United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Rocky Mountain General Technical Report

Service Research Station RMRS-GTR-330 December 2014

Framework for Springs 

Stewardship Program and 

Proposed Action Development:

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Available only online at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr330.html

Coles-Ritchie, Marc; Solem, Stephen J.; Springer, Abraham E.; Pendleton, Burton. 2014. Framework 

for Springs Stewardship Program and proposed action development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-330. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 63 p.

Keywords: Spring stewardship, spring restoration, groundwater dependent ecosystems, watershed 

management, spring rehabilitation, spring maintenance

Authors

Marc Coles-Ritchie, Ph.D., is a Vegetation Ecologist with Management and Engineering Technology 

International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Salt Lake City, Utah.

Stephen J. Solem is a senior advisor for natural resource planning and inventory with Management and 

Engineering Technology International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Missoula, Montana.

Abraham E. Springer, Ph.D., is a Hydrogeologist and Professor at Northern Arizona University and 

consultant to Management and Engineering Technology International, Inc. (METI, Inc.), Flagstaff, Arizona.

Burton Pendleton, Ph.D., is a Research Ecologist Emeritus with the Rocky Mountain Research Station in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Cover Photo: Lower Horse Spring was dry when surveyed in 2010 (photo by USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Arizona University springs survey crew).

Acknowledgments

This effort was accomplished by using funding provided by the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management 

Act conservation initiative (Round 10). Work was performed using In-Service Agreements between 

the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Rocky Mountain Research Station and under the terms 

and conditions of Management and Engineering Technologies International, Inc. Contract Number: AG3187-C-0028, Order Number: AG-3187-D-10-0126.

Staff from the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area, specifically James Hurja, provided information, 

guidance, and review of the framework and its application. In addition, the following Forest Service program 

managers and staff provided review comments or other contributions to this effort: Christopher Carlson, 

Michael Eberle, Joseph Gurrieri, David Levinson, David Merritt, and Kathleen Dwire. Larry Stevens and Jeri 

Ledbetter from the Springs Stewardship Institute at Northern Arizona University also provided comments 

and contributions to this effort.

Casey Giffen and Luke Boehnke, of METI, Inc., provided editorial review and graphics design support in 

preparation of this document.

Prepared By

Management and Engineering Technologies Rocky Mountain Research Station

International, Inc. (METI) Grassland, Desert and Shrubland Program

El Paso, Texas Forestry Sciences Laboratory

Albuquerque, New Mexico
Contents

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

Background ............................................................................................................................................2

Relationship to Other Methodologies ..................................................................................................2

Watershed Condition Framework .......................................................................................................2

Forest Service Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Inventory Field Guides ....................................3

SMNRA Implementation and Monitoring Audits..................................................................................3

Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee ...........................................................................4

Spring/Wetland Condition Assessment Methods................................................................................4

Key Concepts and Terminology ...........................................................................................................4

Methodology and Framework Overview ..............................................................................................5

Springs Stewardship Program Formulation and Proposed 

 Action Development Process...........................................................................................7

Phase I—Determine Springs/GDE Stewardship Program Focus and Budget..................................7

Step 1—Determine Site Condition Class............................................................................................7

Step 2—Determine Site Relative Significance....................................................................................7

Step 3—Determine Site Stewardship Priority.....................................................................................7

Step 4—Characterize Stewardship Program Funding Needs ............................................................7

Step 5—Formulate Spring/GDE Stewardship Program Budgets........................................................7

Phase II—Determine What Site-Specific Actions to Propose at Priority Springs/GDEs ...............19

Step 6—Determine Existing Condition .............................................................................................19

Step 7—Describe Desired Condition................................................................................................20

Step 8—Determine the Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................22

Step 9—Develop a Site-Specific Proposed Action ...........................................................................24

Phase III—Decide Which Actions to Take..........................................................................................29

Step 10—Assess Environmental Effects ..........................................................................................29

Step 11—Document Environmental Analysis (DM, EA or EIS).........................................................29

Step 12—Issue NEPA Decision (DM, DN, or ROD)..........................................................................31

Phase IV—Implement and Monitor Results.......................................................................................33

Step 13—Develop Implementation Guidance

Step 14—Implement Stewardship Practices ....................................................................................33

Step 15—Report Accomplishments..................................................................................................33

Step 16—Monitor Implementation and Effectiveness.......................................................................33

Phase V—Evaluate and Adjust ...........................................................................................................34

References ..............................................................................................................................35

Appendix 1—Rule Sets for Site Condition Classification...................................................39

Appendix 2—Elements Used to Determine Relative Site Significance for the SMNRA...48

Appendix 3—SMNRA Springs/Riparian Management Response Framework ..................49

Appendix 4—Nevada Springs Restoration Practices .........................................................54
Petroglyphs in the Northern Spring Mountains, October 2010 (photo by USDA Forest Service, 

Northern Arizona University springs survey crew).

Stellar Spring, September 2011, is a small spring covering 169 square meters (photo by USDA 

Forest Service, Northern Arizona University springs survey crew).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 1

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Framework for Springs Stewardship 

Program and Proposed Action Development: 

Spring Mountains National Recreation Area 

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Marc Coles-Ritchie, Stephen J. Solem, 

Abraham E. Springer, Burton Pendleton

INTRODUCTION

In the desert Southwest, springs are an important ecological feature and serve as a 

focal point for both biological and human interactions on the landscape. As a result, 

attention has been placed on the stewardship and protection of these important resources. 

Management has traditionally focused on the more accessible and heavily used eastern 

canyons within the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA). This 

emphasis is reflected in the management guidance in the Toiyabe National Forest Forest 

Plan and the SMNRA General Management Plan (Toiyabe Forest Plan Amendment 

#4). As a result of implementing the SMNRA Landscape Assessment (ENTRIX 2008) 

and the Inventory and Monitoring Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2008), attention has 

been shifted to the larger landscape. Management programs have begun to address 

conservation needs outside the “developed canyons.”

During 2010–2012, the SMNRA undertook an inventory of all of the NRA springs that 

resulted in completion of a detailed inventory of 77 of the 149 known springs. Spring 

surveys were conducted by using the Forest Service Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystems 

(GDE) Level II Inventory Field Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012b) by field crews 

from Northern Arizona University under a Cooperative Agreement. These inventories 

have produced an impressive and consistent data set on these springs. The SMNRA 

staff sought guidance on how (1) to use these data to determine restoration needs and to 

prioritize restoration efforts and (2) to develop site-specific restoration proposals. This 

framework is designed to address those needs. Although designed for use on the SMNRA 

within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF), the methods described in this 

framework were reviewed and evaluated by national program leaders, scientists, and 

service team specialists to enhance their applicability at a broader scale.

The methods described in this framework were tested by using SMNRA springs 

inventory data; the resulting analysis for Phase I of this framework is presented in a 

separate report. (Coles-Ritchie et al., in progress). The framework was also tested and 

applied to a data set for 105 GDEs (including springs, fens, and other wetlands) from the 

Ashley National Forest consisting of data gathered by using the GDE Level I Inventory 

Field Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012a).

This framework was prepared in consultation with staff from the SMNRA, national 

groundwater and surface water program managers, National Minerals Service Team 

hydrogeologist, specialists from the Springs Stewardship Institute at Northern 

Arizona University, and members of the National Stream & Aquatic Ecology Center. 

Representatives from the U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Land Management 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

also participated in the development effort. Members of the Nevada Springs Restoration 

Workshop Committee (draft) have also participated in these discussions and provided 

information from their efforts that has been incorporated into the framework.

Background

Methods described in this framework build on (1) agency efforts to consistently inventory 

groundwater-dependent ecosystems, (2) methodologies used in assessing and formulating 

program budget needs used in watershed management and other program areas, and (3) 

the logic and approach outlined in the agency’s Watershed Condition Framework (USDA 

Forest Service 2011).

Groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are “communities of plants, animals, and 

other organisms whose extent and life processes are dependent on access to or discharge 

of groundwater” (USDA Forest Service 2012a). GDEs occur where groundwater emerges 

and include springs where flow is visible as well as wetlands where vegetation and soil 

obscure the groundwater as it emerges. GDEs have distinct characteristics compared to 

ecosystems supported primarily by surface water. GDEs generally have a more constant 

and steady source of water allowing animals and wetland plants to thrive, such as mosses, 

sedges, forbs, and springsnails. The continually waterlogged condition of some GDEs 

creates anaerobic conditions that slow decomposition of plant material facilitating 

development of organic soil, including peat and muck.

Focusing management attention on springs and other GDEs and their associated riparian 

areas is important because they sustain a disproportionate amount of biodiversity 

compared to adjacent uplands. Within the SMNRA recent surveys documented that 

24 percent of the plant species known to exist within the SMNRA were found in the 

springs inventoried, which represented only 0.003 percent of the total land area. Springer 

et al. (in review) found similar results in Alberta, Canada, where 25 percent of plant 

species known to occur in the Province were found at the springs inventoried, which 

represented only 0.001 percent of the total land area. In addition, the Springs Stewardship 

Institute (2013) reported plant species densities at springs in Kaibab National Forest of 

72.5 species per hectare, which was more than 23-fold higher than the average for the 

entire Forest. The cultural and economic significance of springs within local areas are 

also important factors, with their relative importance dependent on the context of the 

surrounding environments (e.g., the arid southwestern United States compared to the 

more mesic environments in the Northern Rockies).

With increasing recognition of the importance of groundwater-dependent ecosystems in 

supporting biological diversity and a host of cultural and economic needs, it is important 

to be able (a) to identify and describe maintenance and restoration-rehabilitation program 

needs and (b) to consistently implement cost-effective and scientifically supported 

maintenance and rehabilitation practices on these important sites.

Relationship to Other Methodologies

Methods described build upon other efforts to assess sites and to facilitate development 

of restoration project proposals. Descriptions of foundational documents used to develop 

this framework or considered by the authors are summarized below.

Watershed Condition Framework

Based on discussions with SMNRA managers, a primary objective was to develop 

a linkage with the Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011), 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 3

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

including “nesting” GDE sites within those watersheds. The Watershed Condition 

Framework provides “a comprehensive approach for proactively implementing integrated 

restoration on priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands” and has become 

the agency’s primary avenue for focusing watershed management restoration and 

rehabilitation funding. Details on assessing the condition of watersheds are provided in 

the companion document Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide (Potyondy 

and Geier 2011). Using a similar approach to Watershed Condition Classification for 

assessing site conditions was a second objective identified by SMNRA managers.

The process of adapting national condition assessment procedures to smaller areas of 

interest is also used in describing the status of hazardous fuels and ecological conditions 

described in Fire Regime and Condition Classes (FRCC) used in the interagency 

LANDFIRE program (see www.LANDFIRE.gov for additional information). National 

assessments of FRCC can be refined by using localized information and knowledge 

as described by the FRCC Guidebook (see www.frames.gov/partner-sites/frcc/frccguidebook-and-forms/ for additional information). The objectives of the methods 

described in this framework are similar to those described in the FRCC Guidebook 

related to the application of site-specific data to an area of interest.

Appendix 1 describes the criteria for assessing site condition using an approach that 

mirrors the logic and procedures presented in the Watershed Condition Classification 

Technical Guide (Potyondy and Geier 2011).

Forest Service Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Inventory Field Guides

The Forest Service has developed field guides for inventorying and assessing 

groundwater-dependent ecosystems. There are two protocol levels, Level I and Level II:

Level I inventories use methods described in the GDE Level I Inventory Field 

Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012a) and are designed to collect basic information 

regarding GDEs needed to protect and conserve these important features.

Level II inventories use methods described in the GDE Level II Inventory Field 

Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012b) and are designed to collect information needed 

to characterize GDE features or sites and in project planning.

Springs inventory data are stored in a national GDE Access database that can be queried 

to develop information used in the site condition and significance assessment processes. 

These data and other commonly available ancillary data sets were also used to test and 

refine the methods described in this paper.

SMNRA Implementation and Monitoring Audits

Implementation and monitoring audits (I/M Audits) of springs and riparian management 

projects conducted by METI, Inc. during 2011 (METI 2012) helped highlight the need 

for a more comprehensive approach to management and rehabilitation of springs within 

the SMNRA. A “management response framework” developed as part of the I/M Audit 

incorporates management direction in the Toiyabe Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1986) and the SMNRA General Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1996) to 

the management of springs within the SMNRA. Specific common design features 

and management practices that could be applied during stewardship project proposal 

development on the SMNRA are identified in the Springs/Riparian Management 

Framework. Information on the management response framework is presented in 

Appendix 3.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee

Specific springs’ rehabilitation and restoration practices identified by the Nevada Springs 

Restoration Workshop Committee (2012) provide additional information regarding the 

effectiveness of these practices based on the collective experience of the committee. 

Meeting notes from the workshop were supplemented by Joseph T. Gurrieri (Nevada 

Springs Restoration Workshop Committee 2012) and have been incorporated into this 

framework, with some minor editing and formatting, as Appendix 4.

Spring/Wetland Condition Assessment Methods

There have been various efforts to assess the condition of wetlands: methods described 

by the EPA National Wetland Condition Assessment (U.S. EPA 2011), The Nature 

Conservancy methods guide on Groundwater and Biodiversity Conservation (Brown et 

al. 2007), U.S. Geological Survey National Wetlands Research Center, Desert Research 

Institute (Sada and Pohlman 2006), PFC for lentic systems (USDI 1999), Properly 

Functioning Condition for Fens (Weixelman and Cooper 2009), and the Springs 

Ecosystem Assessment Protocol (Springs Stewardship Institute, draft). However, those 

methods tend to have one or more of the following limitations: (a) they do not focus on 

groundwater-dependent ecosystems and their distinctive characteristics; (b) they only 

address a limited set of indicators (such as aquatic biota); or (c) they lack a process for 

prioritizing GDE sites.

Because of these limitations, these efforts could not be directly applied to the SMNRA. 

Therefore, it was necessary to develop the framework and analysis methods described in 

this document to assess springs within the SMNRA to formulate restoration-rehabilitation 

program needs and to provide a basis for consistently developing restorationrehabilitation proposed actions.

Key Concepts and Terminology

The foundation of this framework is the concept of stewardship, which involves 

determining the condition of springs and GDEs and applying a variety of management 

strategies to maintain, rehabilitate, or restore these important ecosystems.

Restoration “is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been 

degraded, damaged, or destroyed” (SER 2004 as cited in USDA Forest Service 2006). 

Ecological restoration focuses on re-establishing the composition, structure, pattern, 

and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions (see U.S. Forest 

Service Integrated Resource Restoration Glossary webpage: http://www.fs.fed.us/

restoration/IRR/glossary.shtml). In the context of this document, restoration refers to all 

levels of site and habitat improvement efforts on the continuum of restoration regardless 

of the degree of similarity to an assumed pristine, pre-disturbance condition. Restoration 

includes both passive and active efforts as described below.

Rehabilitation, within the context of this framework, refers to a level of restoration 

that is defined by management objectives. Rehabilitation is not focused on restoring 

the site to pre-disturbance conditions, but rather improving the condition according 

to certain management objectives. Rehabilitation actions are generally constrained 

by funding, societal objectives, existing rights or agreements, or irreversible 

physical alteration limiting recovery potential.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 5

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Maintenance consists of those actions and management guidance that result in the 

maintenance of a spring or GDE site’s existing ecological conditions and processes, 

particularly resiliency to disturbance.

Other key concepts related to springs and GDE stewardship used in this framework 

include active restoration/rehabilitation, passive restoration/rehabilitation, program 

budget formulation, program budget increments, and NEPA procedures.

Active restoration/rehabilitation is physical action designed to achieve desired 

conditions. Active restoration/rehabilitation involves physical manipulation of the site. 

The goal of active restoration/rehabilitation is to facilitate recovery and to allow natural 

processes to be re-established.

Passive restoration/rehabilitation is change in management that involves the 

reduction or removal of stressors. The goal of passive restoration/rehabilitation is 

to allow the site to recover on its own, through natural processes, without physical 

manipulation of the site.

Program budget formulation is the process used to develop and request program 

funding that supports the accomplishment of projects. Program budget formulation 

does not involve the summation of individual project proposals. Formulation relies 

on a combination of resource needs and organizational capacity to accomplish work. 

An implied goal of a program budget is to sustain a “stream” of projects over time 

within the capability of an organization and available skills.

Program budget increments represent various investment levels for program 

funding that are used within an area of interest as the basis for describing and 

characterizing stewardship program benefits and consequences for each increment.

NEPA procedures are established in the National Environmental Policy Act. Forest 

Service procedures and terms are described in detail in Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 1909.15. With a few exceptions, terms originating from these procedures are 

not further defined in this document and users will need to consult the FSH for the 

definition and a more complete description of agency procedures.

Methodology and Framework Overview

A phased approach for developing a springs and GDE restoration-rehabilitation program 

and project proposals is summarized in figure 1. The first phase involves determining 

where to focus stewardship program efforts within an area of interest. The second phase 

involves focusing on high priority sites to determine what actions to propose at those 

Figure 1. Restoration framework, development process.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

sites. The third phase involves deciding on what actions to take and the fourth phase 

involves implementation of actions and monitoring results at specific sites. The fifth 

phase provides information that can be used to evaluate and adjust the other phases of the 

process.

The procedural steps associated with each phase of the restoration program development 

process are outlined in figure 2 and described in detail in the remainder of this document. 

Phase I of these methods was tested by using data from the SMNRA and Ashley National 

Forest.

The process presented here employs many concepts presented in the Watershed Condition 

Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011) and addresses similar needs to consistently 

represent conditions and restoration needs within the National Forest System (NFS), but 

at the site scale.

Key Point: Information presented for Phases II—V have not been tested and are 

provided to illustrate how the information used in program budget formulation (Phase I) 

can be used to develop agency proposed actions and their subsequent NEPA analysis 

and documentation. Because of time and contract limitations, Phase I analysis has 

relied on available information and will need to be reviewed and verified by SMNRA

staff before these steps are considered as being completed.

Figure 2. Spring stewardship program formulation and proposed action development process.

Phase I—Determine Springs/GDE Stewardship Program Focus and Budget

Step 1—Determine Site Condition Class

Step 2—Determine Site Relative Significance

Step 3—Determine Site Stewardship Priority

Step 4—Characterize Stewardship Program Funding Needs

Step 5—Formulate Springs/GDE Stewardship Program Budgets

Phase II—Determine What Actions to Propose at Priority Springs/GDE Sites

Step 6—Determine Existing Condition

Step 7—Describe Desired Condition

Step 8—Determine the Purpose and Need for Action

Step 9—Develop a Proposed Action

Phase III—Decide Which Actions to Take

Step 10—Assess Environmental Effects

Step 11—Document Environmental Analysis (DM, EA or EIS)

Step 12—Issue NEPA Decision (DM, DN, or ROD)

Phase IV—Implement and Monitor Results

Step 13—Develop Implementation Guidance

Step 14—Implement Stewardship Actions

Step 15—Report Accomplishments

Step 16—Monitor Implementation and Effectiveness

Phase V—Evaluate and Adjust
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 7

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Springs Stewardship Program Formulation and Proposed 

Action Development Process

This document describes procedures used to develop a spring’s stewardship program 

budget and proposed actions for restoration/rehabilitation of high priority springs within 

the SMNRA.

Key Point: Methods described in this document are structured so that they could 

be used in other parts of the NFS and other public domain lands to provide a basis 

for consistently describing restoration program needs and a common foundation for 

developing maintenance and restoration-rehabilitation proposals for individual GDE 

sites. Program leads at the region and forest level would likely develop program 

funding proposals by using this process, with the goal of developing a program that 

leads to securing restoration project funding that could be used to implement sitespecific proposals within a given are of interest.

Criteria used will need to be modified to address conditions and management concerns 

within the area of interest. Specific examples include: proposals for groundwater 

pumping or other water development that could affect GDEs or the evaluation of 

grazing impacts and prioritizing and planning restoration of grazed GDE sites.

This methodology is designed for application at broader scales to address needs 

for large numbers of GDE sites within an area of interest. Although many of the 

assessment and rehabilitation-restoration planning techniques described can be 

applied to a single GDE site, they are not designed for application at individual sites.

The framework’s methodology was designed to use existing, available data sets to assess 

a large number of springs and other GDEs as the basis for describing program budget 

needs and for prioritizing sites for maintenance and rehabilitation-restoration efforts. The 

methodology is designed to serve as foundation for describing restoration-rehabilitation 

needs and the purpose of restoration-rehabilitation project proposals used to formulate 

agency proposed actions that initiate the agency’s decision making under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures.

Phase I—Determine Springs/GDE Stewardship Program 

Focus and Budget

An important question facing managers on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, as 

in other locations, is where to focus GDE site maintenance and rehabilitation actions. 

Therefore, this phase was tested with actual spring inventory data from the SMNRA and 

the Ashley National Forest.

Ideally, site selection is done with an unbiased study design (such as systematic or 

random site selection) so that the data represent all of the springs for the area of interest. 

That was the case with the SMNRA data, which means that the data represent all of the 

springs of the SMNRA.

This phase involves five basic steps designed to determine relative priorities of springs or 

GDE sites and to characterize restoration program funding needs:

Step 1—Determine Site Condition Class

Step 2—Determine Site Relative Significance

Step 3—Determine Site Stewardship Priority

Step 4—Characterize Stewardship Program Funding Needs

Step 5—Formulate Spring/GDE Stewardship Program Budgets
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

The objective of this phase is the characterization of spring/GDE site stewardship 

program funding needs to secure financial resources needed to accomplish spring or GDE 

site maintenance and rehabilitation. The premise is that without a sustained program of 

maintenance and rehabilitation within the area of interest, restoration efforts at individual 

sites will be ineffective in improving and maintaining the overall system of springs and 

GDE sites over time.

Key Point: Procedures described in this phase of the process were developed so 

they could be performed with GDE Level I Inventory data and other ancillary data and 

information commonly available to NFS administrative units.

Step 1: Determine Site Condition Class

The first step in the process was to assess the condition of each GDE site. This was 

intended to be a very general representation of the condition of the site to facilitate the 

prioritization process. This site condition classification was not intended to be a precise 

measure of a site’s condition and therefore should not be used to evaluate status or trend.

The site condition classification uses indicators similar to those used in the Watershed 

Condition Classification Technical Guide (Potyondy and Geier 2011) that is part of the 

Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011). Figure 3 displays the 

relationships and indicator sets used in Watershed Condition Assessment and Spring/

GDE Site Condition Assessments. Springs or GDE site condition classes are determined 

for individual sites within individual watersheds. The 12 aquatic and terrestrial indicators 

used in the Watershed Condition Assessment process are summarized in figure 3. A total 

of eight indicators of physical and biological conditions are used in the springs/GDE site 

classification process (table 1).

Key Point: Watershed Condition Class determinations are made at the watershed 

scale and assess both aquatic and terrestrial conditions, whereas site condition 

classifications consider indicator conditions only within the spring or GDE site.

In designing the site condition classification, seven of the twelve Watershed Condition 

Assessment indicators were selected for use in the springs/GDE site condition 

classification because they apply at the site-level (see fig. 3). The other five watershedscale indicators (Roads and Trails, Fire Regime or Wildfire, Forest Cover, Rangeland 

Vegetation, and Forest Health) were not used because they apply to the terrestrial uplands 

at the watershed-level rather than the site-scale. An additional indicator (which makes a 

total of eight) related to “Fauna” was added to the site condition classification to assess 

non-aquatic biota (such as mammals, birds, and insects ) that may utilize the spring 

or GDE site. The Watershed Condition Classification indicator “Terrestrial Invasive 

Species” was broadened to include aquatic, as well as terrestrial, invasive species and was 

described as “Invasive Species” to account for invasive species effects on the condition of 

a spring/GDE site.

These indicators were then grouped into two categories (Physical and Biological) versus 

the four categories used in the Watershed Condition Assessment (Aquatic Physical, 

Aquatic Biological, Terrestrial Physical, and Terrestrial Biological). Weighting of 

indicator scores within these two categories was equal, just as the Aquatic Physical and 

Aquatic Biological categories had equal weight in the Watershed Condition Assessment 

process.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

9

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Figure 3. Comparison of watershed and site condition classification procedures.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 1—GDE inventory data used in the SMNRA spring condition classification.

Site Condition 

Indicator Description Supporting GDE Inventory Data and Ancillary Data Sets

Physical Indicators

1. Water quality Indicator of alteration of 

physical, biological or 

chemical, impacts to water 

quality.

“Water Quality: Changes in water quality 

(surface or subsurface) are not affecting the 

GDE site” (MIT #3).

Disturbances, field notes and water 

quality data collected as part of the GDE 

inventories.

Ancillary information such as other water 

quality data.

2. Water quantity Addresses changes to the 

natural flow regime with 

respect to the magnitude, 

duration, or timing of the 

natural flow hydrograph.

“Flow Regulation: Flow regulation is not 

adversely affecting the site” (MIT #13).

“Watershed Functionality: Within the 

watershed, no evidence suggests upstream/

up-gradient hydrologic alteration that could 

adversely affect the GDE site” (MIT #2).

Supplemented with disturbances noted, flow 

measurement, and water table depth.

3. Aquatic habitat Addresses aquatic habitat 

condition with respect to 

habitat fragmentation and 

channel shape and function.

“Runout Channel: The channel, if present, is 

functioning naturally and is not entrenched, 

eroded, or otherwise substantially altered” 

(MIT #5).

Supplemented with disturbances noted and 

ancillary information.

4. Soils Addresses alteration to natural 

soil condition, including 

productivity, erosion, and 

chemical contamination.

“Soil Integrity: Soils are intact and 

functional. For example, saturation is 

sufficient to maintain hydric soils, if present; 

there is not excessive erosion or deposition” 

(MIT #6).

“Construction and Road Effects: 

Construction, reconstruction, or 

maintenance of physical improvements, 

including roads, are not adversely affecting 

the site” (MIT #14).

“Recreational Effects: Recreational uses, 

including trails, are not adversely affecting 

the site” (MIT #17).

 “Landform Stability: No evidence indicates 

human-caused mass movement or other 

surface disturbance affecting the GDE site 

stability” (MIT #4).

Supplemented with disturbances noted and 

other ancillary info on soils.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 11

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 1 (continued)—GDE inventory data used in the SMNRA spring condition classification.

Site Condition 

Indicator Description Supporting GDE Inventory Data and Ancillary Data Sets

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic Biota Addresses the distribution, 

structure, and density of 

native and introduced aquatic 

fauna.

Insofar as they address aquatic fauna:

“Faunal Species: Anticipated aquatic and 

terrestrial faunal species associated with the 

site environment are present” (MIT #10).

“Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species; SOI/SOC; or focal faunal species: 

Anticipated faunal species are present (will 

vary by ecological region and will require some 

baseline information)” (MIT #11).

Supplemented with observations and notes on 

aquatic fauna.

6. Fauna Addresses the distribution, 

structure, and density of 

native and introduced 

terrestrial fauna at the GDE 

site.

Insofar as they address terrestrial fauna:

“Faunal Species: Anticipated aquatic and 

terrestrial faunal species associated with the 

site environment are present” (MIT #10).

“Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species; SOI/SOC; or focal faunal species: 

Anticipated faunal species are present (will 

vary by ecological region and will require some 

baseline information)” (MIT #11).

Supplemented with observations and notes on 

terrestrial fauna.

7. RiparianWetland 

Vegetation

Addresses the function 

and condition of riparian 

vegetation along streams, 

waterbodies, and wetlands. 

“Vegetation Composition: The site includes 

anticipated cover of plant species associated 

with the site environment, and no evidence 

suggests that upland species are replacing 

hydric species” (MIT #7).

“Vegetation Condition: Vegetation exhibits 

seasonally appropriate health and vigor” (MIT 

#8).

“Threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species; SOI/SOC; or focal floral species: 

Anticipated floral species are present (will vary 

by ecological region and will require some 

baseline information)” (MIT #9).

Supplemented with other information on the 

condition and abundance of wetland and native 

vegetation.

8. Invasive 

Species

Addresses potential effects 

to soil, vegetation, and 

water resources due to 

invasive species (including 

vertebrates, invertebrates, 

and plants).

“Invasive Species: Invasive floral and faunal 

species are not established at the site” (MIT 

#12) in terms of non-aquatic biota.

Supplemented with observations of invasive 

species and Natural Resource Manager-Terra 

(noxious weeds and invasive species).
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix 1 contains a description of springs/GDE site condition indicators and rule 

sets for determining conditions at individual sites using GDE Level I inventory data and 

information and ancillary data sets commonly available to most NFS administrative units.

The site condition classification process described in this framework was developed so 

the analysis could be conducted by using data collected using the GDE Level I Inventory 

Field Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012b), or data collected using the GDE Level II 

Inventory Field Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012a)

Key GDE Level I Inventory Field Guide data used in the site condition classification 

include the following:

• The management indicator tool or MIT that consists of a series 25 questions 

(answered true or false) about the effects of management and other uses and 

activities at a spring or GDE site for the following categories: hydrology, 

geomorphology and soils, biology, disturbances, and administrative context. 

Some of those MIT questions address the eight site condition indicators and 

they are listed in table 1 (the MIT question and number that applies to each 

indicator are in the right-hand column).

• Information on disturbances observed as part of the GDE inventory was also 

used to determine or refine the site condition scores as noted in table 1.

Figure 4 illustrates how data from various sources are used to develop a rating for 

individual indicators. Table 1 describes how information from Level I Springs/GDE site 

inventories is used to assess springs/GDE site indicators for an area of interest. The table 

also identifies other ancillary data that could also be used to refine the site condition 

classification for each indicator, such as other data or reports from other studies (e.g., 

annual aerial insect and disease surveys).

Descriptions of each indicator and detailed rule sets developed for the SMNRA spring 

condition classification are presented in Appendix 1.

Figure 4. Data used to develop site condition indicator ratings.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 13

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Springs or GDE site condition class was determined using a similar process to the 

Watershed Condition Class Technical Guide (Potyondy and Geier 2011). That process 

uses qualitative data and converts it to a numeric score that is then used to calculate a 

composite score used to determine the condition class.

Condition classes for springs/GDE sites were determined by the following:

1. GDE Level II data and ancillary data were used to rate each of the eight 

indicators. A “yes” (good) answer was assigned a 1 value, and a “no” (poor) 

answer was assigned a 3 value. In some cases, disturbance or other ancillary 

data were used to change value to a 2 (from either 1 or 3).

2. The average of the indicator values within each of the Physical and Biological 

categories was then calculated.

3. The values for the two indicator categories were averaged (rounded to one 

decimal) to obtain a site condition score.

4. Sites were then assigned to a condition class based on the site condition score. 

The following class intervals were used to be consistent with those used in 

Watershed Condition Classification:

Site Condition Class 1 (Good) = 1.0 to 1.6

Site Condition Class 2 (Fair) = 1.7 to 2.2

Site Condition Class 3 (Poor) = 2.3 to 3.0

Key Point: The springs or GDE site condition scores are the result of qualitative 

assessment intended for determination of the site condition class. These scores or 

values should not be used to develop monitoring objectives or used to quantitatively 

describe sites and their conditions. Establishment of objectives for site or program 

monitoring would require quantitative data that are fully supported by and adequate 

statistical and sampling design.

Step 2: Determine Site Relative Significance

The next step was to determine the relative significance of springs/GDE sites within the 

area of interest to prioritize the sites for management activities. Significance “elements” 

appropriate to the SMNRA were developed to evaluate the rarity and importance of 

physical, biological, and social/cultural/economic characteristics of each site and the 

relationship of sites to each other (relative site significance). The significance elements 

are listed in table 2 and described in more detail in Appendix 2.

Because this is “relative” site significance, the scoring system was based on the range of 

values for the sites in the SMNRA. To determine the highest significance sites, the range 

of values was divided into thirds (tertiles, which is similar in concept to commonly used 

quartiles) and each third was associated with a relative-site significance class:

High = Total score in lowest third of range of values

Medium = Total score in middle third of range of values

Low = Total score in highest third of range of values

As with site condition, relative site significance is a qualitative assessment that was only 

intended for this prioritization process. Comparing site significance within the area of 

interest, the SMNRA in this case, is appropriate and useful; however, it would not be 

appropriate to compare significance for sites from different areas. Different elements 

would need to be developed for other geographical areas.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 2—Elements used to determine relative spring/site significance within the SMNRA.

Category Element Description Rationale

Physical 

elementsa

Discharge

A measure of the amount of water (flow) that 

discharges from a spring or groundwater 

supported wetland (during the growing season).

Sites with larger discharge are generally 

uncommon therefore can be important 

ecologically because of their ability to 

support wetland flora and fauna.

Contributing

aquifer

The size of the contributing aquifer. The size 

may be within or beyond the extent of surface 

watershed.

Sites with larger aquifers are significant 

because they typically have more 

constant temperature and more unique 

water chemistry than small aquifers.

GDE feature 

size or extent

The size of the GDE feature (in units such as m2 or 

acres or hectares).

Larger sites are generally less common 

and therefore potentially have unique 

ecological characteristics.

Feature type

The type of spring or wetland in terms of the 

physical characteristics. Spring and wetland types 

from Springer and Stevens (2008) could be used 

to categorize each site. 

Unusual types potentially have unique 

ecological characteristics.

Isolation

A measure of the distance from the GDE feature to 

other GDE features that are not part of the same 

complex of groundwater discharge features. 

Isolated GDE sites are particularly 

valuable ecologically (such as for wildlife) 

because of the limited availability of the 

habitat they provide.

Surface water 

connectivity

A general determination of whether the spring 

contributes base-flow to a perennial stream.

Sites that have enough flow to support 

perennial streams may provide unique 

habitat.

Biological 

elements

TES and focal 

species

The presences of threatened, endangered, 

sensitive or focal species.

Sites that support TES and focal species 

are important because of the limited 

abundance of those species.

Vegetation type

The vegetation type, which is a primarily based on 

the dominant (most abundant) plant species.

Sites that support unusual wetland 

vegetation types are important because 

of the rareness of such vegetation and 

associated habitat.

Invasive or 

noxious species

The presence of invasive or noxious plant 

or animal species at the site (based on lists 

maintained by states or regions).

The ubiquity of invasive and noxious 

species makes sites without those species 

valuable ecologically. 

Social and 

cultural 

significance

Social, cultural, 

and economic 

elements

Sites that are or have been used by people and 

societies. This includes sites with artifacts and 

structures and sites with significant meaning to 

certain communities, including cultural or religious 

significance.

Sites with important social, cultural and 

economic elements that have value to 

society or communities.

a An additional element considered but not used for the SMNRA was the presence of “Organic Soils” at a spring or GDE 

site. Development of peat is an important criterion for differentiating fens from other groundwater-supported wetlands. 

Because there was little to no organic soil present at springs within the SMNRA, this element could not be used to 

differentiate relative site significance.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 15

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Step 3: Determine Site Stewardship Priority

After the GDE site condition and relative site significance were determined, the relative 

priority of GDE sites for stewardship program investments was established using a 

ranking process. Using the approach described in the Watershed Condition Framework 

(USDA Forest Service 2011), priority was placed on those sites that were in good 

condition. This follows the principle that “ecosystems, like Humpty Dumpty, are vastly 

easier to preserve than they are to reassemble” (Black 2003 as cited in Lavigne 2005) 

and that “it is always easier to protect ecosystems and ecological health than to restore it 

(Meine 2004 as cited in Lavigne 2005).

Table 3 was used to sort individual sites into different priority rankings by intersecting 

site condition ratings and relative site significance for the SMNRA. The highest priority 

ranking was given to sites that are both in good condition and have high relative 

ecological significance. Sites with the highest priority sites for stewardship investments 

are located in the upper left corner of table 3 and lowest priority sites in the lower right 

part of the table.

The pattern of priority ranking assignments places emphasis on stewardship actions 

associated with those sites with a “good” site condition rating of “high” or “medium” 

significance because of lower costs associated with monitoring and maintaining current 

conditions. The second area of focus within the priority setting process are those 

sites in condition class 2 with a site significance of “high” or “medium” because of a 

combination of their significance and the relative lower cost of restoring or rehabilitating 

these sites using the “Humpty Dumpty” model – easier to put back together than sites in 

“poor” condition. The third focus area within the priority setting process are those sites 

of “low” relative significance that are in “good” or “fair” condition because they are less 

ecologically significant than sites in the higher priority groups and can still be restored 

or rehabilitated with lower total investment costs. The lowest priority group consists of 

those sites in “poor” condition regardless of their significance because of the significantly 

higher cost of restoration or rehabilitation.

Table 3—Determining GDE site treatment priority rankings.

GDE Site

Significance

GDE Site Condition 

Class 1

(Good; Functioning 

Properly)

GDE Site Condition 

Class 2

(Fair; Functioning At 

Risk)

GDE Site Condition 

Class 3

(Poor; Impaired)

High Rank = A Rank = C Rank = G

Medium Rank = B Rank = D Rank = H

Low Rank = E Rank = F Rank = I

Note: Letters are used for the ranking to avoid confusion with condition class ratings.

Step 4: Characterize Stewardship Program Funding Needs

This step in the process considers the condition of the watershed surrounding individual 

sites to provide management context used to characterize program funding needs. For 

each spring, the watershed condition classification for the watershed in which the spring 

is located and the site’s condition and relative significance is used to determine the 

“budget class” associated with each site. Budget classes are then used to characterize 

stewardship program funding needs.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

The rationale for this approach stems from the management strategy outlined in the 

Watershed Condition Framework. Just as “good” condition watersheds are a high 

priority for stewardship investments, “good” condition sites have a higher priority within 

restoration programs. Spending time and money to maintain and restore sites within 

“good” condition watersheds is a wise investment because those sites are less likely to be 

negatively impacted by problems in the watershed. Conversely, spending time and money 

on “poor” condition sites in “poor” condition watersheds warrants a lower priority for 

expending limited resources.

Criteria for assignment of individual sites to budget classes are presented in table 4, with 

the highest budget class priority in the upper left portion of the table and lowest priority 

budget class in the lower right part of the table.

Within the area of interest, each site is assigned to a specific budget class with a similar 

stewardship focus and rationale for stewardship actions as described in table 5.

In addition to helping characterize restoration needs, knowledge about the relative 

importance of individual sites fosters protection and conservation of these sites that are in 

good condition and have high significance.

Table 4—Characterization of springs stewardship program budget needs using budget classes.

Watershed 

Condition 

Class

Site Treatment Priority Rankings

A B C D E F G H I

1 M-1 M-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4

2 M-1 M-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4

3 M-2 M-2 R-3 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4 R-4

Note: M = Maintenance and R = Restoration. Numbers represent budget classes within each cell.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 17

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Step 5: Formulate Springs/GDE Stewardship Program Budgets

The goal of this step in the process is to portray total stewardship (maintenance and 

rehabilitation) program needs for all GDE sites inventoried within the SMNRA. Program 

funding needs are then represented as increments within the total program that serve as 

the basis for requesting funding from various sources. Program levels or increments can 

then be represented as shown in the following example:

Base Program = Maintenance Class M-1 and M-2 + Restoration Class R-1

Program Increment 1 = Restoration Class R-2 + Base Program

Program Increment 2 = Restoration Class R-3 + Base Program + Program 

Increment 1

Total Program Needs = All Maintenance and Rehabilitation needs, including 

Restoration Class R-4

Table 5—Springs/GDE stewardship program budget class descriptions.

Stewardship 

program 

budget 

classes

Stewardship focus Rationale

Maintenance 

Class 1 

(M-1)

Site condition: good

Significance: high or medium

Watershed CONDITION 

CLASS: good (class 1) or fair 

(class 2)

Departure from desired conditions is low while 

the significance of sites is relatively high. 

Maintenance costs are relatively low. These 

are core watershed features whose function 

must be maintained to sustain overall watershed 

condition. In some cases no action may be 

needed to maintain these sites. Awareness of 

these sites, and their unique characteristics, can 

facilitate their conservation and protection.

Maintenance 

Class 2

 (M-2)

Site condition: good

Significance: high or medium

Watershed condition class:

poor (WCC rating 3)

These are core watershed features whose 

function must be maintained to provide an 

anchor point for future restoration/rehabilitation 

of these watersheds. Without these sites 

remaining intact, the ability to restore proper 

watershed function is not feasible.

Restoration 

Class 1 

(R-1)

Site condition: fair

Significance: high

Watershed condition class:

good (WCC rating of 1)

Restoration of these high significance sites 

within watersheds that are functioning at 

risk could benefit the overall function of the 

watershed.

Restoration 

Class 2

(R-2)

Site condition: fair

Significance: high or 

medium

Watershed condition class:

good or fair (WCC rating 1 or 

2)

Efforts to improve these sites that are in fair 

condition, and of medium to high significance, 

can help improve watershed condition. 

Restoration 

Class 3

(R-3)

Site condition: good or fair

Significance: various

Watershed condition class:

various

Investments in rehabilitation and restoration 

could maintain or improve individual sites, but 

overall condition and significance of these 

sites and watersheds warrant a low investment 

priority.

Restoration 

Class 4

(R-4)

In combination, Site condition, 

Significance, and Watershed 

condition class are low or poor

The generally poor condition (site and 

watershed) and low significance of these sites 

warrant the lowest investment priority. 
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Program increments can then be represented in both tabular and graphic form, as 

illustrated in figure 5 and table 6. A representation of program needs for different program 

funding horizons can also be displayed with 3-, 5-, and 10-year program horizons as 

depicted in table 6.

Figure 5. Hypothetical springs/GDE stewardship program cost representation (information 

presented in this table is for illustration only; program funding amounts are hypothetical 

and do not represent actual cost projections).

Table 6—Hypothetical springs/GDE stewardship program increments (information presented in this 

table is for illustration only; program funding amounts are hypothetical and do not represent actual 

cost projections).

Program Level

Total

Funding Needs

Annual Needs

3-Year Program

Annual Needs

5-Year Program

Annual Needs

10-Year Program

Base program $94,550 $31,517/year $18,910/year $9,455/year

Increment 1 $308,718 $102,906/year $61,744/year $30, 872/year

Increment 2 $616,000 $205,333/year $123,200/year $61,600/year

Total program $2,275,000 $758,333/year $455,000/year $227,500/year
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 19

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Phase II—Determine What Site-Specific Actions to Propose at Priority 

Springs/GDEs

Phase II involves identification and proposal of actions to restore or rehabilitate a spring 

or other GDE site or group of sites to achieve or move toward desired conditions. 

Management actions designed to move springs/GDE sites toward desired conditions 

is important because of the valuable ecological functions of these systems including: 

sustaining endemic species; providing refugia for maintaining biological diversity; 

serving as source of individual species to recolonize adjacent sites following disturbance; 

sequestration of carbon; maintaining base streamflows in a watershed; providing water 

sources in large arid expanses; and as barometers of ecosystem health. The site condition 

indicators described in the steps below provide a tool to document impairment to these 

functions and the identification of spring/GDE site restoration-rehabilitation proposals.

Key Point: Phases II through IV have not been tested and are presented to 

demonstrate how information from Phase I can be used in the development, 

implementation, and monitoring of proposed actions.

Developing proposed restoration actions involves the following steps:

Step 6—Determine Existing Condition

Step 7—Describe Desired Condition

Step 8—Determine the Purpose and Need for Action

Step 9—Develop a Site-Specific Proposed Action

Key Point: Unlike the analysis conducted in Phase I, Phases II through IV require data 

from GDE Level II inventories to accomplish these analysis steps.

Information provided in the following appendices includes more detail and are referenced 

in one or more of the steps included in Phase II:

Appendix 1—Rule Sets for Determining Spring/GDE Site Conditions

Appendix 3—SMNRA Springs/Riparian Management Response Framework

Appendix 4—Nevada Springs Restoration Practices

Step 6—Determine Existing Condition

At this point in the process, more detailed data about the site should be collected using 

the GDE Level II Inventory Field Guide. Unlike Step 1 that uses GDE Level I data, Step 

6 of the process applies this improved data set in characterizing the existing condition of 

an individual site using the rule sets described in Appendix 1.

The GDE Level II inventory data provide the ability to characterize vegetation, soil, 

hydrology, fauna, and disturbances at the site. Table 7 describes GDE Level II data and 

information that can be used to describe the existing condition of springs or GDE site 

indicators. These data can be compared to desired conditions (Step 7) to identify what 

needs to be done to achieve desired conditions (Step 8). The GDE Level II data can also 

provide a baseline of the current conditions that can be compared to conditions after 

management actions are implemented. This before and after comparison is a valuable tool 

in evaluating the success of restoration efforts (see Phase IV).
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Step 7—Describe Desired Condition

Desired conditions are used to describe the needs and purpose of maintenance and 

restoration and provide the basis for developing proposed treatments. Desired conditions 

may be based on ecological or social objectives, or both. Desired ecological conditions 

are typically driven by the desire to reestablish the primary structural and functional 

components of an ecosystem. Desired conditions for local landscapes are developed by 

stakeholders and represented in terms of Forest Plan goals and objectives for individual 

management areas and are informed by the best available science. Desired conditions 

constitute a framework for ecological sustainability and should be clearly described to 

focus management proposals.

The characteristics used to describe desired conditions for a site should be described 

using the same indicators that are used to determine existing conditions (Step 6). 

Table 7—Existing condition classification indicators from GDE level II data and information.

Site 

Condition 

Indicator

GDE Level II Inventory Data Used To Assess Existing Condition

Physical Indicators

1. Water 

quality

Evaluate water chemistry data, which is collected systematically at the site. In 

addition use:

Water Quality (MIT #3)

Disturbances noted

2. Water 

quantity

Evaluate water table depth and/or spring flow rate, which are collected 

systematically at the site. In addition use: 

Flow Regulation (MIT #13) 

Watershed Functionality (MIT #2)

Disturbances noted

3. Aquatic 

habitat

Evaluate vegetation data and associated settings of quadrats. In addition use:

Runout Channel (MIT #5)

Disturbances noted

4. Soils

Evaluate soils data, which are collected systematically at the site. In addition use:

Soil Integrity (MIT #6)

Landform Stability (MIT #4)

Disturbances noted

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic 

biota

Evaluate data on presence or abundance of aquatic biota. In addition use:

Faunal Species (MIT #10) in terms of aquatic biota

TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species (MIT #11) in terms of aquatic biota

6. Fauna

Evaluate data on presence or abundance of terrestrial biota. In addition use:

Faunal Species (MIT #10) in terms of terrestrial biota

TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species (MIT #11) in terms of terrestrial biota

7. Riparian/

wetland 

vegetation

Evaluate data on abundance of plant species and summaries such as the 

prevalence index and cover of non-native species. In addition use:

Vegetation Composition (MIT #7) 

Vegetation Condition (MIT #8) 

TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Floral Species (MIT #9)

8. Invasive 

species

Evaluate data on abundance of invasive species. In addition use:

Invasive Species (MIT #12) 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 21

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 8—Generic springs/GDEs desired condition descriptions.

Site 

Condition 

Indicator

Desired Condition

Physical Indicators

1. Water 

quality

• Water chemistry is within the anticipated range of variability for the site, including 

 suitability for the plants and animals present, or desired, at the site.

• No pollution of water is evident at the site.

2. Water 

quantity

• Groundwater discharge is sufficient to support riparian/wetland communities of plants 

 and animals. In some settings this means assuring that water levels remain at or 

 near the surface to maintain saturated soil conditions and/or no net decomposition of 

 peat. 

• No flow regulation at the site, or flow regulation does not adversely impact ecological 

 function.

• Spring flow (if expected for the site) is within the anticipated range of variability.

• Surface and groundwater flow within the watershed are not significantly altered.

3. Aquatic 

habitat

• No channel incision or headcuts uncharacteristic of spring type.

• No excessive erosion.

• No habitat destruction by animals, people or vehicles.

• Area of GDE is maintained, providing habitat for aquatic biota appropriate for the site, 

 particularly for species of concern.

• Culverts are designed and maintained to allow aquatic organism passage.

4. Soils

• Soils are intact and functional, consistent with the spring type.

• Soils support (or have the capability to support) riparian/wetland vegetation.

• Minimal erosion, trampling, excavation, or other disturbance to the soil at the site.

• Roads do not pass through the site. 

• Roads adjacent to the site do not cause landform instability, sediment input or other 

 negative effects to the site.

• Trails have minimal impact on the site.

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic 

biota

• Anticipated abundance of native aquatic biota.

• Non-native aquatic biota does not dominate the site.

6. Fauna • Anticipated abundance of native terrestrial biota.

• Non-native biota does not dominate the site.

7. Riparian/

wetland 

vegetation

• Anticipated cover of native riparian/wetland plant communities that are in healthy 

 condition.

• Species indicate the presence of wetland soils and water table level appropriate for 

 the site. No encroachment of upland vegetation. 

8. Invasive 

species

• Native plant and animal species dominate the site.

• Invasive species are not established at the site.

Generic desired condition statements are provided in table 8.These desired condition 

statements should be modified to reflect site-specific conditions and can rely on additional 

information gathered using GDE Level II Field Inventory data.

Refining Desired Condition Descriptions

The desired condition statements need to be based on the potential for a site, given the 

environmental conditions and constraints for the geographic location of the site. In some 

cases it may not be possible to restore a site to the pre-disturbance conditions because of 

the level of disturbance or changes in conditions in and around the site.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Desired condition descriptions for each of the indicators for the desired level of 

functionality may be refined using pre-disturbance conditions where historical 

information is available or from reference sites. Specific sources of information on 

desired condition include:

• Knowledge about the site’s natural condition based on data, historic photographs, 

aerial photography, early site descriptions, surveys, journals, and, information 

gleaned from literature search, or personal accounts obtained from individuals 

knowledgeable about the history of the site.

• Conditions at a comparable reference site – a site that is minimally impacted by 

human activities or other factors such as introduced or invasive species.

It may be desirable to describe desired conditions to reflect a management determination 

that resulted in an irreversible condition (e.g., establishing a spring box for a community 

potable water supply) for some indicators or attributes. In these instances, desired 

conditions can be developed using the condition classification descriptions for each 

indicator or attribute in Appendix 1 at the “fair” or “poor” level.

Step 8—Determine the Purpose and Need for Action

Once the desired conditions are identified they can be compared to the existing conditions 

to determine those indicators needing improvement and the purpose of different actions. 

This information is used to propose actions needed to improve the site’s conditions 

toward the desired conditions (Step 7). Examples of conditions that prevent a site from 

meeting the desired condition include:

• Water quality impairment,

• Flow alteration,

• Excessive erosion and sedimentation,

• Presence of non-native or invasive plant or animal species,

• Damage to vegetation or soil (by animals, vehicles, or people),

• Structures or activities that alter the hydrology of the site, and

• Roads or trails in or near the site that affect hydrology or produce sediment.

The impairments listed above, which are used to assess and remedy conditions that are 

not at desired levels, will be identified and addressed using the indicators described in 

this framework.

Maintenance and rehabilitation needs can be identified using table 9 to describe the need 

and purpose associated with each of the indicators used to assess the existing condition 

(Step 6) and desired condition (Step 7). The agency administrator or responsible official 

determines which of these needs to respond to within the overall context of managing 

the administrative unit. Although needs may exist on an individual site, the responsible 

official determines which of these to pursue as part of an agency proposal.

In developing and describing proposed actions, it is important to consistently describe the 

purpose of restoration using common terminology. The Key Concepts and Terminology 

section of this framework provides terms and definitions related to restoration. An 

example of how to identify the need for restoration-rehabilitation actions and their 

purpose is presented in table 9. This information (purpose and need) is used to formulate 

a proposed action (Step 9).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 23

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 9—Hypothetical restoration and rehabilitation project need and purpose for a rheocrene spring.

Site Condition 

Indicator

Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition Maintenance or Rehabilitation Need and Purpose of Actions

Physical Indicators

1. Water 

quality

Poor Good Need: The primary factors affecting water quality are damage to 

vegetation and soil caused by off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and 

ungulates. These disturbances in and adjacent to the spring site and 

outflow channel have led to erosion, channel widening, sediment in 

the channel and associated impairment of water quality.

Purpose: Reduce unauthorized OHV use off designated routes 

upslope and divert overland flow from existing roads that provides 

sediment sources into the spring, and stabilize sediment sources. 

Maintain fences to limit ungulate use of riparian vegetation.

2. Water 

quantity

Good Good No action needed

3. Aquatic 

habitat

Good Good No action needed

4. Soils Poor Fair Need: Roads that are open to OHV use and the FDR # XXX traverses 

this site. Sedimentation and culvert blockage on the FDR # XXX road 

have channeled overland flow along the road, causing erosion and 

sediment delivery to the creek. OHV use on designated routes above 

the spring source is incising and deepening the roadway channeling 

overland flow into the spring source.

Purpose: Improve compliance with motor vehicle use restrictions. 

Repair road drainage and replace blocked culvert with hard nativesurface low-water crossing.

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic biota Fair Good Need: Recovery from past disturbance to the outflow channel has led 

to a proliferation of watercress, an aquatic colonizing species that may 

temporarily inhibit springsnails, but is useful for trapping sediment and 

re-building stream banks. Non-native fish have been introduced and 

may affect springsnails and may affect springsnail habitat, however, 

these effects are not understood.

Purpose: Time without disturbance is needed for later successional 

plant species to establish on the stream margins, displacing 

watercress, and continuing the development of a narrower, deeper 

channel that will support aquatic biota. Restocking of non-native fish 

should be discouraged.

6. Fauna Poor Good Need: Fences built in the past were not built to exclude elk. Therefore 

the fences need to be modified to keep elk out. Alternative water 

sources are available downstream from the existing exclosure.

Purpose: Prevent elk from entering the spring/riparian zone and 

causing damage to vegetation, soil, streambanks and aquatic 

organisms.

7.Riparian/

wetland 

vegetation

Fair Good Need: Excessive disturbance in and around the spring orifice by wild 

horses, burros, and elk have altered the native plant communities, 

which has likely led to a decline in some butterfly host and nectar plant 

species.

Purpose: Exclude wild horses, burros, and elk from the spring site. 

Design the exclosure to take advantage of natural features and anchor 

points.

Wild horse and burro populations continue to exceed desired AMLs 

resulting in unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation and aquatic 

biota (springsnails) therefore continued maintenance of the exclosure 

is needed. 

8. Invasive 

species

Good Good No action needed
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

In this example, when an indicator’s existing condition rating is the same as the desired 

condition, no actions other than site monitoring and maintenance are needed; therefore 

these actions are not carried forward as part of developing an agency proposed action 

since “no action” is required in the context of NEPA. In this example, the current 

condition for indicators of Water Quantity (#2), Aquatic Biota (#3), and Invasive Species 

(#8) are currently achieving desired conditions; therefore, no actions are warranted.

Step 9—Develop a Site-Specific Proposed Action1

Proposed actions for restoration/rehabilitation of a site or GDE feature are developed 

based on the initial site condition classification (Step 6) and the identification of desired 

conditions (Step 7) that are used to determine if existing conditions for a spring or site 

do not meet the desired conditions (Step 8). Proposed actions should be developed, 

evaluated, and modified based on input from stakeholders prior to initiating the NEPA 

process. These efforts may include on-site discussions with interested and affected 

stakeholders.

Design and mitigation measures used to describe a proposed spring or GDE site 

restoration-rehabilitation proposed action should be developed from a combination 

of practices described in the SMNRA Springs Management Response Framework 

(Appendix 3) and by the Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee 

(Appendix 4).Best management practices (BMPs) for the HTNF and those described 

in the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook (USDA Forest Service, in 

progress)2 should be incorporated into the proposed action as design measures.

Although planning restoration-rehabilitation actions for different sites will have a similar 

planning approach, each project presents unique requirements, challenges, constraints, 

and unknowns. In developing a proposed action, the strengths and weaknesses of various 

options should be evaluated by using considerations such as the following:

• Cost and available funding

• Constraints

ο Structures

ο Water rights

ο Land and, or, water use

ο Land ownership

ο Cultural values

• Likelihood of success

• Time required for completion

The “management response framework” presented in Appendix 3 serves as a starting 

point for addressing objectives, standards, and guidelines that apply to the SMNRA 

that are described in the Toiyabe Forest Plan and the General Management Plan for the 

SMNRA (Forest Plan Amendment #4).

1  The term “agency proposed action” is used here consistent with definitions in the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the FS NEPA Practices Handbook (FSH 1909.15). It

represents a formal proposal made by the responsible official that initiates the NEPA process.

Prior to this, point actions are considered “program proposals.” 2  The Forest Service is currently revising this Handbook, which addresses specific measures

related to spring water source development.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 25

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

These practices have been evaluated and determined to be effective based on the audit 

of projects implemented on the SMNRA (METI2012). Interdisciplinary teams are 

encouraged to use the design measures and management practices described in the 

management response framework as a starting point for developing proposed actions.

Proposed actions can be refined using the spring restoration practices presented in 

Appendix 4, which describes restoration actions that have been successfully used in 

Nevada. Information in this appendix characterizes restoration actions as either “passive” 

or “active.” These terms are defined in the Key Concepts and Terminology section of this 

framework.

Passive restoration examples include:

√ Administrative regulations restricting or prohibiting vehicle use of a site to 

eliminate or reduce water pollution, site damage, and soil erosion;

√ Reduction or cessation of water diversion to increase availability of water 

for aquatic biota and plants, and to support habitat for terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife; and

√ Reduction in livestock use to allow vegetation and soil conditions to improve, 

etc.

Active restoration examples include:

√ Removal (manually or with chemicals) of invasive or non-native species,

√ Fencing or barrier construction designed to prevent site access by vehicles or 

animals, and

√ Construction of physical improvements designed to enhance a channel or 

wetland function.

Additional active and passive restoration actions appropriate for Nevada are provided in 

Appendix 4.

Key Point: In describing an agency proposed action, the use of active or passive 

restoration practices should be limited to those actions that require a NEPA 

decision document. In some instances, passive restoration measures do not require 

documentation in a NEPA decision document to implement (e.g., enforcement of 

vehicle use restrictions or prohibitions, establishment of public information or education 

programs, or the use of natural revegetation to restore vegetation cover composition 

and structure), while others do (e.g., establishing motor vehicle use restrictions or 

prohibitions using a forest supervisor’s special order). Additional guidance on this point 

is provided in FSH 1909.15, Section 11.2.

An illustration of how to identify maintenance and rehabilitation actions for a spring is 

provided in table 10. Information from table 10 is used to frame the proposed action and 

only those site condition indicators requiring action to achieve desired conditions are 

included in the example of developing an agency proposed action. Active and passive 

restoration actions are derived from the Management Response Framework (Appendix 3) 

and the Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee (Appendix 4).

After developing a proposed project design, a funding proposal can be developed based 

on the estimated cost of the restoration actions. A well-written proposal is an important 

tool to explain the project, including the costs and anticipated accomplishments. The 

proposal is used to communicate the benefits and value of the project to stakeholders, 

particularly to potential funders.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 10—Example of developing an agency proposed restoration-rehabilitation action.

Site 

Condition 

Indicator

Restoration or Rehabilitation Need and Purpose Potential Agency Restoration 

Actions

Physical Indicators

1. Water 

quality

Need: The primary factors affecting water quality are damage 

to vegetation and soil caused by off-highway vehicle use and 

ungulates. These disturbances in and adjacent to the spring 

site and outflow channel have led to erosion, channel widening, 

sediment in the channel and associated impairment of water 

quality.

Purpose: Reduce unauthorized OHV use off designated 

routes upslope and divert overland flow from existing roads 

that provides sediment sources into the spring, and stabilize 

sediment sources. Limit ungulate use of riparian vegetation.

Passive: Allow revegetation of 

disturbed areas to occur naturally.

Active: Maintain the original 

exclosure fence design and maintain 

the fence. Divert channeled flow on 

OHV routes using rolling dips or other 

low maintenance drainage structures. 

Enforce the use of designated OHV 

routes within the watershed.

4. Soils Need: Roads that are open to OHV use and the FDR # XXX 

traverses this site. Sedimentation and culvert blockage on the 

FDR # XXX road have diverted flow onto the road, causing 

erosion and eventually transporting sediment into the spring 

brook/creek. OHV use on designated routes is causing incising 

of the roadway channeling overland flow into the spring source.

Purpose: Improve compliance with motor vehicle use 

restrictions. Repair road drainage structures and replace the 

FDR # XXX blocked culvert with hard native-surface low-water 

crossing.

Passive: No actions recommended.

Active: Increase law enforcement and 

compliance with motor vehicle use 

restrictions. Repair road drainage 

structures replace the existing culvert 

with a hard native-surface low-water 

crossing.

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic 

biota

Need: Recovery from past disturbance to the outflow channel 

needs to continue. Rainbow trout have been introduced and 

may affect springsnails and their habitat; however, these effects 

are not understood.

Purpose: Time without disturbance is needed for later 

successional plant species to establish on the stream margins 

to maintain a narrower deeper channel that will support aquatic 

biota. Restocking of non-native fish should be discouraged.

Passive: Discourage restocking 

of non-native fish until effects on 

springsnails petitioned for listing are 

better understood.

Active: No actions recommended.

6. Fauna Need: Fences built in the past were not built to exclude elk. 

Therefore the fences need to be modified to keep elk out. 

Alternative water sources are available downstream from the 

existing exclosure. No gate or exit was included in the existing 

exclosure to facilitate removal of horses, burros, or elk.

Purpose: Prevent elk from entering the spring/riparian zone and 

causing damage to vegetation, soil, streambanks and aquatic 

organisms.

Passive: No actions recommended.

Active: Reconstruct the original 

exclosure to exclude elk and wild 

horses/burros, expand the perimeter 

to include all riparian areas and 

anchor to physical feature, exclude 

elk use, and maintain the fence. 

Observe closure effectiveness 

weekly. Remove any wild horses 

within the exclosure and repair the 

fence as fast as possible once horses 

are observed. Design a gate for 

horse/elk removal.

7.Riparian/

wetland 

vegetation

Need: Excessive disturbance in and around the spring orifice 

by wild horses, burros, and elk have altered native plant 

communities, leading to a decline in some butterfly host and 

nectar species as well as springsnails. A post and cable 

exclosure was installed to exclude use. Effectiveness of this 

exclosure has been compromised because of damage to posts 

from vehicle traffic and snow loading.

Purpose: Exclude wild horses, burros, and elk from the spring.

Passive: No actions recommended.

Active: Reconstruct the original 

exclosure to exclude elk and wild 

horses/burros, expand the perimeter 

to include all riparian areas and 

anchor to physical feature, exclude 

elk use, and maintain the fence. 

Observe closure effectiveness 

weekly. Remove any wild horses 

within the exclosure and repair the 

fence as fast as possible once horses 

are observed.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 27

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Example of a Restoration Project Proposal

The purpose of this project is “recovery” of degraded GDE site ecosystem components 

to their proper function. Based on a site condition classification, specific areas of concern 

that need to be addressed include detrimental effects to water quality, aquatic biota, and 

fauna and riparian/wetland vegetation.

Water quality: The primary factors affecting water quality are damage to 

vegetation and soil caused by off-highway vehicle (OHV) use and ungulates. These 

disturbances in and adjacent to the spring site and outflow channel have led to 

erosion, channel widening, sediment in the channel and associated impairment of 

water quality. Roads that are open to OHV use and FDR # XXX, which traverses 

this site, are having detrimental effects on the spring and spring brook/creek. OHV 

use on designated routes is causing incising of the roadway and channeling overland 

flow into the spring source. Sedimentation and culvert blockage on the FDR # XXX 

road have channeled overland flow onto the road, causing erosion and sediment 

delivery to the stream.

Aquatic Biota: Recovery from past disturbance to the outflow channel has led to a 

proliferation of watercress, an aquatic colonizer species that may temporarily inhibit 

springsnails. Rainbow trout have been introduced and may affect springsnails and 

their habitat; however, these effects are not understood.

Fauna and Riparian/Wetland Vegetation: Excessive disturbance in and around 

the spring orifice by wild horses, burros, and elk have altered the native plant 

communities, which has likely led to a decline in some butterfly host and nectar 

species. Wild horse and elk grazing and browsing, trampling and loafing within the 

spring site and riparian area have caused extensive damage in the past. As a result, 

a post and cable exclosure was previously installed to exclude use, but designed 

to allow access by elk. The effectiveness of this exclosure has been compromised 

because of damage to posts from vehicle traffic and snow loading. Use by elk also 

resulted in damage to drip irrigation systems originally installed to establish riparian 

vegetation.

The purpose of the proposed action is to:

– Reduce unauthorized OHV use off designated routes upslope and divert 

overland flow from existing roads and trails that provides sediment sources 

into the spring;

– Limit unacceptable impacts to riparian vegetation and aquatic biota 

(springsnails) from wild horses, burros, and elk;

– Allow later successional plant species to establish on the stream margins to 

maintain a narrower deeper channel that will support aquatic biota;

– Avoid unanticipated effects to springsnails, proposed for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, from non-native fish stocking; and

– Reduce delivery of sediment to the stream associated with the blocked culvert.

– Passive measures include:

– Allowing revegetation of disturbed areas to occur naturally since the use of 

native species is costly and has a low probability of success;
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

– Discouraging restocking of non-native fish until effects on springsnails 

petitioned for listing are better understood; and

– Use of water sources downstream from the exclosure for elk and wild horses/

burros.

Restoration of natural vegetation communities and conservation of aquatic biota will be 

accomplished by implementing the following actions, which are a combination of active 

and passive measures. Specific active restoration measures include:

– Repairing road drainage and installing a hard native-surface low-water 

crossing;

– Diverting channeled flow on OHV routes using rolling dips or other low 

maintenance drainage structures;

– Enforcing the use of designated OHV routes within the watershed by 

increasing law enforcement and compliance with motor vehicle use 

restrictions;

– Continuing to exclude wild horses, burros, and elk from the entire spring site 

by designing the exclosure to take advantage of natural features and anchor 

points using a post and 3-cable fence design;

– Maintaining and expanding the original exclosure fence to take advantage of 

topographic features and removing the section designed to allow access by elk; 

and

– Frequent monitoring of exclosure effectiveness and removing any wild horses 

from within the exclosure and repairing the fence as quickly as possible once 

horses are noted within the exclosure. A gate to facilitate removal of horses, 

burros, or elk will be incorporated into the fence reconstruction design.

Once the restoration measures above have been identified, determine which components 

of the proposal require a NEPA decision and those that can be implemented without a 

NEPA decision.3

Example of Proposed Project Cost Estimation

Costs used in table 11 are estimates and are only intended to provide an example of 

how to estimate cost elements for individual projects. Specific cost estimates should 

be generated using construction cost estimation guidelines for the Humboldt-Toiyabe 

National Forest and the Intermountain Region. Development of cost estimates and 

supporting information will vary by the type of funding sought and competition for 

funding.

3  Active or passive restoration actions do not directly translate to NEPA’s definition of a proposed

action as described in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15. Some passive restoration actions require

a NEPA decision to implement (e.g., changes in motor vehicle use restrictions). In some cases

active restoration actions (e.g., increased funding for law enforcement) do not require a NEPA

decision to implement.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 29

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Phase III—Decide Which Actions to Take

This phase of the restoration program process relies on established agency procedures 

for environmental compliance, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and other environmental compliance statutes. As a result, this section only discusses the 

relationships between these procedures and the previously described restoration program 

phases. Specific steps include:

Step 10—Assess Environmental Effects,

Step 11—Document Environmental Analysis (DM, EA or EIS), and

Step 12—Issue NEPA Decision (DM, DN or ROD).

The specific proposed action for the site is developed in Step 9 (Phase II). Not all actions 

that are identified require an agency NEPA decision, so the scope of the proposed action 

will need to reflect only those specific actions that require a decision (e.g., enforcement of 

motorized vehicle restrictions to designated routes).

Step 10—Assess Environmental Effects

Analysis and evaluation of environmental effects for individual sites can be supported 

using information developed during Phase I and II. A summary of information that is 

available to assess environmental effects is presented in table 12.

Step 11—Document Environmental Analysis (DM, EA or EIS)

Information described in different sections of environmental documents (decision memos, 

environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements) can be developed 

from the results of applying the processes described in this framework. Table 13 identifies 

specific information sources by environmental document section.

Table 11—Hypothetical costs for a proposed project.

Action Category One-Time/

Install Cost

Annual 

Maintenance Cost

Passive management

Visitor education—information signs/kiosk $1,500 $500

Modify and implement travel and visitor use restrictions $5,000 $0

Law enforcement (6 visits @ $150/visit) $0 $900

Wild horse and burro management—site observation (every 2 

weeks)

$0 $4,800

Subtotal Passive Management Costs $2,500 $6,200

Active Management

Reconstruct/relocate perimeter fencing, install access 

gate

$60,000 $3,200

Hard native-surface stream crossings and water barriers $15,000 $1,500

Trail re-location/barriers $5,000 $1,000

Fence maintenance and repair $0 $2,500

Site monitoring $0 $1,500

Subtotal active management costs $80,000 $9,700

Total costs $82,500 $15,900

3-Year project cost $98,400
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 12—Sources of environmental consequence descriptions by alternative for an individual site.

Typical Project 

Alternatives Applicable Phase I and II Information

No action Existing condition descriptions from Step 1 provides the basis for 

characterizing the consequences of taking no restoration action.

Condition ratings for individual indicators and site function are primary 

descriptors of these environmental consequences.

Site rehabilitation The focus of this alternative is the rehabilitation of selected condition 

indicators as a function of the probability of success, funding limitations, 

and program management emphasis.

Desired condition descriptions for site condition indicators can be used 

to identify environmental effects likely from implementation of proposed 

actions. For active management actions, short-term direct and indirect 

effects can be assessed based on specific project design.

Site restoration The focus of this alternative is on the restoration of all condition indicators 

that are currently not at desired conditions. Project cost and the 

probability of success are not used to limit the scope of the action.

Desired condition descriptions for specific indicators can be used to 

identify environmental effects likely to occur from implementation of the 

proposal.

For passive management actions it is important to address the rate or 

pace of restoration over time since natural processes are the principal 

mechanism.

For active management actions, short-term direct and indirect effects can 

be assessed based on specific project design. Address the expected rate 

of restoration over time because the implied purpose of management 

action is to accelerate the rate of change.

Table 13—Sources of information for environmental document sections.

Environmental 

Document Section Information Sources 

Purpose and need Derived from information developed in Step 7 (see table 8)

Environmental 

consequences Derived from information from Step 10 (see table 12).

Affected environment

Derived from the GDE site condition classification conducted during 

Step 1 using rule sets described in appendix 1 and the resulting 

description of existing site conditions from Step 6. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 31

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Step 12—Issue NEPA Decision (DM, DN, or ROD)

The final step in Phase III is to issue an agency decision, including specific project 

design and mitigation measures and monitoring requirements. Keep in mind that when 

decisions include monitoring requirements, the responsible official must assure they can 

be accomplished as part of the decision document.

Developing Project Monitoring Requirements

The monitoring requirements should be related to the condition indicators addressed 

in the decision (table 14). These attributes will be used to determine whether postrestoration conditions are moving toward or have achieved desired conditions. The 

attributes can include both qualitative and quantitative data and information.

Quantitative monitoring data used to detect change may be obtained using methods 

described in the GDE Level II Inventory Field Guide (see table 14 for specific data 

attributes). Use of these standard protocols allows the use of the same method for 

monitoring across multiple projects. Large changes can generally be detected with 

the methods described in Level II Inventory Field Guide; however, small changes 

may not be accurately discerned because of error inherent in sampling. Generic 

desired condition statements are provided in the center column of table 14 and are 

derived from the indicator condition rule sets described in Appendix 1. The generic 

desired condition statements described in table 8 serve as the starting point for 

describing desired conditions in Step 7 and in identifying potential quantitative 

monitoring requirements.

Qualitative monitoring information can be obtained with photos (in conjunction 

with notes or drawings) recorded before and after the restoration project. The 

GDE field guides include procedures for establishing photo points that can be used 

to evaluate before and after conditions at a spring/GDE feature. Implementation 

and monitoring audits (METI 2012) provide another example of observing 

implementation and the effectiveness of the project design and associated mitigation 

measures.

It is also important to monitor the status of physical improvements (fences, road 

crossings, etc.) to determine whether they were properly installed and are being 

maintained to original specifications.
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table 14—Relationship of project monitoring requirements to GDE level II data attributes.

Site Condition 

Indicator Generic or Typical Desired Conditions Gde Level II Data Attributes

Physical Indicators

1. Water quality • Water chemistry is within the anticipated range of 

variability for the site, including suitability for the plants 

and animals present, or desired, at the site.

• No pollution of water is evident at the site.

- Water quality parameters

2. Water quantity • Groundwater discharge is sufficient to support 

riparian/wetland communities of plants and animals. 

In some settings this means assuring that water levels 

remain at or near the surface to maintain saturated soil 

conditions and, or, no net decomposition of peat. 

• No flow regulation at the site.

• Spring flow (if expected for the site) is within the 

anticipated range of variability.

• Surface and groundwater flow within the watershed 

are not significantly altered.

- Flow rate (for springs)

- Water table depth (for 

wetlands)

3. Aquatic habitat • No channel incision or headcuts.

• No excessive erosion.

• No habitat destruction by animals, people or vehicles.

• Area of GDE is maintained, providing habitat for 

aquatic biota appropriate for the site, particularly for 

species of concern.

• Culverts are designed and maintained to allow 

aquatic organism passage.

- Extent of GDE area

4. Soils • Soils are intact and functional.

• Soils support (or have the capability to support) 

riparian/wetland vegetation.

• Minimal erosion, trampling, excavation, or other 

disturbance to the soil at the site.

• Trails have minimal impact on the site.

• Roads do not pass through the site.

• Roads adjacent to the site do not cause landform 

instability, sediment input or other negative effects to 

the site.

- Soils data—change 

typically takes many years

- Ground cover—

particularly bare soil

Biological Indicators

5. Aquatic biota • Anticipated abundance of native aquatic biota. -- Abundance or presence 

of animals of interest (e.g., 

spring snails)

6. Fauna • Anticipated abundance of native terrestrial biota. -- Abundance or presence 

of animals of interest

7. Riparian/ 

wetland 

vegetation

• Anticipated cover of native riparian/wetland plant 

communities that are in healthy condition.

• Species indicate the presence of wetland soils 

and water table level appropriate for the site. No 

encroachment of upland vegetation. 

-- Plant species 

abundance 

-- Native species plant 

cover

-- Woody plant cover

-- Bryophyte abundance 

-- Wetland plant 

abundance (e.g., 

prevalence index)

8. Invasive 

species

• Native plant and animal species dominate the site.

• Invasive species are not established at the site.

-- Cover of invasive plant 

species

-- Presence of invasive 

animals species
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 33

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Phase IV—Implement and Monitor Results

This phase of the process involves the following steps:

Step 13—Develop Implementation Guidance

Step 14—Implement Stewardship Actions

Step 15—Report Accomplishments

Step 16—Monitor Implementation and Effectiveness

Step 13—Develop Implementation Guidance

Develop contract specifications and design information or crew instructions detailing 

the specific actions to be taken and areas of concern that should be addressed during 

implementation.

Step 14—Implement Stewardship Practices

Project actions are implemented using contract, agency or partner staff, or, in the case of 

passive actions, the passage of time.

Step 15—Report Accomplishments

Restoration and rehabilitation accomplishments should be reported in the Watershed 

Classification and Assessment Tracking Tool (WCATT) database, which is used in the 

reporting accomplishment of essential projects and watershed improvement actions in 

“Step E” of the Watershed Condition Framework (USDA Forest Service 2011).

Step 16—Monitor Implementation and Effectiveness

There is often a lack of data collection on the implementation and effectiveness of 

restoration or rehabilitation actions (Ramstead et al. 2012). In a review of stream 

restoration efforts, only 10 percent of projects included monitoring data according to 

Bernhardt et al. (2005) and much of that monitoring did not provide information on the 

ecological effectiveness of the restoration actions. Therefore, it is important to monitor 

(a) the effectiveness of the results of restoration actions, and (b) the implementation of 

the restoration project to ensure the project was implemented as designed.

Implementation monitoring involves an evaluation of how well the plan was 

implemented (Did they do what they said they would do?). This post-project 

monitoring should include a review of contract or crew administration to ensure 

the design was implemented as planned or, if changes are made, that proper 

authorization for those changes are documented. An example of an implementation 

and effectiveness evaluation procedures is provided in the 2011 Implementation and 

Monitoring Audit (METI2012) that describes the implementation and effectiveness 

of riparian, springs, and recreation management practices in the SMNRA.

Effectiveness monitoring of the results of restoration-rehabilitation actions is 

intended to measure the success of the project in achieving desired conditions 

(Did the plan work?). Both qualitative and quantitative data are recommended for 

effectiveness monitoring (see Step 12). Quantitative attributes developed using 

methods described in the GDE Level II Inventory Field Guide can be gathered and 

used to evaluate changes (listed in the right column of table 14). It is important to 

use the same procedures or protocols for pre- and post-project conditions to provide 

for data consistency and change detection accuracy.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Qualitative data can be collected in the form of photos, notes, and drawings 

recorded before and after the restoration project. Photos in particular can be useful 

in demonstrating change, which can support or add to the information obtained from 

quantitative data. Structured on-site observation and reporting using the I/M Audit 

approach can also be used to generate qualitative monitoring data.

Phase V—Evaluate and Adjust

Information and experience gained from accomplishing all phases of this process can be 

used to adjust and refine the framework over time. These adjustments and refinements 

provide the basis for continuous improvement as well as provide an adaptive management 

system for use on the SMNRA and other NFS units.

Mummy Springs, July 2011, is an example of a rheocrene GDE on the Vegas Wash 

watershed (photo by USDA Forest Service, Northern Arizona University springs 

survey crew).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 35

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

References

Bernhardt, E.S. [et al.]. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308 

(5722): 636–637.

Black, M. 2003. Can we design ecosystems? Lessons from the California rivers. 

International Journal of Engineering Education 1:213–226.

Brown, J.; Wyers, A.; Aldous, A.; Bach, L. 2007. Groundwater and biodiversity 

conservation: a methods guide for integrating groundwater needs of ecosystems and 

species conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. 

51 p.

Coles-Ritchie, M.C.; Solem, S.J.; Springer, A.E.; Pendleton, B.K. [In progress]. Phase I 

analysis of select sites on the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area applying the 

framework for Springs Stewardship Program and proposed action development: Spring 

Mountains National Recreation Area. El Paso, TX: METI, Inc.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2008. Spring Mountains National Recreation Area landscape analysis. 

Unpublished report on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, HumboldtToiyabe National Forest, Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. Las Vegas, NV.

Lavigne, P. 2005. Humpty Dumpty and restoration policy. Natural Resources Journal 45: 

495–506.

Management and Engineering Technologies International [METI], Inc. 2012. 

Implementation and monitoring audit report: recreation (OHV) management and springs/

riparian management. El Paso, TX: METI, Inc. Unpublished report on file at: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Spring 

Mountains National Recreation Area. Las Vegas, NV. 31 p. plus appendices.

Meine, C. 2004. Correction lines: essays on land, Leopold, and conservation. 

Washington, DC: Island Press.

Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee. 2012. Rehabilitation and restoration 

of Nevada springs: A handbook. Unpublished document on file at: USDA Forest Service, 

Geological Resources Hazards and Surface Management, Washington, DC.

Potyondy, J.P.; Geier, T.W. 2011. Watershed condition classification technical guide. FS978. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 41 p.

Ramstead, K.M.; Allen, J.A.; Springer, A.E. 2012. Have wet meadow restoration projects 

in the southwestern U.S. been effective in restoring geomorphology, hydrology, soils, and 

plant species composition? Environmental Evidence 1:11.

Sada, D.W.; Pohlmann, K.F. 2006. U.S. National Park Service Mojave inventory and 

monitoring network spring survey protocols: level I and level II. Reno, NV: Desert 

Research Institute.

Society for Ecological Restoration [SER]. 2004. The SER international primer on 

ecological restoration. Tucson, AZ: Society for Ecological Restoration, International, 

Science and Policy Working Group. Online: http://www.ser.org/resources/resourcesdetail-view/ser-international-primer-on-ecological-restoration#3. [11 September 2013].
36 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Society for Ecological Restoration [SER] 2005. Guidelines for developing and managing 

ecological restoration projects. Washington, DC: Society for Ecological Restoration. 

Online: http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/guidelines-for-developingand-managing-ecological-restoration-projects. [16 May 2013].

Springer, A.E.; Stevens, L. 2008. Spheres of discharge of springs. Hydrogeology Journal 

17:83–93.

Springer, A.E; Stevens, L.E.; Ledbetter, J.D.; Schaller, E.M.; Gill, K.; Rood, S.B. [In 

review]. Ecohydrology and stewardship of Alberta Springs Ecosystems. Ecohydrology.

Springs Stewardship Institute. 2013. Ecohydrology of springs on Kaibab National Forest 

to support forest planning. Agreement #10-CS-11030700-023. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Stevens, L.E.; Springer, A.E.; Ledbetter, J.D. [n.d.] SEAP: An integrated Springs 

Ecosystem Assessment Protocol. Online: http://www.springstewardship.org/assessment.

html [23 September 2013].

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and resource management plan: Toiyabe National 

Forest. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Region. 316 p. Online: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/

stelprdb5143054.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 1996. General management plan for the Spring Mountains 

National Recreation Area: an amendment to the land and resource management plan, 

Toiyabe National Forest. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Region. 75 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Ecosystem restoration: a framework for restoring and 

maintaining the national forests and grasslands. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Restoration Framework Team. 24 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Comprehensive inventory and monitoring strategy for 

conserving biological resources of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area. 

El Paso, TX: METI, Inc.; Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 125 p.

USDA Forest Service 2011. Watershed condition framework: A framework for assessing 

and tracking changes to watershed condition. FS-977. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 24 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: level l inventory 

field guide: inventory methods for assessment and planning. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86a. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 191 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: level II inventory 

field guide: inventory methods for project design and analysis. Gen. Tech. Report WO86b. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 124 p.

USDA Forest Service. [In progress]. National core BMP technical guide. Vol. 1. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 37

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

USDI Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 1999. Riparian area management: A user 

guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic 

areas. TR 1737-16. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. 109 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2011. National wetland condition 

assessment: field operations manual. EPA-843-R-10-001. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency.

Weixelman, D.A.; Cooper, D.J. 2009. Assessing proper functioning condition for fen 

areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California, a user guide. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. R5-TP-028. Vallejo, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region. 42 p.
38 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 39

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix 1—Rule Sets for Site Condition Classification

The condition classification rule sets described in this appendix are derived from the 

condition indicators used in the Watershed Condition Classification process as described 

in Step 1.

Sources of information for site condition classification include data from the 

Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) inventory gathered using the GDE Inventory 

Field Guides (USDA Forest Service 2012a, 2012b), ancillary information, local 

information and expertise, and traditional cultural knowledge (figure A.1.1).

The primary GDE inventory data used for the condition classification are the 

“management indicator tool” and the “disturbance” observations that were part of the 

GDE Level II inventory of the springs of the SMNRA. The “management indicator 

tool” or MIT is a series of 25 questions (answered true or false) about the effects of 

management or activities for the following categories: hydrology, geomorphology and 

soils, biology, disturbances, and administrative context. The condition rating rule sets 

described in the tables below list a MIT question and number as a source of information 

to assess site condition. 

Disturbance observations acquired using the GDE Level I inventory are observations of 

disturbances in the following categories: hydrologic alteration, soil alteration, structures, 

recreational effects, animal effects, and miscellaneous. Specific disturbances from 

the GDE inventory are listed in many of the condition rating rule sets below (tables 

A.1.1-A.1.8).

The site sketch map, observer notes, and photos from the GDE Level I or II inventories 

can also be helpful in characterizing site conditions and identifying impairment that may 

need to be addressed to achieve desired conditions.

It is also advisable to look for inventory and monitoring information available from 

internal and external sources that could be useful in characterizing existing site 

conditions. Ancillary data sets common on most National Forest System (NFS) lands are 

identified within the rule sets when they may be useful in assessing site condition.
40 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Table A1.1. Water quality condition rating rule set. Purpose—This indicator addresses the expressed alteration of water quality associated with physical, biological, or chemical impacts to water quality associated with a GDE site. Water quality condition indicator Minimal to no impairment to the water quality at the GDE site. Minor impairment to the water quality at the GDE site. Significant impairment to the water quality at the GDE site. Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired function GDE Level I Inventory data and information Water quality conditions Water Quality (MIT #3) is noted as “True.” Water Quality (MIT #3) is noted as “False.” GDE Level I Information used to confirm or refine condition rating Water chemistry Water chemistry is within range of 

variability suitable for the types of plant and animal assemblages present or desired at the site, for the following GDE inventory parameters; temperature, pH, specific conductance, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen (DO).

Water chemistry is not within range of variability suitable for the types of plant and animal assemblages present or desired at the site, for the following GDE inventory parameters; temperature, pH, specific conductance, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), and dissolved oxygen (DO).

Disturbances and Pollution 

No “pollution” noted under Disturbances/Hydrologic Alteration.No “point source pollution” noted under Disturbances/ Structures.

“Pollution” noted under Disturbances/Hydrologic Alteration.“Point source pollution” noted under Disturbances/ Structures.

Ancillary information Abandoned or active mines

Abandoned and active mines within the area show no evidence of water quality contamination.

Abandoned or active mines have documented evidence showing some adverse effects to surface or groundwater quality within the area.

Abandoned or active mines within the area have been determined to be adversely affecting surface or groundwater as a result of water quality sampling.

Atmospheric deposition Atmospheric deposition is not known to 

contribute to water quality concerns within the area.

Atmospheric deposition is known to be contributing to water quality concerns within the area.

Additional guidance: None
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 41

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table A.1.2. Water quantity condition rating rule set.Purpose—This indicator addresses changes to the natural discharge rates at springs and wetlands and flow regime of associated spring brooks.

Water quantity condition indicator

Spring discharge and surface outflow has no or minor departure from natural conditions

Spring discharge and surface outflow has moderate departures from natural conditions.

Spring discharge and surface outflow is significantly altered.

Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired functionGDE Level I Inventory data and informationDiversion and other flow alteration

Flow Regulation (MIT #13) is noted as “True.”

Flow Regulation (MIT #13) is noted as “False.”

Contributing watershed functionality

Watershed functionality (mit #2) is noted as “true.”

Watershed functionality (mit #2) is noted as “false.”

GDE Level I Information used to confirm or refine condition ratingDiversion and other flow alteration

No “diversion” is noted under Disturbances/ Hydrologic Alteration).No “regulated water flow” is noted under Disturbances/ Hydrologic Alteration.No “extraction” is noted under Disturbances/ Hydrologic Alteration.

Diversion structures are stable, accommodating flows, and not degrading the ecology of the site. The amount of flow that is diverted is not causing the area of wetland vegetation and soils to contract. Erosion, leakage, trampling, ditching, excavation, or headcuts are not affecting the integrity of the site.

“Regulated water flow” is noted under Disturbances/ Hydrologic Alteration.“Extraction” is noted under Disturbances/ Hydrologic Alteration.

Flow rate Flow rate is as anticipated for functioning 

site.

Flow rate is somewhat different than anticipated for functioning site.

Flow rate is dramatically different than anticipated for functioning site.

Water table depth Water table is at or near the surface. Water table is detected, but lower than 

expected.

Water table is much lower than expected or not detectable.

Ancillary informationEnvironmental flows and groundwater levels(EF/L)

Groundwater flows and levels are not altered.

Groundwater flows and levels are maintained sufficient to support species richness and representative wetland species.

Groundwater flows and levels are insufficient to support species richness and representative wetland species.

Additional guidance: Large-scale industrial or municipality use from pumping would need to be present to measurably influence spring discharge or stream flow. In general, household groundwater use for domestic purposes will not have a significant influence of water quantity unless a watershed was developed to such an extent that it was closed to additional well developments by State water resource authorities. In some settings this means assuring that water levels remain at or near the surface to maintain saturated soil conditions and, or, to prevent loss (through decomposition) of peat.
42 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Table A.1.3. Aquatic habitat condition rating rule set. Purpose—This indicator addresses aquatic habitat condition with respect to habitat fragmentation, environmental flows and levels, and channel shape and function. Aquatic habitat condition indicator The GDE supports high-quality aquatic habitat and, where possible, high- quality stream channel conditions. The GDE supports some high-quality aquatic habitat, but high-quality stream channel conditions, if present, show signs of being degraded. The GDE supports minimal high-quality aquatic habitat, and stream channel conditions, if present, show evidence of being degraded by disturbance. Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired function GDE Level I Inventory data and information Channel shape and function Runout Channel (MIT #5) is noted as “True.” Runout Channel (MIT #5) is noted as “False.” GDE Level I Information used to confirm or refine condition rating

Channel shape and function

No “channel erosion” is noted under Soil Alteration.

“Channel erosion” is noted under Soil Alteration.

Habitat fragmentation No enclosures, such as spring house, 

spring box or concrete enclosures are noted under Structures. No negative effects to aquatic organism passage.

Maybe include a middle category for springs with diversion, but are managed such that some flow is undiverted and remains near orifice of spring?

Enclosures such as spring house, spring box or concrete enclosure are noted under Structures. Possible negative effects to aquatic organism passage.

Impoundments and Structures

No “regulated water flow” by impoundment/dam” is noted under Hydrologic Alteration.

“Regulated water flow” by impoundment/dam” is noted under Hydrologic Alteration.

Ancillary informationHydrology Sufficient groundwater flows to prevent 

changes in trophic levels or littoral conditions that would be detrimental to important aquatic species or aquatic life assemblages.Flows prevent encroachment of upland or invasive plant species and to maintain habitat for aquatic species of concern.

Insufficient groundwater flows to cause changes in trophic levels or littoral conditions that are detrimental to important aquatic species or aquatic life assemblages.Flows allow encroachment of upland or invasive plant species and to maintain habitat for aquatic species of concern.

Aquatic habitat extent Wetted area and spring brook length is 

adequate to maintain biological habitat and flows for basic biological function. 

Wetted area and spring brook length is not adequate to maintain biological habitat and flows for basic biological function. 

Additional guidance: In aquatic habitats lacking aquatic biota and, or, permanent habitat (e.g., some Southwest desert springs), evaluate conditions with respect to what would be expected to be present under natural conditions, or absent human-induced impacts.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 43

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table A.1.4. Soils condition rating rule set.Purpose—This indicator addresses alteration to natural soil condition, including productivity, erosion, and chemical contamination.

Soils condition indicator

Minor or no alteration to reference soil condition, including erosion, productivity, and chemical characteristics is evident.

Moderate amount of alteration to reference soil condition is evident. Overall soil disturbance is characterized as moderate.

Significant alteration to reference soil condition is evident. Overall soil disturbance is characterized as extensive.

Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired functionGDE Level I inventory data and informationSoil productivity Soil Integrity (MIT #6) is noted as “True” Soil Integrity (MIT #6) is noted as “False.”Soil erosion Landform Stability (MIT #4) is noted as 

“True.”Construction and Road Effects (MIT #14) is noted as “True.”Recreational Effects (MIT #17) is noted as “True.”

Landform Stability (MIT #4) is noted as “False.”Construction and Road Effects (MIT #14) is noted as “False.”Recreational Effects (MIT #17) is noted as “False.”

GDE Level I information used to confirm or refine condition ratingSoil erosion and other soil disturbance

“Erosion” under Disturbances/ Soil Alteration is not noted. No, or few, other soil disturbances under Disturbances/ Soil Alteration are noted.

“Erosion” under Disturbances/ Soil Alteration is noted.Other soil disturbances under Disturbances/ Soil Alteration are noted.

Ancillary informationSoil contamination Ancillary data do not indicate soil 

contamination resulting from abandoned mines, roads, refuse disposal, etc.

Ancillary data indicate soil contamination resulting from abandoned mines, roads, refuse disposal, etc.

Atmospheric deposition Ancillary data do not indicate atmospheric 

deposition.

Ancillary data indicate atmospheric deposition.

Soil properties Ancillary data do not indicate alteration 

to hydrologic cycling in soil, such as compaction, decreased porosity, decreased infiltration capacity, increased bulk density, loss of organic matter, loss of soil cover, loss of microbial activity, or other appropriate indicators.

Ancillary data indicate alteration to hydrologic cycling in soil, such as compaction, decreased porosity, decreased infiltration capacity, increased bulk density, loss of organic matter, loss of soil cover, loss of microbial activity, or other appropriate indicators.

Additional guidance: If a forest or regional direction exists for soil quality or soil management, these local thresholds may be used to determine the appropriate rating for soil attributes. Soil erosion should not double count road-related erosion effects considered in the roads and trails condition indicator.
44 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Table A.1.5. Aquatic biota condition rating rule set. Purpose—This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density of native and introduced aquatic fauna. Aquatic biota condition indicator All native aquatic communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining. Some native aquatic communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining. Few if any native aquatic communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining. Exotic and/or aquatic invasive species are pervasive. Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) Impaired function GDE Level I Inventory Data and Information

Life form presence Faunal Species (MIT #10) is noted as 

“True” in terms of aquatic biota.Lists of aquatic biota observed indicate presence of biota appropriate to the site.

Faunal Species (MIT #10) is noted as “False” in terms of aquatic biota.Lists of aquatic biota observed indicate presence of biota not appropriate to the site.

Native species TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species 

(MIT #11) is noted as “True” in terms of aquatic biota.

TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species (MIT #11) is noted as “False” in terms of aquatic biota.

Aquatic exotic and/or invasive species

Invasive Species (MIT #12) is noted as “True” in terms of aquatic biota.

Invasive Species (MIT #12) is noted as “False” in terms of aquatic biota.

Ancillary informationSpecies-specific or project surveys

Species-specific or project survey observations indicate presence of aquatic biota appropriate to the site.

Species-specific or project survey observations indicate aquatic biota appropriate to the site are absent.

Additional guidance: Avoid focus on single species; focus on communities. The presence of exotic and/or aquatic invasive species is used as an indicator of altered or impaired conditions. Although exotic and/or aquatic invasive species can significantly affect native aquatic faunal integrity, intra-species interactions are not considered for this assessment. For this assessment, the widespread presence of exotic and/or aquatic invasive species indicates poor conditions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 45

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table A.1.6. Fauna condition rating rule set.Purpose—This indicator addresses the distribution, structure, and density of native and introduced terrestrial fauna.

Fauna biota condition indicator

All native terrestrial communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining.

Some native terrestrial communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining.

Few if any native terrestrial communities and life histories appropriate to the site are present and self-maintaining. Exotic and, or, aquatic invasive species are pervasive.

Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) Impaired functionGDE Level I Inventory data and informationLife form presence Faunal Species (MIT #10) is noted as 

“True” in terms of terrestrial biota.Lists of terrestrial biota observed indicate presence of biota appropriate to the site.

Faunal Species (MIT #10) is noted as “False” in terms of terrestrial biota.Lists of terrestrial biota observed indicate presence of biota not appropriate to the site.

Native species TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species 

(MIT #11) is noted as “True” in terms of terrestrial biota.

TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Faunal Species (MIT #11) is noted as “False” in terms of terrestrial biota.

Ancillary informationSpecies-specific or project surveys

Species-specific or project survey observations indicate presence of terrestrial fauna appropriate to the site.

Species-specific or project survey observations indicate terrestrial fauna appropriate to the site are absent.

Additional guidance: Avoid focus on single species; focus on communities. The presence of exotic and, or, terrestrial invasive species is used as an indicator of altered or impaired conditions. Although exotic and/or terrestrial invasive species can significantly affect faunal integrity, intra-species interactions are not considered for this assessment. For this assessment, the widespread presence of exotic and/or terrestrial invasive species indicates poor conditions.
46 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Table A.1.7. Riparian/wetland vegetation condition rating rule set. Purpose—This indicator addresses the function and condition of native riparian vegetation along streams, water bodies, and wetlands. Riparian/ wetland vegetation condition indicator Native vegetation is functioning properly at the GDE site. Disturbance partially compromises the properly functioning condition of native vegetation attributes at the GDE site. A large percentage of native vegetation attributes at the GDE site is not functioning properly. Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired function GDE Level I Inventory data and information Vegetation condition Vegetation Composition (MIT #7) is noted 

as “True.”Vegetation Condition (MIT #8) is noted as “True.”TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Floral Species (MIT #9) is noted as “True.”Lists of plants observed indicate presence of species appropriate to the site.

Vegetation Composition (MIT #7) is noted as “False.”Vegetation Condition (MIT #8) is noted as “False.”TES, SOI/SOC, Focal Floral Species (MIT #9) is noted as “False.”Lists of plants observed indicate presence of species not appropriate to the site.

Ancillary informationVegetation composition Riparian or wetland vegetation are 

indicative of wet soil conditions as anticipated for the site.Predominately native species; few nonnative species.

Absence of riparian or wetland vegetation that would have indicated wet soil conditions.Predominately native species; non-native species are established and reproducing.

PFC assessments, vegetation attributes (based on USDI 1999)

Proper functioning condition Functional at risk Nonfunctional

Additional guidance: If land management plan riparian management direction exists for riparian/wetland vegetation, use the local thresholds derived from the plan standards and guidelines to determine the appropriate rating for this attribute.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 47

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table A.1.8. Invasive species condition rating rule set.Purpose—This indicator addresses potential impacts to soil, vegetation, and water resources due to invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants).

8. Invasive species indicator

Few or no populations of invasive species infest the site that could necessitate removal treatments that would affect soil and water resources.

Populations of invasive species are established within the site and, or, the rate of expansion and/or potential for impact on the site is moderate. 

Invasive species populations infest significant portions of the, are expanding their range, and there is documentation of impacts to the resources of the site.

Attributes Good (1) functioning properly Fair (2) functioning at risk Poor (3) impaired functionGDE Level I Inventory data and informationExtent and rate of spread

Invasive Species (MIT #12) is noted as “True.”

Invasive Species (MIT #12) is noted as “False.”

GDE Level I Information used to confirm or refine condition ratingNoxious and invasive species

No invasive plants or animals were recorded at the site (such as in the dominant plant species list or other observations).

Invasive plants or animals were recorded at the site (such as in the dominant plant species list or other observations).

Ancillary informationNoxious and invasive species

Noxious weeds and or invasive species have not been identified within close proximity to the GDE site based on information in NRM-Terra.

Noxious weeds and or invasive species have identified within close proximity to the GDE site based on information in NRM-Terra.

Noxious weeds and or invasive species have been identified adjacent to or within the GDE site based on information in NRM-Terra.

Additional guidance: This indictor applies only to both aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates, invertebrates, and plants that may have an adverse effect on soil and water resources. Infestation extent is usually evaluated with risk assessments and other inventory and evaluation procedures at either the species level, site level, or project level. For example, the extent of the invasive species infestation of an individual species level may indicate that the condition rating is “good,” but when viewed within the context of all the documented invasive species, the overall condition rating may be considered “poor.” 
48 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix 2—Elements Used to Determine Relative Site Significance for the SMNRA.

Elements Relative significance rating

1—High 3—Medium 5—Low

Physical elementsDischarge

For springs: Perennial flow that is large (or unusual) for the area of interest (top 50% of the range of values; it is acceptable to exclude large outliers when determining range); orFor groundwater-dependent wetlands without outflow channel: Evidence of significant groundwater discharge, such as thick organic soil development, significant water at surface, or wetland vegetation dominates site.

For springs: Perennial or seasonal flow that is moderate for the area of interest (middle 40% of the range of values); orFor groundwater-dependent wetlands without outflow channel: Evidence of moderate groundwater discharge, such as a small amount of organic soil, the presence of some water at surface and moderate amount of wetland vegetation at site.

For springs: Seasonal (not perennial) flow that is low (or common) for the area of interest (bottom 10% of the range of values); orFor groundwater-dependent wetlands without outflow channel: Evidence suggests small amount of groundwater discharge, such as minimal water at surface and minimal wetland vegetation at site.

ContributingAquifer

Regional – Beyond the extent of surface watershed Local—Within the surface watershed

GDE feature size or extent

Site size within the top 50% of the range of values within the area of interest (okay to exclude large outliers when determining range).

Site size not within the middle 40% of the range of values of the area of interest.

Site size within the bottom 10% of the range of values within the area of interest.

Feature type Unusual type within the area of interest. Somewhat common type within the area of interest. Common type within the area of interest.Isolation

Distant (greater than 10,000 meters) from another spring or surface water feature (not in the complex of groundwater discharge features that the site is part of).

Moderately close (greater than 1,000 meters and less than 10,000 meters) to another spring or surface water feature (not in the complex of groundwater discharge features that the site is part of).

In close proximity (less than 1,000 meters) to another spring or surface water feature (not in the complex of groundwater discharge features that the site is part of).

Surface water connectivity

Groundwater discharge supports or contributes base-flow to a perennial stream.

Groundwater discharge supports a stream that disappears after a short to moderate distance.

Groundwater discharge does not support an outflow stream.

Biological elementsTES and focal species

Threatened, endangered, sensitive or focal species present.

Threatened, endangered, sensitive or focal species expected but not found (requires understanding of sites and local spring and wetland ecology).

Threatened, endangered, sensitive or focal species not expected and not found (requires understanding of sites and local spring and wetland ecology).

Vegetation type

Unusual wetland vegetation type within the area of interest.

Somewhat common wetland vegetation type within the area of interest.

Common wetland vegetation type within the area of interest, or no wetland vegetation present.

Invasive or noxious species

Invasive or noxious plant or animal species absent. Use lists maintained by regions or states.

Invasive or noxious plant or animal species at very low abundance. Use lists maintained by regions or states.

Invasive or noxious plants or animal species established at the site. Use lists maintained by regions or states.

Social/Cultural/Economic elementsCultural significance Determined in consultation with cultural resource specialist.

Note: See table 2 for descriptions and definitions of significance elements.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 49

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix 3—SMNRA Springs/Riparian Management 

Response Framework

As a result of the 2011 SMNRA Implementation and Monitoring Audit (I/M Audit) of 

springs and riparian management practices a “management response framework” was 

developed (METI2012). The management response framework uses a combination of (1) 

land management plan and the SMNRA General Management Plan objectives, standards 

and guidelines and (2) audit team evaluation of management practice effectiveness to 

determine “best practices” applicable within the SMNRA.

The I/M Audits are designed and conducted to strengthen organizational learning 

and provide for continuous improvement. They consist of a structured evaluation of 

management actions, bringing together inventory information, desired conditions from 

the Forest Plan, project planning, and completed implementation. Documentation and 

on-site project review focuses on two areas: Implementation monitoring and effectiveness 

monitoring. 

Implementation monitoring: “Did we do what we said we would do?” If changes 

were made at any point, were the changes appropriately documented? Included 

in this step is an evaluation of the planning documents for completeness and 

relevance, as well as an evaluation of the translation of the planning documents to 

the implementation direction. Over the long term, implementation monitoring helps 

us evaluate whether there are patterns to changes in implementation, which would 

indicate a need to make systemic changes in planning procedures or documents.

Effectiveness monitoring: “Do the results reflect our desired outcomes?” What 

parts of the action worked? What parts need modification for the next project?

I/M Audits address questions that are best evaluated by using both qualitative and 

quantitative methods. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 I/M Audit focused on: management of 

riparian and spring areas, and management of motorized recreation with a focus on offhighway vehicle (OHV) management. To audit the implementation and effectiveness of 

these management activities, the following monitoring questions (MQ) identified in the 

SMNRA Inventory and Monitoring Strategy were addressed:

• How effective are efforts to reduce recreation effects to riparian and spring areas? 

(MQ 8)

• How effective is riparian fencing in protecting springs and riparian areas? What 

thresholds warrant this level of mitigation? (MQ 51)

• How effective are efforts to manage motorized recreation (OHV) and limit other 

uses (outfitters and guides) to the protection and conservation of SOC/SOI and their 

habitats? (MQ 5)

This round of IM Audits was conducted on projects selected by the Deputy Forest 

Supervisor during a 3-day workshop held October 25-27, 2011. Participants included the 

line and staff personnel involved in the management of recreation activities and riparian 

and spring areas. Five projects were selected, representing a variety of conditions and 

management activities, and included: West Mud Springs, Cold Creek, Willow Spring, 

Carpenter Canyon, and Mountain Springs area adjacent to the Rainbow Mountain 

Wilderness.
50 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

West Mud Springs, July 2011; this photo documents several types of disturbances (photo 

by USDA Forest Service, Northern Arizona University springs survey crew).

Willow Spring, October 2011, covers 462 square meters and is on the Sand SpringTikaboo Valleys watershed (photo by Larry Timchak, METI, Inc.).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 51

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Willow Spring, October 2012, covers 462 square meters and is on the Sand 

Spring-Tvikaboo Valleys watershed (photo by USDA Forest Service, Northern 

Arizona University springs survey crew).

Concepts and Factors Used in Developing the SMNRA Springs/Riparian 

Management Response Framework

Given the importance of water—springs, streams, and riparian areas—to the SMNRA, 

it is no surprise that these areas have been used by wildlife, livestock, and people for a 

long time; they provide habitat for endemic plant and animal communities. Many show 

the wear and tear that results from long-term use and the remnants of past management 

activities, including watering devices, diversions, and structures.

A key factor in determining when and how to establish riparian exclosure fences is the 

ecological significance of the spring/riparian area. Ecological significance is determined 

by a combination of factors and can be determined by using the information and data 

being collected in the springs inventory program. Preliminary discussions indicate that 

the following elements should contribute to the determination of ecological significance:

• Spring type

• Riparian area/feature size

• Surface flow

• Vegetation community

• Presence of Conservation Agreement (CA) species

The potential for disturbance or damage by wild horses/burros, elk, and recreation use 

are other factors to be considered. In some instances, drift fences established in lower 

portions of canyons are more effective alternatives to reducing potential effects from wild 

horses/burros and should be considered before fencing individual sites.
52 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Elk use effects at springs are related to the distribution of the elk population across the 

SMNRA. Fences that effectively exclude elk are expensive to build and maintain. Use of 

external water sources is likely more effective in reducing use by elk than more elaborate 

fencing designs.

Recreation use effects can often be effectively managed by a combination of restricting 

use by physical barriers and designation of access routes and interpretive signing/visitor 

education.

Forest Plan standards and guidelines provide a starting point for developing a framework 

for managing recreation use at springs and in riparian areas. They also provide guidance 

for determining when fencing should be used to protect CA species and their habitats, as 

well as exclosure design. The following HTNF Forest Plan/GMP standards apply design 

elements included in this framework (numbers in parentheses refer to sections of the 

HTNF Forest plan, and Letters and numbers at the beginning of the bullet refer to the 

GMP):

• If a riparian area within a wild horse and burro territory is fenced, pipe water out 

of riparian areas for wild horse and burro use. (0.2)

• When developing water sources, pipe water from a point downstream of the 

source if snails or other sensitive species are present, or if the spring source has not 

been previously developed. (0.8)

• Remove existing water developments and debris from springs, providing they no 

longer serve their original purpose, are not critical to wildlife, and the items are not 

of historical significance. (0.13)

• Prohibit parking and camping within riparian areas. (0.2)

• MA 11—Provide protection of the riparian areas (in accordance with Nevada 

Revised Statute 503.660) at Cold and Willow Creeks through the use of new road 

alignments, vehicle barriers, and, or, signage. Redirect parking and camping away 

from riparian corridors. Allow only day-use, walk-in activities to occur within the 

riparian corridor. (11.1)

• MA 13—Develop low standard recreation facilities, including small campsites 

or restrooms, in Carpenter Canyon as a resource protection measure. Close the last 

section of road to prevent vehicle access through stream and riparian area. Make 

campsites walk-in access only. (13.17)

The following decision framework (table A.3.1) is recommended to determine proposed 

actions associated with springs/riparian management designed to reduce the effects of 

uses and disturbance on springs and riparian areas.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 53

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Table A.3.1. Springs/riparian management framework.

Common Design Features

• Drift Fences—Evaluate opportunities to establish drift fences to control access to springs by wild 

horses/burros before proposing fencing at individual sites.

• Perimeter—Consider fencing areas larger than the spring riparian area to provide better anchor 

points and screening. At a minimum, exclosure fences and management efforts should approximate 

the perimeter of the spring riparian area. Slope breaks and vegetation should be the primary factors 

used to determine the perimeter and location of fences and delimiting areas of use.

• Existing Developments—Remove existing water developments and debris from springs, providing 

they no longer serve their original purpose, are not critical to wildlife, and the items are not of cultural 

significance. Restore and revegetate areas associated with these improvements.

• Maintenance and Monitoring—Adhere to maintenance schedules established for each fencing design 

and associated monitoring schedules and focus.

High ecological significance

wild horses & burros present/elk use

high – moderate recreation use

High ecological significance

no wild horses & burros/elk use

high – moderate recreation use

• Establish and maintain a post/wire rope exclosure

• Exclude all wild horses and burros

• Do not allow elk access

• Provide external water source(s)

• Restrict and manage recreation use/access using 

physical barriers/trail locations

• Provide interpretive and recreation signing

• Restrict and manage recreation use/access using 

physical barriers/trail locations

• Interpretive and recreation signing

Moderate ecological significance

wild horses & burros present/elk use

moderate – low recreation use

Moderate ecological significance

no wild horses & burros/elk

moderate – low recreation use

• Establish and maintain a t-post/barbed wire exclosure

• Provide external water source

• Restrict and manage recreation use/access using 

physical barriers/trail locations

• Provide interpretive and recreation signing

• Restrict and manage recreation use/access using 

physical barriers/trail locations

• Provide interpretive signing

Low ecological significance

wild horses & burros present

low recreation use

Low ecological significance

no wild horses & burros/elk

low recreation use

• No exclosure fence warranted. Site-specific exceptions 

may occur

• Provide interpretive signing

• No exclosure fence warranted

• No interpretive or recreation signing
54 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Appendix 4—Nevada Springs Restoration Practices

This appendix is based on information developed by the Nevada Springs Restoration 

Workshop Committee (2012), as well as text written by Joe Gurrieri, Forest Service 

hydrogeologist and member of that Committee. The specific text from the Nevada 

Springs Restoration Workshop Committee was derived from Module 4 “Springs 

Restoration and Spring Source Water Management” authored by Rob Andress, Kathryn 

Boyer, R.J. Johnson, and Abraham E. Springer.

Although a large amount of general planning and implementation guidance is available 

for ecological restoration, a comprehensive summary of groundwater-dependent 

ecosystem (GDE) restoration projects has not been prepared nor have guidance 

documents, manuals, or methods specific to GDE restoration been published. Stacey et 

al. (2011) evaluated the success of several restoration efforts. The Society for Ecological 

Restoration (2004, 2005) provides relevant guidance regarding general planning and 

implementation guidelines on the practice of ecological restoration. Abela (2011) and 

Sada et al. (2001) are general publications on springs conservation in the West. Wetland 

restoration, enhancement, and creation are covered in a handbook by the USDA Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (2008). Biebighauser (2011) presents wetland restoration 

and construction from an eastern United States perspective. The Groundwater-Dependent 

Ecosystems: Level I and II Inventory Field Guides (USDA Forest Service 2012a, 2012b, 

respectively) are assessment protocols developed specifically for GDEs and can aid in 

the restoration planning process. Other inventory and assessment protocols for springs 

have been developed by Sada and Pohlman (2002, 2006), Brown et al. (2007) and by the 

Springs Stewardship Institute (Stevens et al. n.d.).

Invasive aquatic species, if present, may be the single most important consideration in 

restoration planning and design. The presence of invasive species can have a considerable 

effect on a restoration project to the degree that certain concessions must be made to 

achieve complete restoration of pristine or pre-disturbance physical and biological 

conditions. For example, if the spring discharge is not sufficient to sustain open channel 

flow for great distances, pre-disturbance conditions may have been characterized by a 

shallow marsh immediately downstream from the spring source. However, given the 

presence of crayfish (assuming eradication is not possible) it may be necessary to design 

the restoration such that an open channel will be maintained for the maximum extent of 

distance and time to reduce the amount of habitat most suitable for the invasive species.

Invasive species eradication may be the first step of a restoration project, but may also 

require substantial modification of habitat prior to restoration. For example, an attempt 

to eradicate crayfish may require complete diversion and desiccation of the spring source 

and outflow. The merit of this approach must be weighed on a project-by-project basis 

and the feasibility of complete eradication must be carefully assessed against the potential 

risks of such an effort (such as species loss). If native species remain in the system they 

must be salvaged prior to such an effort. Such an effort can greatly increase project cost 

and duration as it may require more than one year and multiple desiccation events or 

modifications of approach to achieve the eradication. The eradication of invasive fish 

species may require application of a pesticide prior to restoration and may also require 

native species salvage.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 55

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

Passive Restoration

There are three types of passive restoration management actions: (1) protection of natural 

sites, (2) eliminating identified stressors to reduce impairment, and (3) management 

actions to prevent or alleviate potential, future threats. Common stressors impacting 

GDEs include groundwater extraction, impacts to groundwater quality, livestock 

grazing, surface water diversion, invasive species, or recreation impacts. Examples of 

management actions for the prevention or elimination of stressors are provided below.

Groundwater Extraction

Impacts due to groundwater extraction may include decreased or cessation of spring flow, 

reduction in overall wetland and aquatic habitat area, or changes in plant and animal 

composition. Methods to eliminating stressors related to groundwater extraction could 

include a management strategy to reduce impacts to spring source discharge by varying 

the pumping schedule or pumping location.

Impacts to Groundwater Quality

Impacts to groundwater quality could be due to nearby industrial or agricultural activities. 

Stagnation or eutrophication may also result in diminished water quality. Management 

strategies for stagnation could include improving nutrient flushing and removal 

by eliminating outflow blockage and improving source and outflow area flushing. 

Groundwater quality may also be impacted by the presence of livestock at the spring 

source and within the outflow habitat. Reducing impacts to groundwater quality may 

require the closure of the spring and outflow to livestock access. Management strategies 

could include monitored natural attenuation, removal of pollution source, and pollution 

source control and isolation.

Livestock Grazing

Changes in the duration, season, or intensity of grazing may be sufficient to eliminate 

impacts at a given site. In certain instances, it may also be necessary to

• Provide off-site watering away from GDEs to ensure they are protected;

• Install or repair float valves on water troughs to ensure flow does not run when not 

needed;.

• Construct or repair exclosure fences around spring/seep sources;

• Trail livestock away, rather than through, GDEs; or

• Discontinue use of water resources in critical GDEs.

Surface Water Diversion

Diversion of surface water may result in decreased flow to a GDE or outflow stream. 

Impacts due to surface water diversion could include loss of overall wetland or aquatic 

habitat or area, and changes in plant and animal species composition. Management 

strategies to reduce impacts due to surface water diversion include changing the location 

of the diversion, reducing the quantity of water diverted, or allowing an increased amount 

of flow to discharge to the spring outflow habitat.

Invasive Species

Impacts due to invasive species may include changes in native plant and animal species 

composition, reduction or extirpation of native plant and animal species, or changes in 
56 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

plant community composition and structure. Invasive species removal could include 

the mechanical removal of invasive plants, trapping of invasive animal species, or the 

application of herbicide and pesticide. In wetlands, raising the water table by filling 

ditches may decrease the competitive advantage of some invasive plants and favor native 

wetland species.

Recreation Impacts

Restoration of springs from recreational activities is generally similar to those for grazing 

impacts. Impacts due to recreation may include site trampling, soil compaction, surface 

water diversion, and accumulation of refuse. Reducing impacts due to recreation may 

range from complete site closure to building trails and boardwalks, and elimination of 

onsite camping and vehicular access.

Active Restoration

In general, the primary approach to active restoration of GDEs is the reshaping, 

reconstructing, or rehabilitation of the spring source and outflow channel or wetland. 

Most restoration designs are based on moderately to well-informed assumptions and 

species habitat requirement data. Undisturbed reference sites are rarely discovered but 

inferences can be made based on habitat requirements and preferences by target species, 

hydrology, geomorphology, historical documents and photographs, and occasionally 

paleoecology. Most restoration projects are initiated due to a decline in a single species 

or group of target species and focus on the reconstruction or rehabilitation of “predisturbance” physical conditions with the assumption that reconstructing or rehabilitating 

the physical conditions will result in improved biological conditions, species recovery 

and species preservation.

The specific actions required for restoration may range from the removal of manmade 

infrastructure such as spring boxes, tanks and piping to complete physical manipulation, 

and reconstruction of site conditions. Where natural topography, drainage, and 

geomorphology is determined to be largely intact and physical conditions will allow 

the desired conditions to be achieved, it may only be necessary to remove or modify 

infrastructure in a way that alleviates impacts and stressors. Complete physical 

reconstruction is typically required at sites where all pre-disturbance topography and 

natural drainage has been obliterated by site development and modification.

The overall approach to restoration will differ due to the GDE type, such as limnocrenes 

(pool-forming springs), rheocrenes (forming or discharging in distinct channels), and 

helocrenes (wetlands). It is necessary to recognize that the desired condition should 

match the GDE type and characteristics of the pre-disturbance condition as closely as 

possible. The site assessment should determine the overall feasibility of achieving the 

pre-disturbance spring condition based on the degree of physical alteration and impact 

at any given site. Careful consideration should be given to the expected trajectory of 

recovery for both biological and physical factors and processes when selecting the 

desired conditions and restoration design/strategy. Example approaches to the restoration 

of each type of spring are discussed below.

For the purpose of restoration planning, GDEs are divided into those that have water 

flowing in channels and those that do not. For GDEs that do not have flowing water in 

channels, groundwater level is the driver of ecological health. Springs that have water 

flowing in channels can be evaluated in a similar way to streams. However, a few 

differences exist in the geomorphic, biologic, and flow regime of spring channels that 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 57

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

differentiates them from streams. The low variability in the hydroperiod in springs results 

in habitats with specific community composition and relatively static spatial extent. This 

differs from streams, where the stream flow energy is essential for the maintenance of 

geomorphic and riparian processes and where the ecosystem is more dynamic.

Limnocrene

Pool-forming (limnocrene) springs are influenced by groundwater pumping, and may be 

subjected to stagnation, eutrophication, and deoxygenation changes that reduce habitat 

quality and functionality. Restoration challenges for limnocrenes may involve recreating 

natural water quality and desired pool area and pool habitat. Where a limnocrene spring 

has been over excavated in the past, it may be determined that a reduction in pool 

diameter similar to that of its pre-disturbance dimensions is preferable for improving 

habitat for target species or eliminating habitat for invasive species such as shallow 

margins where cattail, bullfrog, and crayfish may be prevalent. Without historical 

documentation (historical descriptions or photographs), it is difficult to determine the 

pre-disturbance pool size. However, it may be possible to use other limnocrene springs 

as an analog if the springs are relatively undisturbed, occur in similar substrate, and 

exhibit similar discharge. Similarly, springs of unequal discharge but occurring in similar 

substrate can be used to scale to the desired discharge. Be aware that many springs appear 

as limnocrenes today because they have been excavated to create a pool for watering 

of livestock or wildlife. Limnocrenes are more common on flat valley floors and rare in 

steeper mountainous terrain.

Rheocrene

A rheocrene is a spring where discharge emerges into a defined channel. Rheocrenes and 

associated spring brooks are often important for springs-specialist plants and animals. 

Modification of flow regulation structures (e.g., dams, diversions, spring boxes) may be 

necessary to restore the flow at the source and to restore the functionality of downstream 

spring brooks or wetlands. For example, installing a flow splitter, shifting the point of 

diversion downstream from the source, removing a dam, or modifying a spring box and 

pipes may help ensure flow at the spring’s source, with the amount of diverted flow to be 

evaluated based on goals for the site.

Restoration of rheocrene springs can range from streambank stabilization to complete 

channel reconstruction. In circumstances where spring flow has been diverted from the 

historical channel, and the historic channel has not been obliterated, it may be possible 

to return flows to the historical channel. Where the historic outflow channel has been 

obliterated, it is necessary to reconstruct the stream channel by excavating or constructing 

a new channel. Selection of the appropriate channel dimension and morphology (width, 

depth, slope, sinuosity, substrate, single or multiple thread channel, etc.) is largely 

dependent on an analysis of drainage basin hydrology, historic channel form, habitat 

requirements of target species, and desired conditions.

The flow variability of springs is generally much smaller than streams making concepts 

such as channel geomorphology, bankfull flows, overbank flows, and sediment transport 

relatively less important in restoration. The dampened hydrograph and limited sediment 

input characteristics of springs leads to the formation of channels with steep, wellvegetated banks; armored beds; higher sinuosity values; and lower width-to-depth 

values (Griffiths et al. 2008). Springs with channelized flow can be divided into runoffdominated springs that are located in perennial or intermittent channels and undergo 

periodic scouring, and spring-dominated channels that are on uplands and are never 
58 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

scoured by flood flows. The disturbance regime has a large effect on the types of biota 

that inhabit the spring ecosystem. Discharge regime and sediment input are the major 

differences in controls on channel morphology that are found between spring-dominated 

and runoff-dominated channels.

Runoff-dominated springs are characterized by frequent flood events and considerable 

inter-annual flux in vegetation cover and diversity. Frequent scouring is a natural stressor 

that decreases species richness of aquatic communities. These springs therefore have 

lower resource value and recovery potential. Moderate to high variability in the size and 

spatial arrangement of vegetation patches or aquatic invertebrate composition in such 

settings is a normal system attribute; resilience to disturbance may be the only useable 

metric of ecosystem health other than wetted area or flow. Flow regulation may stabilize 

normally highly disturbed streamside spring ecosystems altering structural, functional, 

and trophic characteristics of springs. Spring-dominated channels are highly stable 

environments characterized by dampened hydrographs, and low erosion, sediment, and 

disturbance rates.

Helocrene

Wetland, wet meadows, cienegas or fen habitats (helocrene) are characterized by diffuse 

flow across shallow-gradient landscapes. The feasibility of restoring helocrene springs 

depends largely on existing site conditions and degree of alteration. Restoration of such 

habitats often involves filling in ditches, preventing erosional head-cutting with grade 

control structures, eliminating erosional channels, removing drainage tiles or subgrade 

water diversion structures to decrease groundwater depth, and replanting native wetland 

plant species. The goal of fen restoration is often to regenerate peat formation by 

recreating conditions that characterize an undisturbed fen. Where surface water diversion 

or ditching has reduced the overall wetland habitat area or lowered the water table, but 

the natural topography of the wetland remains, it may be sufficient to return flow to the 

original wetland area or raise the water table. However, where the original topography 

and wetland has been eliminated in its entirety it may be necessary to recreate the 

topography necessary to allow the development and recovery of wetland habitat.

All efforts should be made to recreate topography that will sustain wetland types and 

characteristics that would have been present prior to alteration of the site. A thorough 

analysis of drainage basin hydrology, analog wetland sites, and feasibility of achieving 

desired conditions should be made prior to selecting the final restoration design and 

strategy. For example, the feasibility of restoring a fen requires that suitable conditions 

are created for the development of a permanently saturated peat layer. If it is not possible 

to create the necessary site conditions for sustaining the desired condition, an alternative 

approach or restoration strategy should be considered.

The most important parameters to which helocrenes and dependent species respond are: 

(1) maintenance of a water table level within a natural range of variation (generally at or 

near the surface, which generates peat accumulation), (2) groundwater flux to the feature, 

(3) upward head gradients in the aquifer, and (4) water quality.

Spring Source Water Management

Guidance Documents on Spring Source Water Development

The Natural Resources Conservation Service has a number of handbooks that present 

information and engineering designs for source water development at springs (USDA 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 59

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

NRCS, 2006, 2010, 2011). These references, however, do not focus on conservation or 

restoration of spring habitats and use of the designs could result in ecosystem damage if 

conservation measures are not taken into account during the design phase.

Forest Service revised Best Management Practices (BMPs) that apply to National Forest 

System lands, as documented in the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, are 

currently under development (USDA Forest Service 2012c). At the time of publication, 

these practices had undergone internal review, but the formal process for adoption 

through the Administrative Procedures Act, including notification in the Federal Register 

and establishment of a public comment period on the draft BMPs, had not been initiated.

Environmental Flows and Levels Analysis

An environmental flows and levels analysis should be undertaken whenever a spring or 

spring-fed wetland is to be developed, redeveloped, restored or is to undergo maintenance 

of diversion or collection facilities. Determining quantitative environmental flows and 

levels (EF/L) for groundwater is critical for ensuring adequate water to sustain GDEs in 

cases where management activities, such as mining, wells for municipal water supply, 

and water withdrawals for livestock operations, affect groundwater flow to GDEs. EF/L 

for groundwater takes into account the ability of the site to adjust to changes in the water 

regime. Therefore, EF/L allows for an acceptable level of change to occur relative to 

the existing hydrologic conditions. When use of water resources shifts the hydrologic 

conditions below that defined by the EF/L, irreversible ecological harm may occur, 

including impairment or loss of ecological structure and function.

GDEs, by definition, are supported by aquifers. Any activity that lowers or raises 

the water table, piezometric surface, or groundwater discharge rate or timing, or 

alters the groundwater chemistry can affect the integrity of aquatic habitat. An EF/L 

establishes the limit to water level change for an aquifer or water body. It is the limit 

at which further withdrawals or flooding would be significantly harmful to the site. 

The establishment of an EF/L for a discharge wetland or phreatophyte community 

generally defines a limit on water-table drawdown or increase, or a reduction in 

discharge feeding the feature from the aquifer. If monitoring indicates the actual 

water levels or flows are below the defined EF/L, a recovery plan can be developed 

to reach acceptable levels. A strategy for developing EF/Ls for groundwaterdependent wetlands will be presented in the forthcoming USDA Forest Service, 

Groundwater Inventory, Monitoring, and Assessment Technical Guide (in development).

Approaches to Spring Source Water Development

Flow regulation structures at springs and wetlands are designed to capture and 

divert water for uses such as livestock watering, domestic use, or irrigation. Water 

developments are more common at springs than wetlands. Forms of spring flow alteration 

include diversion from the pre-orifice (prior to the point of emergence) or post-orifice 

(after emergence) environment. Pre-source diversion is often achieved by (1) sealing the 

springs orifice from bedrock (and sometimes sealing the surrounding bedrock fractures) 

and installing piping, or (2) excavating the springs source, installing a slotted pipe 

catchment system, back-filling the excavation, and piping the water. Post-orifice diversion 

is also common, particularly for livestock watering and development of ponds. Spring 

flows are commonly captured into open troughs or into covered tanks and then piped to 

troughs or ponds. These alterations may preserve some ecological function at the spring’s 

source, but often eliminate spring channel and wetland functions. The most common 

types of spring source development are:
60 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

• Complete diversion;

• Spring source excavation;

• Fencing and offsite watering;

• Spring source capture, gravel trench, perforated pipe, tank, spring box;

• Spring source capture, drilling, piping, tank, spring box;

• Flow splitting;

• Float valve filling and discharge to natural outflow; and

• Spring source enclosure and offsite watering.

Extraction of groundwater from the aquifer may partially or wholly dewater individual 

springs or entire complexes of springs resulting in fragmentation of habitat, increasing 

isolation of springs ecosystems, and interruption of biogeographic processes. 

Groundwater augmentation may occur when aquifers are artificially recharged by urban 

runoff, when reservoirs, ditches, or irrigation increase water tables, or through climate 

changes that increase precipitation. Increased springs flow is often accompanied by a 

change in flow chemistry and pollutants.

Diversions that remove very small amounts of water may minimally affect biota. 

Activities that occur infrequently and involve small disturbances may also minimally 

affect biota if sufficient time passes for the site to naturalize after each disturbance (it 

may take decades to naturalize after these types of disturbances). In general, species 

richness declines as diversion increases, and there are functional shifts in the structure 

of aquatic and riparian communities. Modification of flow regulation structures (e.g., 

dams, diversions, spring boxes) may be necessary to restore the flow at the source and 

the functionality of downstream spring brooks or wetlands. For example, installing a flow 

splitter, shifting the point of diversion downstream from the source, removing a dam, or 

modifying a spring box and pipes may help ensure flow at the spring’s source, with the 

amount of diverted flow to be evaluated based on goals for the site.

Unlike streams, springs exhibit a relatively constant, year round temperature and 

chemistry. As groundwater emerges from the subsurface and flows down the spring brook 

channel, chemical changes take place as the water exchanges gases with the atmosphere 

and the temperature changes. Spring specific biota has evolved to require these stable 

aquatic conditions. Pre-orifice extraction of groundwater and post-orifice diversion and 

changes in channel geometry modify the pre-disturbance chemical and temperature 

regime.

Implementation of Spring Source Water Management Projects

Natural Resources Conservation Service guidance (USDA NRCS 2006, 2010, 2011) 

provides environmental compliance requirements and planning and installation guidelines 

for two primary types of spring source diversion or capture devices: spring boxes and 

capture trenches. These guides do not, however, present least impact alternatives.

The following items should be considered prior to the implementation of a spring source 

development project to ensure the least amount of impact to groundwater-dependent 

resources.

• Are native and, or, sensitive species present at or adjacent to the site?
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 61

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

• Are there steps that can be taken to increase the level of protection for native and 

sensitive species and adjacent habitat?

• Is there a project design that will ensure flow for native species and habitat?

• Are there alternative methods and solutions available that (1) will eliminate the 

need to modify the spring and associated habitat or (2) will allow the development 

of the spring source while protecting native species and habitat?

Sites with sensitive species (threatened, endangered, species of interest, species of 

concern) will require a more specialized and thorough assessment of site conditions and 

impact prevention/mitigation measures. However, due to the common occurrence of 

unique or rare species at springs and adjacent habitats, it should be assumed that sensitive 

species could very likely be present.

Each spring source development or rehabilitation project will present unique conditions 

and challenges. Therefore, the site assessment process will provide information regarding 

the condition of the site and will provide critical information necessary for decision 

making prior to implementation of spring source development or rehabilitation actions. 

Regardless of whether the primary project goal is site rehabilitation or spring source 

development, certain sites may benefit from the removal of infrastructure, while others 

may incur unnecessary disturbance if abandoned infrastructure is removed. For example, 

a historically developed site may have naturalized and ecological function may be largely 

intact after decades of abandonment. Conversely, if ecological function is impacted it 

would be desirable to remove infrastructure. Most spring source development projects 

will fall under the following categories:

• Development of a new source and associated installation of infrastructure

• Removal of existing infrastructure and replacement with new infrastructure

• Removal of existing infrastructure and site rehabilitation

• Site rehabilitation without removal of existing infrastructure

Avoiding Unnecessary Impacts

Species abundance and diversity is typically greatest at and immediately downstream 

from the spring source. Therefore, diversion of water downstream from the source 

provides for the greatest level of native species, habitat, and resource protection. 

Furthermore, the use of float valves or other mechanisms that divert water only when a 

demand is present will allow water to support habitat and prevent waste due to spillage or 

runoff from troughs and tanks. The following precautions can assist in the prevention of 

unnecessary impacts:

• Diversion of water downstream from the source area

• Flow splitting, or leaving the greatest percentage of flow in the existing outflow and 

associated habitat as possible

• The use of float valves or other flow control devices to provide flow only when a 

demand is present

• Minimization of source area disturbance

• Returning unused portions of flow diversion to outflow habitat

• Avoiding methods that utilize trenching or installation of grout walls or perforated 

pipe systems near spring sources
62 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014.

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

References

Abela, S.L., ed. 2011. Nevada springs conservation plan. . Reno, NV: The Nature Conservancy, 

Springs Conservation Plan Working Group.

Biebighauser, T.R. 2011. Wetland restoration and construction: a technical guide. [Place of 

publication unknown]: Upper Susquehanna Coalition. 186 p.

Brown, J.; Wyers, A.; Aldous, A.; Bach, L. 2007. Groundwater and biodiversity conservation: a 

methods guide for integrating groundwater needs of ecosystems and species conservation in the 

Pacific Northwest. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy. 51 p.

Griffiths, R.E.; Springer, A.E.; Anderson D.E. 2008. The morphology and hydrology of small 

spring-dominated channels. Geomorphology. 102: 511–521.

Nevada Springs Restoration Workshop Committee. 2012. Rehabilitation and restoration of Nevada 

springs: A handbook. Unpublished document on file at: USDA Forest Service, Geological 

Resources Hazards and Surface Management, Washington, DC.

Sada, D.W.; Pohlman, K.F. 2002. Spring inventory and monitoring protocols. Conference 

Proceedings. Spring-fed wetlands: important scientific and cultural resources of the Intermountain 

Region. Reno, NV: Desert Research Institute.

Sada, D. W.; Pohlman, K. F. 2006. U.S. National Park Service Mojave inventory and monitoring 

network spring survey protocols: level I and level II. Reno, NV: Desert Research Institute.

Sada, D.W.; Williams, J.E.; Silvey, J.C.; Halford, A.; Ramakka, J.; Summers, P.; Lewis, L. 2001. 

Riparian area management: a guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the western 

United States. Technical Reference 1737–17. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management. 70 p.

Society for Ecological Restoration [SER]. 2004. The SER international primer on ecological 

restoration. Tucson, AZ: Society for Ecological Restoration, International, Science and Policy 

Working Group. http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-primeron-ecological-restoration#3. [1 September 2013].

Society for Ecological Restoration [SER] 2005. Guidelines for developing and managing ecological 

restoration projects. Washington, DC. http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/

guidelines-for-developing-and-managing-ecological-restoration-projects. [16 May 2013].

Stacey, C.J.; Springer, A.E.; Stevens, L.E. 2011. Have arid land springs restoration projects been 

effective in restoring hydrology, geomorphology, and invertebrate and plant species composition 

comparable to natural springs with minimal anthropogenic disturbance? CEE review 10-002 

(SR87). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/

SR87.html. [30 September 2013].

Stevens, L.E.; Springer, A.E.; Ledbetter, J.D. [n.d.] SEAP: An integrated Springs Ecosystem 

Assessment Protocol. Online: http://www.springstewardship.org/assessment.html [23 September 

2013].

USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: level l inventory field guide: 

inventory methods for assessment and planning. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86a. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 191 p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems: level II inventory field guide: 

inventory methods for project design and analysis. Gen. Tech. Report WO-86b. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 124 p.

USDA Forest Service. [In progress]. National core BMP technical guide. Vol. 1. Unpublished 

document on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2006. Conservation practice 

standard: Spring Development Code 574. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-330. 2014. 63

Framework for Springs Stewardship Program and Proposed Action Development: Spring Mountains National 

Recreation Area Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2008. Chapter 13: Wetland 

restoration, enhancement, or creation. In: Engineering Field Handbook, Part 650. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2010. Chapter 32: Well design 

and spring development. In: Engineering Field Handbook, Part 631. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service [USDA NRCS]. 2011. Chapter 12: Springs 

and wells. In: Engineering Field Handbook, Part 650. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

USDI Bureau of Land Management [BLM]. 1999. Riparian area management: A user guide to 

assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lentic areas. TR 1737-16. 

Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 109 p.
United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Rocky Mountain Research Station

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination 

against its customers, employees, and applicants for emploment on 

the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender 

identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital 

status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of 

an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited 

bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)