hydropower is often looked upon as a
"clean" power source, particularly as the U.S. seeks to end its dependence on foreign oil
supplies, and the burning of fossil fuels is frowned upon in the global warming debate. As a
result, although the damming of riverine systems is coming under increased environmental
scrutiny, hydropower development continues to find support, particularly when compared to
the development of nuclear, coal and oil energy generation.
7.3.4.2. The Federal Power Act
The Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791-825, as amended by the Electric
Consumers Protection Act in 1986, allows FERC to license hydroelectric projects on federal
lands and within waters subject to Congress" commerce clause authority (for example, on
navigable waters). As a result of what many considered a proliferation of hydropower
development at the expense of environmental values under the original FPA, the 1986
amendments mandated equal treatment for both power and environmental interests.
Specifically, FPA section 4(e) now requires FERC, in addition to considering power and
development purposes during licensing proceedings, to give equal consideration to the
purposes of energy conservation, fish and wildlife protection, the protection of recreational
opportunities, and the preservation of other environmental aspects (16 U.S.C. § 797(e)). See
Platte River Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Maintenance Trust v. FERC. 962 F.2d 27 (D.C.
Cir. 1992).
Additionally, section 4(e) requires that these determinations be "desirable and justified
in the public interest," and the courts generally have held that FERC must make such
determinations prior to the issuance of a license. See, for example. Federal Power
Commission v. Oregon. 349 U.S. 435 (1955). Importantly, FERC's licensing procedures are
subject to the mandates of NEPA, and environmental impact statements may be required if a
license issuance might "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." See, far
example. National Wildlife Federation v. FERC. 912 F.2d 1471 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
Section 10(a) is the FPA's planning section. It requires that all licenses issued by
FERC be in accordance with a "comprehensive plan for improving or developing a
waterway...[for] commerce, for the improvement and utilization of water power development,
for the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife (including related
spawning grounds and habitat), and for other beneficial public uses..." 16 U.S.C. § 803(a).
As ORC notes, FERC has taken the position that section 10(a)'s comprehensive planning
requirements do not require it to complete systematic plans for entire river basins, but instead
need only consider the facts presented during licensing proceedings (ORC 1992). Several
court decisions have contradicted this position by holding that FERC must consider a project's
impacts on all other projects within a river basin when adopting comprehensive plans. For
example. LaFlamme v. FERC. 852 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1988).
C-61
-------
Additionally, under section 100), FERC must impose conditions on licenses based on
recommendations received from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and state fish and wildlife agencies. 16 U.S.C. § 803(j). However, the authority of
state agencies to influence FERC license applications has been cast into question as a result of
the Supreme Court's ruling in California v. FERC. 110 S.Ct. 2024 (1990), which allowed
FERC to preempt the instream flow recommendations made by California to protect fishery
and recreational values. A potential foothold for states, however, may be found in section 401
of the Clean Water Act, which recently has been held to require FERC to obtain certification
from the state that the anticipated project will comply with state water quality standards.
Keating V. FERC. 927 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1991). The United States Supreme Court recently
approved state minimum stream flow requirements imposed on a hydroelectric project subject
to FERC's jurisdiction through a section 401 certification. State v. PUD No, 1, 121 Wash. 2d
179, 849 P.2d 646 (1993), affirmed. 1994 WestLaw 223 821 (May 31, 1994). The Oregon
Supreme Court recently approved a similar use of the 401 certification process. City pf
Klamath Falls v. EOC. 318 Or. 532, 870 P.2d 825 (1994).
As the cases involving FERC suggest, FERC has considerable discretion in carrying
out section 4(e)'s public interest review, and section 10(a)'s comprehensive plan requirements.
Possibly as a result of its history as a power development agency — rather than an
environmental protection agency—FERC has been criticized for its disregard for environmental
values (ORC 1992). In fact, according to ORC, FERC has denied only one license application
on environmental grounds.
8. SUMMARY
This report has reviewed federal, state, and local laws, policies, and programs relevant
to watershed management and cumulative impact assessment. Within the current legal and
institutional framework, watershed approaches generally are possible but not required.
Adequate discretionary authority exists for improving watershed water quality in three major
areas: reducing water diversions out of watersheds, reducing watershed pollutant loadings,
and other watershed habitat improvements. Further research appears to be needed on the
relative significance to improved watershed water quality of progress in each of those three
areas.
The new federal Coastal Zone Management Act coastal non-point source pollution
control requirements provide perhaps the firmest legal foundation for integrated federal, state,
and local approaches to coastal water quality problems. Proposed Clean Water Act NFS
amendments based on them would firm up the legal framework controlling non-coastal NPS
pollution as well. Both the CZMA and CWA NPS provisions apply to NPS pollution sources
located on federal public lands.
Federal public lands management law generally requires the designated federal land
management agency to consider watershed values from a multiple-use perspective. Within
that framework, the agencies have considerable discretion to implement integrated management
approaches which protect watershed water quality, including programs coordinated with
private and public landowners upstream and downstream from the federal watershed lands.
C-62
-------
Stronger mandates to protect watershed water quality apply when federal resource protection
laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act become applicable to
federal, private, and other public lands in a particular watershed or river basin. Aggressive
federal agency assertion of reserved water rights for federal land could yield increased flows
benefiting watershed water quality. In any case, activities conducted on federal lands should
comply with applicable state water quality standards.
ESA designations of endangered or threatened fish and their habitat can lead to major
changes in watershed water use by federal, state, local, and private water users. Such changes
(ordered by the courts where necessary) frequently benefit watershed water quality and habitat.
Outside river basins and watersheds with ESA designated species, state water law controlling
water diversions is changing through judicial, legislative, and regulatory actions giving greater
weight to instream water uses and habitat values. Thus these trends generally support
implementation of an integrated watershed approach. Diversions of water for irrigated
agriculture in particular are coming under increasing scrutiny and voluntary and involuntary
reallocations to instream purposes are occurring. (National Research Council 1992).
However, the legal framework addressing agriculture's addition of pollutants to
watershed waterways remains incomplete. Irrigation return flows are exempted from the
Clean Water Act's elaborate point source discharge permit system. Thus their control depends
on state CWA NFS and coastal NFS programs, the largely voluntary and somewhat
fragmented federal, state, and local soil conservation programs, or special state agricultural
pollution control programs like Idaho's.
The important roles such state legislation could play are illustrated in Oregon by the
state's Forest Practices Act under which the adverse impacts on watershed water quality of
forestry activities on state and private forest lands are being subjected to increasing control.
The Oregon legislature has passed SB 1010, which gives the state Department of Agriculture
some control over non-point pollution from agricultural activities. Water districts serving
irrigated agriculture could play key roles in implementing any agricultural practices legislation
that is enacted (Davidson 1989; Foran 1991).
Along with agricultural practices legislation, the Oregon legislature through its
committee structure should consider the following issues raised by Oregon's watershed water
quality management experiences to date: the roles of local comprehensive land use plans
developed under the state's land use planning law and new special area management plans
designed with water quality as a major goal in protecting watershed water quality; the
connections between watershed water quality and safe drinking water supplies and shellfish
sanitation; effective implementation of the state's instream water rights programs; and
strengthening the state's scenic waterways program with respect to riparian buffer zones.
The foregoing recommendations are meant to support, not preclude, voluntary and
incentive-based efforts to control watershed pollution currently being implemented or
considered. Improved planning and regulatory capabilities can be viewed as necessary
preconditions for successful implementation of tradable pollution rights programs (Lence 1991;
Willey 1992) and voluntary changes in land use practices and other activities that cumulatively
and adversely affect watershed water quality. Furthermore, stringent regulation of private land
C-63
-------
to protect watershed water quality and avoid adverse cumulative impacts raises unique policy,
constitutional, and other legal questions as the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas
v. South Carolina Coastal Council. 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992) illustrates. The case involved a
claim for compensation by a coastal landowner whose property uses had been significantly
curtailed by a state law designed to protect coastal resources from adverse land use impacts.
The water quality impacts of watershed land uses have only recently been identified as
externalities potentially subject to regulatory control; the political will and the legal authority
to apply regulatory solutions have evolved only very slowly. Also, current federal and state
fiscal constraints limit the amount of resources available for staffing new regulatory initiatives
designed to protect and improve watershed water quality.
All these factors suggest that wherever possible integrated watershed management be
carried out based on existing laws and institutional arrangements (Weatherford 1990),
including ones like EPA's Watershed Protection Approach, Oregon's Strategic Water
Management Group, Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board, and national estuary program
designation for Tillamook Bay, Oregon and Washington's Lower Columbia River Bi-state
Water Quality Program, Idaho's Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program, North Carolina's
basin-wide approach, and Washington's shellfish protection legislation, and locally innovative
ones like the Coquille River water quality project and the proposed Integrated McKenzie
Watershed Program in Oregon.
C-64
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, E. William. 1988. "Innovations in Coordinated Resource Management." Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 43(3): 216-220.
Anderson, H. Michael. 1987. "Water Quality Planning for the National Forests.'
Environmental Law 17:591-641.
Archer, Jack H. 1991. "Evolution of Major 1990 CZMA Amendments: Restoring Federal
Consistency and Protecting Coastal Water Quality." Territorial Sea Journal 1:191-222.
Arjo, Tony. 1990. "Watershed and Water Quality Protection in National Forest
Management." Hastings Law Journal 41:1111-1133.
Battle, Jackson B. 1986. Environmental Law. Vol. 2. Water Pollution and Hazardous Wastes.
Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Pub. Co.
Blumm, Michael C. 1989. "Public Property and the Democratization of Western Water Law:
A Modern View of the Public Trust Doctrine." Environmental Law 19:573-604.
Bonine, John E., and Thomas O. McGarity. 1992. The Law of Environmental Protection:
Cases. Legislation. Policies. 2d ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub. Co.
Buresh, James C. 1986. "State and Federal Land Use Regulation: An Application to
Groundwater and Non-point Source Pollution Control." Yale Law Journal 95:1433-1458.
Butt, Arthur J. 1992. "Numerical Models and Nutrient Reduction Strategies in Virginia.'
Coastal Management 20:25-36.
Center for Resource Economics. 1991. Farm Bill 1990. Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Chesters, Gordon, and Linda-Jo Schierow. 1985. "A Primer on Non-point Pollution.'
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:9-13.
C-65
-------
Clark, Alan R. 1992. "An Overview of North Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water
Quality Management." Paper delivered at the National Meeting on Water Quality Permitting,
Atlanta, Georgia, April 29.
Cleary, C. Rex. 1988. "Coordinated Resource Management: A Planning Process That
Works." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 43(2): 138-139.
Coastal Zone Management (various issues). Washington, DC: Nautilus Press, Inc.
Cobb, Theodore A. 1986. "Analyzing Cumulative Effects in Watersheds: A Legal View." In
Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference. Wildland Resources
Center, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley,
Report no. 11.
Code of Federal Regulations. 1991. 40:1500-1517.
Coggins, George Cameron. 1990. "The Developing Law of Land Use Planning on the Federal
Lands." University of Colorado Law Review 61:307-353.
Coggins, George Cameron. 1991. "Watershed as a Public Natural Resource on the Federal
Lands." Virginia Environmental Law Journal 11:1-46.
Coggins, George Cameron. 1992. Public Natural Resources Law. Vols. 1 and 2, Release #3.
New York: C. Boardman.
Corday, Jacquelyn. 1991. "Freshwater Wetlands Law: Two Different Local Government
Approaches in Oregon." Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 6:113-143.
Craig, Barbara. 1987. "National Forest Planning and Anadromous Fish Protection: A Trilogy
of NEPA Cases.* Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation 2:255-281.
Creager, Clayton S., and Joan P. Baker. 1991. North Carolina's Whole Basin Approach to
Water Quality Management: Program Description. Final Report. Raleigh, NC: Dept. of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
C-66
-------
Dahl, Thomas E. 1990. Wetlands Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980"s. U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Davidson, John H. 1989. "Commentary: Using Special Water Districts to Control Non-point
Sources of Water Pollution." Chicago-Kent Law Review 65:503-518.
Dunning, Harrison C. 1989. "Article X, Section 2: From Maximum Water Development to
Instream Flow Protection." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 17:275-279.
EPA Journal. 1991. Issue on non-point-source pollution (NPS). Vol. 17, no. 5.
Erwin, M.B. 1990. "Agricultural Pollution and the Everglades: A Clean Water Act Solution.'
Virginia Environmental Law Journal 10:165-185.
Executive Order 11,514. 1970. Federal Register 35:4247, as amended by Executive Order
11,991. 1977. Federal Register 42:26,967.
Executive Order 12,612. 1987. Federal Register 52:41,685.
Fentress, Robert D. 1989. "Non-point Source Pollution, Groundwater and the 1987 Water
Quality Act: Section 208 Revisited?" Environmental Law 19:807-839.
Foran, Jeffrey A., Peter Butler, Lisa B. Clecker and Jonathan W. Bulkley. 1991. "Regulating
Non-point Source Pollution in Surface Waters: A Proposal." Water Resources Bulletin
27:479-484.
Gakstatter, Jack H. 1991. Letter to Marcella R. Jansen, NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management, Washington, DC, Dec. 20.
General Accounting Office. 1988. Wetlands: The Corps of Engineers' Administration of the
Section 404 Program. GAO/RCED-88-110. Washington, DC.
Gould, G.A. 1990. "Agriculture, Non-point Source Pollution, and Federal Law." Public
Land and Resources Law Digest 27:273-310.
C-67
-------
Gray, Brian E. 1988. "No Holier Temples: Protecting the National Park System Through
Wild and Scenic Rivers Designation." University of Colorado Law Review 58:551-598.
Harbison, John S. 1991. "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy: Property Rights, Public Values, and
Instream Waters." Land and Water Law Review 26:535-570.
Harkness, Al. 1992. Telephone conversation with Harkness as administrator of the Idaho
Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan.
Harrington, Winston, Alan J. Krupnick and Henery M. Peskin. 1985. "Policies for Non-
point-Source Water Pollution Control." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40:27-32.
Hatfield, Mark O. 1992. Letter to the editorial staff from Senator Hatfield (OR).
Environmental Law 22:792-795.
Hennessey, Peggy. 1987. "Oregon Forest Practices Act: Unenforced or Unenforceable?*
Environmental Law 17:717-737.
Johnsen, Per K., Gerrit J. Knapp, and Larry J. Smith. 1992. "Public Perceptions and
Attitudes Toward Environmental Rehabilitation of the Lower Green Bay Watershed." Coastal
Management 20:9-23.
Johnson, Ralph W., Craighton Goeppele, David Jansen, and Rachael Paschal. 1992. The
Public Trust Doctrine Handbook: A Description and Model for Washington's Shoreline Permit
Administrators. Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Ecology.
Jurgens, J.A. 1986. "Agricultural Non-point Source Pollution: A Proposed Strategy to
Regulate Adverse Impacts." Journal of Land Use and Environmental Law 2:195-218.
Lai, R., and F.J. Pierce, eds. 1991. Soil Management for Sustainabilitv. Ankeny, IA: Soil and
Water Conservation Society.
Lane Council of Governments. 1992. Scoping Report for an Integrated McKenzie Watershed
Program. Eugene, OR.
C-68
-------
Lence, Barbara J. Dec. 1991. "Weighted Sum Transferable Discharge Permit Programs for
Control of Multiple Pollutants." Water Resources Research 27:3019-3027.
Leshy, John D. 1990. "The Prior Appropriation Doctrine of Water Law in the West: An
Emperor with Few Clothes." Journal of the West 29 (3): 5-13.
MacDonnell, L.J., T.A. Rice, and S.J. Shupe, eds. 1989. Instream Flow Protection in the
West. Boulder: Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado.
Mandelker, Daniel R. 1989. "Controlling Non-point Source Water Pollution: Can It Be
Done?" Chicago-Kent Law Review 65:479-502.
March, Richard A., Randall A. Kramer, and L. Leon Geyer. 1981-82. "Non-point Source
Water Pollution and Section 208 Planning: Legal and Institutional Issues." Agricultural Law
Journal 3:324-355.
Moore, Deborah, and Zach Willey. 1991. "Water in the American West: Institutional
Evolution and Environmental Restoration in the 21st Century." University of Colorado Law
Review 62:775-825.
Murray, Nancy B. 1991. "Protecting Oregon's Scenic Waterways: Diack v. City of Portland.'
Environmental Law 21:133-173.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1991. Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program: Proposed Program
Development and Approval Guidance. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1989. Irrigation-Induced Water Quality Problems. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1992. Water Transfers in the West: Efficiency. Equality, and the
Environment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. "Pacific Salmon at the Crossroads:
Stocks at Risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington." Fisheries 16(2): 4-21.
C-69
-------
Neitzel, D.A., MJ. Scott, S.A. Shankle, and J.C. Chatters. 1991. "The Effect of Climate
Change on Stream Environments: The Salmonid Resource of the Columbia River Basin."
Northwest Environmental Journal 7:271-293.
News-Notes (various issues). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water.
North Carolina Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Division of
Environmental Management. 1991. Administrative Code §§ 15A NCAC 2B. 0100 (Procedures
for Assignment of Water Quality Standards) and ISA NCAC 2B .0200 (Classifications and
Water Quality Standards Applicable to Surface Waters of North Carolina).
North Carolina Legislature. 1989. House Bill 156 (Water Supply Watershed Protection).
Ratified June 23.
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. 1988. 1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of Non-
point Sources of Water Pollution. Portland, OR.
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. 1991a. Action Plan for Oregon's Coastal
Watersheds. Estuaries and Ocean Waters: Executive Summary. Portland, OR.
Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality. 1991b. Non-point Source Statewide Management
Program for Oregon. Portland, OR.
Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. 1985. Guidelines for Public Involvement in Cooperative
Salmon and Trout Enhancement Projects. Portland, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1992. Preliminary Draft Rules for the Water Classification
and Protection Project, August 31. Salem, OR.
Oregon Dept. of Land Conservation and Development. 1990. Oregon's Statewide Planning
Goals. Salem, OR.
Oregon Insider (various issues). Eugene, OR: Envirotech Publications.
C-70
-------
Oregon Legislature. Senate Subcommittee on Grazing. 1992. Minutes: Feb. 27, April 13 and
June 5. '
Oregon Rivers Council. 1992. America's Riverine Ecosystems at the Crossroad^ Covelo, CA:
Island Press.
Oregon Water Resources Dept. 1990a. 1991-93 Biennial Water Management Program. Salem,
OK.
Oregon Water Resources Dept. 1990b. A Guide to Water Management Agencies in Oregon.
Salem, OR.
Oregon Water Resources Dept. 1990c. Oregon Water Laws. Vol. 1. Reprinted from Oregon
Revised Statutes. Salem, OR.
Oregon Water Resources Dept. 1990d. Oregon Water Management Program: State Water
Resources Policy. Salem, OR.
Pait, Anthony S., Daniel R.G. Farrow, Jamison A. Lowe, and Percy A. Pacheco. 1989.
Agricultural Pesticide Use in Estuarine Drainage Areas: A Preliminary Summary for Selected
Pesticides. Rockville, MD: Strategic Assessment Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Pedersen, William F., Jr. 1980. "Turning the Tide on Water Quality." Ecology Law
Quarterly 15:69-102.
Phillips, Jonathan D. 1991. "Upstream Pollution Sources and Coastal Water Quality
Protection in North Carolina." Coastal Management 19:439-449.
Pinchot, Gifford. 1910. The Fight for Conservation. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co.
Plater, Zygmunt J.B., Robert H. Abrams, and William Goldfarb. 1992. Environmental Law
and Policy: A Coursebook on Nature. Law, and Society. St. Paul, MN: West Pub. Co.
C-71
-------
Powell, Scott L., and Marc J. Hershman. 1991. Contribution of State Coastal Zone
Management Proerams to Improved Coastal Water Quality. 2 vols. — Technical Report and
Executive Summary. Portland, OR: National Coastal Resources Research and Development
Institute. Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference. November 18-
20. 1986. West Sacramento. California. 1987. Wildland Resources Center, Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, Report no. 11.
Robinson, N. 1982. Environmental Regulation of Real Property. With 1992 updates. New
York: Law Journal Seminars Press.
Schoenbaum, Thomas J., and Ronald Rosenberg. 1991. Environmental Policy Law. 2d ed.
Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
Shott, Eric. 1991. "Puget Sound Non-point Pollution Management as a Problem in Water
Quality Governance." In Puget Sound Research U91: Proceedings. 2:710-717. Olympia, WA:
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
Somach, Stuart L. 1990. "The American River Decision: Balancing Instream Protection with
Other Competing Beneficial Uses." Rivers 1:251-263.
Steiner, Frederick R. 1990. Soil Conservation in the United States: Policy and Planning.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Strategic Water Management Group. 1992. Draft Outline: Watershed Management and
Enhancement Program. Salem, OR.
Symposium on NEPA at Twenty: The Past, Present and Future of the National Environmental
Policy Act. 1990. Environmental Law 20:447-810.
Tabb, William, and Linda Malone. 1992. Environmental Law: Cases and Materials.
Charlottesville, Va.: Michie Company.
Tarlock, A. Dan. 1985. "The Endangered Species Act and Western Water Rights." Land and
Water Law Review 20:1-30.
C-72
-------
Tarlock, A. Dan. 199la. "New Water Transfer Restrictions: The West Returns to
Riparianism." Water Resources Research 27:987-994.
Tarlock, A. Dan. 1991b. "Western Water Rights and the [Endangered] Species Act and
Lessons for the Future." In Balancing on the Brink of Extinction: The Endangered Species Act
and Lessons for the Future, ed. Kathryn A. Holm, 167. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Task Force on CSO Pollution Abatement. 1989. Combined Sewer Overflow Pollution
Abatement. Manual of Practice no. FD-17. Alexandria, VA: Water Pollution Control
Federation.
Teclaff, Ludwik A. 1991. "The River Basin Concept and Global Climate Change." Pace
Environmental Law Review 8:355-388.
Teclaff, Ludwik A., and Albert E. Utton, coordinating editors. 1991. The International Law
of the Hydrologic Cycle [symposium issue]. Natural Resources Journal 31:1-242.
Thompson, Paul. 1989. Poison Runoff: A Guide to State and Local Non-ooint Source Water
Pollution. New York: Natural Resources Defense Council.
Timber/Fish/Wildlife Agreement: A Better Future in Our Woods and Streams: Final Report.
1987. N.P. Available from Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA.
Turrini, Anthony N. 1991. "Swampbuster: A Report from the Front." Indiana Law Review
24:1507-1524.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1985. Final Report on the
Federal/State/T.ocal Non-point Source Task Force and Recommended National Non-point
Source Policy. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1987. A Report tQ Congress;
Activities and Programs Implemented under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act As Amended
by the Water Quality Act of 1QS7, Fiscal Year 1987. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1989. Non-point Sources: Agenda
for the Future. Washington, DC.
C-73
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1991a. Proposed Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Non-point Pollution in Coastal Waters.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 19915. The Watershed Protection
Approach: An Overview. EPA 503/9-92-001. Washington, DC. (with accompanying Oct. 28,
1991 Office of Water memorandum).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. 1992. Managing Non-point Source
Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (19891.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 1987.
Non-point Source Guidance. Washington, DC.
Washington Coastal Currents (various issues). Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of
Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program.
Weatherford, Gary. 1990. "From Basin to "Hydrocommons": Integrated Water Management
Without Regional Governance." Western Water Policy Project Discussion Series Paper No. 5.
Boulder: University of Colorado Natural Resources Law Center.
Weber, Jeffery A. 1992. "Cleaner Water Is the Objective." Paper delivered at a continuing
legal education conference, Northwestern School of Law, Portland, OR, May.
Western Governors" Association. 1986. Western Water: Tuning the System.
Whitman, Richard. 1989. "Clean Water or Multiple Use? Best Management Practices for
Water Quality Control in the National Forests." Ecology Law Quarterly 16:909-966 (1989).
Wilkins, Lawrence P. 1980. "The Implementation of Water Pollution Control Measures—
Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments." Land and Water Law Review
15:479-502.
C-74
-------
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1989a. "Aldo Leopold and Western Water Law: Thinking
Perpendicular to the Doctrine of Prior Appropriation." Land and Water Law Review 24:1-38.
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1989b. "The Headwaters of the Public Trust: Some Thoughts on the
Source and Scope of the Traditional Doctrine." Environmental Law 19:425-472.
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1991. "Prior Appropriation 1848-1991." Environmental Law 21 :v-
xviii.
Wilkinson, Charles F. 1992. The Eagle Bird: Mapping a New West. New York: Pantheon
Books.
Wilkinson, Charles F., and H. Michael Anderson. 1985. "Land and Resource Planning in the
National Forests." Oregon Law Review 64:1 -373.
Willey, Zach. 1992. "Behind Schedule and Over Budget: The Case of Markets, Water, and
Environment." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 15:391-425.
Zinn, Jeffrey A. and Claudia Copeland. 1991. Wetlands Issues in the 102d Congress.
Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC.
C-75
------- |