The watershed management process The process & tools to work through the process

Watershed management 3 pics from Ransom Creek, Clarence, NY; 1 with bank stabilization from Cayuga Creek, Niagara County

Watershed management Numerous uses for streams and rivers But… >1/3 rivers in US are impaired or polluted Freshwater extinction rates are five times higher than terrestrial rates Improvements in the last 30-40 years More improvements are possible with river restoration Bernhardt et al., 2005

Watershed management More NRRSS results… Most common goals Other goals Median costs for those projects are <$45K and they’re small scale Fewer, more expensive projects are aimed at reconnecting floodplains, modifying flows, improving aesthetics/recreation, reconfiguring river and stream channels Most common goals Enhance water quality Manage riparian zones Improve in-stream habitat Fish passage Bank stabilization Other goals Channel reconfiguration Dam removal/retrofit Floodplain reconnection Bernhardt et al., 2005

Watershed management Project documentation is poor More NRRSS results… Project documentation is poor Post-project monitoring and assessment is even worse and it’s important for a variety of reasons Setting project goals and objectives at the beginning of the watershed management process is critical A watershed management plan can inform specific project design and implementation Experts have advocated for a standardized method for watershed management Experts have advocated for a standardized method for watershed management help document process, make sure goals/objectives are testable and scientifically sound, provides a framework for testing restoration methods and determining success of projects, help with determining what projects get funded Bernhardt et al., 2005 & 2007

Watershed management: the process Watershed management is continuous and needs a multidisciplinary approach. A strong watershed framework: uses sound science facilitates communication and partnerships fosters actions that are well-planned and cost effective stimulates actions and tracks results from the US EPA Principles of Watershed Management available on-line at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/acad2000/watershedmgt/index.html

Watershed management: the process USACE—Watershed planning in civil works projects (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr34.pdf and http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/emrrp/pdf/sr03.pdf) USEPA—Watershed Academy (http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/) Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group (EPA, Dept. of the Interior, HUD, USDA, DOD, TVA) (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/stream_restoration/) Various State Agencies

Watershed management: the process Phase 1 getting organized Phase 2 problem & opportunity identification Phase 3 developing goals, objectives, & restoration alternatives Phase 4 implementing, monitoring, evaluating, & adapting from the Stream Corridor Restoration handbook (FISRWG, 1998)

Watershed management: the process Phase 1 getting organized Setting boundaries Forming an advisory group Establishing technical teams Identifying funding sources Establishing point of contact & a decision structure Facilitating involvement & information sharing among participants Documenting the process Setting boundaries a. Geographical boundaries that outline area of concern and provides starting area to build community involvement; consider boundaries relevant to ecological process AND geomorphological process (MY ADDITION!) Forming an advisory group—keeps groups in line and makes recommendations to decision makers/sponsors a. Made up of key participants, including private citizens (e.g., grassroots organizations), public officials, public interest groups, economic interests, any other groups or individuals that would be affected by or are interested in restoration b. typical duration of project is 2-3 years (FISRWG, 2005) 3. Establishing technical teams a. provides high-level knowledge, skill, and professional judgment in a variety of areas (e.g., scientific areas, public outreach, funding, legal issues, etc.) 4. Identifying funding sources 5. Establishing point of contact & a decision structure a. the advisory group should ultimately inform the decision makers i.e., the stakeholders b. the structure may involve officers selection, establishing ground rules, having a planning budget, appointing technical teams 6. Facilitating involvement & information sharing among participants a. this includes everyone on the “team” but also includes the stakeholders i.e., landowners b. tools—public hearings and meetings, web sites, workshops, interviews, surveys, news releases, etc. 7. Documenting the process a. a checklist (e.g., National Research Council, 1992) may be used throughout the process for documenting FISRWG, 1998

Watershed management: the process Phase 2 problem & opportunity identification (data collection & analysis) Definition of existing stream corridor conditions (structure & function) Analysis of the cause (disturbances) of altered or impaired stream corridor conditions Determination of how management practices might affect stream corridor structure & function 1. Data collection & analysis a. technical teams tend to do this part try to get a handle on what’s already out there b. types of data collection baseline data; historical data; social, cultural, & economic data c. prioritize data collection d. analysis will depend on scope of work and budget 2. Definition of existing stream corridor conditions (structure & function) and causes of disturbance a. hydrology; erosion & sediment yield; floodplain/riparian vegetation; channel processes; connectivity; water quality; aquatic & riparian species & critical habitats; corridor dimensions 3. Comparison of existing conditions to desired conditions or a reference condition a. defining the “desired conditions” can be very difficult; this section of the handbook describes a reference reach approach 5. Analysis of the cause (disturbances) of altered or impaired stream corridor conditions a. can/should be studied at many different scales e.g., landscape, watershed, stream corridor, reach b. can include a variety of factors e.g., changes in water/sediment yields, changes in land use, direct alteration of the channel 6. Determination of how management practices might be affecting stream corridor structure & function a. how will/can management impact a problem, example is of an indirect management technique to solve a bank erosion problem 7. Development of problem & opportunity statements a. challenge obstacle that prevent a positive change b. opportunity condition that can be created c. document both the resources being affected and existing quantity (in resource and economic terms) d. statements will guide restoration, but also allow for success/failure assessment and guide post-project evaluation FISRWG, 1998

Watershed management: the process Phase 3 developing goals, objectives, & restoration alternatives Define the desired future condition for everyone on the team Identify scale considerations Identify restoration constraints and issues Define goals and objectives Restoration alternative selection & design Point of this step is to develop & analyze alternatives and come to a consensus on a game plan Define the desired future condition for EVERYONE on the team Identify scale considerations Landscape scale regional economic & natural resource management considerations; land use considerations; biodiversity considerations Stream corridor scale may take into consideration both the stream and upland areas; guidelines focus on ecological function & structure, but riparian buffers, for example, are as important for bank erosion as they are as habitat Reach scale plans must take into consideration the larger scales and consider up- and downstream impacts, for example 3. Identify restoration constraints and issues a. Consider technical constraints (e.g., lack of data, restoration technologies); QA/QC; nontechnical constraints (e.g., political, legal, economic, social, cultural) 4. Define goals and objectives a. Goals establish a desired future condition that reflects social, political, and economic values b. Objectives give direction to the general approach, design, and implementation of the restoration effort 5. Alternative selection & design a. managing causes & treating symptoms 6. Landscape/Watershed vs. Corridor/Reach a. connectivity and scale issues 7. Supporting analyses for selecting restoration alternatives a. cost-effectiveness and incremental cost analysis must consider: funds available, return on funds invested, time & other non-financial resources, ability to get action done b. evaluation of benefits c. risk assessment d. environmental impact analysis FISRWG, 1998

Watershed management: the process Phase 4 implementing, monitoring, evaluating, & adapting Installing restoration measures Monitoring Evaluation Adaptive management 1. Securing funding 2. Identifying tools to facilitate implementation a. e.g., technical assistance, tax advantages, cost-sharing, cross-compliance among existing programs 3. Dividing implementation responsibilities—divide and conquer! Responsibilities divided among participants, so the players (people and/or institutions/groups) must be identified and responsibilities must be assigned; this is usually done by the advisory board 4. Installing restoration measures Determining the schedule—timing can be crucial Obtaining necessary permits—state and federal permits needed depending on type and location (e.g., in-channel, riparian zone, upland areas)of work e.g., section 404 of the clean water act (USACE permits needed), endangered species act (USFWS permits needed) Holding preinstallation conferences—on-site meeting with project manger/supervisor, crew foreman, contractors Involving property owners—on-sire owner and neighbors that may be impacted Securing site access—various types of easements Locating existing utilities Confirming sources & ensuring material standards—e.g., fill, rock, vegetation Successful implementation characteristics central responsibility in one person (PM), thorough understanding of planning & materials, familiarity with the reach, knowledge of laws & regulations, understanding of environmental control plans, communication among all parties involved in the action 5. Monitoring 6. Evaluation 7. Adaptive management FISRWG, 1998

Watershed management: the process If it’s so important, how do we keep track of the process and progress?

FISRWG watershed planning tool FISRWG Stream Corridor Restoration handbook Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.   GPO Item No. 0120-A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653.  ISBN-0-934213-59-3. Overview of stream corridors, including physical, chemical and biological characteristics; Disturbances and developing a watershed management plan; Applying restoration principles—analysis of corridor condition; restoration design; restoration installation, monitoring, and adaptive management Access the handbook here: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/stream_restoration/

FISRWG watershed planning tool

USEPA watershed planning tool USEPA Watershed Plan Builder USEPA. 2008. Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore our Waters. By the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Nonpoint Source Control Branch. EPA 841-B-08-002. Available on-line: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm Focused on threatened and impaired waterbodies, the Clean Water Act, and TMDLs Access the Plan Builder here: http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/planBuilder.do?pageId=51&navId=39

Plan name Email State where your watershed is located Primary contact info

Reason for plan (pick from drop down menu)* Enhance coastal zone Enhance park/recreational area Enhance water security Improve water quality Manage future planning/development Satisfy regulatory requirements Prevent degradation Protect drinking/source water Protect endangered species Restore/protect habitat Other *multiple reasons can be selected Reason for plan (pick from drop down menu)* Indicate if plan is to meet regulatory requirements* Select location on a map and/or enter HUC or zip code

Can be linked to other plans here

Activities from a drop down menu* Activities include: Coastal wetland estuaries Commercial Fishing Dams Mining Parks Low & high density residential Row crop land Ultra urban *multiple activities can be selected Activities from a drop down menu*

Issues from drop down menus* Menus address: Water quality Air quality Land & habitat Other concerns (e.g., exotic species, dredging, endangered species *multiple issues can be selected from each menu Issues from drop down menus*

Pollutants of concern picked from a drop down menu* Including: Inorganic & organic pollutants Metals Nitrogen Nutrients Temperature Pathogens Pesticides Sediment Other *multiple pollutants can be selected from each menu Pollutants of concern picked from a drop down menu*

Numerous stakeholders can be added

USEPA watershed planning tool USEPA watershed management framework Uses the stakeholder info you put into the Watershed Plan Builder Build partnerships Characterize the watershed Based on Watershed Plan Builder responses to, e.g., Activities and Pollutants, the customized outline recommends characterizing only certain aspects of the watershed (“grayed” out sections are not relevant to your watershed) In regard to grayed out sections “We have left these sections in the outline, however, so that you can confirm that they are not relevant to your watershed planning effort and delete them.”

USEPA watershed planning tool USEPA watershed management framework Build partnerships Characterize the watershed Set goals/identify solutions Uses info collected from stakeholders and results from the watershed characterization, plus the Reasons for the Plan from the Watershed Plan Builder (again, “grayed” out sections are not relevant to your watershed)

USEPA watershed planning tool USEPA watershed management framework Build partnerships Characterize the watershed Set goals/identify solutions Design implementation program Incorporates all of the information from previous sections and outlines a road map for how to implement your program. The Watershed Plan Builder outline is used to identify what components should be included and to what level of detail. The implementation program includes several features such as the following: 1) A list of the management strategies to be implemented and milestones to track their implementation 2) A schedule for implementation 3) A list of technical and financial resources needed for implementation 4) A monitoring component to measure the indicators you developed 5) An information/education component, and 6) An evaluation framework for measuring progress and adapting your plan over time.

USEPA watershed planning tool Links provided throughout the outline that pertain to your Watershed Plan Builder responses, but many links are broken More examples here: http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/examples.do?pageId=52&navId=40

RiverRAT River Restoration Analysis Tool NOAA Fisheries and USFWS collaboratively developed a suite of resources and tools for evaluating stream restoration and management project proposals In response to NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), given Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation authorities, and review authority under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA) Training for Federal and State staff in Western states is ongoing; particularly in the Pacific Northwest and California; training also being offered to the public, too Joint Project Between: NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region HCD Northwest Region HCD NW Fisheries Science Center US Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon California Access the RiverRAT here: http://iaspub.epa.gov/watershedplan/planBuilder.do?pageId=51&navId=39

RiverRAT What the RiverRat team recognized: Stream management activities, including some restoration efforts, have degraded aquatic ecosystems Site- and reach-scale habitat improvement projects (i.e., piecemeal projects) have become the default solution to many habitat deficiencies and the projects are often planned and implemented without proper consideration of their landscape context, process drivers, or geomorphic fitness Failure to recognize these broader scale concerns may lead to poor project selection and increased potential for project failure The RiverRAT provides a tool for more efficient, consistent, and comprehensive reviews of stream management and restoration proposals All organizations that fund stream projects have an inherent responsibility to evaluate projects and measure their success relative to stated goals and objectives http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/RiverRAT_Overview_FISC_2010v2.pdf

RiverRAT Three Tools: Screening Tool Checklist Web-based evaluation Tool All linked to a Science Base for Evaluating Stream Project Proposals Skidmore, P. B., C. R. Thorne, B. Cluer, G. R. Pess, J. Castro, T. J. Beechie, and C.C. Shea. 2010. Science base and tools for evaluating stream engineering, management, and restoration proposals. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC. http://restorationreview.com/

Science Base Document Synthesizes the large body of watershed and fluvial geomorphic science Widely vetted Fosters critical thinking Not a ‘how to manual’, but a guide to thinking about ‘why’ or ‘what are the alternatives’ Makes the science available and accessible to project team members Glossary of terms

Science Base Document Section 1 covers the tools Section 2 fluvial geomorphology & stream habitat Flow & sediment regimes; stream processes & the channel boundary; disturbance; channel classification & incision; stream ecology Section 3 project development Problem identification; setting goals & objectives; project design, implementation, evaluation 169 page document They stress the CEM and I know Andrew Simon teaches with Janine Castro (USFWS)

Project screening matrix The Risk Matrix is intended to assist reviewers in making an initial assessment of the level of risk to habitat resources associated with a proposed project. The matrix will enable reviewers to assess the risk posed by the project should it be permitted and, in particular, to decide whether the risk is sufficiently high to merit technical assistance from specialists in other disciplines. http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/Science_and_Tools_for_Stream_Projects_2010.pdf

Project screening matrix y-axis—project impact potential – assess the overall impact potential of the project Version 2.0 (November 9, 2010) Detailed explanations of the Stream Response Potential Factors – X-axis and Project Impact Potential Factors – Y-axis are provided in the Science Base Document x-axis—stream response potential – the inherent potential for the stream to express morphologic response to disturbance

Project information checklist The Project Information Checklist is used to determine whether the project proposal contains sufficient information to conduct a comprehensive review. The checklist identifies the exact information needed for review to proceed, enabling the review process to be faster and more efficient. http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/Science_and_Tools_for_Stream_Projects_2010.pdf

Project information checklist Use of the checklist, by both project reviewers & project sponsors, is intended to: clarify reporting expectations streamline the review process facilitate consistency among project proposals and their review promote thorough reporting that enables review http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/Science_and_Tools_for_Stream_Projects_2010.pdf

Project information checklist

RiverRat evaluation tool The River Restoration Assessment Tool (RiverRAT) provides a framework that guides reviewers in evaluating a project proposal. The framework encompasses the entire project development process It’s geared toward answering the question “What are the potential impacts and risks to resource?” It enables a review of project and design integrity with respect to species or ecosystem recovery. Project sponsors, stakeholders, and specialists all have access to RiverRAT Version 2.0 (November 9, 2010) http://www.restorationreview.com/downloads/Science_and_Tools_for_Stream_Projects_2010.pdf

RiverRat evaluation tool