Watershed Condition 

Framework

A Framework for Assessing and 

Tracking Changes to Watershed 

Condition

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

FS-977

May 2011

“Restoration, for me, means managing forest lands first 

and foremost to protect our water resources while making 

our forests far more resilient to climate change. In many of 

our forests, restoration will also include efforts to improve 

or decommission roads, to replace and improve culverts, 

and to rehabilitate streams and wetlands. Restoration will 

also mean the rehabilitation of declining ecosystems.”

Tom Vilsack

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture

August 14, 2009 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, 

genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Cover photo: Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming by Andrea Davidson.
Watershed Condition Framework iii

Contributors

Watershed Condition Advisory Team Members (October 2010)

John Potyondy	 Washington Office (WO), Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air and Rare Plants (WFWARP), Stream Systems

Technology Center

Ted Geier	 Eastern Region (R-9), Regional Office, Regional Hydrologist

Penny Luehring	 WO, WFWARP, Watershed Improvement Program Leader

Mark Hudy	 WO, WFWARP, Fish and Aquatic Ecology Unit (FAEU)

Brett Roper	 WO, WFWARP, FAEU

Ron Dunlap	 WO, WFWARP, Assistant Director, Watershed, Fish, and Air (retired)

Tom Doane	 Eastern Region, Deputy Director, Air, Water, Lands, Soils, Minerals and Environmental Engineering/

Services

Greg Kujawa 	 WO, Forest Management

Paul T. Anderson	 WO, Engineering

Jaelith Hall-Rivera 	 WO, Fire and Aviation Management

Jim Keys WO, Ecosystem Management Coordination	

Michael Ielmini WO, Invasive Species Program

Ann Acheson 	 WO, WFWARP Air Program

Ray Thompson 	 WO, Program and Budget

Bob Davis	 Southwestern Region (R-3), Regional Director’s Representative

Sharon Friedman 	 Rocky Mountain Region (R-2), Strategic Planning Director

Karl Dalla Rosa 	 WO, State and Private Forestry (Forest Stewardship Program)

Thomas Brown 	 Rocky Mountain Research Station
iv Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework v

Executive Summary

The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF)is a comprehensive approach for proactively implementing integrated

restoration on priority watersheds on national forests and

grasslands.

The WCF proposes to improve the way the Forest Service approaches watershed restoration by targeting the implementation

of integrated suites of activities in those watersheds that have

been identified as priorities for restoration. The WCF also establishes a nationally consistent reconnaissance-level approach

for classifying watershed condition, using a comprehensive set

of 12 indicators that are surrogate variables representing the

underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions and processes that affect watershed condition. Primary

emphasis is on aquatic and terrestrial processes and conditions

that Forest Service management activities can influence. The

approach is designed to foster integrated ecosystem-based

watershed assessments; target programs of work in watersheds

that have been identified for restoration; enhance communication and coordination with external agencies and partners; and

improve national-scale reporting and monitoring of program

accomplishments. The WCF provides the Forest Service with

an outcome-based performance measure for documenting

improvement to watershed condition at forest, regional, and

national scales.

Why a Watershed Approach?

Watersheds are universal, well-defined areas that 

provide a common basis for discussion of waterrelated resources and landscapes.
vi Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework vii

Executive Summary................................................................v

Introduction.............................................................................1

The Goals of Watershed Restoration ....................................3

Defining Watershed Condition .................................................3

Watershed-Scale Restoration....................................................4

The Six-Step Watershed Condition Framework..................5

Roles and Responsibilities........................................................6

Step A: Classify Watershed Condition .................................9

Step B: Prioritize Watersheds for Restoration ..................11

Forest Service Policy, Direction, and Guidance .....................11

Resource Value .......................................................................13

Estimated Cost ........................................................................13

Step C: Develop Watershed Restoration Action Plans......15

Essential Projects and Approval Process................................15

Step D: Implement Integrated Projects..............................17

Step E: Track Restoration Accomplishments ....................19

Performance Tracking.............................................................19

Performance Measures............................................................19

Step F: Verify and Monitor Watershed Condition Class .21

Tier 1: Verifying for Performance Accountability .................21

Tier 2: Monitoring Watershed and Aquatic Habitat

Conditions...............................................................................21

Literature Cited ....................................................................23

Contents
viii Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 1

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Strategic Plan 

for FY 2010–2015 targets the restoration of watershed and

forest health as a core management objective of the national

forests and grasslands. To achieve this goal, the Forest Service,

an agency of USDA, is directed to restore degraded watersheds

by strategically focusing investments in watershed improvement projects and conservation practices at the landscape and

watershed scales. The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF)

is a comprehensive approach for classifying watershed condition, proactively implementing integrated restoration in priority

watersheds on national forests and grasslands, and tracking

and monitoring outcome-based program accomplishments for

performance accountability.

In a 2006 review of the Forest Service Watershed Program, the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concluded that the

agency lacked a nationally consistent approach to prioritizing

watersheds for improvement (OMB 2006). The OMB also noted

that current Forest Service direction for tracking watershed

condition class (FSM 2521) was vague, open to varied interpretation, and insufficient to consistently evaluate watershed

condition or track how the condition changes over time. To

address these issues, the Forest Service formed a National

Watershed Condition Team and tasked it with developing a

consistent, science-based approach to classify the condition

of all National Forest System (NFS) watersheds and to develop

outcome-based performance measures for watershed restoration.

The watershed condition policy goal of the Forest Service is “to

protect National Forest System watersheds by implementing

practices designed to maintain or improve watershed condition,

which is the foundation for sustaining ecosystems and the

production of renewable natural resources, values, and benefits”

(FSM 2520). Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack reemphasized this policy in his “Vision for the Forest Service,” when he

stated that restoring watershed and forest health would be the

primary management objective of the Forest Service (USDA

2010). To help implement this new policy emphasis, the Forest

Service developed the WCF.

The WCF provides a consistent way to evaluate watershed

condition at both the national and forest levels. Watershed

condition assessments by individual national forests are critical

because local national forest staffs are the closest to the ground

and best understand existing conditions. The WCF consists of

reconnaissance-level assessments by individual national forests,

implementation of integrated improvement activities within

priority watersheds, validation and monitoring of watershed

condition class changes, and aggregation of program performance data for national reporting.

Introduction
2 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 3

The Goals of Watershed Restoration

Watersheds that are functioning properly have five important

characteristics (Williams et al. 1997):

1.	 They provide for high biotic integrity, which includes

habitats that support adaptive animal and plant communities

that reflect natural processes.

2.	 They are resilient and recover rapidly from natural and

human disturbances.

3.	 They exhibit a high degree of connectivity longitudinally

along the stream, laterally across the floodplain and valley

bottom, and vertically between surface and subsurface flows.

4.	 They provide important ecosystem services, such as highquality water, the recharge of streams and aquifers, the

maintenance of riparian communities, and the moderation of

climate variability and change.

5.	 They maintain long-term soil productivity.

Watershed condition classification is the process of describing

watershed condition in terms of discrete categories (or classes)

that reflect the level of watershed health or integrity. In the

context of this framework, watershed health and integrity are

conceptually the same (Regier 1993): watersheds with high

integrity are in an unimpaired condition in which ecosystems

show little or no influence from human actions (Lackey 2001).

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) uses three classes to describe

watershed condition (USDA Forest Service 2004a, FSM 2521.1):

Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic,

and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

Class 3 watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.

The FSM classification defines watershed condition in terms

of “geomorphic, hydrologic and biotic integrity” relative to

“potential natural condition.” In this context, integrity relates

directly to functionality. Geomorphic functionality or integrity

can be defined in terms of attributes such as slope stability,

soil erosion, channel morphology, and other upslope, riparian,

and aquatic habitat characteristics. Hydrologic functionality or

integrity relates primarily to flow, sediment, and water-quality

attributes. Biological functionality or integrity is defined by

the characteristics that influence the diversity and abundance

The watershed condition goal of the Forest Service is “to

protect National Forest System watersheds by implementing

practices designed to maintain or improve watershed condition” (FSM 2520.2). The WCF provides a means to achieve

this goal by—

•	 Establishing a systematic process for determining

watershed condition class that all national forests can apply

consistently.

•	 Fostering integrated ecosystem-based approaches for

managing watersheds and aquatic resources.

•	 Strengthening the effectiveness of the Forest Service to

maintain and restore the productivity and resilience of watersheds and their associated aquatic systems on NFS lands.

•	 Improving the internal dialog among disciplines to focus

and integrate programs of work to efficiently maintain and

restore watersheds and aquatic ecosystems.

•	 Enabling a coordinated and priority-based approach for

allocating resources to restore watersheds.

•	 Enhancing coordination with external agencies and partners

in watershed management and aquatic species recovery efforts.

•	 Improving national-scale reporting of watershed condition.

Defining Watershed Condition

Watershed condition is the state of the physical and biological

characteristics and processes within a watershed that affect the

soil and hydrologic functions supporting aquatic ecosystems.

Watershed condition reflects a range of variability from natural

pristine (functioning properly) to degraded (severely altered

state or impaired). Watersheds that are functioning properly

have terrestrial, riparian, and aquatic ecosystems that capture,

store, and release water, sediment, wood, and nutrients within

their range of natural variability for these processes. When

watersheds are functioning properly, they create and sustain

functional terrestrial, riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats

that are capable of supporting diverse populations of native

aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. In general, the greater

the departure from the natural pristine state, the more impaired

the watershed condition is likely to be. Watersheds that are

functioning properly are commonly referred to as healthy

watersheds.
4 Watershed Condition Framework

of aquatic species, terrestrial vegetation, and soil productivity.

In each case, integrity is evaluated in the context of the natural

disturbance regime, geoclimatic setting, and other important

factors within the context of a watershed. The definition

encompasses both aquatic and terrestrial components, because

water quality and aquatic habitat are inseparably related to the

integrity and, therefore, the functionality of upland and riparian

areas within a watershed.

The three watershed condition classes are directly related to the

degree or level of watershed functionality or integrity:

Class 1 = Functioning Properly.

Class 2 = Functioning at Risk.

Class 3 = Impaired Function.

In this framework, we characterize a watershed in good condition as one that is functioning in a manner similar to natural

wildland conditions (Karr and Chu 1999, Lackey 2001). This

characterization should not be interpreted to mean that managed watersheds cannot be in good condition. A watershed is

considered to be functioning properly if the physical attributes

are appropriate to maintain or improve biological integrity.

This consideration implies that a Class 1 watershed in properly

functioning condition has minimal undesirable human impact

on natural, physical, or biological processes and is resilient and

able to recover to the desired condition when or if disturbed

by large natural disturbances or land management activities

(Yount and Neimi 1990). By contrast, a Class 3 watershed has

impaired function because some physical, hydrological, or

biological threshold has been exceeded. Substantial changes to

the factors that caused the degraded state are commonly needed

to set them on a trend or trajectory of improving conditions that

sustain physical, hydrological, and biological integrity.

Defining specific classes for watershed condition is obviously

subjective and, therefore, problematic for several reasons. First,

watershed condition is not directly observable (Suter 1993). In

nature, no distinct lines separate a watershed that is functioning

properly from impaired condition, and every classification

scheme is arbitrary to some extent. Second, watershed condition is a mental construct that has numerous definitions and

interpretations in the scientific literature (Lackey 2001). Third,

the attributes that reflect the state of a watershed are continually changing because of natural disturbances (e.g., wildfire,

landslides, floods, insects, and disease), natural variability of

ecological processes (e.g., flows and cycles of energy, nutrients, and water), climate variability and change, and human

modifications.

Watershed-Scale Restoration

The most effective way to approach complex ecological issues

is to consider them at the watershed level, where the fundamental

connection among all components of the landscape is the network

of streams that defines the watershed (Heller 2004, National

Research Council 1999, Newbold 2002, Ogg and Keith 2002,

Reid et al. 1996, Sedell et al. 2000, Smith et al. 2005, Williams

et al. 1997). Watersheds are easily identified on maps and on

the ground, and their boundaries do not change much over time

(Reid et al. 1996). Watersheds are also readily recognized by

local communities and resonate with members of the public as

a logical way to address resource management issues.

Watersheds are integral parts of broader ecosystems and can

be viewed and evaluated at a variety of spatial scales. Because

watersheds are spatially located landscape features uniformly

mapped for the entire United States at multiple scales, they are

ideal for tracking accomplishments both in terms of outputs

(acres treated on the ground) and outcomes (improvement in

watershed condition class). To avoid double counting, we report

accomplishments and outcomes by each watershed’s unique

hydrologic unit code (HUC). A watershed’s condition class

integrates the effect of all activities within a watershed; therefore,

watersheds provide an ideal mechanism for interpreting the

cumulative effect of a multitude of management actions on soil

and hydrologic function. Finally, many hydrologic and aquatic

restoration issues can be properly addressed only within the

confines of watershed boundaries. Watersheds provide an excellent

basis for developing restoration plans that can treat a multitude

of resource problems in a structured, comprehensive manner.

Many terrestrial ecological restoration issues are poorly

addressed, however, in a watershed context. Ecological

restoration involves replacing lost or damaged biological

elements (populations, species) and reestablishing ecological

processes (dispersal, succession) at historical rates. Ecological

restoration, because it deals with vegetation and wildlife

species composition, structure, pattern, and diversity, may not

affect soil and hydrologic function. Consequently, ecological restoration and condition are often best evaluated using

ecological stratifications such as those depicted in the map

Bailey’s Ecoregions and Subregions of the United States,

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands (Bailey 1995), rather

than watersheds.
Watershed Condition Framework 5

The Six-Step Watershed Condition Framework

The process is more strategic, better integrated, and more likely

to contribute to long-term change in watershed conditions than

current project-level improvement activities that may not be

coordinated at the forest level. The WCF consists of an iterative

process involving six steps (fig. 1).

The six steps of the WCF are—

Step A:	 Classify the condition of all 6th-level watersheds in

the national forest by using existing data layers, local

knowledge, and professional judgment.

Step B:	 Prioritize watersheds for restoration: establish a small

set of priority watersheds for targeted improvement

equivalent to a 5-year program of work.

Step C:	 Develop Watershed Restoration Action Plans that

identify comprehensive project-level improvement

activities.

Step D:	 Implement integrated suites of projects in priority

watersheds.

Step E:	 Track restoration accomplishments for performance

accountability.

Step F:	 Verify accomplishment of project activities and monitor improvement of watershed and stream conditions.

The scope of the WCF is broad and it encompasses multiple

resource areas. The Forest Service Watershed Program,

as defined by OMB and the Forest Service Strategic Plan,

encompasses all Forest Service activities that contribute to

improved watershed condition (OMB 2006, USDA Forest

Service 2004b), including soil and water improvements,

vegetation management, reforestation, range management,

wildlife and fisheries improvements, road decommissioning,

and other activities. Watershed restoration refers to activities

that improve the conditions of watersheds, restore degraded

habitats, and provide long-term protection to soils and aquatic

and riparian resources. All management activities that influence watershed condition have a role to play in this context.

The WCF represents a paradigm shift in watershed restoration for the Forest Service (Bohn and Kershner 2002, Heller

2004, Sedell et al. 2000) in that it provides a framework to

treat whole watersheds with an integrated set of watershedscale restoration treatments (table 1). Working with entire

watersheds makes it possible to reestablish the structure and

function of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its

condition before human disturbance (Williams et al. 1997). In

the context of the WCF, watershed restoration is a comprehensive, long-term program to restore watershed health, riparian

ecosystems, fish habitats, and soil productivity (Ziemer 1997).

Table 1.—Characteristics of the new paradigm proposed by this framework compared with the old paradigm for restoring aquaticand riparian-dependent resources (Heller 2004).

New Paradigm (Watershed Condition Framework) Old Paradigm

1. The “best” watersheds are treated first. Highest priority treatments 

remove risk factors that may threaten the integrity of the 

watershed.

1. The “worst” watersheds are treated first. Highest priority is to 

create desired habitat conditions for stream segments/sites in the 

worst condition.

2. Efforts focus on a few priority watersheds. 2. Treatments tend to focus on stream segments or sites. They are 

scattered over several watersheds.

3. Watershed analysis precedes project work, identifies key 

processes, and prioritizes areas and associated treatment 

approaches that address “causes.”

3. Analysis is generally limited to the project scale and to addressing 

site-scale conditions. Treatments address “symptoms.”

4. A wide range of treatments are generally integrated at a watershed 

scale and sequenced based on an overall work plan.

4. A narrow range of treatments usually focuses on individual sites. 

They are not integrated at the watershed scale.

5. Suites of essential projects are completed in a watershed before 

work emphasis shifts to the next priority watershed.

5. Highest priority work is completed on individual areas or sites 

located in a number different watersheds.

6. Partnerships are an essential part of restoration. Skills and 

resources are strongly leveraged.

6. Partnerships are limited in number and scope. Skills and resources 

are only somewhat leveraged.
6 Watershed Condition Framework

National forest units, with regional support, are primarily

responsible for implementing the WCF. Forests must link

local priorities with regional and national priorities, implement

projects, and track costs and changes to watershed condition

class. Regions provide valuable oversight to ensure program

consistency. National leadership uses the assessment information gathered during the WCF process to establish national

priorities, evaluate Forest Service program performance, and

communicate results to interested stakeholders and customers.

Roles and Responsibilities

The following roles and responsibilities pertain to Watershed

Condition Assessment (FSM 2521) and Watershed Improvement (FSM 2522).

The Director of the Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare

Plants Program Staff, Washington Office (WO), has the

responsibility to—

•	 Consult and coordinate with other Federal agencies to

develop approaches and guidance for watershed delineation,

watershed assessment, and classification of watershed

condition.

•	 Develop criteria and standards for classifying watershed

condition for the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA) assessment, forest plans, and program development.

•	 Develop criteria for determining and displaying watershed

condition trends for the GPRA assessment, forest plans, and

program development.

•	 Use the results of watershed condition analyses for the

GPRA assessment and as a basis for defining needs and

opportunities in the program alternatives.

•	 Develop policy and program direction and assign targets for

the watershed improvement program.

Regional foresters have the responsibility to—

•	 Develop guidelines and procedures, based on national

criteria and standards, for establishing priorities for

assessing and monitoring watershed conditions and trends.

Ensure that assessment and monitoring data are available in

a corporate database. Provide technical and administrative

oversight of the forest classification process.

•	 Determine how watershed condition will be integrated in

regional, forest, and project planning processes.

Step A:

Classify

Watershed

Condition

Six-Step

Process

Step D:

Implement

Integrated

Projects

Step B:

Prioritize

Watersheds for

Restoration

Step F:

Monitor

and

Verify

Step C:

Develop

Watershed

Restoration

Action Plans

Step E:

Track

Restoration 

Accomplishments

Figure 1.—Conceptual diagram of the six-step watershed condition framework process. 
Watershed Condition Framework 7

•	 Work with States, tribes, and other interested parties to

identify watersheds as priorities for protection, management,

and improvement.

•	 Use economic and environmental analyses to help identify

opportunities for improving and maintaining watershed

conditions.

•	 Establish regional priority guidelines for watershed

improvement projects.

•	 Establish and maintain a corporate database of watershed

improvement needs.

•	 Provide training for personnel involved in watershed

improvement planning, project implementation,

maintenance, monitoring, and reviews.

Forest supervisors have the responsibility to—

•	 Assess (classify watershed condition) and monitor

watershed conditions and trends and enter data into a

corporate database.

•	 Work with States, tribes, local governments, and other

interested parties to identify watersheds as priorities for

protection and management and for improvement.

•	 Coordinate watershed priorities and resource management

activities on NFS lands to attain forest plan goals and

objectives for watershed condition.

•	 Cooperate with other agencies, groups, and individuals

whose plans or proposals affect watershed conditions on

NFS lands.

•	 Maintain a watershed improvement needs inventory in a

corporate database.

•	 Identify priority watersheds for restoration; develop and

approve prescriptions and plans for a forest watershed

improvement program. Delegate the development of detailed

prescriptions and plans to the district rangers when expertise

is available at the district level.

•	 Ensure that funded watershed condition improvement

projects are accomplished and that treatment measures are

implemented as prescribed and approved.

Each of the six sequential steps of the WCF is discussed in

greater detail in this framework. The intent of this framework is

to provide sufficient guidance for consistent implementation of

the WCF by national forests.
8 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 9

Step A: Classify Watershed Condition

Watershed classification will adhere to the following guidance:

•	 Forests will follow the classification direction in the Forest 

Service Watershed Condition Technical Guide (USDA

Forest Service 2011).

•	 All national forests will classify 6th-level HUC watersheds

into one of three Forest Service Watershed Condition

Classes (FSM 2521.1): Class 1—Functioning Properly;

Class 2—Functioning at Risk; Class 3—Functionally

Impaired.

•	 An interdisciplinary team will classify watershed conditions.

The classification process is office based and requires

approximately 1 week for resource specialists to assemble

necessary information and 1 week for the interdisciplinary

team to classify all 6th-level watersheds.

•	 Classification is required for all 6th-level watersheds that

contain any NFS lands.

•	 The classification will use the 12 core national indicators

(fig. 2).

Watershed Condition Indicators

(12-Indicator Model)

Aquatic

Physical

(Weight = 30%)

1. Water Quality

1. Impaired Waters 

(303d Listed)

2. Water Quality 

Problems (Not 

Listed)

3. Aquatic Habitat

1. Habitat 

Fragmentation

2. Large Woody Debris

3. Channel Shape and 

Function

2. Water Quantity

1. Flow Characteristics

5. Riparian/Wetland 

Vegetation

1. Vegetation 

Condition

4. Aquatic Biota

1. Life Form Presence

2. Native Species

3. Exotic and/or 

Invasive Species

6. Roads & Trails

1. Open Road Density

2. Road Maintenance

3. Proximity to Water

4. Mass Wasting

8. Fire Regime or 

Wildfire

1. Fire Condition Class

or

2. Wildfire Effects

7. Soils

1. Soil Productivity

2. Soil Erosion

3. Soil Contamination

9. Forest Cover

1. Loss of Forest

Cover

10. Rangeland 

Vegetation

1. Vegetation

Condition

11. Terrestrial

Invasive Species

1. Extent and Rate 

of Spread

12. Forest Health

1. Insects and Disease

2. Ozone

Aquatic

Biological

(Weight = 30%)

Terrestrial

Physical

(Weight = 30%)

Terrestrial

Biological

(Weight = 10%)

Figure 2.—Core national watershed condition indicators and attributes.
10 Watershed Condition Framework

•	 Classification data will be stored in the corporate Watershed

Classification and Assessment Tracking Tool (WCATT) and

updated annually.

•	 The WO Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants

Program Staff will have primary responsibility for national

technical oversight, and members of the Watershed Condition Advisory Team will assist them. This oversight includes

managing the change process, ensuring consistency among

regions, and providing national Geographic Information

System data products and software for use in classification.

•	 The regional offices will oversee the forest classification

processes. This oversight includes ensuring consistency

among the forests in the region, approving the use of

forest modifications to attributes and the override option,

coordinating classification with adjoining regions and

national forests, and consulting with the WO when

significant modifications are approved.
Watershed Condition Framework 11

Step B: Prioritize Watersheds for Restoration

Under the WCF, the task of identifying watersheds for restoration is left to the discretion of national forests within the broad

framework of national direction, regional emphasis, forest plan

direction, resource value, costs, local issues, needs, the amount

of NFS lands, and opportunities. Selecting watersheds for

restoration is a distinct process that takes place after watershed

classification (Step A) has been completed. The amount of NFS

lands and the ability to effect a change in watershed condition

are important considerations in the priority-setting process.

The Forest Service does not have the capability to improve the

condition of every watershed. The ability to improve watershed

condition is contingent on many factors, including the percent

of the Forest Service’s ownership, ownership location and pattern, source and degree of disturbances, existing partnerships,

and other factors. One of the most important factors is the size

of the watershed; the smaller the watershed, the more likely

it will be to show change to watershed conditions. Sixth-level

HUC watersheds1 were chosen specifically as the base for

tracking improvement to watershed condition because they

are, on average, 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size. Consequently,

6th-level watersheds are the scale used for priority watersheds.

Forests should identify an appropriate number of watersheds

for maintenance or improvement that correspond to a reasonable and achievable program of work over the next 5 years

within current budget levels. Priority watersheds are the

designated watersheds where restoration activities will concentrate on the explicit goal of maintaining or improving

watershed condition. The number of priority watersheds will

vary by national forest but is expected to range from one to

five, given current funding levels.

The identification of watersheds will use an interdisciplinary

team process that includes representatives from soil, water,

range, wildlife and fish, engineering, vegetation, planning,

fuels, and others as appropriate. The forest supervisor needs to

approve the priority watershed. For cases in which one or more

forests share watersheds, the affected forests and regions will

need to work together to ensure that the selection of watersheds

is coordinated. The participation of partners (local, State, tribal,

other Federal agencies, and interest groups) in the watershed

prioritization process is both expected and highly encouraged.

In summary, the prioritization of watersheds is a forest-based

interdisciplinary process with the goal of aligning watershed

restoration work with both internal and external priorities. The

identification of priority watersheds is based on the following:

•	 Agency watershed restoration policies and priorities that

have been established at other scales, including national- and

regional-scale restoration strategies.

•	 The importance of water and watershed resources (resource

value), the urgency of management action to address conditions and threats, and economic considerations.

•	 Alignment with other Forest Service strategic objectives and

priorities.

•	 Alignment with the strategies and priorities of other Federal

and State agencies, tribes, community and collaborative

efforts, nongovernmental conservation organizations, and

public desires.

Forest Service Policy, Direction, and 

Guidance

All watershed prioritization occurs within the context of

national-, regional-, and forest-level decisionmaking. The

following sections address direction for watershed condition for

each organizational level.

National Direction 

National direction for watershed condition is contained in the

USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for FY 2007–2012 (USDA

Forest Service 2007). Goal 1 is to “Restore, sustain, and enhance

the Nation’s forests and grasslands” (USDA Forest Service

2007). Objective 1.5 is to “Restore and maintain healthy

watersheds and diverse habitats” (USDA Forest Service 2007).

1 In the context of WCF, the terms watershed and hydrologic unit are used synonymously. Hydrologic units, however, are truly synonymous only with the

classic watershed definition when their boundaries include all the source area contributing surface water to a single defined outlet point. For the intended uses

of the WCF, this distinction is relatively unimportant. Also, strictly speaking, 6th-level HUCs are called subwatersheds. We use the term watershed to include

a wide range of watershed sizes.
12 Watershed Condition Framework

National policy is to use watershed conditions to help prioritize

watersheds and consider resource factors, risks, values and

benefits, economics, social factors, and partnership opportunities when setting priorities (FSM 2521.11b). Priorities

for improving watershed condition are assigned in order of

decreasing importance as follows (FSM 2522.03):

•	 Those posing menace to life or property because of flood

threats or possible mud or debris flows.

•	 Those needing action to maintain water quality or achieve

other forest plan goals and objectives.

•	 Those not meeting, or facing an imminent threat of not

meeting, water quality requirements of the forest plan.

Annual Vegetation and Watershed Program direction priorities

are to maintain high-value watersheds and to improve degraded

watersheds. Emphasis is on the following (USDA Forest

Service 2009):

•	 Maintaining watersheds that have important ecological values, such as those with designations of Outstanding Natural

Resource Waters, Class A/Blue Ribbon fisheries, Class I Air

sheds, Biodiversity Hotspots, etc.

•	 Improving impaired ecosystems, such as those with Clean

Water Act § 303(d): listed waters, threatened or endangered

species, poor air quality, invasive species, or degraded vegetation conditions and those where improvement or restoration activities are necessary to meet regulatory requirements

or meet desired condition objectives.

The FY 2011 Forest Service Program Direction emphasizes

concentrating restoration activities in a few select locations to

show meaningful improvement to watershed condition.

“The overarching priority for restoration is on the

implementation of integrated ecosystem restoration

projects on priority [targeted] watersheds at the

hydrologic unit code (HUC) 6 scale, with the goal of

improving the targeted watershed’s condition class.

Priority should be given to implementing integrated

ecosystem restoration projects that are collaborative

and part of an all-land, large-scale conservation

strategy. Restoration efforts are to focus on repairing

impairments to the natural diversity and ecological

dynamics of National Forest System (NFS) lands;

providing ecosystem services that are important

to the public including clean and abundant water,

renewable energy from biomass, restored wildlife

and fish habitat, forest products, and resilient forests

and rangelands; and stabilizing and creating jobs”

(1417–1418).

The intent of the national direction is to, first and foremost, protect high-value watersheds already in good condition, maintain

the condition of watersheds to keep them from becoming

threatened and, then, improve those in an impaired condition.

Decisions to designate highly altered watersheds as priority

watersheds need to be carefully considered because the Forest

Service could invest large amounts of funding and resources

trying to repair only a few, badly impaired watersheds that may

never recover. Passive restoration, allowing natural processes

to return to a watershed by stopping activities that cause

degradation or prevent recovery, can be a cost-effective solution for some watersheds. Another way to maintain watershed

conditions is to invest funding in maintenance activities, such

as implementing best management practices, maintaining

roads, managing range allotment, or conducting other activities

to prevent further degradation (e.g., keep a Class 1 watershed

from slipping into Class 2 condition). Although maintenance

is important to protect watershed condition, the Forest Service

currently has no mechanism for capturing this benefit in the

performance accountability process. Implementing the National

Best Management Practices Implementation and Effectiveness

Monitoring Program is expected to provide the Forest Service

with a partial mechanism for capturing the costs and benefits of

actions taken to maintain watershed condition.

Regional Direction 

Each region has specific management direction and emphasis

areas that pertain to forest management and watershed condition. Each national forest is advised to tier its priorities to

regional guidance, as appropriate. The following examples

from two regions demonstrate different approaches to watershed restoration.

The Pacific Northwest Region uses the following set of key

principles to guide watershed restoration:

•	 Protect, restore, and enlarge refuge areas.

•	 Focus on effective treatments in priority areas.

•	 Implement activities restoring ecosystem processes and

natural disturbance regimes.

•	 Learn through monitoring, researching, and adaptive

management.

The focus of the Northern Region Integrated Restoration and

Protection Strategy is to manage an integrated approach for the

following:
Watershed Condition Framework 13

•	 Restore and maintain high-value watersheds in properly

functioning condition.

•	 Restore and maintain wildlife habitats, including restoration

of more resilient vegetation conditions, where appropriate,

to meet ecological and social goals.

•	 Protect people, structures, and community infrastructure

(roads, bridges, and power corridors) in and associated with

the wildland-urban interface.

Forest Plan Direction

Each national forest implements restoration direction from its

land and resource management plan. Most forest plans include

established priorities based on some combination of watershed

condition derived from watershed analysis, values at risk,

and the degree to which known impacts and threats could be

feasibly and effectively addressed from technical, legal, political, social, and economic perspectives, including partnership

opportunities.

Watershed restoration direction in many forest plans applies

at a larger scale—the 5th-level HUC. In these cases, forests

may wish to select all 6th-level watersheds within an important

5th-level watershed as their prioritized watersheds.

Resource Value

The following simple ranking approach (High, Moderate) is

provided as an efficient way to estimate the relative resource

value of each classified watershed. Forests may use more

comprehensive approaches if they wish (e.g., Calkin et al. 2007).

The rapid assessment proposed used here is simple, intending

to rate watersheds in an efficient manner using available

information. The assessment should take no more than 1 day,

and the interdisciplinary team of each forest should tailor the

assessment to the context of the local ecosystems and pertinent

resource issues.

In this resource value assessment, we define resource value

from the perspective of environmental and ecological value

rather than from a commodity value viewpoint. Typically,

watersheds with the highest resource values should receive the

highest priority for protection or improvement.

The proposed assessment requires identifying the resource

values associated with the special designations listed below.

The forest interdisciplinary team rates each watershed.

Watersheds meeting at least one of the special designations are

ranked High; the others are rated Moderate.

•	 Designated wilderness.

•	 Experimental watersheds and research natural areas.

•	 Designated municipal watersheds (source-water protection

areas).

•	 Outstanding Resource Waters or other status to protect water

quality or supplies.

•	 Designated protection area or habitat for aquatic threatened

and endangered species (e.g., fish, amphibians, or mussels).

•	 Blue Ribbon Trout Streams or similar State or other

designations.

•	 Wild and scenic rivers (designated or eligible study

segments) or other unique recreational uses.

•	 Forest-specified resource value of a unique local characteristic.

Estimated Cost

A simple interval-scale ranking process is proposed to provide

a coarse-scale estimate of the magnitude of costs and other

investments that will be needed to improve the condition

of individual watersheds. One can think of this process as a

simple economic-feasibility ranking for preliminary planning

purposes. The intent is to ensure that economics is considered

in establishing priorities.

Forests need to recognize that this process will not be a precise

estimate and should plan to spend no more than 1 day estimating

cost categories. This lack of precision is because the activities

that will need to be done to improve watershed conditions are

only partially to poorly known at this time. Consequently, a

coarse, qualitative assessment is appropriate.

For each watershed, estimate the total cost of all investments

and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consultation

necessary to move the watershed to an improved condition

class; consider watershed size, location, and the complexity and

cost of anticipated activities and assign it one of the following

five categories. This estimate will only be used to inform

priority setting.

Cost Category 1	 < $100,000

Cost Category 2 	 $100,000 to $1 million

Cost Category 3 	 $1 million to $5 million

Cost Category 4 	 $5 million to $15 million

Cost Category 5 	 > $15 million
14 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 15

Step C: Develop Watershed Restoration Action Plans

For priority watersheds, forests will develop a Watershed

Restoration Action Plan that identifies specific projects necessary to improve watershed condition class.

A detailed field assessment is the basis for the action plan.

The assessment should document specific problems affecting

watershed and ecological conditions; identify appropriate

projects that address these problems; propose an implementation schedule; and project sequencing, potential partners,

funding sources, monitoring, and evaluation.

A typical Watershed Restoration Action Plan would include

the following categories:

1.	 Executive Summary

a.	 Watershed Name, HUC

b.	 General Location

c.	 Watershed Area

d.	 General Physiography

e.	 Land Use

f.	 Key Problems

g.	 Restoration Opportunities/Priorities

2.	Watershed Characteristics and Conditions

a.	 General Context/Overview

(1)	 Climate

(2)	 Hydrology

(3)	 Geomorphology

(4)	 Fisheries

(5)	 Other Resources

b.	 Watershed Conditions

(1)	 Uplands/Hillslope Conditions

(2)	 Riparian Conditions

(3)	 Inchannel Habitat Conditions

3.	 Restoration Goals, Objectives, and Opportunities

a.	 Goal Identification and Desired Condition

b.	 Objectives, Existing and Post-Project Watershed

Condition Class

c.	 Opportunities

d.	 Specific Project Activities (Essential Projects)

e.	 Costs

f.	 Timelines and Project Scheduling

g.	 Partners

4.	 Restoration Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Acceptable watershed assessment methods must be used to

analyze watershed condition and make recommendations for

needed improvements. Examples of accepted methods include

the following: Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale

(Regional Ecosystem Office 1995), Hydrologic Condition

Analysis (McCammon et al. 1998), Total Maximum Daily Load

assessments, and Watershed Improvement Needs inventories.

Forests may use other methods (Bohn and Kershner 2002,

Rosgen 2006), provided the assessment method has sufficient

information about watershed function and processes to determine

specific problems and current and desired watershed conditions,

and if it provides information that can be used to identify

restoration activities.

The field-based watershed condition assessment will be documented in a Watershed Restoration Action Plan that synthesizes

problems, actions, and timelines. Identifying essential projects

is a primary goal.

Essential Projects and Approval 

Process

Essential projects are a discreet group of conservation actions

and treatments that are implemented as an integrated suite of

on-the-ground management activities focused primarily on

restoring watershed health and thereby improving watershed

condition class. They may include practices such as soil and

water improvement, fisheries and aquatic resource habitat

improvement, aquatic organism passage improvement, road

decommissioning, road maintenance, upslope surface erosion

control, reforestation, hazardous fuel reduction, restoring fireadapted ecosystems, obtaining instream flows, negotiating flow

regime changes below reservoirs, or other activities that when

implemented, sustain or improve a watershed’s condition class.

Essential projects either directly correct a problem (e.g.,

restore an abandoned mine) or substantially reduce risk to soil,

hydrologic, or riparian function (e.g., invasive weed treatment,

hazardous fuels reduction, or off-highway vehicle damage
16 Watershed Condition Framework

prevention). Essential projects may be individual projects or a

group of projects that cumulatively require work or action to

maintain or improve watershed condition class. A watershed

will generally require a suite of essential projects to move it to

a better condition class (e.g., decommission 5 roads, upgrade

15 culverts, change a grazing system, remove 3 check dams,

remove hazardous fuels from 30 acres of riparian area, and

restore native riparian vegetation).

Essential projects in a priority watershed target multiple

resource issues and are funded from many fund codes. Federal,

State, or other partners interested in watershed restoration may

also finance essential projects.

Although emphasis is on on-the-ground work, essential projects

can also include planning aspects associated with air quality

regulatory activities that result in improved watershed condition.

Because air quality and watershed condition are directly

linked, forests have the ability to identify “active participation

in the air regulatory process” as an essential project for those

watersheds affected by air pollution. Similar to other essential

projects, credit will be taken when projects are completed,

rather than when positive effects fully manifest themselves.

An interdisciplinary team identifies essential projects, and then

the appropriate line officer reviews and considers the project

recommendations put forward by the interdisciplinary team.

The watershed is considered to have moved to an improved

condition class and reported as such when all of the essential

projects necessary to move a watershed to an improved class

and identified in a Watershed Restoration Action Plan are

completed.
Watershed Condition Framework 17

Step D: Implement Integrated Projects

Treating whole watersheds with an integrated set of watershedscale restoration treatments is no trivial matter. On average,

a complex integrated watershed restoration process, from

watershed analysis to action plan completion, may take 5 to

6 years, or longer.

The planning phase alone may take 3 years or more. This phase

includes meeting NEPA requirements to assess the potential

environmental consequences of the watershed improvement

project, evaluation of alternatives, and opportunity for public

review and comment. Significant time may be needed for

fieldwork and analysis to support the Watershed Restoration

Action Plan followed by project design for specific treatments.

These planning tasks may cost hundreds of thousands of

dollars for a typical project.

To be truly effective, most watershed-based restoration efforts

require the involvement of partners. Collaboration has many

benefits, but it may be time-consuming to obtain the support

of interested parties.

Once planning is completed, because of the numerous projects

typically included in a Watershed Restoration Action Plan,

many restoration projects can be expected to have a 3-year or

longer implementation phase. A watershed is considered to

have moved to an improved condition class and is reported as

such when all of the essential projects identified in a Watershed

Restoration Action Plan are completed.
18 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 19

Step E: Track Restoration Accomplishments

For tracking restoration accomplishments, changes to watershed

condition will most likely result from planned, active restoration

in priority watersheds. A change in watershed condition class

may, however, occur for a variety of other reasons, and change

may occur in prioritized or other watersheds, for example, because of management actions, as the result of natural disturbances,

or even as a consequence of climate change. Other factors that

could cause a change to watershed conditions unrelated to

priority watersheds might include a State water-quality agency

declaring that a listed water body is now in compliance with

State water-quality standards, a negotiated change to the flow

regime of a reservoir, wildfires, natural disasters, or other

watershed altering activities. The direction of change to a

watershed’s condition could be positive or negative and may

affect priority or other watersheds. This complexity introduces

a level of uncertainty into the watershed condition class tracking

process. Therefore, watershed condition class changes need

to be care-fully interpreted to understand the causes of those

changes. The working assumption is that most of the changes

reflected in performance accountability will be driven by

actions in priority watersheds.

The WCATT tracks watershed condition class for all 6th-level

HUC watersheds. WCATT is updated annually by forests

concentrating on watersheds known to have experienced

significant change. The condition class classification data

(number of watersheds in each class) reported in WCATT

will be automatically accessed and reported through the

Performance Accountability System (PAS).

Essential projects, predetermined in a Watershed Restoration

Action Plan, count toward changing watershed condition class

upon their successful completion. Improvement to watershed

condition is recorded upon project completion as a practical

matter fully recognizing that actual improvement to watershed

and stream condition may lag the completion of essential

projects by years or decades. When they have completed all

essential projects in a priority watershed, forests will remove

the watershed from the priority list and replace it with another.

A two- to three-person team of resource specialists, designated

by the forest-level line officer, will evaluate watersheds where

essential projects have been completed to certify the satisfactory

completion of work in the priority watershed.

Performance Tracking

Restoration accomplishment will be reported in existing corporate performance accomplishment databases. Options under

consideration include the Watershed Improvement Tracking

(WIT) System; the Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plant Management

System (WFRP-MS); and the Performance Accountability

System (PAS).

If selected as the repository of watershed accomplishments,

these systems will need to be modified. Tracking costs and

accomplishments and reporting improvement to watershed

condition class will be a long-term endeavor, and existing

budget structures based on single fiscal year expenditures and

accomplishment reporting are ill suited for tracking multiyear

projects. Refining the Forest Service budget and performance

reporting systems will likely be necessary to track watershed

scale restoration implemented under the WCF. The inclusion

of geotagging features is highly effective for demonstrating

restoration accomplishment.

Performance Measures

The Forest Service will need to track both outcome and outputs

(acres treated). The primary outcome measure used to track

accomplishments will be the number of watershed condition

classes that have changed in a given year. Note that change may

come from priority watersheds due to restoration actions or

from nonpriority watersheds due to other factors.

The following performance measures will be used:

CLS-I-WTRSHD	 Number of watersheds

within condition class I.

CLS-II-WTRSHD	 Number of watersheds

within condition class II.

CLS-III-WTRSHD	 Number of watersheds

within condition class III.

WTRSHD-CLS-IMP-NUM	 Number of watersheds

moved to an improved

condition class.
20 Watershed Condition Framework
Watershed Condition Framework 21

Step F: Verify and Monitor Watershed Condition Class 

We propose a two-tiered approach to verify and monitor watershed conditions. Tier 1 emphasizes verifying for performance

accountability. Tier 2 emphasizes monitoring linkages between

watershed restoration treatments and the effect they have on

aquatic habitat conditions.

Because of budget constraints, emphasis in the near term is

on performance accountability (Tier 1). Over the long term,

our goal is to develop a monitoring approach system that

can link changes in watershed condition on the landscape to

improvement to stream channel and aquatic habitat conditions

(Tier 2). This long-term goal is consistent with the Chief’s

articulation in the FY 2011 Forest Service Budget Justification

that the “Forest Service will establish a monitoring program so

that in five years the Agency will be able to tune and support

its risk-based approach to assessing and improving watershed

condition” (Forest Service, 2010: 7–8).

Tier 1: Verifying for Performance 

Accountability

Tier 1 verification monitoring consists of reviewing watershed

classification (Do watersheds appear to have been properly

classified? Was the correct process followed in evaluating the

extent to which prescribed restoration actions (essential projects) appear to have improved watershed condition compared

with the indicators used for classification? Does it seem reasonable

to conclude that the essential projects are of sufficient scope

and magnitude to actually improve watershed condition class?

Does the watershed now classify as being in an improved

condition class?).

The fundamental assumption for performance accountability

is that the completion of essential projects identified in the

Watershed Restoration Action Plan results in improvement in

watershed condition class. A sample of the priority watersheds

will be evaluated annually to determine if they were correctly

classified and if their prescribed projects could reasonably be

judged to have improved actual watershed condition compared

with the indicators used for classification. Ideally, completing a

suite of essential projects should alter conditions in the watershed sufficiently so that if classification indicators are applied

to the watershed after project completion, the watershed will

rate out as being in an improved category. After a period of

time, the data from these annual evaluations can be compiled

to improve program implementation. In addition, the program

reviews can help to verify the rule set used to classify watershed condition classes, and they can be used to assess whether

or not classes were assigned in an appropriate and consistent

manner across the Forest Service.

The WO will evaluate, at a minimum, a sample of one watershed per region. We will select watersheds that were reported as

having had all of the essential projects completed and reported

as target accomplishments under the number of watersheds

moved to an improved condition class (WTRSHD-CLS-IMPNUM). The composition of the review team will be determined

by the WO Director of the Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and

Rare Plants Program Staff and includes representatives from

the Watershed Condition Advisory Team, Program and Budget

Analysis, and Strategic Planning and Performance Accountability Programs. Reviews may be field or office based.

Tier 2: Monitoring Watershed and 

Aquatic Habitat Conditions

Our long-term goal needs to be a comprehensive monitoring

approach that verifies the hypothesis that concentrating activities in priority watersheds results in demonstrated improvement

to stream and aquatic habitat conditions. In the context of

performance accountability, we need to be able to demonstrate

that the outcome of improved watershed condition actually happens on the ground and in stream channels. Establishing these

linkages between upland watershed condition and instream

aquatic habitat improvement has long been recognized as a

significant challenge in the watershed and aquatic sciences.

In theory, watersheds that are Class 1, functioning properly,

are expected to have better stream conditions than watersheds

that are Class 3, functioning impaired. We can use a variety

of sampling designs to verify this hypothesis, but we will not

recommend a specific design at this time. Watersheds that

we select to monitor in detail would have to be stratified by

watershed condition class. We would then monitor stream

habitat and biota at the outlet of the watersheds to see if stream

conditions correlate with condition classes. Opportunities may

arise by organizing the monitoring at a broad scale, such as

Forest Service regions or national forests. Opportunities exist
22 Watershed Condition Framework

to use probability-based designs such as PACFISH/INFISH

Biological Opinion (PIBO) Effectiveness Monitoring Program

(Kershner et al. 2004) and Northwest Forest Plan Monitoring

(Gallo et al. 2005, Reeves et al. 2004), or to take advantage of

Forest Service aquatic status and trend monitoring approaches

such as Aquatic Ecological Unit Inventory. Our goal is to have

a comprehensive monitoring effort in place within 5 years.

We would integrate the monitoring strategy into the agency’s

overall watershed and aquatic evaluation program and use it in

an adaptive management feedback loop to modify the approach

as necessary.
Watershed Condition Framework 23

Literature Cited

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United

States. 2nd ed., rev. Misc. Publ. No. 1391. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Bohn, B.A.; Kershner, J.L. 2002. Establishing aquatic

restoration priorities using a watershed approach. Journal of

Environmental Management. 64: 355–363.

Calkin, D.E.; Hyde, K.D.; Robichaud, P.R. et al. 2007.

Assessing post-fire values-at-risk with a new calculation tool.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-205. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 32 p.

Gallo, K.; Lanigan, S.H.; Eldred, P. et al. 2005. Northwest

forest plan—the first 10 years (1994–2003): preliminary

assessment of the condition of watersheds. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-647. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 133 p.

Heller, D. 2004. A paradigm shift in watershed restoration.

Forum for Research and Extension in Natural Resources

(FOREX), Streamline Watershed Management Bulletin. 8(1):

21–23.

Karr, J.R.; Chu, L.W. 1999. Restoring life in running rivers:

better biological monitoring. Washington, DC: Island Press.

206 p.

Kershner, J.L.; Archer, E.K.; Coles-Ritchie, M. et al. 2004.

Guide to effective monitoring of aquatic and riparian resources.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-121. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Lackey, R.T. 2001. Values, policy, and ecosystem health.

Bioscience. 51: 437–443.

McCammon, B.J.; Rector, J.; and Gebhardt, K. 1998. A framework for analyzing the hydrologic condition of watersheds.

BLM Tech. Note 405, BLM/RS/ST-98/004+7210. 48 p.

National Research Council. 1999. New strategies for

America’s watersheds. Washington, DC: National Academy

Press, Committee on Watershed Management.

Newbold, S.C. 2002. Integrated modeling for watershed

management: multiple objectives and spatial effects. Journal of

the American Water Resources Association. 38(2): 341–353.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2006. Forest Service

watershed program assessment. Washington, DC: Office of

Management and Budget. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

expectmore/summary/10003029.2006.html. (4 August 2010).

Ogg, C.W.; Keith, G.A. 2002. New Federal support for priority

watershed management needs. Journal of the American Water

Resources Association. 38(2): 577–586.

Reeves, G.H.; Hohler, D.B.; Larsen, D.P. et al. 2004.

Effectiveness monitoring for the aquatic and riparian

component of the Northwest forest plan: conceptual framework

and options. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-577. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station.

Regier, H.A. 1993. The notion of natural and cultural integrity.

In: Woodley, S.J.; Kay, J.J.; Francis, G. Ecological integrity

and the management of ecosystems. Delray Beach, FL: St.

Lucie Press: 3–18.

Regional Ecosystem Office, Regional Interagency Executive

Committee. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale:

the Federal guide for watershed analysis. Sections I and II,

Version 2.2. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

Reid, L.M.; Ziemer, R.R.; Furniss, M.J. 1996. Watershed

analysis on Federal lands of the Pacific Northwest. Humboldt

Interagency Watershed Analysis Center Workshop,

McKinleyville, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/projects/

water/1WhatisWA.htm. (23 August 2010).

Rosgen, D.L. 2006. Watershed assessment of river stability

and sediment supply (WARSSS). Fort Collins, CO: Wildland

Hydrology Books. www.epa.gov/warsss. (24 August 2010).

Sedell, J.; Sharpe, M.; Apple, D.D. et al. 2000. Water and the

Forest Service. FS-660. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service.
24 Watershed Condition Framework

Smith, R.D.; Klimas, C.V.; Kleiss, B.A. 2005. A watershed

assessment tool for evaluating ecological condition, proposed

impacts, and restoration potential at multiple scales. SWWRP

Technical Notes Collection, ERDC TNSWWRP-05-3.

Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and

Development Center.

Suter, G.W. 1993. Critique of ecosystem health concepts

and indexes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

12: 1533–1539.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. Strategic

plan FY 2010–2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture. 50 p. http://www.ocfo.usda.gov/usdasp/sp2010/

sp2010.pdf. (4 August 2010).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011.

Forest Service watershed condition classification technical guide.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Air, and Rare Plants

Program.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2004a.

Watershed protection and management. Forest Service Manual

2520. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service. 44 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2004b.

USDA Forest Service strategic plan for fiscal years 2004–2008.

FS-810. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 32 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2007.

USDA Forest Service strategic plan for fiscal years 2007–2012.

FS-880. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 32 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2009.

FY 2009 final program direction, chapter 14 National Forest

Systems. Managing for Results Web page. http://fsweb.wo.fs.

fed.us/results/xfst/local-resources/scripts/pullContent.php?

directory=/results/pdb/Program%20Direction/FY%202009/

&pagename=FY09%20Program%20Direction&category=

budget&icon=budget. (14 March 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2010.

FY 2011 President’s budget justification. Managing for Results

Web page. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/budget-2011/fy2011-usfs-budget-justification.pdf. (14 March 2011).

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2011.

FY 2011 final program direction, chapter 14 National Forest

Systems. Managing for Results Web page. http://fsweb.wo.fs.

fed.us/results/xfst/local-resources/scripts/pullContent.php?

directory=/results/pdb/Program%20Direction/FY%202011/

&pagename=FY11%20Program%20Direction&category=budg

et&icon=budget. (14 March 2011).

Williams, J.E.; Wood, C.A.; Dombeck, M.P. (eds). 1997.

Watershed restoration: principles and practices. Bethesda, MD:

American Fisheries Society: 80–95.

Yount, J.D.; Niemi, G.J. 1990. Recovery of lotic communities

and ecosystems from disturbance—a narrative case study.

Environmental Management. 14: 547–570.

Ziemer, R.R. 1997. Temporal and spatial scales. In: Williams,

J.E.; Wood, C.A.; Dombeck, M.P. Watershed restoration:

principles and practices. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries

Society: 80–95.