For those of you working on the promulgation of Watershed Assessment/Process Bills (e.g. AB 717, AB 2478 etc)and other Watershed Assessment initiatives; here are some thoughts to be considered - for effectiveness (if that is your concern) and efficiency.
Though there are many watershed assessment processes in place, none has been effective in its utility (use for analysis) or effective in guiding watershed management. Nor do the proposed programs associated with various legislative proposals address the issue in total.
Any potential legislation should consider how the following categories are addressed in a bill. As I read the bills - most miss point in several areas.
What is Watershed Assessment - Need of Accurate Definition - And - Objectives
Goals, objectives, and scientific standards must be clearly defined. It is assumed that Watershed Assessment is to be used for measurement of established parameters, to establish trends, or monitor historic and ongoing changes in conditions as part of an adaptive management system to ultimately be used watershed management. To date much lip service, as in many of these bills, been applied to this concept - with no effective management tool being issued. Be careful - this can continue to be the case. Well defined conditions, criteria, and related responsibilities must be part of watershed assessment - for any chance of success in an adaptive management process. Access and input must be available to all.
Accountability of scientific and management criteria, and any assessment feedback system linked to measurable and scientifically justifiable watershed standards, criteria, and objectives - are all necessary attributes to watershed assessment and management plans.
Parallel (ongoing processes) - Inclusion
A watershed assessment process should be inclusive of existing and historic ongoing watershed processes. Use of what is available (usually located at several different agencies and/or watershed groups)should be used as part of any newly established assessment process. Information, new and historic should be collated and integrated into any assessment plan.
Inclusive - must accept multi-agency management and input process including input and access by responsible federal agency, industry, and the environmental community. CDF is already discussing a process that they want to be the lead of - which includes an "approval process". Approval implies that CDF will decide what is appropriate criteria, limiting factors, and land management practices. CDF has failed to date. The CDF/BOF administration of the Forest Practice Act is not protecting beneficial uses. I do not see that more information will make them better managers. An "approval process" is not mandatory for effective watershed assessment - appropriate science, monitoring, and access are. Scientists should not be brought in at "intervals" to assess (Ross Johnson at BOF). We will need scientists and information managers on top of this program (or these programs) - constantly. I do think, with the help of other agency, science, industry, and the federal managing agencies a framework can be built for a custodial watershed assessment process. CDF can be the keeper but not the unilateral decider or limit setter.
Information must be put in centralized location and managed my a responsible party. Either a existing or new agency. This information must be made available to users and/or managers - people making decisions in watershed management and land use planning. This means up to date assessment data must be accessible to all on a WEB-BASED format and held at managing agency offices in hard copy.
There are such programs as KRIS (Klamath River Information System) and analysis generated by NCRWQCB/EPA in TMDL promulgation - as well as other ongoing assessment programs. Some of these programs provide very good format and information bases. These processes must be integrated into watershed assessment/management plans. Why not use the best existing and/or mandated watershed processes, and such data generated by them, in watershed assessment as part of any legislative mandate? To not do so seems a massive waste. Other mandates to be integrated may fall under Porter-Cologne or Basin Plan mandates, NMFS Assessment Criteria, as well as mandates under the Forest Practice Act.
Use of information in existing historic land use plans (e.g. THPs, EIR, and other use permits) should not be overlooked. Much good information resides in these documents that does not get used due to reticence to open and review lots of files.
It would also be imperative to note that assessment and feedback loop mechanisms are reliant on consistent monitoring and agency inspection. Without inspection adaptive management fails. Consistent inspection on THPs by either CDF or the other review team agencies is not extant.
Scientific Protocol and Utility
State and federal managing agency must agree on protocol and standards of assessment using accepted science. Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Porter-Cologne and Basin Plan criteria and objectives must be integrated into any assessment process.
Trend determination and linkage of assessment to criteria and objectives must be linked to adjustment of the Forest Practices Rules and/or management practices related to the FPRs as manifest by in-field assessment and application policy.
It would be very helpful if a Watershed Assessment program was linked to appropriate scientific documentation - current science and papers(easily done with WEB-BASED links).
If the feedback mechanism of analysis is a loop which will only show changes over a very long term, then it will not work for the purposes of employing flexible management policy to achieve both short and long term goals. (see - Dr. Reid's papers on watershed analysis.
Fragmentation of either analysis, the various disciplines associated with watershed management, or the relationship of analysis with management criteria and policy will only lead to suspicion at best and ineffective applications at worst.
Threshold Linkage - For effectiveness assessment and Management Determinations
Assessment criteria must have threshold values that are enforceable and/or trigger planning decision criteria. Such criteria or targets must meet Water Quality (Beneficial Uses) criteria objectives.
Training
If the folks needing and using the information generated do not understand watershed processes and/or how interpret or apply such information; then all the collection, collation, organization, and keeping of the information is a waste of time. Thus, it is a waste of time to even embark on such programs unless there is going to be ongoing training for users in the public and private sector.
Today 45% of all Timber Harvest Plans files are immediately returned for insufficient or incorrect information and many others are approve while the THP will not protect the benficial uses of water. Training could correct some of this inefficiency and instill coordinated assessment and plan writing values.
Readings
Reid, L. M. 1991. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Final Report to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 221 p.
Reid, Leslie M. 1991. So what, exactly, is a CWE? Watershed Management Council Newsletter 3(4): 1.
Reid, L. M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report GTR-141, 118 pp.
Reid, Leslie M. 1994. Watershed analysis --- whatever that is. Watershed Management Council Newsletter 6(2): 1;16. Fall 1994.
Reid, L. M. 1996. Enabling interdisciplinary analysis. Pages 624-626 in: Proceedings, Watershed '96: Moving Ahead Together, 1996 June 8-12, Baltimore, MD. Alexandra, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Reid, Leslie M. 1998. Chapter 19. Cumulative watershed effects and watershed analysis. Pages 476-501, in: Naiman, Robert J., and Robert E. Bilby, eds. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.
Reid, L. M., R. R. Ziemer, and T. E. Lisle. 1996. Approaching messy problems: strategies for environmental analysis. Pages 9-12 in: Proceedings, Watershed '96: Moving Ahead Together, 1996 June 8-12, Baltimore, MD. Alexandra, VA: Water Environment Federation.
Reid, Leslie M., Robert R. Ziemer, and Thomas E. Lisle. 1996. What a long strange trip it's been - or - who took the synthesis out of analysis? Watershed Management Council Networker 6(4): 6-7.
Reid, L. M., and R. R. Ziemer. In review. 5. Basin assessment and watershed analysis. In: L. M. Reid (ed.). Issues in watershed analysis. PSW General Technical Report. 16 p. (ms)
Alan Levine
Coast Action Group
P.O. Box 215
Point Arena, CA 95468
(707) 882-2484
(707) 542-4408 - Weekdays
RRRAUL Home | Search RRRAUL | News | Logging | Fishery | Watershed | Photographs | Contacts | Organization | Calendar | External Links |