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

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

3. 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 years
More improvements are possible with river restoration
Bernhardt et al., 2005

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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:

7. Watershed management: the process
USACE—Watershed planning in civil works projects
( and
USEPA—Watershed Academy (
Federal Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Working Group
(EPA, Dept. of the Interior, HUD, USDA, DOD, TVA) (
Various State Agencies

8. 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)

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. FISRWG watershed planning tool
FISRWG Stream Corridor Restoration handbook
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG) Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. By the Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.   GPO Item No A; SuDocs No. A 57.6/2:EN 3/PT.653.  ISBN
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:

15. FISRWG watershed planning tool

16. USEPA watershed planning tool
USEPA Watershed Plan Builder
USEPA 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 Available on-line:
Focused on threatened and impaired waterbodies, the Clean Water Act, and TMDLs
Access the Plan Builder here:

18. Plan name
State where your watershed is located
Primary contact info

19. 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

20. Can be linked to other plans here

21. 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*

22. 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*

23. 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*

24. Numerous stakeholders can be added

26. 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.”

27. 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)

28. 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.

29. 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:

30. 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:

31. 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

32. 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 Science base and tools for evaluating stream engineering, management, and restoration proposals. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC.

33. 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

34. 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)

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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

39. Project information checklist

40. 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)

41. RiverRat evaluation tool