Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis · project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)...

For copies of this document, please contact:

Regional Ecosystem OfficeP.O. Box 3623

Portland, Oregon 97208-3623

Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis

RevisedAugust 1995

Version 2.2

Portland, Oregon

$FNQRZOHGJPHQW

This guide was completed under the direction of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee andthe Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, representing the Forest Service, Regions 5 and 6, thePNW and PSW Research Stations; Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington and CaliforniaState Offices; Bureau of Indian Affairs; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Environmental ProtectionAgency; National Marine Fisheries Service; Natural Resources Conservation Service; National ParkService; National Biological Service; the States of California, Oregon, and Washington; California,Oregon, and Washington Counties; the Intertribal Timber Council; Northwest Indian FisheriesCommission; and the California Indian Forest and Fire Management Council.

Many more agencies, governments, and organizations contributed to the diligent teamwork that ledto production of this guide, including the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,the Research & Monitoring Committee, the Watershed Analysis Coordination Team, and theRegional Ecosystem Office.

This document was produced in cooperation with the Regional Interagency Executive Committee:

&RQWHQWV

3DUW��3URFHVV�2YHUYLHZ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Organization of This Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Summary of the Six-Step Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Process Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Technical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Relation to Other Laws, Regulations, Processes, and Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Core Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Core Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3DUW��3URFHVV � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��Step 1: Characterization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Step 2: Issues and Key Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Step 3: Current Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Step 4: Reference Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Step 5: Synthesis and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Step 6: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

:DWHUVKHG�$QDO\VLV�5HSRUW� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

*ORVVDU\ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

5HIHUHQFHV � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ��

Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale: Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis - Version 2.2

1

,QWURGXFWLRQ

Watershed analysis is a procedure used to characterizethe human, aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial features,conditions, processes, and interactions (collectivelyreferred to as “ecosystem elements”) within awatershed. It provides a systematic way to understandand organize ecosystem information. In so doing,watershed analysis enhances our ability to estimatedirect, indirect, and cumulative effects of ourmanagement activities and guide the general type,location, and sequence of appropriate managementactivities within a watershed.

Watershed analysis is essentially ecosystem analysisat the watershed scale. As one of the principalanalyses for implementing the Aquatic ConservationStrategy (ACS) set forth in the Northwest Forest Plan(Record of Decision (ROD) for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of Land Management PlanningDocuments Within the Range of the Northern SpottedOwl (USDA, USDI 1994)) it provides the watershedcontext for fishery protection, restoration, andenhancement efforts. The understanding gainedthrough watershed analysis is critical to sustaining thehealth and productivity of natural resources. Healthyecological functions are essential to maintain andcreate current and future social and economicopportunities.

Federal agencies are conducting watershed analyses toshift their focus from species and sites to theecosystems that support them in order to understandthe consequences of management actions beforeimplementation. The watershed scale was selectedbecause every watershed is a well-defined land areahaving a set of unique features, a system of recurringprocesses, and a collection of dependent plants andanimals.

Watershed analyses are conducted by teams ofjourney-level specialists who follow a standard,interagency six-step process. The process is issue-driven. Rather than attempting to identify and addresseverything in the ecosystem, teams focus on sevencore analysis topics along with watershed-specificproblems or concerns. These problems or concernsmay be known or suspected before undertaking theanalysis or may be discovered during the analysis.Analysis teams identify and describe ecological

processes of greatest concern, establish how well orpoorly those processes are functioning, and determinethe conditions under which management activities,including restoration, should and should not takeplace. The process is also incremental. Newinformation from surveys and inventories, monitoringreports, or other analyses can be added at any time.

Watershed analysis is not a decisionmaking process.Rather it is a stage-setting process. The results ofwatershed analyses establish the context forsubsequent decisionmaking processes, includingplanning, project development, and regulatorycompliance.

The results of watershed analysis can be used to:

• Assist in developing ecologically sustainableprograms to produce water, timber, recreation, andother commodities.

• Facilitate program and budget development byidentifying and setting priorities for social,economic, and ecological needs within and amongwatersheds.

• Establish a consistent, watershed-wide context forproject-level National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) analyses.

• Establish a watershed context for evaluatingmanagement activity and project consistency givenexisting plan objectives (e.g., ACS objectives).

• Establish a consistent, watershed-wide context forimplementing the Endangered Species Act,including conferencing and consulting underSection 7.

• Establish a consistent, watershed-wide context forlocal government water quality efforts and for theprotection of beneficial uses identified by the statesand tribes in their water quality standards under theFederal Clean Water Act.


2

2UJDQL]DWLRQ�RI�7KLV�*XLGH

This federal guide is organized in two parts.

Part 1 is an overview of the analysis process and includes an introduction; a summary of the six analysis steps; important process considerations; technical considerations; relationships to other laws, regulations,processes, and lands; monitoring; and a summary of the core topics and questions to be addressed in watershed analysis.

Part 2 includes the detailed description of each of the six steps for conducting ecosystem analysis at thewatershed scale. The six steps guide analysis teams through a series of questions to characterize the watershed,focus the analysis on essential issues, describe and understand current and historical conditions and processes,interpret the results, and develop recommendations for subsequent action by responsible officials.

Teams planning to conduct watershed analysis should first review both parts of this federal guide. The processis intended to be flexible and adaptable but still follow a consistent overall approach. Teams can be mostefficient by developing an understanding of the entire six-step process, anticipating information and analysisneeds, and planning for ways to synthesize the analysis at each step along the way.

)XWXUH�$GGLWLRQV�WR�WKH�)HGHUDO�*XLGH

Section II of the Federal Guide will serve as a technical supplement or “tool box” of analytical methods andtechniques designed to help address various aspects of watershed analysis and the Section I “core” topics. Thegoals of Section II are to meet Northwest Forest Plan goals, ensure scientific credibility, provide “methods andtechniques,” and provide for cooperation and coordination with other watershed analysis processes.


3

)LJXUH��5HODWLYH�GXUDWLRQ�RI�DQDO\VLV�VWHSV�

6XPPDU\�RI�WKH�6L[�6WHS�3URFHVV

The process for conducting ecosystem analysis at thewatershed scale has six steps: 1. Characterization of the watershedThe purpose of step 1 is to identify the dominantphysical, biological, and human processes or featuresof the watershed that affect ecosystem functions orconditions. The relationship between these ecosystemelements and those occurring in the river basin orprovince is established. When characterizing thewatershed, teams identify the most important landallocations, plan objectives, and regulatory constraintsthat influence resource management in the watershed.The watershed context is used to identify the primaryecosystem elements needing more detailed analysis insubsequent steps.

2. Identification of issues and key questions The purpose of step 2 is to focus the analysis on thekey elements of the ecosystem that are most relevantto the management questions and objectives, humanvalues, or resource conditions within the watershed.The applicability of the core questions and level ofdetail needed to address applicable core questions isdetermined. Rationale for determining that a corequestion is not applicable are documented. Additionaltopics and questions are identified based on issuesrelevant to the watershed. Key analysis questions areformulated from indicators commonly used tomeasure or interpret the key ecosystem elements.

3. Description of current conditionsThe purpose of this step is to develop information(more detailed than the characterization in step 1)relevant to the issues and key questions identified instep 2. The current range, distribution, and conditionof the relevant ecosystem elements are documented.

4. Description of reference conditions The purpose of step 4 is to explain how ecologicalconditions have changed over time as a result ofhuman influence and natural disturbances. A referenceis developed for later comparison with currentconditions over the period that the system evolved andwith key management plan objectives.

5. Synthesis and interpretation of information Use a Qualified Interagency and InterdisciplinaryThe purpose of step 5 is to compare existing and Teamreference conditions of specific ecosystem elements Teams conducting watershed analysis should includeand to explain significant differences, similarities, or interagency and interdisciplinary resource specialiststrends and their causes. The capability of the system appropriate to the issues, ownerships, and respectiveto achieve key management plan objectives is also jurisdictions within the watershed. Team membersevaluated. should be professionally qualified to assess and

6. Recommendations The purpose of this step is to bring the results of theprevious steps to conclusion, focusing on managementrecommendations that are responsive to watershedprocesses identified in the analysis. By documentinglogical flow through the analysis, issues and keyquestions (from step 2) are linked with the step 5synthesis and interpretation of ecosystemunderstandings (from steps 1, 3, and 4). Monitoringactivities are identified that are responsive to theissues and key questions. Data gaps and limitations ofthe analysis are also documented.

For each of the six steps, Part 2 of this documentgenerally describes the purpose of the step, coreanalysis topics and questions, summary or over-viewquestions, information sources, techniques that mightprove helpful, products the analysis team wouldexpect to generate in this step (but not necessarilyinclude in the final document), and a generaldiscussion of the step. The relative duration of eachstep is shown in figure 1.

3URFHVV�&RQVLGHUDWLRQV

3DUWLFLSDWLRQ�LQ�:DWHUVKHG�$QDO\VLV

interpret the structure, composition, and functions ofwatershed-level ecosystems. Professional skills should


4

include those appropriate to analyze the core topics programs, priorities, and potential projects; regulatoryand other issues significant to the watershed. requirements; concerns people have about theInvolving other Federal agencies, especially early in watershed; or, other factors. Issues can also bethe analysis, helps teams identify the full range of resource problems or concerns in the watershed. Inmanagement issues and resource concerns in the this context, issues include resource problems,watershed. concerns or other factors highlighted in the

Involve TribesTribes should be consulted and involved throughout This approach provides the flexibility for boththe watershed analysis process, as appropriate, (1) to triggering events and watershed specific resourceassist in the early identification of treaty rights, treaty problems and concerns to focus the analysis asprotected resources, tribal trust resources, and other appropriate. Responsible officials guiding the analysistribal concerns; and (2) to incorporate tribal data and will have to balance the number and scope of issuesresource knowledge into the analysis. Analysis reports addressed in a given iteration of the analysis withshould identify tribal trust resources that occur in the available staffing and funding.watershed and identify possible conflicts betweenpotential Federal actions and management of the trust Priority Settingresources, treaty rights, tribal plans, and policies. The priorities for selecting watersheds to analyze

Involve State and Local Government may be selected for analysis in response to anticipatedState and local governments play an essential role in resource and community needs, project opportunities,determining ecosystem health at the watershed scale, and existing issues that require immediate resolution.both as land managers and regulators. State and localgovernment participation will enable Federal landmanagers to consider all relevant issues in specificwatershed analyses. Early and frequent interactionwith state and local government partners also can helpidentify opportunities for cooperative efforts.

Involve the PublicEarly, open, and frequent participation in the processby public stakeholders is encouraged. Publicparticipants can provide important information aboutcurrent and historical uses of the watershed, pastdisturbances, and location of unique and sensitiveresources. Participation by public entities can helpidentify opportunities for public and privatecooperation in watershed analysis, restoration, andother management activities. Among the manypossible ways to involve publics are providingadvanced notice of the intent to conduct an analysis,public meetings to solicit information useful in theanalysis, providing opportunities for directinvolvement in the analysis, and dissemination ofanalysis results.

,VVXHV�'HILQH�6FRSH�DQG�3ULRULW\�RI�$QDO\VHV�

Depth of Analysis Even though all watershed analyses will follow thestructure outlined in this guide and address coretopics, the scope, intensity, and depth of analyses willdepend on the important management and resourceissues in the watershed. “Issues” can be triggeringevents that prompted the agency to initiate theanalysis. In this context, issues include management

characterization of the watershed or in other steps.

reflect regional management priorities. Watersheds

$QDO\VLV�*XLGHV�3URMHFW�'HYHORSPHQW

Although known program needs, issues, andopportunities may initially target watersheds foranalysis, the analysis will influence the determinationof appropriateness and resulting character of projects.New program planning and resource managementprojects should be developed in conjunction with andincorporate the results of watershed analysis.

,QFRUSRUDWH�$QDO\VLV�,QIRUPDWLRQ�)URP�2WKHU6RXUFHV

In most cases, analysis teams will have the benefit ofother completed resource analyses. Forest-wide orDistrict-wide analyses and plans, resourcemanagement plans, regional analyses, and speciesrecovery plans will provide a wealth of informationand analyses for the given watershed. Teams caninterpret existing analyses as they relate to a particularwatershed to speed their analyses without sacrificingscientific credibility. By incorporating the results ofother analyses, teams may be able to reduce the size oftheir watershed reports. This method may not beappropriate for all resource issues, but teams shoulduse the technique wherever possible to increaseefficiency of team efforts.

,QFUHPHQWDO�$SSURDFK

Federal agencies will conduct multiple analysisiterations of watersheds as new information becomes


5

available, or as ecological conditions, managementneeds, or social issues change. The time betweeniterations will depend on factors such as majordisturbance events, monitoring or research results,new management objectives, and different regulatoryrequirements. Subsequent analysis iterations may betriggered when existing analyses do not adequatelysupport informed decisionmaking for particular issuesor projects. Future iterations also may be necessary tofill critical data gaps identified during earlier analyses.As subsequent analyses are conducted, newinformation will be added to that created in previousanalyses.

$FFRXQWDELOLW\

Peer Review Watershed analysis teams are encouraged to revieweach others’ approaches and reports. Agencies oradministrative units should establish peer reviewprocedures to evaluate all or a sample of watershedanalyses conducted within their jurisdiction. TheResearch and Monitoring Committee, withconcurrence by the Intergovernmental AdvisoryCommittee, will develop a scientific peer reviewprocess to evaluate the scientific credibility andadequacy of watershed analyses. Such reviews couldprovide important feedback on whether analyses werebased on sound scientific information, provided usefulrecommendations to managers, and met therequirements of existing plans and direction.

Responsible OfficialThe success of a watershed analysis will depend onhow useful it is to decision makers and resourcespecialists applying the results. The ultimate adequacyof the analysis will, in large part, lie in the responsibleofficial's ability to understand and apply the results todocument a consistency of logic in reachingsubsequent management decisions that meet theobjectives of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP) andother relevant land use plans.

7HFKQLFDO�&RQVLGHUDWLRQV

:DWHUVKHG�6FDOHV�DQG�+LHUDUFK\

Definition of “Watershed” “Watershed” refers to any area of land that drains to acommon point. Unfortunately, the size of the area thatone person associates with “watershed” may be quitea bit larger or smaller than the area another person hasin mind when they say “watershed.” To some, awatershed may be as large as the area that drains tothe Columbia River. To others, it may be muchsmaller--maybe the area above a favorite fishing hole

or hot springs. Both are technically correct. Beforeanalysis at the watershed scale can begin, a consistentvision of the size of the area involved is needed.

Watersheds are hierarchical--little ones nest withinlarger ones. A set of commonly used terms thatdescribe relative sizes of geographic areas is shownbelow and in figure 2. “Watershed” refers to one levelin the progression of geographic sizes. A watershed issmaller than a river basin or subbasin, but it is largerthan a drainage or site.

Hierarchy terms ExamplesRegion Pacific NorthwestSubregion Middle ColumbiaRiver Basin Willamette RiverSubbasin Middle Fork WillametteWatershed M.F. Willamette

downstream tributariesSubwatershed Hills CreekDrainage Packard Creek armSite Hills Creek Dam

Because watersheds are hierarchical, smaller areas aredescribed by subdividing larger areas. The U.S.Geological Survey completed mapping of the firstfour hierarchical levels of the United States in 1987.Across the United States, subdivision of fourth-levelsubbasins has been sporadically approached based onagency needs and available resources.

Watershed is a useful term to associate with all areasresulting from the first subdivision of a subbasin. Thewatershed, then, is the fifth largest level in thehierarchy and is often referred to as a “fifth-fieldwatershed.” With the increased emphasis onecosystem-based management, the development ofcriteria for delineating the watershed andsubwatershed levels is being given greater priority byFederal, state, local, and tribal governments.

The procedure for subdividing a subbasin into acollection of watersheds is highly debated. Regardlessof the process used, subdivision of a subbasin yieldstwo categories of watersheds: (1) true watersheds inwhich all water flows to a common point (figure 3,areas 1-7), and (2) areas formed as residuals orbyproducts of delineating true watersheds (figure 3,areas 8 and 9). These residual areas may be referred toas composite watersheds, interfluvial areas, or facialareas. Both categories, being roughly the same size, fitwithin the watershed level of the geographic sizehierarchy.

River Basins

Fall Cr.

North Fork

Salmon Cr.MiddleForkWillamettedownstream tribs.

LowerMiddle Fork

Subbasins

Watersheds

(USGS 3rd field)

(USGS 4th field)

5th field

Hills Cr.

Packard Cr. arm

Hills CreekDam

Subwatershed

Drainage

Site

Subwatershed, Drainage, Site

Tualatin

Lower Willamette

ClackamasMollala-Pudding

Yamhill

MiddleWillamette

North Santiam

South SantiamUpperWillamette

McKenzie

Coast ForkWillamette

MiddleFork

Willamette

Willamette


6

)LJXUH��+LHUDUFK\�RI�ZDWHUVKHGV�


7

Scales of AnalysisAny size land area can be selected for analysis. At thebroadest scales, analyses provide the context for policyformulation and laws; e.g., regional-scale analyses fromthe Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team(FEMAT 1993) report resulted in a network of LateSuccessional Reserves (LSR) and other policies of theNFP. At finer scales, analyses provide the context forprojects and are used to evaluate site-specific impactsor effects. Midscale analyses, at the watershed scale,provide the context for management through thedescription and understanding of specific ecosystemconditions and capabilities. Midscale analysis does notwork well for all ecosystem components. Somecomponents of ecosystems are best analyzed at largerscales (e.g., wildlife or fish populations, socialinteractions). Broad pattern recognition, processidentification, and priorities for subsequent analysisover extended periods can be effectively completed atthe river basin or subbasin scale.

Other ecosystem components may be analyzed best atsmaller scales (e.g., some rare, threatened, or

endangered plants). Analyses done at the drainage orsite scale tend to be highly quantitative andappropriate for shorter time scales. Those issuespossibly requiring areas smaller than the watershed foranalysis can be addressed by further stratifying theland during analysis. There may be good reasons toresort to a subwatershed scale for some analyses.Analyses at the subwatershed level will tend to bemore targeted at determination of potential effects ofmanagement activities rather than processes orfunctions of ecosystems.

Characterization and analysis of any ecosystemcomponent need to be done at the scale appropriate forthat component. The watershed becomes anidentifiable analysis unit useful for reporting theresults, conclusions, and recommendations insufficient detail to provide the context formanagement decisions. Regardless of the physicalarea selected, one analysis will draw context fromlarger-scale analyses and provide the context foranalyses at smaller scales.


8

The size of the area chosen for analysis depends onthe purpose of the analysis, the topics to be analyzed,and the physical, biological, and social complexity ofthe area. With watershed analysis, the challenge is toselect an area such that the data and information areuseful for deciding what management activities arecompatible with ecosystem goals--not so broad thatconclusions are not directly helpful to managers andnot so refined or detailed that the information does notshow broader ecosystem needs. The watershedprovides an intermediate scale that satisfies manyneeds and offers a consistent format for reportingresults of an analysis.

The analysis process described in this guide isdesigned for application at the watershed orsubwatershed level. The guide does not addressprocedures for drainage or site-specific assessmentsthat may be required under NEPA processes beforeproject implementation. Similarly, the guide does notaddress consolidation of watershed analyses to assistin broad pattern recognition or process identificationat the river basin or subbasin scales. Assessments ofthese larger scales are provided, for example, in the“Effectiveness Monitoring” section of the ROD (E-7).Specific methods for evaluating the success of theNFP in meeting the goals of biodiversity and latesuccessional old-growth ecosystems are underdevelopment by the Research and MonitoringCommittee.

Scale, Resolution, Utility, and EfficiencyWatershed-scale analysis guides site-level projectplanning and decisionmaking by providing thewatershed context. As watershed size increases, itbecomes more difficult to provide meaningfulinformation for this use. As watershed size decreases,the larger scale context may be lost, and the analysismay begin to duplicate site-level or project-levelassessments.

When planning a watershed analysis, teams shouldconsider the size of the watershed relative to dataneeds, data availability, resolution, and time andresource requirements, as well as the issues to beaddressed. Teams generally should avoid analyzingwatersheds significantly smaller than 20 square milesor larger than 200 square miles.

6\QWKHVLV

Synthesis, the integration of separate ecosystemelements to understand the whole system, is a primarygoal of watershed analysis. Teams can promotesynthesis by looking for connections and relationsbetween the major ecological features and processesin the watershed. For example, stream channel

classification may be needed to understand fisheriesuse, and also to understand sediment transportprocesses and how they influence fish habitat.Synthesis depends heavily on close interdisciplinarywork.

By developing the ability to integrate and synthesizethe understanding of individuals and disciplines,teams can increase the scientific credibility andmanagement utility of analysis results. Teamunderstanding of the systems being analyzed allowsmore definite and accurate interpretations ofconditions, causes, and trends. Team discussions earlyin the process (starting with step 1) can lead to a muchclearer understanding of the processes and linkagesbetween resources.

Data may be assembled, collected, or interpreted toserve a variety of purposes. As the team assemblesinformation, it should anticipate the eventual uses ofthe data and analyses. Identifying common data andanalysis needs early in the process and agreeing tocommon methods, to the extent possible, willcontribute greatly to synthesis.

7LHUHG�.H\�4XHVWLRQV

By developing tiers of hierarchical questions, teamscan promote synthesis and develop consistent logicthrough the analysis. Broad questions addressingconnections and relations can be progressively refinedinto more detailed or focused questions. For example:

What human elements influence the condition ofaquatic and terrestrial ecosystem elements?

How have human activities changed the landscapepattern of plant communities from the range ofnatural conditions in the watershed?

How have these changes in landscape patternsaffected erosion processes, hydrology, channelform, water quality, distribution of species, andhabitat quality?

/RJLF�7UDFNLQJ

A major objective for analysis reports is documentingthe logic followed in the analysis process fromplanning the analysis through development ofrecommendations. Logic tracking is essential for thecredibility and utility of the analysis. Because theresults of each step can contribute greatly to thecontent of the final report, team members should alsoclearly document the work done in each progressivestep.


9

,WHUDWLYH�$QDO\VLV�6WHSV

Teams should generally conduct the six analysis stepsin sequence. In some cases, information andunderstanding developed in one step may result incycling back to previous steps to further refine theprocess or products, or both.

'DWD� *DSV�� $VVXPSWLRQV�� DQG� /HYHO� RI&RQILGHQFH

Teams may discover they lack, and cannot acquire,essential information about ecological processes andconditions in the watershed. When this happens, teamsshould describe in their report: • Missing data needs • Implications of data deficiencies and risks of

proceeding given the quality of currently availabledata

• Recommendations for prioritizing data collection• Assumptions used in the absence of data

This description is important to relate the level ofconfidence a team will have in their recom-mendations to the responsible official.

Possible strategies for addressing data gaps include:• Attain complete data coverage of an area at a lower

level of resolution than is ordinarily desired• Attain complete data coverage of an area for a

subset of the usual attributes• Extrapolate data from representative subareas or

substrata• Stop analysis and collect data

5HODWLRQ�WR�2WKHU�/DZV��5HJXODWLRQV�3URFHVVHV��DQG�/DQGV

)HGHUDO�/DZV�DQG�5HJXODWLRQ

Watershed analysis provides understanding of thewatershed context that is essential to guide projectplanning and decisionmaking. Watershed analysis isnot a decisionmaking process, and a watershedanalysis report is not a decision document, a planningdocument requiring NEPA review, or a regulatory,prescriptive document. Watershed analysiscontributes, however, to efficiently meeting landmanagement and regulatory requirements at thewatershed scale as the following examples show.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), FederalLand Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), Oregonand California Lands Act (O&C Act)

Results from watershed analyses can assist in thedevelopment of ecologically sustainable commodityproduction programs (e.g., water, timber, recreation)by defining the context necessary to protect ecosystemfunctions. Analyses also can aid planning bystratifying areas of the watershed by inherentcapability, sensitivity to disturbance, and suitability tosustain public use. Information should be presented ina manner that facilitates the location and timing ofcompatible projects; interpretation of applicablestandards and guidelines with existing and possiblefuture conditions; and assessments of habitat andpopulation viability trends. The results of watershedanalyses can facilitate program and budgetdevelopment by identifying and setting priorities forsocial, economic, and ecological needs andcapabilities within and among watersheds. Analysesalso can assist in establishing a context for identifyingand prioritizing watershed restoration needs. Analysescan support planning processes, including planamendments if conflicts between plan features andecosystem capabilities and protection needs areidentified.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Results of watershed analyses establish a consistent,watershed-wide context for project-level NEPAdocuments. Information from analyses should be usedto enhance the quality of project or action-specificNEPA documents. Watershed analyses can form astrong basis for NEPA cumulative effects analysis bydescribing the current environment at the watershedlevel, past and present management activities and theirinfluences on the watershed, and the likely historicalconditions. In turn, project-level NEPA documentsshould augment watershed analyses with site-specificdata and analyses. In reaching subsequent decisionsthrough the NEPA process, responsible officialsshould document a consistency of logic withwatershed analysis results.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)Results of watershed analyses establish a consistent,watershed-wide context for Section 7 conferencingand consulting pursuant to the ESA. Analysis reportsinclude information applicable to many projects andactivities. Information on existing population status,species distribution, and habitat conditions presentedin analyses can subsequently be used to evaluate theeffects of proposed actions, assist in determiningmeasures to avoid jeopardy and adverse modificationof critical habitat, and reverse declining habitat andpopulation trends. Information should be presented in


10

a manner that enables project-level consultation State Water Quality Management Plans documents to directly reference or incorporate Each state has the authority and responsibility topertinent sections of analysis reports. Watershed certify that Federal land management agencyanalyses may also contribute information to support programs will meet water quality standards.Section 4 and 7 (listing, recovery, and consultation) Watershed analysis can be used to provide a basis forand Section 10 (permits and habitat conservation management prescriptions in both project andplanning) activities. planning decisions. Where watershed analysis is being

Clean Water Act (CWA) Federal and non-Federal land, there should beResults of watershed analyses establish a consistent comparability and compatibility between analyses thatwatershed-wide context for water quality efforts by cross geographic or jurisdictional boundaries.local governments and for protection of beneficialuses identified by the states and tribes in their water Washington State Analysis Processquality standards under the Federal Clean Water Act. The Washington State watershed analysis process,Results of watershed analyses may sub-sequently be developed by the Washington Forest Practices Board,used to develop or update state, local, or tribal water is a principal tool for addressing cumulative effects ofquality management plans. Watershed analysis forest management on stream conditions. Theestablishes a context for identifying resource Washington method includes modules for assessingprotection and monitoring needs and restoration elements of the watershed and synthesizing thisopportunities that are responsive to water quality information. While Washington modules describe aissues described in the analysis. minimum protocol for conducting the analysis, the

Federal Trust Responsibilities to Indian Tribes analysis team wishes to use equal or better methods.Watershed analyses establish the watershed context The analysis process results in a set of prescriptionsfor early identification of treaty rights, treaty protected for the watershed that are subjected to State review,resources, and other tribal concerns. The results of then adopted as requirements for future forestwatershed analyses will assist the Bureau of Land management in that watershed.Management (BLM) and Forest Service (FS) incomplying with policies and laws relating to tribal Washington has delineated watershed analysis unitstrust resources. Analysis reports should identify tribal that predefine the geographic scope of analysestrust resources that occur in the watershed and identify conducted under state regulation. These watershedpossible conflicts between potential Federal actions analysis units have been prioritized based on criteriaand management of the trust resources, treaty rights, reflecting need for cumulative effects analysis whentribal plans, and policies. Subsequent decisions conducted by the State. Analyses may be initiated byconcerning identified conflicts will be reached outside the Department of Natural Resources or bythe watershed analysis framework, in ways consistent landowners within the watershed.with the Federal government’s trust responsibilities.

2WKHU�$QDO\VLV�3URFHVVHV�DQG�3ODQV

There are a variety of other analysis processes that arerelevant at the watershed scale. Some examples aredescribed below. Federal analysis teams shouldcontact state, local, and tribal governments to deter-mine if other analyses have been completed, areunderway, or are planned in, or adjacent to, water-sheds proposed for Federal analysis. Federal analysisteams should strive to conduct analyses in a mannerconsistent with this federal guide, but compatible withother relevant analysis processes. Teams should takeadvantage of opportunities for coordinated andcooperative analysis efforts, including data sharing,developing common data sets, agreeing to commonanalysis methods (modules), and defining compatibleanalysis boundaries.

used to address Clean Water Act issues on both

process allows for modifying the modules if the

Local Watershed EffortsAnalyses at the watershed scale may be ongoing,planned, or have been completed by local watershedcouncils, model watershed groups, bioregionalcouncils, conservation districts, or other local actiongroups. Analyses by these groups in cooperation withNatural Resources Conservation Service and otheragencies may include inventory and assessmentphases of watershed health activities, watershedplanning, river basin studies, and CoordinatedResource Management Planning (CRMP). Thesevolunteer private landowner processes may berelevant within a given watershed. Teams shouldidentify and pursue opportunities for coordinated andcooperative analyses with these local efforts.

Habitat Conservation Plans on Non-Federal Lands Both Federal and state watershed analyses offerinterdisciplinary and cooperative processes that canprovide information and establish a watershed-scale


11

context for habitat conservation plans developed for patterns and processes within watersheds that can beprivate lands under Section 10 of the Endangered used to: Species Act.

Federal Watershed Analysis and Non-FederalLands

Even though the Federal watershed analysis process is the changes in no way intended to regulate non-Federal lands, • Understand these causes and predict impactsanalysis teams, as guided by responsible officials, will • Manage the ecosystem for desired outcomesconsider the interactions of various land ownerships inthe watershed. Federal land management decisions Watershed analysis results assist in developingbased on the results of watershed analysis need to monitoring plans by revealing the most usefulconsider conditions and activities on adjacent non- indicators for monitoring environmental changesFederal lands, especially to evaluate cumulative within each watershed. Characteristics of goodeffects, as they affect public lands, pursuant to monitoring indicators, in addition to those describedNFMA, NEPA, ESA, CWA, O&C Act, and other by MacDonald et al. (1991), include those that:pertinent statutes. Consideration of these interactionsis important to an overall understanding of ecological • Are sensitive and responsive to management actionsfunctions and processes. • Have low spatial and temporal variability

Cooperative approaches to watershed analyses that • Relate directly to beneficial uses of the watershedcross jurisdictional and ownership boundaries are • Are early warning indicatorsencouraged. Analysis teams, as guided by responsible • Represent broader or more complex ecologicalofficials, are encouraged to contact non-Federal processes or subsystemlandowners in the watershed and to foster voluntaryparticipation in all stages of the analysis. Voluntary When making recommendations for monitoring,participation by non-Federal landowners will enhance teams should consider both the monitoring needs ofeach team’s ability to share data and better understand the watershed and the role of the watershed in existingthe interactions of various land ownerships in the Forest, District, regional or other broader-scalewatershed. Teams should recognize that even with monitoring plans. Monitoring plans developed atvoluntary landowner participation, there may be broader scales may require sample points within theconcerns regarding proprietary data and public access watershed. Results of watershed analyses provideto sensitive information. information for determining where such monitoring

In those instances where landowners do notvoluntarily choose to participate, publicly availableinformation should be used in the analysis. Publiclyavailable information about topography, soils,geology, hydrology, transportation systems, andvegetation may be available, for example, throughaerial photos, or state and local government records.Although this type of information will usually beavailable at a coarser level of resolution thaninformation obtained through cooperative land- ownerparticipation, it may be acceptable for developing ageneral understanding of the conditions and processesinteracting with adjacent Federal lands.

0RQLWRULQJ

Information from watershed analysis can be used to relevant to the analysis (triggering events or resourcedevelop monitoring strategies and objectives for the concerns).watershed. Analyses provide information about

• Reveal the most useful indicators for monitoringenvironmental change

• Detect magnitude and duration of changes inconditions

• Formulate and test hypotheses about the causes of

• Are easy to measure (accurate and precise)

points should be located.

&RUH�7RSLFV

Every watershed analysis will be different, dependingon the reasons for conducting the analysis and theresource concerns unique to the watershed, eventhough a common approach based on the six analysissteps will be followed. All watershed analyses shouldaddress the basic ecological conditions, processes, andinteractions (elements) at work in the watershed. Thefollowing core topics are intended to provide theframework for focusing the basic analysis within thewatershed. The appropriate level of detail needed toaddress each of the core topics should be determinedby the responsible official, based on recommendationsby the team and with consideration of the issues


12

The core topics represent the major and commonecological elements, and their relationships, in allwatersheds. The topics are purposely broad andgeneral, as they encourage a watershed-level per-spective of the system as opposed to a site or project-level perspective. The purpose of the core topics is toensure that responsible officials and their teamsadequately address the major elements and theirrelationships in the watershed. The core analysistopics help ensure that analyses are sufficientlycomprehensive to develop a basic understanding ofthe watershed. The analysis team should demonstrateunderstanding and knowledge of the basic ecologicalconditions, processes, and interactions in thewatershed by addressing the following core topicsthrough the six-step process:

• Erosion processes• Hydrology• Vegetation• Stream channel• Water quality• Species and habitats• Human uses

&RUH�4XHVWLRQV

Core questions are designed to guide teams throughthe six-step process. The core questions are intendedto focus the team’s thinking on the core topics, not toset a minimum level of analysis needed to addresseach core topic. They are designed to help teams showa basic level of knowledge regarding the watershedthrough documentation of the findings and logic trail.The level of detail may range from professionalknowledge and judgment to in-depth analysis,depending on the issues relevant to the analysis. Therationale for determining that a core question is notapplicable will be documented.

The core questions are intended to be general in natureto allow the watershed team flexibility in determiningthe appropriate level of analysis, as judged by theresponsible official, for each core topic. The analyticalprogression of the core questions for each topicgenerally parallels the analysis steps, with the firstquestions aimed at characterization and the lastquestions addressing integration and interpretation.Teams can apply this pattern of questions to othertopics identified for analysis in a particular watershed.The following core questions are listed by core topic.These questions are repeated in Part 2 under thedetailed descriptions of pertinent process steps.

(URVLRQ�3URFHVVHV

Step 1: What erosion processes are dominant withinthe watershed (e.g., surface erosion processes,mass wasting)? Where have they occurred orare they likely to occur?

Step 2: Core questions not addressed.

Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends ofthe dominant erosion processes prevalent inthe watershed?

Step 4: What are the historical erosion processeswithin the watershed (e.g., surface erosionprocesses, mass wasting)? Where have theyoccurred?

Step 5: What are the natural and human causes ofchanges between historical and currenterosion processes in the watershed? What arethe influences and relationships betweenerosion processes and other ecosystemprocesses (e.g., vegetation, woody debrisrecruitment)?


+\GURORJ\

Step 1: What are the dominant hydrologiccharacteristics (e.g., total discharge, peakflows, minimum flows) and other notablehydrologic features and processes in thewatershed (e.g., cold water seeps, ground-water recharge areas)?


Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends ofthe dominant hydrologic characteristics andfeatures prevalent in the watershed?

Step 4: What are the historical hydrologiccharacteristics (e.g., total discharge, peakflows, minimum flows) and features (e.g.,cold water seeps, groundwater recharge areas)in the watershed?

Step 5: What are the natural and human causes ofchange between historical and current hydro-logic conditions? What are the influences andrelationships between hydrologic processesand other ecosystem processes (e.g., sedimentdelivery, fish migration)?



13

9HJHWDWLRQ�

Step 1: What is the array and landscape pattern ofplant communities and seral stages in thewatershed (riparian and nonriparian)? Whatprocesses caused these patterns (e.g., fire,wind, mass wasting)?


Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends ofthe prevalent plant communities and seral Step 1: What beneficial uses dependent on aquaticstages in the watershed (riparian and resources occur in the watershed? Whichnonriparian)? water quality parameters are critical to these

Step 4: What is the historical array and landscapepattern of plant communities and seral stages Step 2: Core questions not addressedin the watershed (riparian and non-riparian)? . What processes caused these patterns (e.g., Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends offire, wind, mass wasting)? beneficial uses and associated water quality

Step 5: What are the natural and human causes ofchange between historical and current Step 4: What were the historical water qualityvegetative conditions? What are the characteristics of the watershed?influences and relationships betweenvegetation and seral patterns and other Step 5: What are the natural and human causes ofecosystem processes in the watershed (e.g., change between historical and current waterhydrologic maturity, channel stability, shade, quality conditions? What are the influencesdisturbance, species movements, soil and and relationships between water quality anderosion processes)? other ecosystem processes in the watershed

Step 6: Core questions not addressed. vulnerability)?

6WUHDP�&KDQQHO�

Step 1: What are the basic morphologicalcharacteristics of stream valleys or segmentsand the general sediment transport and Step 1: What is the relative abundance anddeposition processes in the watershed (e.g., distribution of species of concern that arestratification using accepted classification important in the watershed (e.g., threatened orsystems)? endangered species, special status species,

Step 2: Core questions not addressed. the distribution and character of their

Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends ofstream channel types and sediment transport Step 2: Core questions not addressed.and deposition processes prevalent in thewatershed? Step 3: What are the current habitat conditions and

Step 4: What were the historical morphological steps 1 and 2?characteristics of stream valleys and generalsediment transport and deposition processes Step 4: What was the historical relative abundancein the watershed? and distribution of species of concern and the

Step 5: What are the natural and human causes of the watershed?change between historical and current channel

conditions? What are the influences andrelationships between channel conditions andother ecosystem processes in the watershed(e.g., inchannel habitat for fish and otheraquatic species, water quality)?


:DWHU�4XDOLW\

uses?

parameters?

(e.g., mass wasting, fish habitat, stream reach


6SHFLHV�DQG�+DELWDWV

species emphasized in other plans)? What is

habitats?

trends for the species of concern identified in

condition and distribution of their habitats in


14

Step 5: What are the natural and human causes ofchange between historical and current speciesdistribution and habitat quality for species ofconcern in the watershed? What are theinfluences and relationships of species andtheir habitats with other ecosystem processesin the watershed?


+XPDQ�8VHV�

Step 1: What are the major human uses, includingtribal uses and treaty rights? Where do theygenerally occur in the watershed (e.g., mapthe location of important human uses such ascultural sites, recreation developments,infrastructure)?


Step 3: What are the current conditions and trends ofthe relevant human uses in the watershed?

Step 4: What are the major historical human uses inthe watershed, including tribal and othercultural uses?

Step 5: What are the causes of change betweenhistorical and current human uses? What arethe influences and relationships betweenhuman uses and other ecosystem processes inthe watershed?



15

6WHS��&KDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ

3XUSRVH

• To identify the dominant physical, biological, andhuman processes and features of the watershed thataffect ecosystem function or condition.

• To relate these features and processes with thoseoccurring in the river basin or province.

• To provide the watershed context for identifyingelements that need to be addressed in the analysis.

• To identify, map, and describe the most importantland allocations, plan objectives, and regulatoryconstraints (e.g., 303(d) stream reaches, criticalhabitat) that influence resource management in thewatershed.

&RUH�7RSLFV�DQG�4XHVWLRQV

Erosion Processes• What erosion processes are dominant within the

watershed (e.g., surface erosion processes, masswasting)? Where have they occurred or are theylikely to occur?

Hydrology• What are the dominant hydrologic characteristics

(e.g., total discharge, peak flows, minimum flows)and other notable hydrologic features and processesin the watershed (e.g., cold water seeps, ground-water recharge areas)?

Vegetation• What is the array and landscape pattern of plant

communities and seral stages in the watershed(riparian and nonriparian)? What processes causethese patterns (e.g., fire, wind, mass wasting)?

Stream Channel • What are the basic morphological characteristics of

stream valleys and segments and the generalsediment transport and deposition processes in thewatershed (e.g., stratification using acceptedclassification systems)?

Water Quality• What beneficial uses dependent on aquatic

resources occur in the watershed? Which waterquality parameters are critical to these uses?

Species and Habitats• What is the relative abundance and distribution of

species of concern that are important in thewatershed (e.g., threatened or endangered species,special status species, species emphasized in otherplans)? What is the distribution and character oftheir habitats?

Human Uses • What are the major human uses, including tribal

uses and treaty rights? Where do they generallyoccur in the watershed (e.g., map the location ofimportant human uses such as cultural sites,recreation developments, infrastructure)?

6XPPDU\�4XHVWLRQV

1. Where is this watershed located in relation to theriver basin?

2. What are the distinguishing physical, biological,and human features of the watershed?

3. What are the most important land allocations andmanagement plan objectives that influence thewatershed?

4. Do the characteristics of this watershed differfrom neighboring watersheds or the river basin inwhich the watershed is located? Are they unique?

5. What are the ownership and land use patterns inthe watershed?

6. What makes this watershed important to people?

,QIRUPDWLRQ�5HVRXUFHV

• Existing maps or data.• Existing resource information and land allocations

from planning documents.• Available literature.

7HFKQLTXHV

• Review large-scale plans, research, and otheranalyses for information specific to the river basinor watershed.

• Work in an integrated, interdisciplinary fashion toleverage the value of each individual’s knowledge.

• Develop essential knowledge about the core topicsand others through team teaching exercises (e.g.,interdisciplinary team members present informationto other team members).

• Based on current knowledge, discuss initialstratification of the watershed to organize the team’ssubsequent work. This stratification may be basedon either process or condition information (e.g.,subwatersheds, response units, geomorphology, fishproduction units).


16

3URGXFWV

• Description (including maps) of the dominantfeatures and processes, including the core topics,that characterize the watershed.

• Vicinity map showing the location of the watershedwith respect to political, geographic or ecologicalboundaries and human population centers.

• Maps showing ownership patterns.• Maps and descriptions of the most important land

allocations, plan objectives, and regulatoryconstraints (e.g., 303(d) stream reaches, criticalhabitat) that influence resource management in thewatershed.

'LVFXVVLRQ

The objectives of step 1 are to identify the dominantphysical, biological, and human processes or featuresof the watershed that regulate ecosystem function orcondition and to relate these features and processeswith those occurring in the river basin.Characterization establishes the relative importance ofeach of the core topics, as well as other analysis topicsunique or relevant to the watershed. This step providesa broad watershed context useful in subsequent stepsto identify the primary ecosystem elements that shouldbe carried into the analysis.

Many physical, biological, and human processes orfeatures span areas much larger than a watershed. Toappropriately characterize and analyze specific aspectsof the watershed, the watershed needs to be placed inits logical setting with respect to these larger scales.The basin perspective allows analysis teams toidentify important characteristics or contributions ofthe watershed to issues or systems operating at largerscales. Examples are the identification of a watershedas an important habitat for a fish stock at risk and thewatershed’s role in species distribution and viability.

Characterization uses known information about thewatershed to provide new information for the analysisthrough synthesis of the core topics. Teams may findthat they need to return to step 1 and update thewatershed characterization after completingsubsequent steps of the analysis.

6WHS��,VVXHV�DQG�.H\�4XHVWLRQV

3XUSRVH

• To focus the analysis on the key elements of theecosystem that are most relevant to the managementquestions, human values, or resource conditionswithin the watershed.

• To determine which core questions are applicable,establish the level of detail needed to addressapplicable core questions, and to document rationalefor determining that a core question is notapplicable.

• To identify additional relevant topics and questionsbased on issues in the watershed.

• To formulate key analysis questions for thewatershed based on indicators commonly used tomeasure or interpret the key ecosystem elements.

2YHUYLHZ�4XHVWLRQV

1. What are the resource concerns or problems thatare unique or relevant to the watershed (includingthose identified for the core topics in step 1)?

2. What are the relevant management programs,priorities, needs, and projects of importance inthis watershed (what triggered the need for thisanalysis)?

3. What do people care about in this watershed?4. Are there obvious differences between the

characteristics described in step 1 and thoseobjectives or standards and guidelines docu-mented in existing higher order plans (Forest andDistrict plans) and regulations (ESA, NFMA,CWA, etc.)?

5. Based on the relative importance of the issuesidentified above in questions 1 through 4, whichissues will be addressed in this iteration of theanalysis?

6. What conditions and processes in the watershed(in addition to the core topics) are relevant indescribing the issues?

7. Which ecosystem indicators are most useful tomeasure or interpret these conditions andprocesses?

8. Based on these indicators for each issue to beaddressed, what are the key questions to beanswered in this analysis iteration?


The process of identifying issues should lead theanalysis team through a series of questions: What arethe topics of concern in larger scale analyses or plans


17

(basin or province) that are of importance in this • Do not give all issues the same weight or the samewatershed? Which of these issues are appropriate to urgency for resolutionaddress at the watershed scale? What triggered the • Document criteria used to prioritize the issuesneed for this watershed analysis? What do managers • Reevaluate priorities for addressing an issue duringneed from this analysis to make better decisions, the analysis as more information becomes availableimplement resource programs, or design projects?These types of questions help the team understand theFormulating Key Questions for the Watershed context and importance of the watershed within the • Identify indicators most useful in measuring orbroader landscape. Additionally, the questions will interpreting conditions of the core analysis topics.help the team identify issues that cross watershed • Based on the indicators, develop key questions,boundaries and that may be more appropriately recognizing that each issue may have several keyanalyzed at a broader scale. It is important to frame questions.issues based on the entire watershed, regardless of • Develop a series of questions that becomeland ownership. progressively more refined

Sources of issues include: • Address the issues,• Watershed characterization from step 1. • Focus on ecosystem elements that influence, and• Information from existing basin and higher order are influenced by, potential management actions

plans or assessments (e.g., Forest Land Management and that can be measured at the watershed scale,Plans, Bureau of Land Management Resource • Promote synthesis among the core topics, andManagement Plans, regional analyses, river basin • Are expected to be answered by the analysisanalyses, monitoring plans, and state water qualityassessments).

• Information from site-specific planning andanalyses previously accomplished in the watershed(e.g., NEPA documents).

• Discussions with state, county, and tribalgovernments, and other Federal agencies.

• State and tribal water quality standards.• Results of public involvement in either the

watershed analysis or previous NEPA analyses.• Interviews with local people and resource users.

7HFKQLTXHV

Prioritizing Issues analysis.) Once a list of issues is compiled, teams should make • A set of key questions to be answered or addresseda preliminary assessment of priorities. For example, in the analysis.by designating each issue as high, moderate, or lowpriority, the team will be able to evaluate the necessityand probability for resolving each issue in a particulariteration of watershed analysis.

Prioritize issues to identify those needinginvestigation in this iteration of watershed analysis. Insetting priorities, consider the following:• Reasons for doing this watershed analysis

(triggering events)• Presence of critical stocks or populations• Presence of threatened and endangered species• Water-quality impaired stream reaches• Anticipation of land management decisions or

projects• Resolution process for issues deferred from prior

planning efforts

• Design key questions that:

3URGXFWV

• List of issues that were reviewed and evaluated.• Brief description of how the dominant ecosystem

elements (including the core topics) from step 1relate to the identified issues.

• List and briefly discuss the issues that the teamdecided to pursue at this time and an explanation fortheir specific selection.

• Description of the process the team used to identifyand prioritize issues and to formulate key questions.(This will allow subsequent users of the analysis tounderstand the genesis and limitations of the

'LVFXVVLRQ

Watershed analyses assemble, organize, interpret, andpresent information needed to guide future resourcemanagement decisions. To meet this intent, step 2 hasfour phases: (1) identification of issues in thewatershed; (2) prioritization of issues to identify themost important or relevant for anticipatedmanagement activities within the watershed; (3)identification of indicators most likely to revealconditions of the core analysis topics; and (4)formulation of key questions about specific processesor conditions based on the issues and indicators. It isimportant to involve tribes, the public, state andcounty agencies, and other Federal agencies in step 2of the analysis.


18

6WHS��&XUUHQW�&RQGLWLRQV

3XUSRVH

• To develop information relevant to the issues andkey questions from step 2 that is more detailed thaninformation from the characterization in step 1.

• To document the current range, distribution, andcondition of the core topics and other relevantecosystem elements.


Erosion Processes• What are the current conditions and trends of the

dominant erosion processes prevalent in thewatershed?

Hydrology• What are the current conditions and trends of the

dominant hydrologic characteristics and featuresprevalent in the watershed?

Vegetation • What are the current conditions and trends of the

prevalent plant communities and seral stages in thewatershed (riparian and nonriparian)?

Stream Channel• What are the current conditions and trends of stream

channel types, and sediment transport anddeposition processes prevalent in the watershed?

Water Quality• What are the current conditions and trends of

beneficial uses and associated water qualityparameters?

Species and Habitats• What are the current habitat conditions and trends for

the species of concern identified in steps 1 and 2?

Human Uses • What are the current conditions and trends of the

prevalent human uses in the watershed?

6XPPDU\�4XHVWLRQ

• What are the current conditions and trends of thephysical, biological, and human ecosystemelements, including the core topics?


• Information gathered from steps 1 and 2• Results of existing surveys and inventories• Maps• Aerial photographs and other remote-sensing data• Narratives• Reports• Records• Anecdotal information• Photographs• Previous analyses• Relevant research reports• Results of modules

7HFKQLTXHV

• Interpret, evaluate, and summarize data.• Establish methods and models.• Stratify resources or their use within the watershed.

3URGXFWV

• Maps, tables, text, charts, etc., that describe currentconditions.

• Detailed descriptions of current conditions.• Stratification maps, tables, and descriptions.

'LVFXVVLRQ

In step 3, more detailed analyses will be completed forthose core topics and other ecosystem elementsidentified in step 1 that are relevant to the issues andkey questions identified in step 2. The analysis ofcurrent conditions in step 3 will develop additionaldetail over the characterization in step 1, asdetermined by the analysis team, to answer the keyquestions. Information germane to these key questionsare collected and assembled in the analysis.

The watershed may be stratified, as needed, toaccurately describe local conditions and processes.Data should be reported at a scale and resolutioncommensurate with the scale of the features andprocesses within the watershed. If conditions or valuesare averaged over an entire watershed, then dataquality and utility may be affected.


19

6WHS��5HIHUHQFH�&RQGLWLRQV

3XUSRVH

• To explain how ecological conditions have changedover time as the result of human influence andnatural disturbances.

• To develop a reference for comparison with currentconditions and with key management planobjectives.


Erosion Processes• What are the historical erosion processes within the

watershed (e.g., surface erosion processes, masswasting)? Where have they occurred?

Hydrology• What are the historic hydrologic characteristics

(e.g., total discharge, peak flows, minimum flows)and features (e.g., cold water seeps, groundwaterrecharge areas) in the watershed?

Vegetation • What is the historic array and landscape pattern of

plant communities and seral stages in the watershed(riparian and nonriparian) and what processescaused these patterns (e.g., fire, wind, masswasting)?

Stream Channel• What were the historic morphological

characteristics of stream valleys and the generalsediment transport and deposition processes in thewatershed?

Water Quality• What were the historic water-quality characteristics

of the watershed?

Species and Habitats • What was the historic relative abundance and

distribution of species of concern and the conditionand distribution of their habitats in the watershed?

Human Uses • What were the major historical human uses in the

watershed, including tribal and other cultural uses?

6XPPDU\�4XHVWLRQV

1. What are the historical conditions of physical,biological and human ecosystem elements?

2. What has been the range, frequency, anddistributions of ecosystem conditions during thecurrent climatic period?

3. Have there been any fundamental changes to thesystem due to natural or human-causeddisturbances?


• Historical information• Available research reports• Knowledge of basic ecological processes of the

watershed• Natural constraints and influences on ecological

processes within the watershed• Modeling results, if available• Maps of potential vegetation• Professional judgment

7HFKQLTXHV

• Comparison with “natural” areas• Classification systems for various resource elements• Condition ratings• Watershed stratification• Models and theories of ecological processes• Literature reviews

3URGXFWV

Maps, tables, charts, and text that describe (bothqualitatively and quantitatively) the range, frequency,and distributions of ecosystem element conditionsduring the current major climatic period, stratified asappropriate.

'LVFXVVLRQ

The intent of step 4 is to describe the known orinferred history of the landscape so that teamsunderstand what existed in the past and what changeshave occurred that may affect current capabilities. Thereference condition step is based on the premise thatecosystems adapted over extended time periods andthat the greatest probability for maintaining futuresustainability is through management designed tomaintain or reproduce natural components, structures,and processes.

Reference conditions can be used to help define goalsor objectives established in management plans. Forexample, the ACS contains the objective of managingfor maintenance of natural sediment regimes.


20

Sediment regimes differ between and withinwatersheds. Step 4 in watershed analysis can helpdefine what is natural for any specific area orwatershed.

The results of step 4 are not goals or desired futureconditions (DFCs), but rather clues as to the functionof ecological processes over the system’s evolutionperiod. No judgment is made on the optimal conditionor value of elements. Teams document the range,frequency, and distributions of ecosystem elementconditions and processes during the time span forwhich data are available for comparison with existingconditions and key management plan objectives. Thesignificance of reference conditions with respect toissues from step 2 will be evaluated in step 5(interpretation).

The conditions and values of ecosystem elements aredynamic in both space and time. The distribution ofdata values for ecosystem elements over a selectedperiod of time may be termed the “referencevariability.” Distributions may differ spatiallybetween different landscapes within the watershed, aswell as temporally on a given landscape. Thisreference variability is similar to the concepts of “thenatural range of variability” and “the historical rangeof variability.” Because reference variabilityencompasses the full range of ecosystem conditions,processes, and values within the current climaticperiod, it includes both presettlement and historicalepochs, as well as current conditions.

The time span for which data may be available willdiffer with ecosystem (e.g., grassland vs. riparian),ecosystem element (e.g., erosion processes vs. waterquality), and geographic area (e.g., areas where onlycurrent and historical data are available versus thosewhere paleoecosystems have been reconstructed). Inmany instances, data will not be available and therange and distribution of ecosystem conditions mustbe constructed from multiple sources, inference, andprofessional judgment.

Potential sources of historical information about thewatershed include agency and landowners’ inventoriesand records, early General Land Office and territorialsurveys, settlers’ and explorers’ journals, ethnographicdata on Native American uses, and other historicalrecords that provide data relevant to the ecosystemelements being addressed. Anecdotal informationsources may include oral histories, local knowledge,experiences of former employees and retirees,resource users, and stakeholders.

6WHS��6\QWKHVLV�DQG�,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ

3XUSRVH

• To compare existing and reference conditions ofspecific ecosystem elements.

• To explain significant differences, similarities, ortrends and their causes.

• To identify the capability of the system to achievekey management plan objectives.


Erosion Processes• What are the natural and human causes of change

between historical and current erosion processes inthe watershed?

• What are the influences and relationships betweenerosion processes and other ecosystem processes(e.g., vegetation, woody debris recruitment, etc.)?

Hydrology• What are the natural and human causes of change

between historical and current hydrologicconditions?

• What are the influences and relationships betweenhydrological processes and other ecosystemprocesses (e.g., sediment delivery, fish migration)?

Vegetation • What are the natural and human causes of change

between historical and current vegetativeconditions?

• What are the influences and relationships betweenvegetation and seral patterns and other ecosystemprocesses in the watershed (e.g., hydrologicmaturity, channel stability, shade, disturbance,species movements, soil and erosion processes)?

Stream Channel• What are the natural and human causes of change

between historical and current channel conditions?• What are the influences and relationships between

channel conditions and other ecosystem processes inthe watershed (e.g., sediment transport anddeposition processes)?

Water Quality• What are the natural and human causes of change

between historical and current water-qualityconditions?

• What are the influences and relationships betweenwater quality and other ecosystem processes in thewatershed (e.g., mass wasting, fish habitat, streamreaches vulnerability)?


21

Species and Habitats desired products from the analysis. Techniques• What are the natural and human causes of change include:

between historical and current species distributionand habitat quality for species of concern in the • Condition ratingswatershed? • Map overlays

• What are the influences and relationships of species • Statistical comparisonsand their habitats with other ecosystem processes in • Scientific methodthe watershed? • Models

Human Uses • Logic tracking• What are the causes of change between historical • Classification systems

and current human uses? • Systems diagrams • What are the influences and relationships between • Stratification

human uses and other ecosystem processes in the • Synthesiswatershed?

6XPPDU\�4XHVWLRQV

1. Are there obvious differences between existing topics and others. and reference conditions of the core analysis • Discussion and display of the dominant processestopics? Of other relevant topics? and causal mechanisms that explain the relationship

2. Are there trends in any of the physical, biological, between current and historical conditions (steps 1,and human elements? If so, what are the rates and 3, and 4) with the issues and key questions frommagnitudes of change? step 2.

3. Which processes or causal mechanisms are most • Discussion of major natural and human-relatedlikely responsible for similarities, differences, and changes in the system that have fundamentallytrends? altered the capability to achieve conditions as

4. Have there been major natural and human-related described in step 4 or key management plandisturbances or activities that have fundamentally objectives.altered the system and which would affect the • Description of the discrepancies between the currentability of the system to achieve conditions as resource conditions and relevant managementdescribed in step 4, or management objectives objectives. from previously identified plans? • Discussion of anticipated social or demographic

5. What are the implications of the changes and changes or trends that could have ecosystemtrends, including the capability of the watershed management implications.to achieve objectives from existing plans; e.g.,attainment of ACS objectives?


• Watershed characterization from step 1 and temporal interaction of biological, physical, and• Key issues and questions, including relevant social processes at work in the watershed are

management plans and laws that establish explained here. The implications of these interactionsmanagement objectives for the watershed, from for attainment of management plan objectivesstep 2 identified in step 2 will be identified to provide a basis

• Data and descriptions from steps 3 and 4 for management recommendations in step 6.

7HFKQLTXHV

There are several techniques for comparing currentconditions with historical and reference conditions.The techniques that can be used in watershed analysiswill differ by resource, data availability, data format(e.g., survey data, maps, photos), data resolution, and

3URGXFWV

• Description and explanation of trends for the core

'LVFXVVLRQ

Step 5 is the place to synthesize and interpretinformation from the previous four steps. The spatial

Differences in the range, frequency, and distributionof relevant historical, current, and natural conditionsshould be explained. Ecosystem processes and causalmechanisms that best explain the differences and howthese factors affect the watershed’s capability toachieve management objectives also should beidentified. Discrepancies among watershed conditions,capabilities, and relevant management plan objectivesshould be identified. These will enable the team to


22

make general recommendations in step 6 to correct 2. What is the relative sequence of recommendedand rectify inconsistencies between resource management actions, based on resource risk andconditions and management objectives. legal requirements?

Data gathered and analyzed by using the modules or respond to the recommended managementsimilar techniques should be quantitatively and activities and over what duration? What level ofqualitatively compared. Such comparisons will help certainty is involved?the team arrive at conclusions regarding dominant 4. What are the recommended monitoring andchanges that have occurred, processes and research actions and relative priorities for themechanisms responsible for the changes, natural or above indicators?human-related causes of these changes, and effects onresources and issues of interest.

In step 5, the team should revisit and answer, to theextent possible, the key analysis questions developedin step 2. Questions that cannot be answered to thesatisfaction of the team may need further analysis thenor in the future. The final watershed analysis reportshould include a description of those questionsanswered and explain if and why any questions weredeferred.

Logic tracking and documentation are critical instep 5. In reaching conclusions regarding core topicsand others, the team should use the weight of evidenceto reach and support their conclusions. The teamshould also review and revise system diagrams, orother logic documentation methods, and identifydominant processes and relationships.

6WHS��5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV

3XUSRVH�

• To bring the results of the previous steps toconclusion by focusing on management recom-mendations that are responsive to watershedprocesses identified in the analysis.

• To document logic flow through the analysis,linking issues and key questions from step 2 withthe step 5 interpretation of ecosystem under-standings (from steps 1, 3, and 4).

• To identify monitoring and research activities thatare responsive to the issues and key questions.

• To identify data gaps and limitations of the analysis.

4XHVWLRQV

1. Which of the changes in ecosystem condition andfunction revealed in step 5 (including the coretopics) require management action (restoration,maintenance, protection, alteration) to achievemanagement objectives identified in step 2?

3. How will the indicators identified in step 2


• Products from the previous steps

7HFKQLTXHV

• Mapping• Matrices• Synthesis

3URGXFWV

• Management recommendations (e.g., restoration,monitoring, protection of sensitive areas, andresources), based on the interpretation from step 5,that are responsive to the issues and key questionsfrom step 2.

• Recommended timing, sequencing, and generallocation for each management recommendation.

• Anticipated rates and time frames for achieving themanagement objectives for each managementrecommendation.

• Recommended monitoring and research activities.• Discussion of the limitations of the analysis,

confidence in the analysis, data gaps, and impli-cations of these limitations for management. Ifcross-boundary issues are identified, include adiscussion of their extent and how they wereresolved. (Refer to the cross-boundary discussion instep 2.)

• Maps and tables necessary for presentation.• Summary tables or other clear presentation of logic

tracking from step 1 through 6.

'LVFXVVLRQ

The purpose of step 6 is to bring the results of theprevious steps to conclusion and to focus onrecommendations, not outputs. Completion of step 6should enable the team to provide the logic flow fromstep 1 to step 6 and also make the task of documentingthe process relatively simple.


23

Recommendations should address efficient ways tomeet management objectives identified in steps 1and 2; e.g., restoration activities, adjusting interimriparian reserve boundaries, and changing landallocation boundaries (through plan amendments) toresolve inconsistencies between objectives andresource capabilities.

The products of step 6 should be synthesized from thework of all involved disciplines. The recom-mendations are intended to be general in nature,address the conditions and processes in the water-shed, and provide guidance for types of activitiesrather than site-specific recommendations. This doesnot imply that site-specific recommendations arenever appropriate, but rather that recommendationsshould be commensurate with the scale of informationin the analysis.

Teams should identify monitoring and researchactivities that address the issues and key questions(including requirements from higher-order moni-toring plans), while focusing on watershed processes,trends, and data gaps.

Teams should address the expected effectiveness andrelative risk associated with each recommendedrestoration activity and should document how thesefactors were considered when priorities were assignedto the recommendations.

Teams may prioritize areas of the watershed byimportance in meeting management objectives. Forexample, for each stratum or area identified in step 3,identify the types of management activities expectedto restore, maintain, enhance, or impede ecosystemfunctions.

In addition to recommendations, management actionsthat have the potential to cause undesirable trends orconditions (e.g., road building across the toe of aknown landslide) also should be identified in theanalysis report.

Watershed analyses are documented in a report. Thisreport is the communication of scientific information interms useful to managers and resource specialists. Thereport should allow readers to easily follow the logic ofthe analysis, from characterization of watershed to thefinal recommendations and conclusions.

6XJJHVWHG�)RUPDW�IRU�:DWHUVKHG$QDO\VLV�5HSRUW

([HFXWLYH�6XPPDU\

Briefly describe the watershed context, highlights ofthe six steps, summary of findings, conclusions, andrecommendations.

Step 1: Characterize the watershed Characterize and highlight the dominant features andprocesses (ecological elements) of the watershed,including the core topics. Establish watershed contextwithin the river basin.

Step 2: Identify issues and key questions Identify issues (factors that triggered the analysis andresource concerns specific to the watershed) and keyquestions to focus the analysis.

Step 3: Describe current conditions For the analysis topics relevant to the issues and keyquestions identified in step 2, provide a more detailedanalysis than the characterization in step 1.

Step 4: Describe reference conditions Explain how ecological conditions have changed asthe result of human influence and natural dis-turbances for comparison with relevant managementplan objectives.

Step 5: Synthesize and interpret results Explain the changes in ecosystem conditions and theirprobable causes, including implications for watershedmanagement objectives.

Step 6: Develop recommendations Applying the results of steps 1 through 5, developrecommendations for management activities that areresponsive to the issues and key questions from step2; e.g., restoration, monitoring, and protection ofsensitive areas and resources.

Suggested AppendicesA--GlossaryB--ReferencesC--Maps


24

Causal mechanism--Processes and related causes ofchange to conditions.

Component--Physical or biological features(“pieces”) of an ecosystem (e.g., water, plant species,soils, and people).

Condition--The state of historical, current, orpotential elements. May be a quantitative orqualitative descriptor.

Domain--(a) Subset of the elements of an ecosystemwith scope or boundaries determined by links betweenecosystem elements related to a particular issue or setof issues in a watershed. (b) A tool for organizing andfocusing the analysis into issues regarding terrestrial,aquatic, and socio-economic resources.

Dominant--(a) Exercising the most influence orcontrol. (b) Most prominent, as in position; ascendant.(c) Of, relating to, or being a species that is mostcharacteristic of an ecological community and usuallydetermining the presence, abundance, and type ofother species.

Ecological process--(a) The actions or events that linkorganisms (including humans) and their environment,such as disturbance, successional development,nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, productivity,and decay. (b) Flow or cycling of energy, materials,and nutrients through space and time (e.g., watersflow, photosynthesis, large woody debris recruitment,erosion)

Ecosystem--An ecological system, consisting ofliving organisms and nonliving components, as wellas, flows and other processes, and the links andinterrelationships among them from which “systems”properties, such as resilience and ecosystem function,emerge. While an ecosystem can occur on any scale,it is often convenient (for analysis, management, orother purposes) to delineate it as a geographic area,with its boundaries demarcating an area where linkswithin the system are stronger than links with adjacentsystems.

Ecosystem element--An identifiable component,process, or condition of an ecosystem.

Ecosystem function--(a) The process through whichthe constituent living and nonliving elements ofecosystems change and interact, includingbiogeochemical processes and succession. (b) A roleof an ecosystem that is of value to society.

Indicators--Commonly used metrics for descriptionor analysis of ecosystem elements. Example: If fire isan ecosystem component, severity, size, frequency, orseasonality are common metrics (indicators) of fire.Example: Vegetative age, size, and composition canserve as a surrogate, or indicator, of woody debrisrecruitment processes.

Integrate--(a) To make into a whole by bringing allparts together; unify. (b) To join with something else;unite. (c) To make part of a larger unit: integrated thenew procedures into the work routine.

Issue--Issues can be triggering events that prompt anagency to initiate watershed analysis, includingmanagement programs, priorities, and potentialprojects; regulatory requirements; and, concernspeople have about the watershed. Issues also can beresource problems, concerns, or other factorshighlighted in the characterization of the watershed orin other steps of the analysis. The scope, intensity, anddepth of watershed analyses depend on the importantmanagement and resource issues in the watershed.

Logic tracking--In watershed analysis, documentinga consistent flow of logic through the analysis steps,from step 1 (characterization) to step 6(recommendations).

Potential--(a) Capable of being, but not yet inexistence; latent. (b) The ecological community thatwould be established if all successional sequences ofits ecosystem were completed without additionalhuman-caused disturbance under presentenvironmental conditions; often referred to as“potential natural community.”

Reference conditions--Conditions characterizingecosystem composition, structure, and function, andtheir variability.

Reference variability--Distribution of data values forecosystem elements over a selected period. These datapoints include infrequent and extreme events over thelength of record. Also applies to socioculturalelements. The timeframes selected for analysis ofreference variabilities must be appropriate for theelement considered.

Scientific method--Principles and empirical processesof discovery and demonstration consideredcharacteristic of, or necessary for, scientificinvestigation, generally involving the observation ofphenomena, the formulation of a hypothesisconcerning the phenomena, experimentation todemonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis,


25

and a conclusion that validates or modifies thehypothesis.

Stratification--Process of categorizing different areasof the watershed that are similar in ecological functionor response.

Structure--The spatial arrangement of the living andnonliving elements of an ecosystem.

Sustainability--The ability of an ecosystem tomaintain ecological processes and functions,biological diversity, and productivity over time.

Synthesis--The integration of separate ecosystemelements to understand the whole system; a primarygoal of watershed analysis.

Systems diagrams--A graphic representation of asystem. In watershed analysis, a diagram thatidentifies key resources, ecosystem processes andmechanisms, and interrelationships.

Triggering--To set off; initiate. An event thatprecipitates the conduct of a watershed analysis. Oneaspect of “issues” that influence the scope, intensity,and level of detail of a watershed analysis.

Values--Principles or qualities that are held in highesteem.

Watershed--Any area of land that drains to a commonpoint. A watershed is smaller than a river basin orsubbasin, but it is larger than a drainage or site. Theterm generally describes areas that result from the firstsubdivision of a subbasin, often referred to as a “fifth-field watershed” (see page 5).


26

Allen, T.F.H.; Starr, Thomas B. 1982. Hierarchy: Perspectives for Ecological Complexity.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Collins, Scott L.; Glenn, S.M. 1991. Importance of Spatial and Temporal Dynamics inSpecies Regional Abundance and Distribution.Ecology. 72(2): 654-664.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.1993.

Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological,Economic, and Social Assessment. Portland, OR:U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department ofthe Interior [and others].

Holling, C.S. 1986. The Resilience of Terrestrial Ecosystems: LocalSurprise and Global Change. In: Clark, W.C.;Munn, R.E., eds. Sustainable development of thebiosphere. New York: Cambridge University Press:292-317.

Jensen, M.E.; Everett, R. 1994. An Overview of Ecological Principles for EcosystemManagement. In: Jensen, ME.; Bourgeron, P.S.,tech. eds. 1994. Volume II: EcosystemManagement: Principles and Applications. Gen.Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-318. Portland, OR: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PacificNorthwest Research Station: 6-16. (Everett, RichardL., assessment team leader; Eastside ForestEcosystem Health Assessment).

King, Anthony W. 1993. Considerations of Scale and Hierarchy. In: Woodley,Stephen; Kay, J.; Francis, G., eds. Ecological Integrityand the Management of Ecosystems. Delray Beach,FL: St. Lucie Press: 19-45.

Levin, Simon A. 1992. The Problem of Pattern and Scale in Ecology.Ecology. 73(6): 1943-1967.

MacDonald, Lee H.; Smart, Alan W.; Wissmar,Robert C. 1991.

Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects ofForestry Activities on Streams in the PacificNorthwest. EPA/910/9-91-001. Seattle, WA:Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.116 p.

Manley, P.N.; Brogan, G.E.; Cook, C.; Flores, M.E.;Fullmer, D.G.; Husari, S.; Jimerson, T.M.; Lux, L.M.;

McCain, M.E.; Rose, J.A.; Schuyler, C.; Skinner, M.J.1995.

Sustaining Ecosystem: a Conceptual Framework.USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region,San Francisco, CA. 216 p.

Newson, M. 1992. Land, Water and Development. River Basin Systemsand Their Sustainable Management. Problems andManagement Series. London: Routledge NaturalEnvironment. 351 p.

O’Neill, R.V.; Milne, B.T.; Turner, M.G.; Gardner,R.H. 1988.

Resource Utilization Scale and Landscape Pattern.Landscape Ecology. 2: 63-69.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. A Federal Guide for Pilot Watershed Analysis,Version 1.2. Portland, OR. 202 pp.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. An Ecological Basis for Ecosystem Management.Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Station.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1994. Ecological Subregions of the United States: SectionDescriptions. Forest Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department ofthe Interior. 1994.

Record of Decision for Amendments to ForestService and Bureau of Land Management PlanningDocuments Within the Range of the NorthernSpotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines forManagement of Habitat for Late-Successional andOld-Growth Forest Related Species Within theRange of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, OR.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department ofthe Interior. 1994.

FY 1994-96 Watershed Analysis Guidelines.Portland, OR. Regional Ecosystem Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department ofthe Interior; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995.

Analysis of the Coast and Middle Forks of theWillamette River. Forest Service; Bureau of LandManagement; U.S, Corps of Engineers.

Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis · project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)...

Documents

Transcript of Federal Guide for Watershed Analysis · project-level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)...