Landscape-level watershed analysis : an experience report from BLM districts in western Oregon [volume 1]

214 Pages·1994·49.5 MB·English

by  Alverts, Robert

BLM LIBRARY
88072965
LANDSCAPE-LEVEL WATERSHED ANALYSIS
An Experience Report from BLM Districts in Western Oregon
March 1994
Prepared by Robert Alverts
Oregon State Office
Volume 1
«*«&*%*
mqX-.
ID.
IM w &
\y\\v>
LANDSCAPE-LEVEL WATERSHED ANALYSIS
An Experience Report from BLM Districts in Western Oregon
March 1994
Prepared by Robert Alverts
Oregon State Office
_
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND.1
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR.2
Setting Objectives/Developing Key Questions.2
Delineating Units for Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis.3
Setting Priorities for Analysis Areas .4
Organizational Structure and Skills Required.4
EXISTING INFORMATION AND ADDITIONAL DATA NEEDS .5
ANALYTICAL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES .8
Applications to Date.8
Needs/Recommendations .9
PRODUCTS DEVELOPED TO DATE. 10
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION . 11
THE HUMAN DIMENSJON IN WATERSHED ANALYSIS. 11
(Social Assessment, Historical Ecology, Public Involvement)
SUMMARY - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?. 12
w. V-
APPENDICES
Appendix A - BLM Landscape-level Watershed Analysis Guidance Documents
Appendix B - Definition of Terms Used in Table 1
Appendix C - Element and Flow Matrix for Landscape Analysis Units (LAUs)
Appendix D - Watershed CPL Instructions Prepared by Salem District
Appendix E - Testing the SNAP II Model in the Buncom Subwatershed From Ashland Resource
Area, Medford District
Appendix F - Draft Watershed Analysis From Glendale Resource Area, Medford District
Appendix G - Preliminary Tracking Process Linking Proposed Actions to Watershed Analysis
From Glendale Resource Area, Medford District
Appendix H - Interagency Preparation Plan for the Nestucca Basin Watershed Analysis
Appendix I - The Human Dimension in Watershed Analysis (Selected References, Social
Assessment, Historical Ecology, Public Involvement Newsletters)
.
'
Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis March 1994
INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND
Because watersheds are the foundation for implementing ecosystem management, in the spring
of 1993 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) began the complex process of developing
standards and initial procedural criteria for conducting landscape-level watershed analysis on
those districts involved with implementing the President’s Forest Plan for the Pacific Northwest.
Watershed analysis is a tool aimed at helping understand and document the components,
processes, functions, and interactions that occur in a specific geographic area. One of the goals
is to promote the sustainability of watersheds by protecting the processes and functions that
occur within and across different spatial and temporal components.
To accomplish this task, an interdisciplinary team of State and District office specialists was
established. This group met several times in the spring of 1993, reviewing the work others had
done in this area, including the U.S. Forest Service, to help ensure compatibility between the
agencies. An interim landscape-level watershed analysis process was completed by June 1993.
Direction was sent out to the field units in June through Information Bulletin No. OR-93-478;
and additional supplemental guidance was distributed in August via Information Bulletin No.
OR-93-605 and in November by Information Bulletins Nos. OR-94-081 and OR-94-106 (see
Appendix A). It is important to note that BLM’s process matches up with the eight steps of
watershed analysis, listed on page 10 of the Federal Agency Guide to Watershed Analysis.
Several steps detailed in the guidance documents are important to understand. These include:
1) Delineating geographic landscape-level watershed analysis units.
2) Setting priorities for initial landscape-level watershed analysis activities.
3) Identifying major issues, objectives, and content elements for areas selected for
landscape-level watershed analysis.
4) Collecting, organizing, and developing relevant information and products to
describe the landscape analysis unit (LAU).
5) Assessing, interpreting, and reporting on the information to address the issues and
objectives for the LAU.
The Districts have been working on watershed analysis since the summer of 1993. This report
summarizes BLM District activity to date in response to the guidance that has been distributed.
As the report will document, watershed analysis is a complex process that requires a solid
understanding of physical and biological resource elements and related cultural information *
involving all landowners in a subbasin. It is an iterative and evolutionary process that requires
a high degree of expertise that is further complicated in BLM’s case by the checkerboard
ownership pattern which predominates the western Oregon land base. Because of the
Page 1
Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis March 1994
complexities involved and the evolutionary nature of this workload, it is also apparent that
watershed analysis is and will be a time-consuming process, where initially there are often more
questions than answers.
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED SO FAR
Setting Obiectives/Developing Key Questions
As a first step in the watershed analysis process, a listing of key issues and questions important
to specific subwatersheds helps focus the kinds of information that needs to be compiled and/or
generated. This information can be generally grouped into the following categories: landscape
elements (including functions, processes, and flows), landscape conditions, and relationships
between elements and conditions (including both resource and social). The key is to let the
relevant issues drive the analysis.
Some examples of key issues and questions are listed below:
1) How should watershed areas be defined and delineated for analysis?
2) What are the important landscape-level watershed elements (including biological
and physical functions, processes, flows, and conditions) and the relationships
between these elements and human activity/cultural development in a watershed
area needed to assess watershed health and condition. (See matrix of elements
and flows prepared by the Glendale Resource Area, Medford District, in Appendix C).
3) What information is currently available? What is missing but needed?
4) How should information be organized and coordinated?
5) What products should be produced in the watershed analysis process?
6) How should diverse information and data sets between various landowners and
interests be coordinated?
7) How should public involvement be factored into the watershed analysis process?
8) Where is watershed analysis required?
Page 2
Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis March 1994
Delineating Units for Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis
A next step involved delineating units through a nested hierarchy of geographic landscape areas
as shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1
Hierarchy of Geographic Landscape Areas
Water Resource Regions and Subregions (USGS)
Hydrologic Unit (USGS)
Analytical Watershed (RMP)
Landscape Analysis Unit
Subwatershed
Stand-OI Unit (Ecological Site)
Note: These geographic landscape units are "nested" (i.e., aggregations of subunits perfectly
match the larger unit boundaries) and interact with each other (i.e., they cannot be analyzed in
isolation from one another).
Definitions for these terms are listed in Appendix B.
The criteria for delineating LAUs were also developed. Landscape analysis units were to:
1) Be based on natural features.
2) Generally be aggregates of subwatersheds (i.e., they can be no smaller than their
subwatershed and no larger than their analytical watershed).
3) Usually ignore property and administrative boundaries (as well as land use
allocation boundaries in the Resource Management Plans (RMPs)) and incorporate
all ownerships.
4) Edge match with adjacent LAUs (e.g., adjacent Resource Areas, Ranger Districts,
etc.) to preclude gaps or overlaps.
Page 3
Landscape-Level Watershed Analysis March 1994
Setting Priorities for Analysis Areas
The guidance documents instructed Districts to focus their initial efforts on those LAUs where
priority activities were planned for FY 1994-95. This included salmon restoration activities,
timber sales, silvicultural demonstration projects, and other activities that would not preclude
future options.
Organizational Structure and Skills Required
As Districts began to take on this workload, it became clear that interdisciplinary teams were
needed to effectively address the complex issues involved. A variety of team structures were
developed to meet specific needs in each field office, and a full spectrum of skills have been
engaged in watershed analysis work to date.
For example, in the Eugene District each Resource Area has established at least one watershed
analysis team composed of multiple specialists and a team leader. They have also set up a
working group in the Division of Resources to coordinate information gathering and data
conversion, and a working group to address key issues and questions. Similar structures
involving the spectrum of resource programs and skills occur in other Districts and Resource
Areas. To date, Districts have found some skills not adequately represented at the local level
(e.g., social sciences for work on the cultural (human development) elements).
Page 4