8 Using the Watershed Assessment for Decision-Making

California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005

One of the most important uses of a conditions regarded as detrimental or watershed assessment is to support degraded in the assessment. Information watershed-scale decisions that protect or from the assessment contributes directly to restore watershed function. This is probably the plan by providing the knowledge on one of the most difficult as well. Watershed which to base the proposed actions. In a assessments and watershed planning are recent study of watershed groups, the use the cornerstone for effective human action of watershed plans was one of the few at the watershed-scale, but only if the factors that had a high correlation with findings and proposed actions are potential positive environmental outcomes implemented and the response of the (Huntington & Sommarstrom 2000). watershed monitored (Naiman, 1992; Reimold, 1998). This chapter expands on In general, a watershed plan consists of an chapter 2 and describes different ways that overall vision or set of goals for the a completed watershed assessment can be watershed, a series of steps needed to used to support watershed-scale decisions. achieve those goals, and detailed Restoration planning, water quality consideration of how to implement those regulation, land-use planning, water steps. The plan should also include management, watershed planning, prioritization of the goals and actions, floodplain management, and monitoring are optimization of the sequence of actions for all activities where watershed assessment greatest efficiency and effectiveness, and can be useful. means of monitoring the implementation and results of the actions. However, Chapter Outline “effective plans can range in size and content from simple documents of only a 8.1 Watershed Planning few pages to multi-volume comprehensive 8.2 Restoration Planning and Projects reports” (Born & Genskow 2001). 8.3 Land-Use Planning 8.4 Public Lands Management Actions typically found in watershed plans 8.5 Water Management include: 8.6 Floodplain Management  public awareness and education 8.7 Regulation programs 8.8 Voluntary Private Lands  agency coordination mechanisms Management  proposals for changes in land use via 8.9 Monitoring Programs incentives, regulations, zoning, and 8.10 Watershed Adaptive Management conservation easements 8.11 References  aquatic and riparian habitat restoration ______ proposals for changes in water, vegetation, and waste management 8.1 Watershed Planning  best management practices to minimize soil loss and water-borne transport of Watershed plans are the logical follow-up to waste materials and pollutants watershed assessments. Plans take the  structural changes in drainage systems, information developed during the storm water conveyances, bridges, assessment and design a program of dams, and diversions. solutions to address the fundamental needs and problems identified in the assessment. Information contained in your watershed A watershed plan consists of a series of assessment should be helpful for designing proposed actions that seek to improve any

- 193 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 each action. Each proposed action should  funds available relate to at least one objective or goal of the  opportunities for partnerships watershed assessment, and contain  return on funds to be invested - “most information about: bang for the buck”  basis in assessment findings,  time and other non-financial resources  alternatives,  ability to get the action done  responsible parties, partners and  early successes motivate more action assistants,  some actions rely on other actions for  public education and involvement, success  time schedules,  preventative actions versus remedial  costs, ones  opportunities for funding,  ability to measure progress or success  resources needed, with performance indicators  potential impediments,  potential jurisdictional conflicts and 8.1.1 Develop a Successful Plan cooperation,  steps for implementation, and A useful assessment provides an evaluation  measures of success. of how well a watershed is working and how it got that way. It does not necessarily give a ‘Good’ planning processes lead to better direction, which requires decisions. Here we recommendations for action (Born & are now, but where do we want to go with Genskow 2001), so be careful about these helpful new findings about our jumping into developing a “Wish List” of watershed? Planning is a process that proposed projects and actions. It is enables you to determine where you want to tempting, and sometimes watershed groups go, how and when you’re going to get there, need to have some relatively easy projects and who is going to do what. under their belts first in order to garner First, however, you need to clearly define public interest to sustain a longer planning why a plan is needed. People will not process (see “Action” type of planning in the participate in the planning process or accept table of concepts of schools of planning). the final plan unless they understand the need for the plan and the decisions to be Your list of actions will likely exceed more made (Saul & Faast 1993). An assessment than you can possibly accomplish in a 2-5 can usually make this explanation easier by year period, or your ability to find the identifying what needs to be improved in the immediate funding to help implement. To watershed. The assumption (explicit or help set priorities for the proposed actions, implicit) is that people will want to follow considering the following (Conservation through with working on the findings of the Technology Information Center, 1994 and assessment through a plan and its others): implementation. Do not always assume,  watershed assessment findings of though, that a good assessment will critical causes of problems automatically lead to a publicly-supported plan.

“A key question underlying all watershed planning is: What is an effective process to relate science, policy, and public participation? Watershed planning demands integrative thinking and a coordinated approach. Perhaps the greatest contemporary concern is to provide meaningful public involvement in the process, because experience has shown that top-down planning can create a variety of implementation barriers grounded in the lack of public involvement at key points in the planning process.”

~ National Research Council (1999)

- 194 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005

As emphasized in chapter 2, the process How to approach planning for watersheds your group uses with your watershed will necessarily involve the different community will be critical in developing the concepts or “schools of planning” that have understanding and support for your plan as evolved in the U.S. Each concept carries its well as your assessment. Who makes the own set of expectations as well as strengths decisions about what goes into the plan is and weaknesses. There is no ideal form of another key factor toward developing a planning for all cases. Today watershed sound strategy. The assessment process plans could be one or all of these types, entails some decision-making, but the depending on your needs and preferred planning process involves much more. choice. Decisions have to be made on the best strategy, and priorities have to be set. Planning expertise can often be lacking in Opinions and values become more community-based watershed planning involved, and trade-offs have to be made. efforts, as it is not usually a discipline The primarily objective assessment process associated with watershed efforts. One becomes transformed into an essentially suggestion is to work with your local county subjective planning process. Science and city planners to help improve your own informs those decisions through the watershed planning process and product assessment, but choices still are made. Not (Huntington & Sommarstrom 2000). everyone can necessarily be satisfied, though consensus should still be sought. Remember that the key is the process - Planning must “be seen as part of a process “the process by which people of different that strives to create a watershed vantage points come together, learn each community” (National Research Council, others’ languages, and begin to forge a 1999). common language to describe what they want to achieve with their rivers, streams, With a credible assessment and plan having and surrounding lands” (Environment Now strong stakeholder support, successful & Southern California Wetlands Recovery implementation should be able to follow – Project, 2002). pending funding, permitting, and other needs, of course. If monitoring and other 8.1.3 Set Direction: Goals & Objectives evaluations later indicate that the plan needs to be changed, then the planning Your plan should be based on the direction process should readily provide for adapting set by a hierarchy of consistent goals and the plan’s content and approach as needed. objectives. Following your group’s setting of broad goals and specific objectives comes 8.1.2 Choose a Type of Planning the details of your proposed strategy, which includes tasks, activities, or actions. The

What Helps Create Good Planning Decisions?

Your planning process will entail many decisions. Researchers have found that five key factors seem to distinguish successful decision-making processes (i.e., decisions that will be implemented) from the rest: 1. Builds trust 2. Builds understanding 3. Incorporates value differences 4. Provides opportunities for joint fact-finding 5. Provides incentives for collaboration and cooperation

Source: Wondolleck (1988) in: Saul & Faast (1993)

Concepts or ‘Schools’ of Planning Type of Planning Description Planning Strengths Planning Weaknesses Sytematic, step-by-step Can recognize the High costs; too broad and setting of goals and interrelationships of many not site-specific enough; low objectives for a number issues and disciplines; implementation rates; often of related mgt. needs, emphasis on science and entails a top-down process, Comprehensive evaluation of data collection; logical so little public support; may alternatives, adoption of process is appealing; create illusion of scientific implementation used by many federal objectivity; planning is not a measures; also called agencies; needs strong rational science but an art; “rational planning” laws to implement. Developed and Results oriented with Actions may not address implemented gradually focus on what can be some of larger, more difficult over time through a done; the public guides issues; plans may proceed bargaining process; and makes the plan; without adequate science & Focus is on specific Incremental small-scale solutions knowledge; implementation problems or issues & reduce risks; adopted may or may not be short-term results, now as “adaptive coordinated; continual which over time management”; little steps interaction required with address the larger help map future steps clients for implementation problems. Implementation rates high Process can be lengthy and Involves as many due to political buy-in; can perceived as too “time- stakeholders in an area be successful in resolving consuming”; plan may be a as possible; all players difficult issues; helps package of diverse benefits Consensus treated as equals; communities build and to satisfy partners but not implementation based learn; good strategy for focused and integrated; very on negotiated political attracting diversified difficult individuals can derail agreement. funding sources the process. Technical content of plan Can be politically Citizens organize to may be professional but empowering if coalition or advocate a position or may not be representative of consensus is developed; action; plan used to broader community; may Advocacy can help with community strategically show lack integration with other building across formerly alternative approach to disciplines; polarization may disparate groups; can a more traditional one. result if consensus not break political impasse reached from advocacy. Builds public awareness Initiated by citizen for the difficult Big Picture Small action projects may or groups, districts, and needs and watershed- may not correctly apply agencies to make wide approaches; confers science or restoration something visible and credibility on planning methodologies; plans may Action positive happen on the process; can develop not develop enough ground in order to build credibility for government integration, coordination, or public support and programs or expertise; expertise; monitoring may interest; a form of helps develop new be lacking. incremental planning. community leadership (based on Riley 1998) latter can get more and more detailed within for evaluating success in the direction you the outline of your hierarchy. Too often, desire for your watershed. these plan terms are used sloppily or Table 8.1 provides practical definitions for interchangeably and unclear expectations the terms most commonly applied to a can result. Purported “plans” with no stated plan’s structure. goals or objectives and only a list of recommendations do not give any measure

Table 8.1 Defining the hierarchy review, updates, and revisions. This cyclical of plan terminology evaluation and opportunity for adjustment is a form of adaptive management, which is Term Definition encouraged by the scientific community but not widely practiced (Born & Genskow Goal Broad statement of 2001). intent, direction, and purpose. As the Washington Guide to Watershed Objective Specific, clear statement Planning and Management states, “A that describes desired watershed plan does not need to offer all condition for a specific the answers. Instead, it can lay out a long- area, activity, or species. May be qualitative or term process towards finding answers and quantitative. improving solutions…” Plan to be adaptable! Strategy Explicit description of what will be done to Through experience, monitoring results, and achieve objectives. other continuing assessments, your group Task / Specific step, practice, will evolve a greater understanding of what Action or procedure to get the implementation actions work and do not job done, usually work in your watershed. Restoration and organized sequentially ecosystem management are still in the with timelines and experimental stages, and feedback is assignments. necessary for their progress. New (Saul & Faast 1993) challenges, such as rapidly increasing development in a rural sub-watershed or a While your Goal statements can be long- recently discovered pollutant or invasive term and somewhat lofty, your Objective species, may stimulate your group to go statements should be more achievable back to the drawing boards and develop (Conservation Technology Information new strategies. Watersheds - and their Center, 1994). Examples of such social and political community - are dynamic Objectives include: “Reduce sediment to systems with changing needs. Economic improve habitat for trout” or “Incorporate cycles may affect the availability of partners watershed protection into county and city and funding sources to share costs of your General Plans and Specific Area Plans”. plan’s implementation. With stakeholders Each goal will likely have more than one and other key decision-makers changing objective, and each objective may have over time, plans will also need to reflect more than one strategy, which may have continually evolving priorities and more than one task/action. One way to practicalities. check if your draft statements for each of these terms make sense is to read them 8.1.5 Examples of Watershed Plans from the bottom up (tasks-strategy- objective-goal). 8.1.5.1 Subbasin Plans

8.1.4 Revising & Updating Plans In the huge Columbia River Basin, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council Plans should be viewed as “living (NPCC) called in 2000 for the development documents” that are assumed to change as of approximately 60 subbasin plans that are needed, and not remain fixed to gather dust. to guide implementation of its Columbia Dog-eared pages of plans are a good sign Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The that they are being used frequently. But management plans were to help the Council even well-used plans still need regular prioritize projects for a limited amount of

- 197 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 funding, through identification of past and management, and TMDL programs. ongoing work (the inventory) and an Expectations for federally-funded or assessment of habitat conditions and required watershed management plans are factors that limit fish and wildlife production,. described under EPA’s Section 205(j) and A “Technical Guide for Subbasin Planners” Section 319 grant programs. Polluted runoff was prepared to assist those developing a is also being addressed through the State subbasin plan (http://www.nwcouncil.org/). and Regional Boards’ Watershed Management Initiative (WMI), which The NPCC's Independent Scientific Review promotes “integrated planning” with local Panel (ISRP) reviews each draft plan to stakeholder groups. determine if it meets the Council’s expectations for completeness and scientific A well-developed example is the Santa soundness (e.g., the Program’s Scientific Clara Basin Watershed Management Principles). In particular, the Panel is Initiative (WMI) (http://www.scbwmi.org). concerned that subbasin plans address: This collaborative effort has prepared a three-volume Watershed Management Plan,  the need to adequately use available composed of a Watershed Characteristics information, Report, a Watershed Assessment Report,  the need to clearly link the Assessment, and a Watershed Action Plan. Water quality the Inventory, and the analysis of is the primary focus, but other watershed information in these two documents to values and uses are also incorporated. the resulting Management Plan, and  the need to carry the planning process Urban runoff management triggered by to scientifically justified, integrated, and municipal storm water permitting helped prioritized conclusions in the form of initiate much of the San Diego watershed realistic priorities for achievable "next planning efforts steps" for managing the subbasin's fish (http://www.projectcleanwater.org/html/ws_e and wildlife populations. fforts.html). Some of these urban runoff (http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isrp/isr plans appear to have meshed or integrated p2004-4.htm) with other watershed issues, some have not. As a means of complying with a 8.1.5.2 Water Quality Emphasis Plans regulatory program, these watershed plans and their implementation need to maintain Watershed-based plans are encouraged by their focus on water quality compliance. both the EPA and SWRCB for various water quality- related Some helpful hints for reviewing and revising watershed plans are: programs,  Have a yearly informal “here’s where we are” session to update folks on plan such as the implementation. Nonpoint  Ask people to evaluate your planning process so you can do better next time. Source  Issue periodic “report cards” to the public on plan implementation and monitoring results to (NPS), keep them informed and to “give dignity to the plan”. storm water  Ask yourselves, “Do we still need to do this action?”; “Has our vision changed?”; “What else can we do?”; “What has been successful, and why?”; “What has not worked, and why?”  Celebrate your successes! You’ve accomplished several tasks, you’ve achieved an objective, or you’ve made significant progress towards your goal. Feel good about your progress!

Sources: Saul and Faast (1993); Conservation Technology Information Center (1994)

8.1.5.3 Coastal Watershed Plans in-progress watershed plans. The Santa Monica Bay, part of the National Estuary The State Coastal Conservancy encourages Program, region had 4 completed the development of watershed plans watershed plans, supported by over 80 through financial and technical assistance to studies. Water pollution and recreation local groups and has prepared a short concerns initially jump-started these Watershed Planning Guide outlining a step- collaborative restoration planning efforts, by-step sequence of actions during the such as in the Malibu and Topanga Creek process to achieve a watershed plan. While watersheds. acknowledging that every watershed will have a unique planning process, the Guide 8.2 Restoration Planning and Projects seeks to highlight the steps that are common to most planning efforts as well as Restoration efforts are frequently an the stumbling blocks: “It should be modified important part of a watershed plan or they as much as necessary to fit the particular can be undertaken independently of a plan circumstances of your watershed.” Since as an application of a watershed the Conservancy funds many projects, it assessment. California is the home to sees the plans as a means of identifying multiple state- and federally-funded and prioritizing coastal restoration projects. restoration programs that have evolved from A variety of watershed efforts have used diverse legislative mandates, ballot Conservancy assistance to prepare plans initiatives, and citizen-sponsored programs. (http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov). The term “restoration” offers a sense of These plans include, but are not limited to, purpose, of restoring something that has the watersheds of: Tomales Bay, Pescadero been lost, and has developed a popular Marsh, Aptos Creek, Morro Bay, Calleguas following throughout the state. We seek to Creek / Mugu Lagoon, Arroyo Seco, and “restore” many natural features within the San Luis Rey River. watershed: fisheries, wetlands, streams, water quality, ecosystems, and habitat, In coastal Southern California, there are among others. “many different patterns to get watershed Restoration plans and projects need a solid planning underway”, rather than a single scientific underpinning to be successful. A rational sequence of events (Environment recent study by the State found, “Absence Now & Southern California Wetlands of useful watershed assessments and plans Recovery Project, 2002). A snapshot at the can result in restoration projects that don’t end of 2002 revealed that watershed address priority problems and their causes” management planning was “still in its (California Resources Agency & State infancy” in the five-county region, but many Water Resources Control Board, 2002). new efforts were underway. Of 20 Agencies are concerned that projects may completed plans, most were for partial be scattered, unfocused on achieving watersheds and a number focused on the watershed management objectives and, same region (e.g., Santa Monica Bay and therefore, inefficiently using state grant Los Angeles River). Los Angeles County funding. was the most productive for completed or

“Watershed-scale restoration should begin with an understanding of watershed structure and function and of how human activities affect and shape watershed health.” (Williams, Wood & Dombeck 1997)

“To achieve long-term success, aquatic ecosystem restoration should address the causes and not just the symptoms of ecological disturbance.” (NRC 1992, p. 55)

The analysis contained in a watershed  Coordinate with other stakeholders in assessment lays the very foundation for developing a common understanding of successful restoration projects. The how the watershed behaves analysis made as part of the assessment  Provide basis for a Restoration Plan, serves to explain, based on the best including goals and objectives. available information, the likely causes of  Help identify types of restoration the alterations within the watershed that led methods needed to address the problem to the need for the restoration activities. causes.  Locate the priority sub-watersheds, More specifically, the analysis in the stream reaches, or other areas within assessment can help to: the watershed for restoration projects, based on the above.  Provide baseline and reference data,  Identify priority restoration projects, with which to compare restoration based on the above progress or success.  Help understand the patterns of water The California Department of Fish and and sediment transport that create and Game’s California Salmonid Stream Habitat maintain the natural morphology of the Restoration Manual recommends that a channel and its associated floodplain. ‘preliminary watershed assessment’ be  Provide information for aquatic done to get the “big picture” about present restoration, including descriptions of and potential fish production in a stream upslope connections to the riparian and system before beginning field surveys and waterway designing projects. However, the  Help identify the causes and not just the expectation is more of a watershed symptoms of problems needing “overview” rather than a full assessment as correction. described in this Manual. The concept still  Reveal restoration opportunities, advocated is that restoration efforts need to including getting beyond preconceived address how the watershed works and what perceptions about problems and key processes and conditions have been solutions. altered, before prescribing the remedies.

An Example of a Fluvial Restoration Strategy

The Goal of fluvial restoration in _____ Watershed is to restore the river or stream to dynamic equilibrium. [The assumption is that dynamic equilibrium of the physical system establishes a dynamic equilibrium in the biological components.] The Objectives under this broad goal are to: 1. Restore the natural sediment and water regime. [‘Regime’ refers to at least two time scales: the daily-to-seasonal variation in water and sediment loads, and the annual- to-decadal patterns of floods and droughts.] 2. Restore the natural channel geometry, if restoration of the water and sediment regime alone does not. 3. Restore the natural riparian plant community, which becomes a functioning part of the channel geometry and floodplain/ riparian hydrology. [This step is necessary only if the plant community does not restore itself upon achievement of objectives 1 and 2. 4. Restore native aquatic plants and animals, if they do not re-colonize on their own.

Source: National Research Council (1992) pp. 206-207.

It is the physical and biological processes decisions about land uses. Usually, people operating in the watershed are the in these positions are civic-minded mechanisms that govern the watershed’s individuals with no special knowledge of condition. Working with the natural watersheds and how land uses influences processes in your restoration strategy will the hydrological cycle as well as other improve your chances of success. Some potential impacts on waterways. The players tend to be more interested in the information generated by a watershed project phase than the assessment or assessment and plan could be invaluable to planning phase, and they might not have local decision-makers. been aware or interested in your assessment process. Their enthusiasm California planning law requires that might also get ahead of them. Do a reality landowners and local planning agencies check with everyone on previous restoration engage in the formulation of zoning and assumptions and project ideas now that the parcel-specific land use plans to guide the assessment is completed. development of residential, commercial, and industrial areas. The most common way of Moving from watershed condition evaluation doing this is through the general plan - your assessment - into identifying the process, where a municipality or county appropriate restoration measures often planning agency decides which areas in the involves another set of skills and jurisdiction should fall under which zone approaches. Applied science and type and what proportions of land uses technologies tend to become more would be appropriate. important, such as engineering, surveying, There are very few instances where contracting, heavy equipment, and resource watershed assessments have been used management skills. Experience with what explicitly to aid decision-making in land-use works and doesn’t work with certain planning, although information contained in restoration techniques, especially in your an assessment could be very useful for area, becomes of critical importance. Some planning purposes. Orange County has agencies, consultants, landowners, and conducted many watershed assessments citizen organizations may have a wealth of through cooperative arrangements with the experience with certain methods – be sure Army Corps of Engineers (ACE). These to ask around. Use the same collaborative assessments are associated with process applied to your assessment, but restoration goals and programs and are not now bring in those people with the applied explicitly intended to support land-use restoration skills. This difference in needed decision-making. However, they contain expertise is one of the reasons that project information relevant for land-use decisions recommendations within the watershed and could be used in that fashion. assessment product can appear naïve or impractical when evaluated later by Some of the information frequently restoration practitioners (Riley 1998). contained in a watershed assessment that could be used to support land use planning 8.3 Land Use Planning includes: o Data on surface and ground hydrology Watershed assessments are intimately tied under natural and modified conditions to land use planning. The relationship between land use and watershed conditions Land use planning is the process by which and processes has been described in detail public agencies, mostly local governments, in this Manual. However, this relationship is determine the intensity and geographical not always appreciated by local planning arrangements of various land uses in a department staff, planning commissioners, community or city council members who make Fulton, 1999

- 201 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 o Stream bank stability and channel watershed assessment could be an characteristics which are influenced by invaluable source of data and analysis of the area of impervious surfaces and conditions. other land use modifications o Existing and potential future surface and There are three locations in the state where ground water quality under different land state law requires the consideration of use and development scenarios natural resource protection at a “pseudo- o Biological diversity and status of aquatic watershed scale“ when developing general and riparian species of plants and plans. These are the Lake Tahoe basin, the animals California coastline, and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Delta. In all other 8.3.1 General Plans parts of the state, there is nothing approximating a requirement to consider Municipal and county general plans govern watershed processes when developing the development of land annexed by a city plans. for residential, commercial, or industrial development and general or specific uses of Three classes of regulations require that the lands within a county outside developed effects of harmful actions be mitigated, areas1General plan “elements” (e.g., land though rarely is this requirement use, circulation, open space; see chapter accompanied by performance measures for 3.10) are used to detail the planned growth the evaluation of effectiveness. A watershed and consequences of the growth. Because assessment approach could be used in a general plan must be analyzed for its conjunction with wildlife and habitat potential impacts to the environment assessments to expose the environmental (California Environmental Quality Act), there costs and benefits of actions proposed in a is a nexus between the plan and watershed general plan, or that were not considered assessment. CEQA requires that the ‘best feasible (e.g., restoring natural processes or available information’ be used to evaluate features). The three classes of regulations potential impacts of a general plan or a are: specific project. Many times, the best  Both the federal and California available information can be found in Endangered Species Acts require that watershed assessments. For example, the populations and habitats of listed land use element must show the location, species be protected from take distribution, and intensity of development (destruction of habitat or individuals), or and particular elements (e.g., wastewater if take is planned, that it be mitigated. treatment facilities) allowed under the plan. For aquatic, wetlands, vernal pool, and This is usually done using a map, which riparian species this would seem to along with zoning and parcel maps can require a watershed perspective for make the general plan process a very general planning as developed areas tangible part of watershed assessment and will have direct and indirect impacts on vice-versa. Frequently, consultants hired to aquatic natural processes, wildlife, and perform CEQA assessments rely on plants. Watershed assessments can incomplete databases or field assessments inform these decisions by showing the of limited scope. The information in a linkages between existing and proposed land-use decisions in the general plan 1 These plans are required by Govt. Code and downstream habitat and 65300 et seq. and are implemented through populations of listed species. policy narratives, zoning ordinances and maps (Gov’t. Code 65850 et seq.), and  The federal Clean Water Act and the subdivision maps and regulations (Gov’t. state Porter-Cologne Act require that Code 66410 et seq.; Fulton, 1999). state regulators analyze and consider

for permitting any activity that may cause harm (e.g., pollution) to California waterways and wetlands. Watershed assessments can inform these decisions by showing the linkages between existing and proposed land-use decisions in the general plan and downstream habitat, water quality, channel conditions, and natural processes (e.g., flooding). (see “Improving our Bay-Delta Estuary Through Local Plans and Programs: A Guidebook for City and County Governments (Association of Bay Area Governments, Oakland, CA), 1995, 21 pp.)

 The federal National Environmental analyzed for potential impacts to human Policy Act and the California and natural environments. Alternative Environmental Quality Act require that plans must be put forward by the lead plans such as general plans be planning agency, based in part on public

Watershed-related References in the State’s General Plan Guidelines [Office of Planning & Research; http://www.opr.ca.gov]

Watershed Based flood protection , p. 12 Safety Element Cities and counties should identify risks from natural hazards which extend across jurisdictional boundaries, then use any available data from watershed-based floodplain management, mapped earthquake faults, or high fire hazard areas as planning tools to address any significant issues. Each local planning agency carries a responsibility to coordinate its general plan with regional planning efforts as much as possible.

Relationships Among Elements and Issues, p. 37 General plan elements and issues interrelate functionally. For example, consideration given to the vegetation which supports an endangered wildlife species in the conservation element also involves analyzing topography, weather, fire hazards, availability of water, and density of development in several other elements. Thus, the preparation of a general plan must be approached on multiple levels and from an interdisciplinary point of view.

Ideas for Data and Analysis, Open-Space, p. 38 The following consists of topics which should be considered during the preparation of the general plan and, if relevant, included in a land use element. These subjects are based upon a close reading of the statutes and case law. When the information collected for the land use element overlaps that needed for other elements, the related element has been noted in parenthesis. . Delineate the boundaries of watersheds, aquifer re-charge areas, floodplains, and the depth of groundwater basins (diagrams) (CO, OS, S) . Delineate the boundaries and description of unique water resources (e.g., saltwater and freshwater marshes, wetlands, riparian corridors, wild rivers and streams, lakes). (CO)

Conservation Element The conservation element may also cover the following optional issues: . Protection of watersheds; Water, p. 56-7 . Inventory water resources, including rivers, lakes, streams, bays, estuaries, reservoirs, ground water basins (aquifers), and watersheds (Map) (LU, OS) . Identify the boundaries of watersheds, aquifer recharge areas, and groundwater basins (including depths) (Map) LU, OS) - Assess local and regional water supply and the related plans of special districts and other agencies - Analyze the existing land use and zoning within said boundaries and the approximate intensity of water consumption . Map the boundaries and describe unique water resources (e.g., salt water and fresh water marshes and wild rivers) (LU, OS) . Assess the current and future quality of various bodies of water, water courses, and groundwater (LU, OS) . Inventory existing and future water supply sources for domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses (LU, OS) . Assess existing and projected demands upon water supply sources, in conjunction with water suppliers (LU, OS) - Including: agricultural, commercial, residential, industrial, and public use . Assess the adequacy of existing and future water supply sources, in conjunction with water suppliers. (LU, OS)

input, that show different ways to planning area. It can describe the achieve the plan’s objectives and the overall and localized condition, make potential impacts from each alternative. linkages between human activities and The lead agency must, theoretically, condition, and serve as a major type of choose the least environmentally environmental assessment against damaging and feasible alternative. which to judge proposed actions. Watershed assessment can list the various natural and human features In all of the above cases, data contained in (e.g., streams and roads) and a watershed assessment can aide local processes (e.g., agriculture and fire) municipalities in meeting these that are important in watersheds and requirements. Frequently, the analysis sub-watersheds within the general performed by local government is

Watershed-related Citations in the General Plan Guidelines [Office of Planning & Research] cont’d.

. Map riparian vegetation (LU, OS) . Assess the use of water bodies for recreation purposes (LU, OS) Forests, p. 62 . Inventory forest resources including a comprehensive analysis of conservation needs for forests, woodlands and the interrelationship they have with watersheds (Map) (LU, OS) - Describe the type, location, amount, and ownership of forests with a value for commercial timber production, wildlife protection, recreation, watershed protection, aesthetics, and other purposes Fisheries, p. 62 . Identify water bodies and watersheds that must be protected or rehabilitated to promote continued recreational and commercial fishing – including key fish spawning areas . Evaluate water quality, temperature, and sources of contaminates . Identify physical barriers (man-caused or natural) to fish populations within the watershed, then propose alternatives and set priorities

Open-Space Element, Background, p. 68 The following topics are to be addressed, to the extent that they are locally relevant: Open-space for the preservation of natural resources including, but not limited to: . Areas required for ecologic and other scientific study; rivers, streams, bays and estuaries; and, coastal beaches, lake shores, banks of rivers and streams, and watersheds; Open-space for public health and safety including, but not limited to: . Areas that require special management or regulation because of hazardous or special conditions such as earthquake fault zones, unstable soil areas, flood-plains, watersheds, areas presenting high fire risks, areas required for the protection of water quality and water reservoirs and areas required for the protection and enhancement of air quality. . Identify watersheds and key areas for the protection of water quality and reservoirs (map) (CO) Safety Element, p. 77 Flood Hazard - A comprehensive approach should include mapping floodplains…, and floodplain management policies (which may include both structural and non-structural approaches to flood control using a multi-objective watershed approach). Flooding is often a regional problem that crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Slope instability and the associated risk of mudslides and landslides • Identify areas that are landslide-prone by using, among other sources, Division of Mines and Geology’s seismic hazard zone maps, landslide hazard identification maps, watershed maps, and geology for planning maps, and landslide features maps produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (map) (OS)

. [General Plan Elements: LU=Land Use; OS=Open Space; CO=Conservation; S=Safety ]

- 205 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 incomplete and omits important information could be used to highlight the impacts of related to protecting waterways. The data local policies on watershed health. The and analyses contained in an assessment development of ordinances dealing with can play an important role in informing local flooding and floodplains, stormwater run-off, decisions-makers of this important subdivision landscaping and design, roads information. In cases where general plans and grading, and stream buffers or setbacks are being adopted, community watershed all could benefit from knowledge and groups should bring their analysis to the analyses typically contained in a watershed attention of local planning commissions and assessment. city councils to ensure that all requirements can be evaluated with the best available and most complete set of information. When considering informing general Examples of these ordinances are: planning with snapshot or continuing watershed assessment work, scale is an  Subdivision & zoning ordinances important quality to keep in mind. A fine- Data from your watershed assessment grained assessment is needed to judge the combined with information on impacts of parcel and subdivision scales of watershed-friendly ordinances could be development activities. A coarse-grained a powerful tool in the hands of local land watershed-wide assessment is not an use planners. Information on model adequate substitute for this. Similarly, the ordinances, design guidelines, and other right time frame for analyzing and modeling relevant guidance for local officials is potential impacts is needed. Changes in available online from the Center for watershed functions and outputs may be Watershed Protection immediate, substantial, and long-lasting at (http:www.cwp.org), the Low Impact the sub-watershed scale and not Development Center measurable until full general plan build-out (http://ww.lowimpactdevelopment.org) at the river basin scale. Matching scales of and the NEMO Project assessment or monitoring activity is critical (http://www.nemo.uconn.edu). in the use of this approach in informing general planning.  Flooding and floodplain development ordinances are a useful way for local 8.3.2 Ordinances governments to reduce damage from flooding. Guidance from the State on the Municipal or county ordinances govern development of general plans to certain uses of public and private property minimize flooding can be combined with and their environmental impacts. These are data your assessment has produced to binding and enforceable at that scale and identify the need for sound development tied to local problems and governance planning. The state’s guidance is styles. For example, a rural county with posted at: natural fire ecology may be very proactive in http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov/generalpla enforcing vegetation control immediately n.html. around structures, whereas an urban county or municipality may be very active about  Stormwater runoff and dumping into dumping into storm drains. Information storm drains are a commonly- contained in watershed assessments can recognized problems in urban settings,. also be useful to local decisions makers in Because developed areas have highly crafting local ordinances that might impact impervious surfaces (e.g., roads and the health and conditions of waterways. In parking lots), water will not percolate particular, data on the conditions of local naturally into the ground over large waterways and the links to local land uses, areas. Stormwater not only frequently

contains contaminants that is harmful to described in your watershed aquatic life, but the increased volume assessment could inform local associated with reduced percolation is government officials about the damaging to streams. Chemicals tend to development of landscaping ordinances. collect on impervious surfaces and attached to dust and dirt particles. 8.4 Public Lands Management When it rains, especially with the first rain of the rainy season, these On federally-managed lands, watershed chemicals can be washed into local assessments are usually termed watershed streams. Similarly, illegal dumping of analyses. Some people believe the term chemicals into industrial, commercial, “analysis” implies more detail at a finer and stormwater drains can be an spatial scale than typical “assessments”, but occasional but major input to streams. “analysis” is the usual term used by the Municipal and county ordinances can Forest Service and Bureau of Land regulate the flow of water and chemicals Management for their process. from urbanized areas. If excessive storm flows and diffuse or localized chemical These watershed analyses on federal lands inputs are disrupting your waterways, became institutionalized during the then storm water and dumping development of the Northwest Forest Plan ordinances could help. Water quality (FEMAT 1993, USDA-Forest Service 1994). analysis, impacts to aquatic biota, Among the recommendations of the diversion of surface water from natural Northwest Forest Plan was an aquatic percolation areas, and timing and conservation strategy intended to improve volumes of flow of storm water stream conditions for anadromous fish. A described in your watershed major part of this strategy was an assessment can help determine if this assessment process that became known as type of ordinance might be helpful. watershed analysis. Although it was initially designed to focus on riparian issues, federal  Landscaping and water conservation watershed analysis was soon recognized to ordinances can regulate the rate of be useful for evaluating a broad range of pesticide application and irrigation in issues throughout a watershed (Grant order to reduce the input of chemicals 1994). During the 1990s, watershed and excessive water into streams. analysis evolved as a tool for describing Pesticides can cause direct mortality of watershed attributes, issues, and aquatic biota, excessive nutrients can capabilities that would form the basis of cause potentially harmful algae blooms, future land management on National and summer irrigation in arid areas can Forests and Bureau of Land Management upset the ecology of seasonally dry properties (Reid, et al. 1994). streams in the arid West. The state of Vermont and the cities of Sebastopol Individual National Forests and some BLM (CA), Buffalo (NY), and Burlington (VT) offices have been conducting watershed limit the application of pesticides to analyses for the past decade using the residential and forestry landscapes to protocol outlined by USDA-Forest Service reduce impacts to human and (1995). In the federal context, watershed ecosystem health. If pesticides and analysis is a tool for description and excessive nutrients from fertilizer assessment of watershed processes and applications are a problem in your ecological conditions. It is based on waterways, then municipal ordinances processes, ecosystem components, and restricting these chemicals could be locations, but not on projects or proposals appropriate. Water quality analysis and as is typical of other Forest Service planning the condition of aquatic communities processes. Watershed analysis on federal

- 207 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 lands is not designed to produce a decision 5) Maps of interim and potential riparian document and is not subject to the National reserves Environmental Policy Act. Instead, the 6) Description of the mechanisms by which information generated from a watershed environmental changes have occurred analysis can be used to inform and guide and description of specific land-use the projects that eventually implement a activities in generating change forest plan. 7) Description of likely future environmental conditions in the watershed, including The basic parts of watershed analysis as discussion of trends and potential described in the Federal Guide to effects of past activities Watershed Analysis (USDA-Forest Service 8) Interpretations and management 1995) include the following: The usual scale recommendations of analysis is for watersheds of 20 to 200 Much of the federal guide covers various mi2. A particular watershed is selected for analysis methods for describing key analysis on the basis of regional interests, processes and conditions and their possible controversies, and opportunities for causes. These topics include fire history, management. Public input is sought to existing and potential vegetation, roads, identify critical issues, locate contributing mass movements, surface erosion, channel information, and provide reality checks. The erosion, sediment yield, streamflow federal approach includes the following characteristics, runoff generation, stream steps: temperature, channel conditions, aquatic and terrestrial habitat, and water supply. 1) Characterization of the watershed Descriptions of these methods include 2) Identification of issues and key generic goals, data needs, assumptions, questions products, and procedures at both a cursory 3) Description of current conditions level and a more quantitative level 4) Description of reference conditions depending on the needs of a study (USDA- 5) Synthesis and interpretation of Forest Service 1995). Another related set information of procedures that focus on watershed 6) Recommendations (usually including hydrology is found in the publication, A desired future conditions and potential Framework for Analyzing the Hydrologic strategies for moving the landscape Condition of Watersheds (McCammon, et toward those conditions) al. 1998).

The resulting report of a federal watershed If your watershed includes some National analysis usually includes: Forest land, looking at the approaches and techniques of the federal guide is certainly 1) Description of the watershed including worthwhile. The “analytic modules” will its natural and cultural features provide some guidance for a variety of 2) Description of the beneficial uses and measurements and analyses that may be values associated with the watershed appropriate for your situation. Just decide and, when supporting data allow, on your objectives first and see if any of the statements about compliance with water federal procedures would help meet those quality standards objectives, rather than charging into a 3) Description of the distribution, type, and measurement program just because the relative importance of environmental Forest Service finds it useful. processes 4) Description of the watershed’s present Within the National Forests of California, a condition relative to its associated variety of watershed analyses have been values and uses conducted. In general, the forests in the northern part of the state that were part of

- 208 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 the Northwest Forest Plan have had a more local National Forest for completed active (and better funded) watershed watershed analyses. They may be found analysis program. This program has been under resource management, watersheds, driven by northern spotted owl and salmon or publication or by using the web site’s issues. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest search engine. Alternatively, call the nearest has produced more than a dozen watershed ranger district or supervisor’s office and ask analyses. Other forests are still working on about watershed analyses that have been their first analysis. The quality and level of completed or are in progress. The basic detail of the initial round of watershed descriptions of climate, hydrology, analyses is quite inconsistent, depending on vegetation, management, and disturbance the issues and local support for a particular history may be directly applicable to your analysis. Many of the watershed analyses watershed if the analysis area is close have had their scope expanded somewhat enough or may provide some good leads for by also incorporating guidance from the pursuing information about your watershed. Region 5 (California) guide to ecosystem management (Manley et al. 1995). We recommend that you use Forest Service watershed analyses as information sources Reduction of the risk of catastrophic and not as templates or models for your wildfires through management of fuels is the assessment. Your fundamental goals and primary focus of many of the recent driving issues are likely to be quite different watershed analyses. At least one analysis than the motivations behind the federal has incorporated hydroelectric project re- analyses. licensing as the principal issue. The ultimate utility of the wide range of watershed 8.5 Water Management analyses is yet to be determined. The Sierra Nevada Framework for revising the Forest A consideration of watershed conditions is Plans of the National Forests of the Sierra part of an integrated water management Nevada includes a major component of plan. In previous eras, water management watershed analyses, but few had been was viewed primarily from an engineering completed to date within the Sierra Nevada. perspective – how to deliver and dispose of Web sites for most of the National Forests water. More recently, however, the include the completed reports as well as structure and function of the overall progress of ongoing efforts. watershed is considered as another important factor in water management. Perhaps the most comprehensive Integrated water management has the watershed analysis completed to date on potential to go beyond watershed federal land in California and Nevada was management which focuses on conditions in for the Lake Tahoe Basin (USDA-Forest the waterway and the processes that Service 2000). The national significance influence them. Science-based integrated and public visibility of the Lake Tahoe Basin water management considers the best way allowed an investment of about $2 million in to develop/retrofit infrastructure in this assessment. The document is a good coordination with land use planning and source of ideas and approaches to protection of the aquatic ecosystem. The watershed assessment, even if your budget term “best way” reflects the development of is on a somewhat smaller scale. a plan that includes the wise use of water, the environmental sound disposal of You can take advantage of watershed stormwater and wastewater, land use plans, analyses done by the National Forest in and ecosystem protection and restoration. your region for a variety of background To address all these issues successfully material relevant to your own watershed involvement of critical stakeholders is assessment. Check the web site of your essential. Watershed assessments can

- 209 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 provide an important source of was created by Proposition 50 as a information and analysis that is required grant program operated by two state for the development of an integrated agencies: the Department of Water water management plan. Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). It In 1998, the Washington State legislature requires that eligible projects are passed the Watershed Planning Act to set a consistent with an adopted integrated framework for addressing the State’s water regional water management plan, or resource issues… When lawmakers passed such a plan is in progress. Such a plan the Act, they stated that the primary under the DWR grant program is to purpose of the statute was "…to develop a address, at a minimum: water-related more thorough and cooperative method objectives and conflicts in the of determining the current water watersheds of the region, including: 1) situation in each water resource water supply, 2) groundwater inventory area of the state and to provide management, 3) ecosystem restoration, local citizens with the maximum possible and 4) water quality. input concerning their goals and objectives…". This statement identifies the The details and coordination of these new purpose and issues associated with water programs are being worked out by the management. To manage water, issues of departments and the California Watershed surface and groundwater water supply and Council, a state-supported collaborative quality need to be evaluated. partnership effort (http://cwp.resources.ca.gov/cwc_about.htm In 2002, several acts were passed in l). Under the SWRCB program, the California that were aimed at achieving integrated plan must be designed “to similar goals as Washington state. The improve regional water supply reliability, statutes added to the Water Code are: water recycling, water conservation, water quality improvement, storm water capture  Integrated Regional Water and management, flood management, Management Planning Act of 2002 recreation and access, wetlands (Water Code sections 10530-10537) enhancement and creation, and was created by SB 1672 (Costa). This environmental and habitat protection and act’s implementation is to lead to the improvement.” development of integrated regional water management plans, as a means In addition to contributing to sounder land of “maximizing the quality and quantity use planning, a watershed plan and the of water available to meet the state’s assessment on which it is based, can also water needs by providing a framework inform the integrated water management for local agencies to integrate programs effort. The analysis of the effects of human and projects that protect and enhance activities on watershed components and regional water supplies.” A "regional processes needs to be integrated into a water management group" is defined as water management plan. The impacts of “three or more local public agencies, at water conveyance and discharge must be least two of which have statutory evaluated in this plan as well. This analysis authority over water supply.” usually part of watershed assessments and Groundwater management and grant- therefore, has direct relevance and use in funded projects are also to be tied into water management plans. such plans (section 10753.7) Integrated water management might include  The Integrated Water Management some or all of the following: Program (IWMP) (sections 79560-63)

 Balancing water use with water supply management plan and identifies how  Connecting water supply protection with information generated in a watershed watershed management. assessment is useful for decision-making  Utilizing low impact development around each of these issues. methods2 to improved groundwater recharge, reduced stormwater volume, 8.5.1. Water Supply and protection and enhancement of instream habitat A key part of a water management plan is  Integrating land use planning with water identifying and planning for water supply. management and ecosystem protection Interestingly, the first watershed  Coordinating water supply infrastructure assessments in California were conducted and planning among water agencies to evaluate potential for water resources development. Thorough field studies were within a region th  Affecting inter-basin water transfer and conducted early in the 20 century to delivery decisions, and/or evaluate whether different watersheds had the capability to serve as a reliable water  Linking regional water availability with source for San Francisco (Freeman, 1912) future land use development and Sacramento (Hyde, et al., 1916). These  Balancing viewpoints of diverse societal studies included detailed descriptions of interests into decisions about water watershed conditions. resource allocation. However, in the 21st century, a primary use A well-developed watershed assessment for information from watershed has a number of important uses for water assessments related to water supply management (Washington Department of projects will be in identifying alternatives for Energy, 1998): operation of existing or proposed projects. Such information can be used to identify  Identifying the water supply and opportunities for alternative management of demands within the watershed, facilities to serve new uses not recognized  Analyzing the relationship between during initial project design and surface water and ground water, construction. A recent example is the July  Analyzing the connection between water 2000 settlement agreement on the quality and water quantity, operation of Pacific Gas and Electric  Integrating short-term and long-range Company’s hydropower facilities on the water planning, Mokelumne River. Detailed evaluations of  Addressing and integrating water natural hydrology and system operation quantity, quality, and habitat needs, contributed to the settlement agreement and  Providing part of the information that is relicensing of the project (McGurk and crucial to making water-right decisions. Paulson, 2000). About 30 hydroelectric  Providing information the facilitates projects in California will go through the decisions that protect and enhance the relicensing process during this decade. aquatic ecosystem. Proposals for “re-operation” of these and other water projects will require much of the The following section reviews some of the basic hydrologic and operational hydraulic key components of an integrated water information that might be contained in a watershed assessment. However, the data 2 Low impact development methods utilize and analysis needs related to these projects swales, rain gardens, pervious pavement, and proposals for different management will landscaped bioretention structures, and other usually be far more detailed than in a typical integrated management practices to reduce imperviousness and the production of watershed assessment. stormwater.

Watershed assessment data useful for contaminating activities” (PCAs) that might water supply management lead to the release of microbiological or chemical contaminants within that  Surface and ground water - present and delineated area. This inventory allows for a available in the watershed determination of the water source’s  Surface and ground water - use, by type vulnerability to contamination. After the (agriculture, municipal, etc.) assessment and vulnerability analysis are  Water rights summary, by source completed, the water source protection (ground, surface) approaches, including protection zones, are  Water storage, by source (natural, identified. Local protection programs are artificial) enacted voluntarily, while the assessments  Streamflow (max /min / mean acre-feet are mandatory. per year)  Land use summary, by Type & % cover For surface water sources, the watershed boundaries above the point of diversion for  Vegetation cover, by Type & % cover drinking water use delineate the logical  Impervious surface area, % cover assessment area. Previously, a “watershed sanitary survey” of the drinking water Water information developed in a watershed source(s) was required at least every five assessment can also help local land use years, but the vulnerability ranking was not agencies in their decision-making. a component. For ground water sources, Connecting water supply availability to land the source areas and protection zones are use planning was required in recent state delineated based on “readily available legislation (e.g., SB 610 and SB 221 in hydrogeologic information on ground water 2001). While focused on large development flow, recharge and discharge, and other approvals, the new laws demand an information deemed appropriate by the assessment of the water supply situation. In State” (California Department of Health Washington State, the legislature wanted Services, 1999). This ground water portion water rights decisions to be influenced by a of the DWSAP also serves as the State’s good watershed assessment and plan. wellhead protection program. 8.5.1.1 Drinking Water Source 8.5.1.2 Groundwater Management Assessment and Protection Program Planning (DWSAP) Your watershed assessment may also be Watershed assessment can provide useful able to contribute to a groundwater information for drinking water source management plan that is independent or protection efforts. Protecting sources of part of an integrated water management drinking water is the purpose of the federal plan, by improving an existing one or and state Drinking Water Source helping to create a new one. A California Assessment and Protection Program groundwater law, Assembly Bill 3030 (Water (DWSAP). The initial part of this effort is the Code section 10750-10756), provides a Source Water Assessment Program systematic procedure for an existing local (SWAP), which is where watershed agency to develop a groundwater assessments become directly relevant. management plan. This section of the code Each of California’s 15,000 active public provides such an agency with the powers of water systems must delineate the a water replenishment district to raise boundaries of the area around their drinking revenue to pay for facilities to manage the water source(s) through which contaminants basin (extraction, recharge, conveyance, might move and reach that drinking water quality). About 150 water agencies have supply. They next must inventory “possible developed groundwater management plans

- 212 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 in accordance with AB 3030, which then  riparian vegetation properties that allows them to qualify for certain state influence energy input to streams and grants and loans for groundwater consequent water temperature; management (posted at:  known and suspected sources of http://www.groundwater.water.ca.gov). pollution (both point and non-point); past Public water systems that have performed measurements of water quality evaluations under AB 3030 requirements parameters; and may satisfy all or part of the DWSAP (see  changes in watershed conditions over 8.4.1.3). time. In developing groundwater management plans, one important consideration is the These types of information will provide the effects of these plans on the conditions in general context of water quality and allow the waterway. For example, depletion of identification of problems that should be the groundwater could cause perennial addressed. While some polluters will streams to become ephemeral. Springs voluntarily reduce their sources of that historically have fed a river might no contamination once these problems are longer do so if groundwater supplies are brought to their attention through the over-utilized. Information from your information of the watershed assessment, watershed assessment might lend insight some form of regulation is often necessary. into the potential impacts of groundwater A detailed watershed assessment may management plans on the aquatic incorporate modeling results from models ecosystem. such as the EPA’s Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint 8.5.1.3 Water Quality Considerations Sources (BASINS) and Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). Such models Watershed assessments can be very useful can aid in identifying sources and factors in management of water quality by providing subject to control and estimate the basic information about the various factors effectiveness of various controls and that affect the constituents of water. A practices on downstream water quality. comprehensive watershed assessment should include information about: Considerations of water quality issues is an essential part of any integrated water  the climate and hydrology of the management plan. Data and analysis from a watershed that will determine the water watershed assessment can make significant availability during different seasons and contributions to the understanding of water at different places in the watershed and quality conditions and the stressors in the the consequent capacity for dilution of watershed that pose a risk to maintaining introduced materials; high water quality and meeting the  the geochemistry of parent material and beneficial uses of the waterways. soils that will determine natural contributions of dissolved constituents; 8.6 Floodplain Management  soil properties, terrain features, vegetative cover, land use, and climatic Another aspect of integrated water factors that control potential for management is floodplain management. sediment production; Planners need to consider how the  hydraulic and geomorphic properties of management of water produced by large channels that influence sediment rain events fits into the overall water transport; management plans. City and County general plans must evaluate flood hazards and develop strategies for floodplain

- 213 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 management, as noted in the OPR General Code §8400, et seq.). Where a federal flood Plan Guidelines: control project report has been issued which designates floodway boundaries, the “Cities and counties should identify risks Department of Water Resources or the from natural hazards which extend State Reclamation Board will not across jurisdictional boundaries, then appropriate money in support of the project use any available data from watershed- unless the applicable agency has enacted based floodplain management…as floodplain regulations. Those regulations planning tools to address any significant must provide that: (1) Construction of issues. Each local planning agency structures in the floodway which may carries a responsibility to coordinate its endanger life or significantly reduce its general plan with regional planning carrying capacity shall be prohibited; (2) efforts as much as possible. “ (p. 77) Development will be allowed within the “restrictive zone” between the floodway and The safety element must also identify flood the limits of the floodplain as long as human hazard areas and establish policies which life and the carrying capacity of the will avoid unreasonable flood risks. A floodplain are protected. comprehensive approach should include mapping floodplains, establishing general As a result of the above, local government policies to keep intensive new development and special districts can be both a out of floodplains or to mitigate and protect contributor to and user of your watershed against flood impacts if development is to assessment where it addresses flooding be located in such areas, minimizing and floodplains. impacts on existing development where possible, establishing policies regarding 8.6.1 Floodplain Processes and capital improvements or acquisitions Ecology necessary to ensure flood protection, and floodplain management policies (which may In our channel-centric view of rivers, the include both structural and non-structural floodplain is often a neglected component of approaches to flood control using a multi- the fluvial system. This view has been objective watershed approach). Flooding prevalent historically in developed areas of is often a regional problem that crosses California, where attempts to convey flood multiple jurisdictional boundaries. Policies flows within existing channels are common. should be developed cooperatively with There are several problems with this local, state, and federal agencies, including approach: special districts, to create feasible solutions, Guidelines for the preparation of an optional 1) Prior to development, natural alluvial floodplain management element are channels evolved to accommodate the provided in Appendix C. dominant discharge, or bank full flow (flows http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov/generalplan.ht with a range of recurrence intervals of about ml. The Department of Water Resources’ 1 to 5 years) while higher magnitude floods Division of Flood Management can provide inundated the adjacent floodplain riparian floodplain management and flood control zone on average every few years. The information, including floodplain maps, current assumption that the channel itself, where available. without its floodplain, can convey a full range of flood flows is unrealistic, and has In addition, the state Cobey-Alquist led to considerable flood hazards. Floodplain Management Act encourages Moreover, the hazard worsens local governments to plan, adopt, and incrementally with increases in watershed enforce floodplain management regulations development that reduce infiltration and through an ordinance or other means(Water increase runoff and peak discharges

2) Floodplain development has led to a migration, avulsion, overbank flow, situation where there is often no riparian sediment erosion and deposition); buffer between the top of the channel bank  Expect and accommodate change in the and the adjacent development. In this relation between the river channel and case, attempts are made to prevent the floodplain boundary (e.g. erosion, natural processes of bank erosion and deposition, and migration); channel migration, processes integral to the  Preserve longitudinal and lateral storage and transfer of sediment within a connectivity between the channel and fluvial system, as well as to vegetation floodplain (e.g. dam releases to maintain succession. Levees and bank protection geomorphic processes, vegetation are employed to prevent geomorphic succession, overbank flow, and fish use processes acting between channels and of floodplain areas); their floodplains, thus creating static river  Preserve flood storage function of morphology. Such attempts to arrest floodplain; erosion, and in some cases sediment  Preserve floodplain riparian zone as a deposition, has led to extensive buffer between developed areas and the channelization efforts throughout California fluvial system.

3) Relatively short hydrologic records are 8.6.2 A Watershed Approach to used in statistical methods to predict future Floodplain Management flood magnitudes and recurrence intervals. However, high magnitude floods change the A watershed approach to reduce flood flood statistics, and lower the recurrence hazards must consider cumulative effects of interval associated with specific magnitude past and proposed floodplain changes. The floods—otherwise stated, the occurrence of most successful approach to minimize flood a high magnitude flood may increase the hazards it to minimize floodplain discharge of the design flood, such as the development, and to instead preserve the 100-year event commonly used for natural flood storage capacity of the floodplain management. floodplain. Flood hazard reduction and floodplain management is encouraged by Floodplain riparian ecosystems are many, including the California Department sustained by the very disturbances that our of Water Resources (DWR; past floodplain management efforts often try http://www.fpm.water.ca.gov) and the to eliminate: flooding and erosion. In professional, non-profit educational California, as in most of the developed organization, the Floodplain Management world, over 90% of riparian ecosystems Association (FMA; have been lost. Agricultural and urban http://www.floodplain.org). Flooding often development often extends all the way to crosses multiple jurisdictional boundaries for the top of the channel bank, leaving only a ownerships and responsibilities: county, single line of trees. In creeks where cattle city, special district (water, flood control, or other livestock graze, vegetation may be community services, etc.), state, federal, completely absent. In order to minimize and tribal. flood and erosion hazards, and to sustain or restore floodplain ecosystems, floodplain A watershed assessment that evaluates management should: upslope-downstream hydrologic effects and causes of alterations can provide a very  Accommodate physical processes, or useful tool for floodplain management. the “natural disturbances” that create Downstream communities will likely have and maintain processes and functions of more interest in a watershed assessment floodplain ecosystems (flooding, channel addressing flooding and floodplain issues

- 215 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 than upstream ones, often driven by recent evaluate the conditions and status of or continuous experience with damaging waterways, among other requirements. floods. Urbanizing areas tend to discover Before discussing how information from that previous “flood control” channels and your watershed assessment might be useful reservoirs, as well as road culverts, are not in this regulatory context, the following sized to withstand the flood peaks (“peak section reviews basic background discharge”) estimated when the watershed information was more rural, with less paved and covered (impervious) surfaces. 8.7.1.1. Major categories of water pollution Some examples of downstream California communities (and their watershed) actively Water pollution is grouped into two major working with partnerships on watershed categories – point source and nonpoint assessments and plans with floodplain source (NPS). Point source pollution is management and flood protection as a defined as anything that is regulated by the major focus include: National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and generally comes out  City of Newport Beach – San Diego of the end of a pipe. This includes most Creek watershed urban stormwater run-off, which, now in  City of Santa Cruz – San Lorenzo Creek large part is regulated through NPDES watershed Storm Water programs.  City of Napa – Napa River watershed Although urban runoff is collected from a  Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton – large geographical area, it is regulated by Santa Margarita River watershed NPDES, and is generally released into a  City of San Jose / Santa Clara County – waterway via a pipe so is considered a point Guadalupe River watershed source. NPS pollution includes all other [http://www.scbwmi.org] sources of pollution, including run off from  City of East Palo Alto – San agriculture, rural areas, most abandoned Francisquito Creek watershed mines, and forested areas. In particular, data and analysis from a watershed 8.7 Regulation assessment could provide useful information in the development of non point Regulations influence water quality, land source pollution regulations. uses, resources extraction (e.g., timber) and In reality, almost all NPS pollution is really integrated planning. Federal, state and local point source pollution because regulations define the environment in which contaminants and other disruptors of all of the issues are considered. There are watershed function originate from points on many state and local regulatory processes the landscape. Typically, however, the term where watershed assessment and point source pollution is applied only to management are either required or are focused human activities that discharge useful tools to achieve regulatory goals. contaminants or modify physical or chemical qualities of a waterway (e.g., an industrial 8.7.1. Water Quality Regulation operation).

The federal Clean Water Act and the state As a watershed assessor, you will find that Porter-Cologne Act are the two primarily there is a gray area between permit- water quality statutes (Table 8.2). These regulated and unregulated pollution that can acts prescribe that permits be issued to be associated with a type of land-use. For regulate the release of contaminants into example, agricultural operations in the waterways and that reports are prepared to Central Valley have been given a conditional waiver by the state for the

- 216 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 pollutants originating from agricultural lands in the Valley. In exchange, the growers monitor water quality at the sub-basin level and employ “best management practices” to reduce pollutant runoff to waterways. A watershed assessment can still be very useful in this setting as one aspect of the conditional waiver is to understand watershed conditions for a given planning area.

8.7.1.2 Point Source Pollution Regulation

Point sources may have a wide-range of cities and counties must comply with potential impacts, from minor to being regarding stormwater effluent. Large cities drivers of waterway function. Stormwater fall under the Phase I permits and are permits are given to local municipalities for required to monitor waterways. Monitoring point source discharges under the National data collected in the course of preparing a Pollutant Discharge Elimination System watershed assessment could be very (NPDES) and are called NPDES permits. valuable for those involved in overseeing These permits contain a list of criteria that compliance with the permits (e.g., Regional

Table 8.2 State statutes that deal with water quality

Name of Law Key provisions Clean Water Act (federal,  Regulations to meet the goal of zero discharge of 1972) pollutants.  Includes sections on water standards (303) and TMDLs (303d); assessment of water quality (305b); nonpoint source management (319); NPDES permits (402), and wetlands (404). Porter-Cologne (state,  Established the State Water Resources Control Board 1990) and 9 Regional Boards to control water rights and water quality in California.  Empowers the regional boards to prepare water quality control plans (Basin Plans) to ensure that beneficial uses of water are being met and actions are taken to control point and nonpoint source pollution.  Authorizes the Boards. to issue NPDES permits under the federal CWA California Toxics Rule  In 2000, the US EPA finalized the California Toxics Rule to reinstate water quality criteria for toxic pollutants in the state's rivers, streams, lakes, enclosed bays and estuaries. The EPA promulgated this rule to fill a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a State court overturned the State's water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic.  The final rule promulgated: 1) freshwater and saltwater criteria for 22 toxics; 2) ambient aquatic life criteria for 23 priority toxics; 3) ambient human health criteria for 57 priority toxicsThe State of California must use the criteria together with the State's existing water quality standards when controlling pollution in inland waters and enclosed bays and estuaries. The numeric water quality criteria contained in the final rule are identical to the EPA's recommended CWA §304(a) criteria for these. However, the EPA did not include the proposed acute and chronic criteria for mercury to protect freshwater and saltwater aquatic life or the proposed acute criteria for selenium to protect freshwater aquatic life. Also, the final rule does not contain numeric criteria for chloroform.

Water Quality Control Boards). Within the give an assessment of existing impacts. Public Works or Utilities departments of This combined impact should be each Phase I city, a “Stormwater Quality” assessed for ecosystem and other division oversees monitoring of selected impacts and the information presented waterways for a variety of conventional and and summarized in a way that is useful toxic water quality constituents to comply for future permits. with their permit. Data from a watershed assessment could aid the effort to prioritize 3) Types of pollution that are covered by pollutant monitoring. This prioritization permits include those listed in chapter process involves identifying key locations 3.6 (e.g., organic compounds, metals, for monitoring and key constituents that are high temperature). Contaminants may most toxic and most prevalent. Data have their effects in isolation from each generated as part of an assessment could other, but often they have their negative identify stream reaches where particular impacts in concert. This is where pollutants were problematic. Additionally, watershed assessment, which is by the assessment will contain an analysis of definition integrative, can have a the impacts of contaminants, sediment, and valuable role in decision-making. For total water volume on habitat conditions. example, future land-use decisions These impacts need to be evaluated during could impact the volume and the permitting process and would be useful composition of municipal waste to the staff at the Regional Boards. discharge, the timing and volume of managed storm-water runoff, and Watershed assessments should at least suppress natural processes. When include the location of point sources and existing conditions and impacts are estimated discharge of pollutants, or other compounded with future possible effects on watershed function. These points scenarios, then the combined impacts sources may have a wide range of potential can be assessed. impacts, from minor to being drivers of waterway function. Assessment of 4) Ultimately, the regulatory agency, the watershed function can also inform future State Water Resources Control Board, permitting of point source discharge. If must accept the finding of a negative waterways within a watershed are already impact to deny a pollution discharge impacted by point or non-point sources of permit, or accept a finding of no net pollution, the future permitted discharges impact to allow a permit. There is not would be inadvisable. always a clear role for watershed groups in this process, though local agencies There are various ways that you can deal may be able to bring forward watershed with point source information: assessment information to the decision- making process. 1) Point source dischargers and the state regulatory agency must monitor the 8.7.1.3 Non-Point Source Pollution pollution originating from the permitted Regulation facility and also the potential impacts of the pollution. This information is an The problem of non-point source pollution important local source of information for has contributed to the widespread the water quality part of your application of watershed assessment and assessment. management. Widely distributed and occasional appearance of water pollution 2) Information about single point sources, across a watershed is a product of the or a combination of point and non-point combination of the natural environment and sources of pollution can be combined to human actions. It is possible in some cases

- 219 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 to attribute responsibility for NPS pollution agricultural lands. The Garcia River has a to individual actions, land uses, or parcels. TMDL for sediment (posted at: http://www.krisweb.com/biblio/garcia_usepa Non-point source pollution enters _regix_1998_finaltmdl.pdf). waterways at non-specific places as a consequence of the movement of water TMDLs can consider and allocate loads across the landscape. When the beneficial (amounts) for contaminants originating from uses of the waterbodies are impaired as a both non-point and point sources. Natural consequence of this pollution, total loads are calculated and are often maximum daily loads (TMDLs) can be considered the background for a particular established to reduce the contaminant(s). substance (e.g., sediment or nutrients). TMDLs have been established in waterways TMDL reports describe the data analysis for pesticides, nutrients, sediment, and and modeling used to determine likely or other types of contaminants. actual sources of pollutants and eventually “waste load allocations”, or the amount of The TMDL process is a framework of pollution each polluter or area may assessing a watershed, but with a water contribute to the waterway. quality emphasis. Each TMDL has five general objectives, quite similar to the There are no fixed protocols for the watershed assessment process described determination and allocations of pollutant in this Manual: loads under individual TMDLs. Like watershed assessments, they are tailored to 1. To assess the condition of a waterbody, the watershed and the sources of pollution. and determine/confirm cause(s) / The San Diego Creek TMDL used the source(s) of pollutant; proportion of sub-watersheds in different 2. To quantify the sources of the pollutant; land use categories and measurements or 3. To determine how much of a particular estimates of loads originating from land-use pollutant a waterbody can handle and types to determine loads for each pollutant still meet desired conditions; in each sub-watershed. 4. To identify whether and how much the different sources need to be reduced in Watershed assessment approaches are order to support desired conditions; more general than TMDL calculations and 5. To develop a plan which, when might provide more detail about natural implemented, will restore waterbody processes and human activities in the same health. sub-watersheds. This additional detail would help the TMDL process and potentially TMDLs are determined by state agencies inform the implementation of the waste load for pollutants impacting specific waterways. allocation and reduction. For example, in the Newport Bay watershed (Southern California), San Diego Creek has 1) TMDLs being carried out in watersheds a TMDL established by the US-EPA for with assessments or similar analyses organic and inorganic pollutants originating should explicitly take into account the from residential, commercial, industrial, and

A TMDL identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that may be discharged to a water body without causing exceedences of water quality standards and impairment of the uses made of these waters. The federal Clean Water Act requires development of TMDLs for polluted waters to assist in identifying pollutant control needs and opportunities. (Total Maximum Daily Loads For Toxic Pollutants San Diego Creek and Newport Bay, California; US- EPA, Region 9, 2002) http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/tmdl/nbay/summary0602.pdf

watershed characteristics and sediment, nutrients, and surface water processes described in the assessment. to downstream channels for many miles.

2) Watershed assessments should 3) Cumulative effects of past, proposed, describe historic, present, and likely and future activities are also best future conditions, which is all useful measured at several scales, from the information for determining a TMDL. sub-watershed to watershed. Smaller watersheds may respond more quickly 3) Watershed management plans based on and to fewer actions than larger watershed assessments in TMDL watersheds as well as in different ways. watersheds should take into account the source calculations and waste load 4) Effects of the proposed actions and allocations in the TMDL when describing cumulative effects should be analyzed management recommendations. over appropriate time scales for the processes in question. For example, if 8.7.2 Timber Harvest Plans the logging will impact shade on upland slopes, what will the change in Developing and implementation of timber subsurface water temperature be and harvest plans (THPs) are required by the how will that change affect the Board of Forestry under the California immediate stream reach? At another Forest Practices Act. It is the intention of the scale: how will the combined actions state that these THPs not result in non-point change natural disturbance processes source pollution to the state’s waterways. and population dynamics on the Watershed assessment can provide several landscape and in the waterways of the types of information for THP development: larger watershed over decades?

1) The physical and biological setting for 8.7.3 Federal and State Endangered THP activities should be described at Species Acts several watershed scales. For example, the impacts of logging and grading Both the Federal and California Endangered under a THP will be most apparent at Species Acts (FESA and CESA, the smallest sub-watershed scale. It is respectively) require that federal and/or most valuable to collect data at this fine state agencies consider and regulate the scale on many watershed processes in impacts of land and water use actions on order to provide an appropriate imperiled plant and wildlife species and their description of the natural environment. habitats. For certain species, e.g., salmon, However, some impacts of the project these impacts are often considered at the may work their way downstream into the watershed scale in order to include stream and river system meaning that landscape impacts on waterways. Many processes should be measured there as watershed assessments have been done well. because of the presence in the watershed of endangered or threatened species. 2) Different geographic scales will be appropriate for different potential Watershed assessments can be used to impacts (Ziemer, 2000). For example, inform decisions for managing impacts to road crossings may change stream endangered species in the following ways: channel properties for only a few hundred meters up and down stream of 1) Identify potential and actual impacts to the crossing. In contrast, skid trails and endangered species that may originate road cuts may contribute excess from single or multiple sources that are best measured at the watershed scale.

2) Identify the spatial and temporal scales be of value to some owners in their planning at which potential and actual impacts and decision-making. should be measured within the watershed. Some landowners have partnered with 3) Use the conceptual model approach neighbors to restore a waterway. One from the assessment planning stage example is Murphy’s Creek in San Joaquin (see chapters 2 and 6) to identify human County, where landowners obtained a and other actions and processes that CALFED grant to remove a non-functioning influence the well-being of endangered earthen dam, which had prevented species. migration of anadramous fish. Landowners 4) Give relative weights to the human and such as this group could benefit from the natural influences on endangered data and analysis contained in a watershed species habitats and populations. Use assessment. these relative weights to prioritize the influences for remedial action. Regional information on geology, climate, 5) Describe protection or restoration soil productivity, erosion risk, land strategies that could be implemented at capability, and vegetation may be useful for the watershed scale for the benefit of operations of some farmers and ranchers or endangered species or their habitats. for planning construction and other 6) Identify data and knowledge gaps development. These general types of specific to the species and their habitats information would be necessary for that are needed prior to making environmental analysis of development decisions that are based on knowledge proposals. Watershed information could of ecosystem and population dynamics. also be useful in complying with regulations and as background in applications for grants 8.8 Voluntary Private Lands from state and federal agencies for soil Management conservation and habitat restoration projects. In general, most landowners have intimate knowledge of their property, so it is unlikely Watershed assessments should be helpful that a watershed assessment will tell them to owners of forest-land in scheduling of much that they don’t already know about logging, road construction, and road general condition. Scientific aspects of the maintenance to minimize impacts on assessment may be more revealing to streams. Information from watershed them. Perhaps the principal benefit of a assessments should also assist in watershed assessment to a private complying with California’s Forest Practice landowner is setting the context of their Rules and preparing Timber Harvest Plans, property within the entire watershed. For Sustained Yield Plans, or Non-industrial some people, this perspective will be of Timber Management Plans. Watershed interest and benefit and may lead to assessments probably have the greatest alterations in management practices. For direct applicability to evaluating cumulative others, a watershed perspective and watershed effects as required for Timber associated information will not affect their Harvest Plans. If the Board of Forestry established way of doing business. A adopts the recommendations of the watershed assessment may contain University of California Committee on substantial resources such as aerial Cumulative Watershed Effects (Dunne, et photographs, satellite imagery, and GIS al. 2001), then watershed assessments layers of their land and adjoining properties could become an integral part of planning that an individual may not have ready for forest operations. access to. These types of information may

8.9 Monitoring Programs assessment. Here are some things to keep in mind: Monitoring is an important part of adaptive management and the implementation of 1) The spatial scale and resolution of your watershed plans, restoration programs, monitoring program (e.g., location and regulation, and land and water use distribution of monitoring sites) should be decisions. Monitoring is closely tied to determined by the nature of your watershed assessment. The results of monitoring/assessment question or the monitoring should be useful to assessment information gap. For example, if there are and assessment in turn should be used to particular land-uses of concern distributed design and implement monitoring programs. throughout your watershed (e.g., roads), then you should monitor enough of them Two important ways that watershed closely to statistically determine whether or assessment can inform monitoring program not an impact is occurring, as well as the design and implementation are: 1) by extent of the impact throughout sub- exposing gaps in knowledge and data about watersheds. watershed conditions and 2) by showing geographically areas that are at risk or have 2) The temporal scale and resolution of your actual impacts from human activities. program is as important as the spatial resolution. If your data gaps are related to Knowledge and Data Gaps storm event impacts (e.g., large movements of sediment or contaminants), then Part of your watershed assessment should monitoring should occur intensively during involve identifying gaps in information about and after storms and for several storms. systems in your watershed and deficiencies Between storms, you would want to in knowledge about how the systems work determine non-storm related impacts in (see chapter 2.4.2). These gaps should be order to provide a “baseline” against which separated into these two major categories, to compare storm impacts. Frequency of data and knowledge, and a monitoring and sampling is a critical issue here as it both research program recommended to address determines whether or not you can tell deficiencies. Obviously implementation of something about individual events, changes the program will depend on factors beyond during a water-year, and/or trends over the control of the assessment project. In decades. addition, not all data and knowledge gaps can be readily filled, even by the most Knowledge gaps advanced watershed groups. However, it will help your own, or someone else’s, Data gaps are different from knowledge future understanding of the watershed if you gaps. Knowledge gaps refer to things you go through this exercise. don’t know about a system or thing you are interested in. To address gaps in your Data gaps knowledge about how your watershed is working, changing over time, or responding Monitoring is conducted to find out how a to stress from human activities, you may system works or is changing over time. The need to implement monitoring that is term is typically applied to water quality basically research. An example of a monitoring programs, but you could just as knowledge gap is the contribution of easily use it to refer to wildlife or ground nutrients to waterways from different land water monitoring. There are a wide variety use and cover types. Addressing this of things you could conceivably monitor in knowledge gap would demand collecting response to findings in your watershed data about nutrients upstream, adjacent to, downstream, and in sub-surface water for

- 223 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 each land use or cover type of interest. The work based on your knowledge of how data would need to be collected over a similar systems work. Draw or describe a reasonable time and space resolution and conceptual model of the system including for long enough to establish any trends. where the gaps occur. Pencil in possible Along the way you might fill data gaps (e.g., ways that things might work and use this nutrient concentration in a certain exercise to come up with targeted questions waterway), but the knowledge gap filling for future monitoring or research. occurs when you find statistically-significant relationships between land-uses and 8.10Watershed Adaptive Management nutrient conditions under a range of climate and other conditions. This obviously Watershed adaptive management is a requires specialized analytical skills that you continuous procedure, broken up may or may not find in your current occasionally by planning and watershed assessment team or watershed group. assessment. Monitoring and evaluation of the effects of intentional and inadvertent Here are some things to keep in mind when changes to your watershed is a critical part designing programs to address knowledge of watershed adaptive management. gaps: Watershed adaptive management is defined 1) Differentiate between data gaps and here as “monitoring or assessing the knowledge gaps. Data gaps require the progress toward meeting management collection of information about a system objectives and incorporating what is learned about which you already have some into future conceptual models, management knowledge. Knowledge gaps occur where plans and actions, and monitoring (figure you may or may not have data, you just 8.1). “Learning while doing,” acknowledges aren’t sure how processes and things are that many management actions (e.g. interacting with each other, or occurring restoration) are experiments. Assessment over space and time. plays a key role in both the planning of 2) Approach knowledge gaps in the same management activities and the evaluation of way you went after conceptual modeling past activities. It relies on monitoring (chapter 2). Think of how a system might information collected before, during and after actions and during the coming and going of seasons and years. This section builds upon early chapters and emphasizes watershed assessment as part of the continuous process of watershed adaptive management, with periodic stops to measure and evaluate ecosystem responses.

The monitoring data collected, analyzed, and interpreted as part of the watershed assessment will provide information that may alter the watershed’s original conceptual model, the management activities, and the monitoring program itself. One important question is how to make Figure 8.1 Watershed adaptive management the connection between the “evaluation of ecosystem condition

- 224 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 and actions” stage and the “conceptual biological characteristics of the watershed to model” and “management decision” stages. assess the status and trends of these If the original questions and issues driving conditions and processes. No assumptions the monitoring and evaluation/assessment are made regarding cause-and-effect were derived from the conceptual model relationships and 2) stress-based or and are related to the management strategic monitoring, which focuses on decisions, then this loop should close easily. connections between the current conditions and known or suspected sources of stress. Probably the best way to close the loop on This second type of monitoring will allow watershed adaptive management is to make you to more readily draw conclusions about clear at the outset the policies, processes, what actions affect certain natural and actions that are being monitored and processes in the watershed, but may be evaluated. Also, the people and less informative about the natural organizations that are involved in the functioning of the system. A combination of management and other decisions should be these approaches will allow the greatest aware at the outset of the monitoring and flexibility in monitoring ambient natural evaluation. Although they should probably conditions and fluxes, while also facilitating not evaluate their own actions, they can conclusions about correlations among provide valuable input into the actions they watershed compartments and potentially take and processes they affect. leading to the discovery of new connections among compartments. Clear identification at the beginning of the monitoring program of the policies and Designing monitoring that leads to an management actions that will be informed assessment based on goals, questions, or will theoretically facilitate the entry of new issues in the watershed necessarily means information into subsequent decision- simplifying the systems so a conceptual making. The actual use of well-collected model can be constructed (see CWAM monitoring data and scientifically-rigorous chapter 2). This conceptual model will evaluations will depend on social and reflect what is known about influences and political forces outside the scope of this connections among parts of the system. It Manual. should also show which influences are natural and which are of human origin and 8.10.1 Continuing Assessment thus most open to change through adaptive management. It should also show which Even as you finish one watershed aspects of the systems are appropriate for assessment, you should be looking forward monitoring (indicators) and how knowing to updating it as you gain new information about them will improve knowledge and and knowledge. Periodically assessing decision-making. Finally, it should show watershed conditions is an essential which influences are natural and which are component of adaptive management at the of human origin and thus most open to watershed scale because of the continual change through adaptive management. changes occurring in watersheds. The threads connecting one assessment to the The conceptual models for the watershed next are a combination of the kinds of monitoring program and periodic problems you identified in the first assessment should be nearly identical. assessment and the watershed processes Monitoring may lead to interim changes in and conditions you decide to monitor. the conceptual model as new knowledge is There are two primary ways to structure gained about the system. The conceptual monitoring programs that lead to model will also remind people and assessments: 1) ambient monitoring, which organizations within and outside the involves measuring physical, chemical, and monitoring program why particular

- 225 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 parameters or indicators were selected and Adaptive Management in the invested in. Finally, the conceptual model City of Los Angeles will serve as a common frame of reference as monitoring and re-assessments are done In the face of mounting pressure to clean over time. up storm water runoff, river channels, and beaches, the City of Los Angeles passed a Once you have connected the watershed $500 million bond measure in 2004 to conceptual model and proposed monitoring address these problems. Key to this actions, you should consider describing the measure is the requirement to use an context for the monitoring. In some cases, adaptive management approach to you will only be monitoring features (e.g., monitoring project effectiveness and wildlife populations) and fluxes (e.g., modifying the program in response to new precipitation and discharge of surface information. water) in the watershed regardless of their context of human actions. Usually, you will Clean Water, Ocean, Rivers, Beaches, be trying to understand the system from an Bay Through Storm Water Projects adaptive management viewpoint and thus General Obligation Bond Program will need to include monitoring of human actions and system responses to these Excerpt: All projects shall provide water actions. quality benefits and have as their primary purpose the reduction of pollutant loads to Restoration Effectiveness the impaired waters of Los Angeles to meet water quality standards. Wherever Hopefully your watershed management feasible projects shall be designed (1) to activities will result in restoration or provide multiple benefits and purposes rehabilitation of watershed conditions and including water supply, flood management, processes. This could consist of efforts to open space, habitat, and recreation change land-use practices and zoning in benefits, (2) with consideration of source order to reduce impacts, implementing “best control measures and leveraging of funds management practices, removing harmful and collaboration with other agencies, and infrastructure, or removing exotics and re- (3) shall utilize a strategic adaptive vegetating with native species in riparian management approach that and upland areas. The role of watershed incorporates assessment, feedback, assessment in restoration planning is adaptation, and flexibility. In order to described in chapter 8.2 The effectiveness protect public health, improve water of these restoration activities can be quality, conserve water and reduce measured by monitoring and evaluating flooding, the types of projects include watershed processes and human activities. storm water cleanup, control and One way of measuring performance or diversion; water quality, pollution and effectiveness is to choose indicators of bacteria control; trash capture; urban lakes condition or change in condition in the and bay improvements; habitat/wetlands system. Indicators are measures that restoration and development; storm water reflect key changes in the status and trends retention. of important watershed processes and conditions. Examples of indicators are: pOFactSheet3.pdf change in the number of native fish species easement. The idea is that you would in a reach, upland and riparian forest cover measure change in the indicators over time in a sub-watershed, bank armoring or rate and space in a place where restoration is of bank erosion, number of miles of roads in taking place and compare the change to the a sub-watershed, proportion of sub- condition prior to restoration or to a watershed protected by a conservation

- 226 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 reference condition. The reference condition understand their condition and how could be a positive reference (e.g., historic conditions can change in response to or desired condition) or a negative reference particular actions. This can be done in much (e.g., violable water quality standard or no the same way as you measure restoration reproducing fish). Environmental indicators effectiveness, except that restoration is are discussed in more detail in CWAM more like an experiment in that you can Volume II. control change in the system. Because you can’t easily control the water and land Some indicators change slowly and so are management actions, measuring and measured very seldom (e.g., forest cover), assessing change in watershed condition others change rapidly over hours or days, will consist of comparing your indicators but it is the trend over time that you are with a reference condition or recognized really interested in (e.g., water temperature standards (e.g., water quality standards). or sediment load). To measure Your ability to conclude that certain actions effectiveness of restoration actions requires lead to certain effects will be based on that you have 1) control conditions (e.g., correlation between action and effect, which reference un-treated sites and/or natural is different from direct “cause and effect” condition sites or in some cases knowledge relationships. of historical conditions), 2) dedicated monitoring and evaluation over appropriate Continuing assessment in this case is a time frames (years to decades), 3) a solid combination of measuring restoration theoretical understanding of experimental effectiveness and “ambient monitoring”. design, sampling, and statistics, and 4) a There are a few guidelines to keep in mind desired condition toward which you would when designing an assessment program like your watershed to head. that is intended to evaluate management effects: The California Department of Fish and  Be very clear about what you want Game has developed a manual for to assess; what are the questions? assessing salmon habitat restoration  Initiate monitoring as long as effectiveness (Harris et al., 2005; possible before the management http://nature.berkeley.edu/forestry/comp_pr action occurs to strengthen the oj/dfg.html). This manual includes detailed evaluation of effects. monitoring protocols for evaluating  Make sure the indicators that you restoration of stable banks, culvert fish will monitor and evaluate are very passage, instream habitat, instream closely linked to the likely effects of substrate, riparian and upland vegetation, the management actions so that and upgraded roads. It has been field-tested your “linkage analysis” consists of by the authors and has guidance relevant only one or two steps. beyond just restoration for salmonids.  Try to have a broad range of conditions that you are evaluating. Land and Water Management Effects This will make your statistical analysis and conclusions much more Some management actions will be robust. “restoration”, while others will be the usual  Be sure that the spatial extent and land and water uses which may damage time frames of your data collection the watersheds. The role of watershed and assessment match the scale of assessment in land use and management is activity you are evaluating. described in sections 8.3 to 8.8 above. Most  Consider monitoring the watersheds have multiple human demands management actions themselves as placed upon them and it is reasonable to periodically assess them in order to

well as environmental or ecological data collection intervals for the whole indicators. watershed could be longer (5-10 years).  Consider inviting the organizations or individuals responsible for the Hydrology management actions into the monitoring process so that they can Without gaging stations, basic waterway trust the data and adapt their hydrology cannot be directly measured. decision-making. Without basic waterway hydrology, aquatic habitat conditions, pollutant loads, water 8.10.2 Collecting Monitoring Data supplies, and other properties and functions of watersheds cannot be determined. Just as watershed assessment informs Measuring flows is one of the most critical monitoring programs (section 8.9), new things that can be done in a continuing monitoring will be used in future watershed monitoring program. However, flow assessments. Although there are no monitoring requires a long-term commitment standard return intervals for watershed because short-term data do not reflect the assessment, there are certainly guidelines natural variability of California’s climate. to use to decide when the information on which you have relied has expired. Geomorphology Continuing assessment requires the collection of new data for parameters Landforms change in response to human identified as important for measuring natural activity and natural processes. At the scale change and the effects of restorative and of channel banks, hillslopes, and stream- non-restorative management (e.g., urban beds, the change may be rapid enough to development). There are many potential measure among years and between types of data that you could collect. The assessments. There may be specific sections below describe some examples of indicators of landform change that you can commonly-collected information in the measure as part of a monitoring program to context of assessment as part of an address questions that were raised in your adaptive management cycle. More detailed assessment. These could be things that descriptions of data collection are given in change rapidly and will be discussed in your chapter 4 and CWAM Volume II. next assessment, or indicators of long-term change appropriate for someone to analyze Geographic information decades later. The choice of specific indicators will depend on the questions you An up-to-date geographic information have about the watershed. system (GIS) is an invaluable tool for identifying places needing regular or Water Quality periodic monitoring and for keeping track of certain types of monitoring data. How well Water quality is literally always changing. your GIS reflects current conditions in the Temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen can watershed depends on how regularly you fluctuate over hours, suspended sediment update your spatial data. Expiration and toxic contaminants over hours to days, depends on the scale of your study area. and seasonal conditions or annual loads For small watersheds (10,000 acres), over decades. Ideally, you will have a disturbances can result in dramatic changes database of water quality data for your over short time periods, thus your data watershed that shows daily, seasonal, and collection intervals should be shorter (1-5 annual fluctuations in various parameters. years). For the large watershed-scale Continuing assessment in the case of water (>100,000 acres), change will be gradual quality could consist of the periodic when averaged over the whole area, thus

- 228 - California Watershed Assessment Manual, Chapter Eight June, 2005 collection of data from other organizations determine how much you need and how to conducting monitoring. keep costs down: 1) Spatial extent – how far do your concerns Biological Information extend through the watershed? Are there certain places you could focus on more than Most collection of “biological data” will take others? place through specialists and specialized 2) Sampling intensity – how often do you agencies. You may be in the position to need to sample? How many samples do collect some yourself (e.g., benthic you need to take for each parameter? macroinvertebrate sampling). Either way, 3) Indicators/parameters needed – how the questions you have about the watershed many and which indicators will tell you the and potential impacts to the watershed most about the processes in the watershed should drive your decisions about collecting you are concerned about? Are there and analyzing these data. cheaper, adequate alternatives to the best indicators? Aquatic organisms are a common target for 4) Frequency and intensity of assessment – monitoring and assessment because they do you need to assess everything at a are thought to integrate the effects of regular interval? Can some components be terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem monitored only after channel changes management. This is partly true. It is also during a flood? Are there certain true that communities of aquatic organisms components and actions/processes in the go through their own cycles and have watershed that should be assessed less responses to natural fluctuations in the often than others? Are there other things environment independent of anything that should be assessed very frequently humans are doing at the watershed scale. (e.g., annually)? 5) Monitoring management – are there ways Social Conditions to encourage people influencing the watershed to do part of the monitoring and There are aspects of human communities in provide you with the data? your watershed that may change within years and decades and are important to 8.11References watershed management. There may be changing economic conditions associated Association of Bay Area Governments. with evolving local and regional economies. 1995. Improving our Bay-Delta Estuary There may be changing demographics that Through Local Plans and Programs: A will impact how you communicate with Guidebook for City and County watershed communities. Changes in Governments. Oakland, CA. 21 pp. economics and demographics will be http://www.abag.org difficult to monitor over annual timescales, but there are indicators of social well-being Born, S.M. and K.D. Genskow. 2001. and social valuation that can be monitored Toward understanding new watershed over shorter timeframes. initiatives. A report from the Madison Watershed Workshop (July 20-21, 2000). 8.10.3 Cost-Effective Assessment Univ. of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service and Trout Unlimited. Madison, WI. One consideration for the design of 23 p. (www.tu.org). monitoring and assessment programs is the cost of continued implementation. The California Coastal Conservancy. Watershed expense often leads to inadequate sampling Planning Guide. Prepared by Kate intensity. There are several types of Goodnight. 17 p. considerations for cost that may help you to

(http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/Publ economic, and social assessment. Portland: ications/ws_planning_guide.pdf) USDA-Forest Service.

California Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 1998. California Salmonid Stream Habitat 1994. Draft environmental impact statement Restoration Manual. 3rd edition. and report, proposed Clavey River project, Sacramento. Tuolumne County, California. FERC/EIS- http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb/manual.html 0074D. Washington, DC: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. California Department of Health Services (CDHS). 1999. Drinking Water Source Freeman, J.R., 1912. On the proposed use Assessment and Protection Program. of a portion of the Hetch Hetchy, Eleanor Division of Drinking Water and and Cherry Valleys. San Francisco: Board Environmental Management. Sacramento. of Supervisors.

California Office of Planning and Research Fulton, W. 1999. Guide to California (OPR). General Plan Guidelines. planning. 2nd ed. Solano Press Books. 373 Sacramento. pp.

California Resources Agency (CRA) and Grant, G.E. 1994. Watershed analysis – a State Water Resources Control Board retrospective. Watershed Management (SWRCB). 2002. Addressing the Need to Council Newsletter 6(2):1, 16-17. Protect California’s Watersheds: Working with Local Partnerships. Report to the Grigg, N.S. 1999. Integrated water Legislature. Sacramento. 80 p. resources management: who should lead, who should pay? J. Amer. Water Res. Conservation Technology Information Assoc. 35(3): 527-534. Center (CTIC). 1994. Putting together a watershed management plan: a guide for Harris, R.R., C.M. Olson, S.D. Kocher, J.M. watershed partnerships. 16 p. Know Your Gerstein, W. Stockard and W.E. Weaver Watershed (KYW) Program. (2005). Procedures for Monitoring the http://ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/KYW.html Implementation and Effectiveness of Fisheries Habitat Restoration Projects. Dunne, T., J. Agee, S. Beissinger, W. Center for Forestry, University of California, Dietrich, D. Gray, M. Power, V. Resh, and Berkeley. 24 pp. and attachments K. Rodrigues. 2001. A scientific basis for the prediction of cumulative watershed effects. Huntington, C.W. and S. Sommarstrom. Report 46. Berkeley: University of 2000. An evaluation of selected watershed California, Wildland Resources Center. councils in the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. Prepared for Trout Environment Now and Southern California Unlimited and Pacific Rivers Council. Wetlands Recovery Project. 2002. Portland, OR. (www.pacrivers.org) Watershed management plan characterization report for coastal southern Hyde, C.G., G.H. Wilhelm, and F.C. Miller. California. Prepared for State Water 1916. A report upon possible sources of Resources Control Board. Los Angeles, CA. water supply for the city of Sacramento, 28 p. California. Sacramento: City Commission.

FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Manley, P. N., G. E. Brogan, C. Cook, M. E. Assessment Team). 1993. Forest Flores, D. G. Fuller, S. Husari, T. M. Ecosystem management: An ecological, Jimerson, L. M. Lux, M. E. McCain, J. A.

Rose, G. Schmitt, J. C. Schuyler, and M. J. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., Skinner. 1995. Sustaining ecosystems: a 552 p. conceptual framework. Publication R5-EM- 01. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, National Research Council (NRC). 1999. Pacific Southwest Region. New strategies for America’s watersheds. National Academy of Sciences. Wash. D.C. McCammon, B., J. Rector, and K. Gebhardt. pp. 232-267. 1998. A framework for analyzing the hydrologic condition of watersheds. Denver: Reid, L.M., R.R. Ziemer, and M.J. Furniss. Bureau of Land Management and USDA- 1994. Watershed analysis in the federal Forest Service. arena. Watershed Management Council Newsletter 6(2):6-11. McGurk, B.J. and B. Paulson. 2001. Mokelumne River hydroelectric project Reimold, R.J. (ed) 1998. Watershed relicensing: Collaborative process integrates management: practice, policies, and multiple resource concerns. Proceedings of coordination. McGraw-Hill, NY. 391 p. the Eighth Biennial Watershed Management Council Conference, R.N. Coats and M.P. Riley, Ann L. 1998. Restoring Streams in Carlson, eds. pp.13-22. Water Resources Cities: A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, Center Report 101. Riverside: University of and Citizens. Island Press, Covelo CA. 423 California. p.

Mitchell, B. (editor). 19990. Integrated Saul, S. and T. Faast. 1993. Natural Water Management: International Resource Planning Survival Guide. U.S. Experiences and Perspectives. Belhaven Fish & Wildlife Service and Oregon Dept. of Press, London, United Kingdom. Natural Resources. Portland, OR. 24 p.

Naiman R.J. and 8 others (1992). Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Fundamental elements of ecologically Initiative. 2003. Watershed Action Plan. healthy watersheds in the Pacific Northwest http://www.scbwmi.org/ coastal ecoregion. In: “Watershed management: balancing sustainability and State Water Resources Control Board. environmental change. Ed. R.J. Naiman 2001. Watershed Management Initiative National Association of Counties (NACo). Overview. 4 p. http://www.naco.org/pubs.catalog/index.cfm http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/watershed/index.ht  “Leadership in Watershed Management: ml The County Role” (1999). 86 p.  “Restoring Community Wetlands and USDA-Forest Service. 1994. Record of Watersheds” (1999) decision: Amendments to Forest Service  “Protecting Wetlands, Managing and Bureau of Land Management planning Watersheds…Local Government Case documents within the range of the northern Studies” (1999) spotted owl. Washington, DC: USDA-Forest  “Watershed Management and Service. Sustainable Development in Coastal Counties” (1996) USDA-Forest Service. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale – The National Research Council. 1992. federal guide for watershed analysis. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: http://www.or.blm.gov/ForestPlan/Watershe Science, Technology, and Public Policy. d/

USDA-Forest Service. 1999. Roads Williams, J.E., Wood, C.A., and M.P. analysis: informing decisions about Dombeck, editors. 1997. Watershed managing the national forest transportation Restoration: Principles and Practices. system. Misc. Rep. FS-643. USD American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Agriculture Forest Service, Washington DC, Maryland. 561 p. 222 pp. World Meteorological USDA 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of Organization/UNESCO. 1991. Water scientific information. Page 120 in H. resources assessment: Progress in the Gucinski, M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and Implementation of the Mar del Plata Action M. H. Brookes. Eds, General Technical Plan and a Strategy for the 1990s. 64 p. Report PNW- GTR-509. USD Agriculture Geneva: World Meteorological Forest Service, Washington, DC. Organization.

USDA-Forest Service. 2000. Lake Tahoe Ziemer, Robert R. 2004. Scale Basin watershed assessment. General considerations for linking hillslopes to Technical Report, GTR-PSW-175 and 176. aquatic habitats. Pages 22-32, in: Hermann Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Gucinski et al. (eds.) Proceedings: Views Station. from the ridge: Considerations for planning at the landscape scale. General Technical Washington Department of Ecology (DOE). Report PNW-GTR-596. Portland, OR: U.S. 1998. Guide to Watershed Planning and Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Management. Olympia WA. Northwest Research Station. 133 p. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/99106.html Amendments (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0206005.html)

Using the Assessment in Decision-Making Checklist

 Watershed planning  Restoration Projects  Integrated Water Management Projects o Water Supply Projects o Drinking Water Protection Efforts o Groundwater Management Planning o Water Quality Protection o Floodplain Management  Regulations relating to: o Water quality o Timber harvesting o Federal and state endangered species o Local land-use planning  Voluntary Private Lands Management  Monitoring and Adaptive Management

- 232 -