A U

NITED S T A

TES D EP

ARTMENT OF A GRICUL TURE • F OREST S ER VICE W

ASHINGTON O FFICE • FS-660 • J ANUAR Y 2000 

# W ater

& The F orest Ser vice orest SerBI 

## Contributors: Mike Ash Engineering, WO Enoch Bell Pacific Southwest Resear ch Station T

om Br own Rocky Mountain Resear ch Station Dave Cr oss W ildlife, Fish, and Rar e Plants, WO Ed Dicker hoof Resour ce V aluation and Use Resear ch, WO Mar y Ellen Dix For est Health Pr otection, WO Steve Glasser W atershed and Air , WO Dave Hohler Pacific Nor thwest Resear ch Station Jim Keys W atershed and Air , WO Russ LaFayette W atershed and Air , WO Keith McLaughlin W atershed and Air , WO John Nor din Cooperative For estr y

, WO Doug R yan W ildlife, Fish, and W atershed Resear ch, WO Lar r y Schmidt Rocky Mountain Resear ch Station, Str eam Systems T echnology Center Rick Swanson W atershed and Air , WO Paul T ittman Lands, WO



### USDA For est Ser vice Policy Analysis P

.O. Box 96090 W ashington, DC 20090-6090 James Sedell, National Inter deputy W ater Coor dinator , PNW Maitland Sharpe, Policy Analysis, WO Daina Dravnieks Apple, Policy Analysis, WO Max Copenhagen, W atershed and Air , WO Mike Fur niss, Rocky Mountain Resear ch Station, Str eam Systems T echnology Center 

# W ater & 

# The F orest Ser viceIIIII 

# Contents

Summary i Healthy for ests ar e vital to clean water i Maintaining and r estoring watersheds wer e primar y r easons for establishing the national for ests i W

ater is the central or ganizer of ecosystems i Questions about the r ole of for ests in water supply ii Issues and policy iv Interplay among issues v 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests 1 W

orld water supply 1 The quantity of water fr om for ested lands 2 Deter mining a water value for the National For est System 5 T

r ue value of water is under estimated 7 Many communities depend on water fr om the national for ests 7 

## W ater Quantity Issues for F orest Planning 10 Str eamflow r egimes, timing, and floods 10 Augmenting str eamflow 11 Instr eam flow r equir ements 12 Policy Implications 12 FERC r elicensing 13 Gr oundwater 15

Policy Implications 15 

## W ater Quality 16

T

otal maximum daily loads 16 Abandoned mine lands and hazar dous materials sites 17 

## W atershed Condition and Restoration 18

W

etlands and riparian ar eas 18 Roads 19 

## Conser ving Aquatic Biodiversity and Threatened Species 21 

## Integrating W atersheds F rom the Headwaters Through the Cities 23 Policy Implications 23 

## Next Steps 24 

## References 25IVi Public concer n about adequate supplies of clean water led to the establishment in 1891 of federally pr otected for est r eser ves. The For est Ser vice Natural Resour ces Agenda is r efocusing the agency on its original purpose. This r epor t focuses on the r ole of for ests in water supply—including quantity , quality , timing of r elease, flood r eductions and low flow augmentation, econom

ic value of water fr om national for est lands, and eco

nomic benefits of tr ee cover for stor mwater r eduction in urban ar eas. 

### H

EAL THY 

### F ORESTS ARE 

### V

IT

AL TO 

### C LEAN 

### W A

TER For ests ar e key to clean water . About 80 per cent of the Nation’ s scar ce fr eshwater r esour ces originate on for ests, which cover about one-thir d of the Nation’ s land ar ea. The for ested land absorbs rain, r efills under

gr

ound aquifers, cools and cleanses water , slows stor m r unof f, r educes flooding, sustains watershed stability and r esilience, and pr ovides critical habitat for fish and wildlife. In addition to these ecological ser vices, for ests pr

ovide abundant water -based r ecr eation and other benefits that impr ove the quality of life.


### M

AINT AINING AND 

### R ESTORING 

### W A

TERSHEDS WERE 

### P RIMAR Y 

### R EASONS FOR 

### E ST

ABLISHING THE 

### N A

TIONAL 

### F ORESTS Use and development of the water r esour ces of the United States under went major changes during the 19th centur y in r esponse to the gr owing demands of a population that had incr eased nearly 20-fold since the founding of the countr y

. W estwar d expansion, and navigable rivers, canals, and harbors for transpor ta

tion transfor med the Nation’ s economy . As the Nation experienced this period of massive development, major pr oblems emer ged fr om over use and poor man

agement of its water r esour ces: ■ Urban water supplies wer e a major sour ce of disease. ■ The capacity of many lakes and str eams to assimi

late wastes was exceeded. ■ The sur vival of people living in arid or flood-pr one ar

eas depended on unpr edictable pr ecipitation patter ns. The 1897 Or ganic Administrative Act said these for est r eser ves wer e to pr otect and enhance water supplies, r educe flooding, secur e favorable conditions of water flow , pr otect the for est fr om fir es and depr e

dations, and pr ovide a continuous supply of timber By 1915, national for ests in the W est had been established in much the for m they r etain today . These national for ests, which included 162 million acr es in 1915, wer e essentially car ved out of the public domain. At that time, few Federal for ests wer e desig

nated in the East because of the lack of public domain. Public demands for easter n national for ests r esulted in passage of the 1911 W eeks Act, authoriz

ing the acquisition of Federal lands to pr otect the watersheds of navigable str eams. Fr om 1911 to 1945, about 24 million acr es of depleted far msteads, stump

fields, and bur ned woodlands wer e incorporated into the easter n par t of the National For est System. This r epor t focuses on the r ole of for ests in water supply—including quantity , quality , timing of r elease, flood r eductions and low flow augmentation, econom

ic value of water fr om national for est lands, and eco

nomic benefits of tr ee cover for stor mwater r eduction in urban ar eas. 

### W

A

TER IS THE 

### C ENTRAL 

### O RGANIZER OF 

### E COSYSTEMS Thr oughout human histor y

, water has played a cen

tral, defining r ole. It has sculpted the biological and physical landscape thr ough er osion and disturbance. The amount, place, and timing of water ar e r eflected in the vegetative mosaic acr oss the landscape. W ater has also played a key r ole in shaping the patter n and type of human occupancy; r outes of travel and trans

por tation, patter ns of settlement, and the natur e and scope of human land-use all owe their characteristics lar gely to water r egimes. Conversely , social demands on the water r esour ce system have pr oduced major ef fects on vir tually ever y aspect of that system including quality , quantity , dis

tribution, and for m (for example, white water vs. impoundments). The human uses and values of water shape how it is managed, and the biological and physical character

istics of water shape human values and uses. Thus, water r esour ce management r equir es a systems appr oach that includes not only all of the constituent par ts, but also the links, r elations, interactions, con

sequences, and implications among these par ts. T

raditionally , water has been valued as an engine of development and as the sour ce of commodity and util

itarian values to society . It has sustained agricultural 

# Summary 

# Pii pr

oduction, gr own for ests, and power ed cities and industries. T oday , these values r emain, but they have been joined by a variety of others. W ater is the basis for many of the r ecr eational and amenity values people seek. Incr easingly , science shows, and managers r ec

ognize, the key r ole of water flow r egimes in ecosys

tem function and pr ocesses. Adequate flow and water quality ar e essential to maintaining key fish species and fisheries, which in tur n, ar e sour ces of many eco

nomic, cultural, and spiritual values. Acr oss the Nation, significant challenges to r esour ce managers, scientists, and citizens ar e pr e

sented by emer ging conflicts over providing highquality , abundant flows of water to sustain a bur geoning population, an agricultural industr y

, his

toric salmon r uns, and populations of other thr eat

ened aquatic species. 

### Q

UESTIONS 

### A BOUT THE 

### R OLE OF 

### F

ORESTS IN 

### W A

TER 

### S UPPL Y How Much W ater Comes fr

om the National For ests? Excluding Alaska, about two-thir ds of the Nation’ s r unof f comes fr om for ested ar eas. National for est lands contribute 14 per cent of the total r unof f. National for est lands ar e the lar gest single sour ce of water in the United States and contribute water of high quality . Mor e than 60 per cent of the Nation’ s r unof f is fr om east of the Mississippi River , wher e 70 per cent of the Nation’ s private and State for ests ar e located. National for ests in the East ar e r esponsible for 6 per cent of this r unof f. National for ests in the W

est pr ovide pr opor tionately mor e water (33 per cent) because they include the headwaters of major rivers and for ested ar eas of major mountain ranges. For est Ser vice literatur e fr om the 1940’ s to the pr esent has claimed that 50 to 70 per cent of the Nation’ s r unof f comes fr om national for est lands. It is now clear that those claims ar e overstated. What is the V alue of W ater fr om National For est Lands? W

e calculate the mar ginal value of water fr om all national for est lands to equal at least $3.7 billion per year . Annual value of water fr om national for est lands is gr eatest in the Pacific Nor thwest and Pacific South

west Regions, and lowest in the Southwest Region. These values r epr esent a lower limit on the range of values attributable to waters flowing fr om the national for ests. The actual values of this water yield ar e almost cer tainly higher , but how much higher is not known. How Should Municipal W

atersheds be Managed? One issue is whether municipal watersheds should be placed under active or passive management r egimes to sustain supplies of high-quality water over the long r un. Many For est Ser vice specialists think that water supplies can be best pr otected by actively managing these watersheds to maintain for est vegetation and watershed pr ocesses within their natural range of variation. Conversely , many people in urban centers believe that, in the inter est of water quality and safety , people should not alter watersheds in any way , other than to diver t the water . Scientific evidence indicates that watersheds can be ef fectively managed for safe, high-quality water and still pr ovide other r esour ce outputs as bypr oducts. Can For ests be Managed to Impr ove Str eam Flow? Flooding and sedimentation fr om cutover lands was one of the primar y r easons for establishing national for ests. The timing of water yields was also an impor

tant issue, especially the desir e to augment late-sea

son flows. V

egetative cover and on-site contr ol measur es ef

fectively r educe flood peaks. However , significant shifts in the timing of late-season r unof f ar e not likely to be achieved thr ough managing for est vegetation and snow acr oss national for est lands. T r eatments that r estor e slopes, meadows, and channels; incr ease the r outing time between pr ecipitation and r unof f; and r echar ge gr ound waters can be expected to have a gr

eater ef fect in sustaining late-season flows. Although theor y suggests that vegetation manage

ment can pr oduce mor e str eamflow , for a variety of r easons, general water -yield incr eases thr ough for est management ar e likely to fall in an undetectable range. The data suggest that r elying on augmentation fr

om national for ests will not be a viable strategy for dealing with water shor tages. Gr eater gains can be made by r educing water consumption, impr oving con

ser vation, and establishing water markets to allocate scar ce supplies mor e ef ficiently . Pr oviding cold, clear waters of high quality for aquatic or ganisms and human use is pr obably the pr oper focus for managing water on the National For est System. Ther e is r elative

ly little management can do to incr ease total water yield, but for est management can have major ef fects 

## Summaryiii on water quality—af fecting temperatur e, nutrient loadings, sediment yields, and toxic contaminants. What is the Agency’ s Role in Pr otecting Instr eam Flow and Gr ound W ater? The For est Ser vice must actively par ticipate in the pr

ocesses that allocate sur face water , gr ound water , and water rights. T o be ef fective, this par ticipation must be timely and of impeccable technical quality

. Thr ee needs stand out: ■ For est plan r evisions should incorporate instr eam flow needs to maintain public values. When a State under takes a basin-wide adjudication of water rights, all beneficial consumptive and instr eam water uses on national for est lands should be claimed in accor dance with State and Federal laws. ■ Early and intensive collaboration among existing and potential water users is likely to be the most ef

fective appr oach. Public and interagency collabo

ration in for est planning has gr eat potential for solving pr oblems and achieving acceptable solu

tions, lessening the costly litigation common to water rights issues. ■ In many places, the For est Ser vice lacks the tech

nical exper tise in hydr ology needed to pr otect instr eam flows. Our pr esent workfor ce of in-house exper tise must be conser ved and enhanced if costly failur es ar e to be avoided. What is the Agency’ s Role in Hydr oelectric Relicensing? Fr

om the 1940’ s to the 1960’ s, 325 hydr oelectric pr oj

ects wer e licensed and built on the national for ests. These facilities have pr ovided power and r ecr eation for the Nation. However , many of these pr ojects have also had significant adverse ef fects on national for est r esour ces. During the next 10 years, mor e than 180 of these pr

ojects come up for r elicensing. The r elicensing pr

ocess pr esents the only oppor tunity for the For est Ser vice to addr ess r esour ce damage, mitigate futur e adverse ef fects, and significantly influence how these pr

ojects will operate for the next 30 to 50 years. For est Ser vice par ticipation in the r elicensing pr

ocess could str engthen mitigation and r estoration pr

ograms on national for est lands that would lead to impr oved aquatic habitats and incr eased water quali

ty

. Estimates of these benefits to national for est lands exceed a billion dollars. Potential benefits include new and upgraded r ecr eational facilities, r estor ed instr eam flow r egimes, and enhanced habitats for aquatic and ter r estrial wildlife. The r elicensing ef for t offers a costef

fective, immediate means to addr ess the goals out

lined in the Natural Resour ces Agenda and Clean W

ater Action Plan. What is the Agency’ s Role in Conser ving Aquatic Biodiversity? National for est lands and waters play a pivotal r ole in anchoring aquatic species and maintaining biodiversi

ty

. Mor e then one-thir d of national for est lands have been identified as impor tant to maintaining aquatic biodiversity . Five r ecent, lar ge-scale, ecosystem-based For est Ser vice assessments identified networks of aquatic conser vation watersheds: the Nor thwest For

est Plan, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Man

agement Pr oject, the T ongass National For est Land Management Plan, the Sier ra Nevada Framework Pr o

ject, and the Souther n Appalachians Assessment. Such a commitment and a special ef for t of lands to the purposes of aquatic species conser vation could be r egar ded as the cor e of the national for est aquatic and biodiversity conser vation strategy

. Can the W atershed Condition on National For ests be Restor ed? The most compr ehensive landscape-scale assessment to date—the Interior Columbia Basin Assessment— found that the momentum fr om past events will push the system fur ther fr om the desir ed condition over the decades to come. Even with aggr essive manage

ment, that momentum will not be over come within the next 100 years under pr ojected funding. Pr ogr ess towar d for est health r estoration can be expected to pr

oceed ver y slowly . In the interim, vegetative compo

sition and str uctur e at the landscape scale will be deter mined by unnaturally lar ge, high-intensity fir es. These findings suggest that it will not be feasible to r estor e all degraded ar eas. W e will have to strategical

ly focus r estoration ef for ts on selected watersheds wher e we can hope to make a meaningful dif fer ence. What is the Role of Urban For ests in W ater Supply? Counties classified as “urban” contain one-quar ter of the total tr ee cover of the coter minous United States. Urban tr ees af fect water quantity by inter cepting pr e

cipitation, incr easing water infiltration rates, and transpiring water . They can materially r educe the rate and volume of stor m water r unof f, flood damage, stor mwater tr eatment costs, and other pr oblems r elated to water quality

. 

## Summaryiv The Agency Challenge. The challenge for the For est Ser vice will be to simul

taneously per for m the following: ■ Systematically r estor e damaged watersheds on the national for ests. ■ Mitigate additional watershed damage fr om land uses and the inevitable major wildfir es. ■ Foster par tnership ef for ts to meet the most pr essing watershed r estoration needs when they fall outside of national for est boundaries.


### I SSUES AND 

### P OLICY Maintaining supplies of clean water and pr otecting watersheds wer e major r easons why public domain for ests and rangelands wer e r eser ved. It was the head

waters of the wester n rivers, and cutover and er oded lands in the East, that became the National For est System. W ith passage of envir onmental laws, such as the Clean W ater Act and Endanger ed Species Act, clear standar ds for water quality wer e set by Federal and State agencies. Despite water quality impr ovements r esulting fr om applying these standar ds, many str eams in the Nation ar e still highly alter ed fr om their natural cycles. Under human influ

ences, neither the range of natural conditions nor the full expr ession of ecological interactions between aquatic and ter r estrial ecosystems is per mitted. Many factors af fect water quality , pr oduction, and quantity . The national population will nearly double within the next 50 years. America’ s population is get

ting older , mor e ethnically diverse, and concentrated in urban ar eas. The population of the W est has incr eased 50 per cent in the last 20 years and is expect

ed to incr ease another 300 per cent by 2040. Much of the W est was unpr oductive as far mland until lands began to be ir rigated in the late 1930’ s. As a r esult of population gr owth, lar ge-scale r eliance on ir rigation, and a host of other factors that have incr eased water use, water in wester n str eams is generally over appr o



## Summary

F igure 1. National for est watersheds integrate multiple pr ocesses and issues that must be consider ed in aggr egate. Isolated, single-issue solutions won ’t work.

W ater T reatment F acility T own Agriculture P recipitation

Dam W indstor m
Ridge Ridge
Lak e

W

atershed Divide Riparian Zone

W

etland

P ercolation P ercolation Roadway

Groundwater (aquifer) Snowpack

F orestr y

Industr y River Earthflow Landslide T ributariesv priated (Moody 1990, NRC 1992). In Or egon and W

ashington, 40 to 90 per cent of the land ar eas of indi

vidual national for ests west of the Cascade Range cr est ar

e in municipal watersheds. The population sur ge in the W est is incr easing the diversion and consumption use of water and, at the same time, demand for water

based r ecr eation (Br own et al. 1991). This tr end will continue and intensify . Most r ecr e

ation in national for ests is associated with some body of water (lakes, r eser voirs, or str eams). Recent publi

cations (Gillian and Br own 1998) have mor e closely linked instr eam-flow issues to r ecr eational activities and have described the complex r elationships of r ecr eation uses and water . For example, even without incorporating many of the economic facets of the r ecr eational uses documented in the arid W est, the value of instr eam flows for r ecr eational fishing is gr

eater than the value of that water for ir rigation (Hansen and Hallam 1990). Ther e ar e mor e than 180 non-Federal dams on national for ests that pr ovide hydr oelectricity as well as r ecr eation. These dams ar e due for r elicensing in the next 5 to 10 years. The For est Ser vice, under the Federal Power Act of 1920, is legally bound to condi

tion the licenses to mitigate the ef fects of these dams on fish, wildlife, water quality , and r ecr eation values. The Natur e Conser vancy (1996) and other r ecent assessments have described the deteriorating condi

tion of fr eshwater species and ecosystems in the Unit

ed States. Mor e than 300 fr eshwater species ar e listed or pr oposed for listing under the Endanger ed Species Act. Mor e than 37 per cent of native fish species ar e at risk of extinction, including all of the major popula

tions of salmon and steelhead tr out on the west coast south of Alaska. National for est lands contain the best habitat and str ongest r emaining populations of most of the species at risk. The Natur e Conser vancy esti

mated that pr otecting and r estoring 327 watersheds (~800,000 acr es each) or 15 per cent of the total num

ber of subbasins in the United States would conser ve populations of all at-risk fr eshwater fish and mussel species in the countr y

. National for est lands influence 181 of these watersheds and will be the anchoring habitat for nearly all of the west coast salmon and tr

out populations. 

### I NTERPLA Y 

### A MONG 

### I SSUES In addition to the agency’ s need to consider each of these issues independently , the interplay among them must also be consider ed (see figur e 1). For instance, many of the r eser voirs in national for ests wer e built to meet many dif fer ent needs, including water for agricul

tur e. On the west side of the Or egon Cascades, only 5 per cent of the water that agricultural water rights holders ar e entitled to has been claimed. If they begin to claim mor e of their entitlement, flows, water quanti

ty

, and r ecr eation will likely be af fected in major ways. Mor eover , several species of salmonids alr eady listed under the Endanger ed Species Act need mor e water in cer tain locales. Recognizing the loss of natural func

tion and natural hydr ologic r egimes in these highly alter ed str eams, the For est Ser vice has been pursuing Federal water rights and adjusting conditions in spe

cial-use per mits to r equir e bypass-flows. Changes of the status quo in water appr opriation deeply concer n wester n State gover nments and senior water -rights holders. Regional climate shifts and global climate change could fur ther exacerbate these issues and con

found them with other water issues. V

arious Federal interagency water initiatives ar e addr essing aspects of these issues. But, to date, ther e has been no ef for t to characterize the par ticular r ole of national for est lands in supplying the Nation’ s water , or to define the r ole of Federal lands and water in the matrix of State and private lands. The Nation’ s water r esour ces face gr owing scientif

ic, management, and political challenges. The For est Ser vice will play a major r ole in these discussions, impr oving the ability of policymakers, managers, and citizens to develop options, anticipate consequences and implications, and fashion r esponsive, infor med pr

ograms. ❖ 

## Summaryvi1 ORLD 

### W A

TER 

### S UPPL Y Although 70 per cent of the Ear th’ s surface is cover ed with water , the amount of fr

esh water available on land sur faces is a tiny fraction of the total; 97.5 per cent of the water on the planet is in the oceans — too salty to drink or to gr ow cr ops. Most of the 2.5 per cent that is not salt water is locked up out of practical r each in the vast icecaps of Gr eenland and Antar ctica. Less than 1 per

cent is fr esh water , pr esent in the for m of gr oundwa

ter , on the land sur face, and in the atmospher e. Less than eight ten-thousandths of 1 per cent is annually r enewable and available in rivers and lakes for human use including agricultur e, and for use by aquatic species (see figur e 2). W

ater is continuously cycled between the Ear th’ s sur face and atmospher e thr ough evaporation and pr e

cipitation. The fr esh water that falls on land as rain or snow , or that has been accumulated and stor ed over thousands of years as gr oundwater , is what people use to meet most of their needs. That supply , although r eplenished daily , is both limited and vulnerable to human actions and abuse. Over -appr opriated rivers and excessive gr oundwater pumping ar e serious pr ob

lems. Many of America’ s impor tant food-pr oducing r egions ar e sustained by the hydr ologic equivalent of deficit financing—using water that is not being r eplaced. The rational use and pr otection of water r esour ces ar e among today’ s most acute and complex scientific and technical pr oblems. Shor tages of fr esh water and the incr easing pollution of water bodies ar e becoming limiting factors in the economic develop

ment of many countries, even countries not in arid zones. Under these conditions, assessing and manag

ing water r esour ces is vital. Reliable estimates of annual str eamflows, their fluctuations, and water r esour ces stor ed in lakes, aquifers, snowpack, and gla

ciers ar e critical to a clear understanding of natural water cycles and the ef fects of human activities. All types of waters ar e r enewed, but the rates of r enewal dif fer sharply . W ater in rivers is completely r enewed ever y 16 days on average, and water in the atmospher e is r enewed ever y 8 days, but the r enewal periods of glaciers, gr oundwater , ocean water , and the lar gest lakes r un to hundr eds or thousands of years. These ar e, essentially , nonr enewable r esour ces. When people use or degrade these water supplies, useable water r esour ces ar e lost and natural water cycles may be disr upted. 

# W ater Quantity and the National F orests

F igure 2. Only a miniscule pr oportion of the Earth’s water is fr esh and available to humans and terr estrial and fr eshwater aquatic life, making it a most pr ecious r esour ce. 

# W

97.5% Oceans & Seas



### 1.73% Glaciers & Icecaps 

### 0.77% T otal F

resh W ater 

### 0.0008% A

vailable & Renewable

F

resh W

ater2 

### T

HE 

### Q U

ANTITY OF 

### W A

TER FROM 

### F ORESTED 

### L ANDS For est Ser vice literatur e fr om the 1940’ s to the pr es

ent (Gillian and Br own 1998) has asser ted that 50 to 70 per cent of the Nation’ s r unof f derives fr om nation

al for est lands. But that asser tion is only an often r epeated estimate, without a clear empirical basis. Mor e accurate knowledge of how much water comes of

f national for est lands, wher e it flows, and how it is used is essential for understanding what waters for est managers ar e managing, their economic values, and the options for their futur e use. In or der to answer the fundamental questions about yield and value of waters flowing fr om the national for ests, we estimated r unof f using a sophisti

cated, spatially explicit simulation model. The model found that water yields fr om national for ests ar e less than 20 per ent of the total sur face r unof f fr om the contiguous 48 States (see figur e 3). This is significant

ly below the estimates of water yield found in earlier For est Ser vice literatur e. W

ater r unof f fr om for ested ar eas, including nation

al for ests, was derived using the Mapped Atmospher e Plant-Soil-System (MAPSS) model (Neilson 1995). The MAPSS model simulates the distribution of for ests, savannas, grasslands, and deser ts with r easonable accuracy . It is mor e accurate for for ested than nonfor ested ar eas, and confidence is lower in the topographically complex and arid W ester n States. The model pr oduced annual estimates of r unof f per 100- squar e-kilometer grid cell in the continental United States. For ested ar eas, national for est lands, and watershed boundaries wer e overlaid on this grid to estimate r unof f. In addition, r unof f was estimated for the national for ests in each of the 18 water -r

esour ce r egions in the contiguous 48 States.

The model accurately r epr oduces obser ved month

ly r unof f. At the continental and hydr ographic-r egion scales, the model per for ms well compar ed to published maps and U.S. Geological Sur vey data on measur ed r unof f. About two-thir ds of the Nation’ s r unof f, excluding Alaska, comes fr om for ested ar eas. National for est lands, which r epr esent 8 per cent of the contiguous U.S. land ar ea, contribute 14 per cent of the r unof f. National for est lands ar e the lar gest single sour ce of water in the United States. National for ests yield water of unusually high quality . This high quality water and its associated watersheds anchor native fishes, mussels, and amphibians. For ested watersheds east of the Mississippi River generally r eceive mor e rainfall and pr oduce mor e sur face water per unit ar ea than for ested lands to the west. They also tend to have a mor e even distribution of r unof f during the year

. Their floods ar e usually caused by hur ricanes or tr opi

cal stor ms, unlike wester n watersheds in the snow zone wher e spring snowmelt, sometimes supplement

ed by rainfall, causes the annual peak flows. Low flows in the East usually occur during dr y summers when evapotranspiration rates ar e gr eatest; in the wester n mountains, annual low flows usually occur in mid

winter . Mor e than 60 per cent of the Nation’ s r unof f is fr

om east of the Mississippi River , wher e 70 per cent of the Nation’ s private and State for ests ar e located. National for ests in the East ar e r esponsible for 6 per

cent of this r unof f (see the lower graph in figur e 3). W

e estimated the actual r unof f fr om national for est lands for the 18 water r esour ce r egions of the F igure 3. P r oportion of runoff fr om all for ested lands and national for est of the continental United States (upper graph), derived fr om Neilson , 1995. P r oportion of runoff fr om all for ested lands and national for est lands east and west of the Mississippi River (lower graph). 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests

National F orest Lands All U.S F orested Lands T otal U.S

National F orest Lands Easter n U.S. W ester n U.S. F orested R unoff T otal R unoff National F orest Lands F orested R unoff T otal R unoff 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200

0

1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100

0Millions of acre-feet per year109m3/year Source of our Nation’s W aterways3 contiguous United States (see figur es 4 and 5). The gr

eatest yield of water fr om national for est lands is fr

om the Pacific Nor thwest (Columbia River plus coastal and Puget Sound rivers) and Califor nia. These r egions have mor e than 20 per cent of their ar ea in national for est lands. The T ennessee River basin has about 6 per cent national for est lands, but these ar e the wettest par ts of the basin and yield much mor e water than their land ar ea would suggest. Although water fr

om national for est land contributes only 6 per cent of the Missouri River , it is most of the water fr om W

yoming, Montana, and Colorado. Nearly half of the water fr om the Upper Colorado basin flows fr om national for est lands, yet it yields only about half the water a smaller ar ea of national for est land pr oduces in the Ohio River basin.
F igure 4. W ater r esour ces r egions of the United States (Sour ce U.S. Geologic Survey). 1 New England; 2 Mid-A tlantic; 3 South A tlantic-Gulf; 4 Gr eat Lakes; 5 Ohio ; 6 T ennessee; 7 Upper Mississippi; 8 L ower Mississippi; 9 Soiris-R ed-R ainy ; 10 Missouri; 11 Arkansas- White-R ed; 12 T exas-Gulf; 13 Rio Grande; 14 Upper Colorado ; 15 L ower Colorado ; 16 Gr eat Basin ; 17 P acific Northwest; 18 California; 19 Alaska; 20 Hawaii; 21 P uerto Rico

. Water Resources Regions of the United States



### 10

11

12 13
19 20 21 18 17

16

15 14 07

08 09

04 02
05 06 03 01

Puerto Rico Hawaii Alaska F igure 5. The contribution and pr oportion of water runoff fr om national for

est lands to the 18 water r esour ce r egions of the contiguous United States. R unoff estimate was derived using the MAPPS model (Neilsen 1995). The bars r epr

esent yearly water yields fr om national for est lands. P er

centages ar e the pr oportion of the total runoff fr om the water r esour ce r egion that flows fr om national for est lands.

8% 6% 7% 5% 46%38% 32% 38%

45%

4% 4% 6% 9% 7% 23% 2% 5% 29% R unoff from National F orest Lands
%=proportion of the water resource regions r unoff that comes from National F orest Lands Soiris-Red-Rainy Missouri Arkansas- White-Red T exas Gulf

Rio Grande

Upper Colorado Lower Colorado Great Basin
P acific Northwest Califor nia New England Mid-

Atlantic South Atlantic Gulf Great Lak es Ohio T ennessee Upper Mississippi Lower Mississippi 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0Billion cubic meters/year 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests4 National for ests in the W est pr ovide pr opor tionally mor e water (33 per cent) because they include the major mountain ranges and the headwaters of the principal rivers. For example, in Califor nia, national for est lands occupy 20 per cent of the State but pr o

duce nearly 50 per cent of the State’ s r unof f. The Pacific Nor thwest shows the same patter n. The agency is using basins and watersheds in the latest r ounds of for est plan r evisions, r egional envi

r onmental impact statements, and assessments. Because of higher rainfall in the East, the smaller and mor e fragmented national for est lands in the Easter n and Souther n Regions generate lar ge volumes of r unof f compar ed to the contiguous mountain for ests in the Rocky Mountain, Southwest, and Inter mountain Regions (see figur es 6 and 7). The r unof f fr om the r egions pr ovided the basis for calculating the mar ginal value of water discussed in the next section.

F igure 6. The F or

est Service has eight administrative r egions in the conti

nental United States. The boundaries do not match up well to watersheds or water r esour ce r egions.

U S

D

A

- F

o

r e

s t S e

r v

i c

e R e

g

i o

n

s

N

o

r t h

e

r n

I n

t e

r -M o

u

n

t a

i n P

a

c

i f i c S

o

u

t h

w

e

s t

S o

u

t h

w

e

s t P

a

c

i f i c N

o

r t h

w

e

s t

S o

u

t h

e

r n E a

s t e

r n R

o

c

k

y M

o

u

n

t a

i n

P u

e

r t o R

i c

o H

a

w

a

i i A

l a

s k

a U S D

A

- F S L

a n d s 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests

Norther n Region

National F orest System Streamflow

(million acre-feet) Rocky Mountain

Southwester n
Inter mountain
P acific Southwest
P acific Northwest
Souther n
Easter n 0 10 20 30 40 50 F igure 7. Str eam flows fr om national for est lands for each r egion . Because of the gr eater rainfall in the Eastern and Southern United States, mor e str

eamflow per unit ar ea comes fr om these national for ests.5 Comparing water supplies to current withdrawals indicates the likelihood that a small change in flowwould affect off-stream uses. If only a small proportion of available flow is diverted, off-stream users are unlikely to be affected by a small change in flow, except perhaps in a very dry year. This comparison was performed for the 18 water-resource regions of the contiguous 48 States, with the exception that the upper and lower Colorado regions were combined because so much of the lower basin’s supply originates in the upper basin. The proportion of water supply in each region withdrawn for off-stream use is shown in figure 8. In general, off-stream users in regions with ratios below about 0.2 are not likely to be affected by a marginal change in flow. But these regions are large and areas of shortage may exist even in regions with very low total ratios of withdrawal to supply. Even though the MAPSS model is biased toward underestimating runoff, water yields from national forests are much lower than the estimates that appear in the reports of the Chief dating back to 1947. Thefigures reported here are more accurate but not precise enough to use on a forest-by-forest basis. Additional work is needed to refine the estimates to the national forest scale. 

### D

ETERMINING A 

### W ATER 

### V ALUE FOR THE 

### N

ATIONAL 

### F OREST 

### S YSTEMThe economic importance of water can be characterized in two ways, by estimating its economic effects in terms of jobs or income, and by estimating what the public is willing to pay for it. Willingness to pay, the value addressed here, can exist for anything of value—a market good like bottled water, a nonmarketgood like a recreational fishing experience, or a socalled “nonuse” service like the knowledge that a certain riparian habitat is well cared for. Measuring thesevalues is anything but straightforward, and most estimates are only approximate. Most economic valuation studies of water havefocused on the marginal value of water volumes available for instream and offstream uses. The estimated marginal values reflect our willingness to pay for achange in the amount of water, and they are of interest because management actions typically cause onlysmall changes. In some water-short areas, water markets have emerged that also provide indications of marginal values. Evidence from these two sources suggests that (Brown 1999): ■ Economic studies of water value tend to be performed, and water markets tend to develop, where water is scarce. The values determined in such studies or markets are likely to overestimate values for water supplies where water is not so scarce. ■ Marginal values of streamflow in any one use depend on the degree of water scarcity, which inturn depends on localized water demand and supply factors, including the capacities of water facilities like reservoirs and canals. Degree of scarcity ishighly site-specific, which makes transferring values reliably from one site to another difficult. ■ The marginal value of streamflow depends on the variety of uses to which the flow may be put. Its value for instream uses—producing electricity athydroelectric plants or providing for habitat, recreation, and waste dilution—must be added to values in off-stream uses. Most diversions to off-stream uses consume some water but also provide some return flows that can be used by others downstream. ■ The marginal value of streamflow in off-stream uses can be zero in locations with ample water supplies. Depending on recreation demand and hydroelectric plant capacities, the marginal value of water in instream uses may be positive even in water-rich areas. ■ Although values vary widely from one site to another, for typical areas without ample water supply,
Figure 8. The proportion of water supply that is withdrawn to off-stream use in the 18 water-resource regions of the United States. If only a small proportion of available flow is diverted off-stream, off-stream users are unlikely to be affected by a small change in flow, except perhaps in very dry years. (Alaska and Hawaii not included) California Pacific Northest Great Basin Upper Colorado Lower Colorado Rio Grande Texas-Gulf Arkansas-White-Red Missouri Souris-Red-Rainy Lower Mississippi Upper Mississippi Tennessee Ohio Great Lakes Mid-Atlantic New England Systems with a ratio above 0.2 are likely to be affected by a marginal change in flow

Ratio of water withdrawal to supply 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 

## Water Quantity and the National Forests6 economic studies and transaction evidence suggest a mar ginal value of str eamflow deliver ed to offstr eam uses of r oughly $40 per acr e-foot, on aver

age. A few economic studies r epor t higher values than this for municipal and industrial water , but the evidence is too limited to be applied to br oad ar

eas in lar ge-scale assessments such as this one. ■ Mar ginal values of water in pr oducing electricity at hydr oelectric plants range as high as $40 per acrefoot for flow originating at the headwaters of one highly developed watershed, but the values ar e much lower for most places. A verage values per acr e-foot of flow in each of the 18 water -r

esour ce r egions (U.S. W ater Resour ces Council 1978) of the contiguous 48 States ar e conser vatively estimated to range fr om $0.26 to $17.00, with most below $2. ■ Mar ginal values of str eamflow for r ecr eation dif fer widely fr om one site or season to another , depend

ing on a host of factors, but evidence fr om economic studies suggests that the mar ginal value of str eamflow for r ecr eation is below $10 per acrefoot in most places. ■ The total value of str eamflow fr om national for ests depends on the average value over the entir e amount of use, not on the mar ginal value. Because average values may gr eatly exceed mar ginal values, the average value of str eamflow fr om national for ests may be high even wher e the mar ginal value is modest, especially in watersheds wher e national for ests contribute a substantial por tion of the total water supply . A verage values ar e not obser ved in the market place and ar e dif ficult to measur e; ther efor e, estimating the total value of str eamflow is dif ficult. Never theless, with appr opriate assump

tions and the use of mar ginal values as a lower bound on average values, a r ough estimate of total value may be obtained. ■ The estimates of r unof f fr om the national for ests wer e adjusted to cor r ect for discr epancies between the total land ar ea within the mapped boundaries of the national for ests and the ar ea the For est Ser vice actually manages. As expected, the dif fer ence is gr

eatest in Regions 8 and 9, wher e the Federal holdings ar e mor e fragmented. This cor r ection r emoved the dif fer ence between the “gr oss acr eage” and the “National For est System acr eage” (USDA For est Ser vice 1997). The volume of r unof f fr om the national for ests as estimated by the MAPSS model, cor r ected to r eflect the actual land ar ea under For est Ser vice management, is the national for est instr eam flow shown in column 2 of table 1. Not all water is diver ted for of f-str eam use and much water flows dir ectly to the ocean without pass

ing thr ough ir rigation canals, municipal diversions, or the like. Ther efor e, the numbers for water flowing fr

om units of the National For est System wer e corr ected to include only the water actually used of

fstr eam. Data on water withdrawals wer e taken fr om the U.S. Geological Sur vey (Solley et al. 1998). The per centage of total r unof f in each r egion attributable to national for est lands was divided by the total r unof f fr

om all lands in the cor r esponding For est Ser vice r egion, as deter mined by the MAPSS model. The r esulting fraction was multiplied by the total r unof f in each For est Ser vice r egion that goes to of fstr eam uses based on the U.S. Geological Sur vey data. The r esults ar

e shown in column 3 of table 1. The lower bound on the value of r unof f fr om For

est Ser vice lands was estimated by applying the aver

age mar ginal values discussed above (Br own 1999) to the estimates of water yield shown in table 1 for each For est Ser vice r egion. W ithdrawals to of fstr eam uses wer e valued at $40 per acr e-foot, and instr eam flow was valued at $17 per acr e-foot in the W est and $8 per acr e-foot in the East for r ecr eation and hydr opower combined. Dilution, navigation, and nonuse values wer e assumed to be nil. The r esults of these calcula

tions ar e shown by For est Ser vice r egion in figur e 9. The value of water flowing fr om national for ests, in both of fstr eam and instr eam uses, is conser vatively estimated to be at least $3.7 billion per year

. This estimate makes it possible to compar e the total value of the water originating on the national for ests with similar values for other for est r esour ces. It pr ovides a general idea of the r elative impor tance to
T able 1. W ater Supply from National F orests by F orest Service Region Sour

ces: Derived fr om Solley et al. (1998) and Neilson (1995)
National F orest National F orest Region Instream Flow Offstream Use
A

cr

e-feet A cr

e-feet Norther n 15,914,000 3,815,342 Rocky Mountain 9,144,792 2,150,811 Southwester n 7,428,051 1,971,245 Inter mountain 11,458,855 4,785,689 P

acific Southwest 33,201,475 9,496,005 P

acific Northwest 44,658,346 4,806,316 Souther n 19,041,809 3,587,515 Easter n 14,714,248 3,376,458 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests7 society of the various r esour ces and equips the public to make infor med decisions about alter native uses of their for ests. W

ater r unof f is dif fer ent fr om many other r esour ces, in ter ms of the degr ee of Federal owner

ship and contr ol. Although the agency generally has legal authority to decide about the sale or use of tim

ber stumpage, livestock grazing, and r ecr eation access, the Federal Gover nment has not established a legal right to most of the water flowing fr om the for ests. Har d-r ock minerals and fish and wildlife pr es

ent a contrasting case, mor e like that of water r unof f. Locatable minerals ar e owned by the Federal Gover n

ment, but the agency does not contr ol access. Fish and wildlife ar e owned by the State, with access con

tr

olled by the agency and “take” contr olled by the State. In both cases, although the r esour ces ar e not owned by the Federal Gover nment, they do have value to society , and in both cases the For est Ser vice esti

mates and r epor ts on those values. 

### T

RUE 

### V AL

UE OF 

### W A

TER IS 

### U NDERESTIMA TED This estimate of of value understates the tr ue value of water flowing fr om the national for ests in thr ee ways. First, our analysis counts mar ginal value rather than average value, even though average values may gr eat

ly exceed mar ginal values. Second, our estimates ignor e values attached to navigation, waste dilution, channel maintenance, and such ecological ser vices as aquatic habitats and wetland functions. Thir d, our analysis does not count nonuse values—existence value, option value, and bequest value—even though some studies indicate that nonuse values may be sub

stantial. The values estimated thr ough this analysis thus r epr esent a lower limit on the range of values attributable to waters flowing fr om the national for ests. The actual values of these flows ar e almost cer tainly higher , but how much higher is not known. Pr

oviding cold, clear waters of high quality for aquatic or ganisms and human use is pr obably the pr

oper focus for managing water on the National For

est System. Ther e is r elatively little management can do to incr ease total water yield. But for est management can have major ef fects on water quality—af fecting tem

peratur e, nutrient loadings, sediment yields, and toxic contaminants. Management can also af fect the storage capacity of soils and alluvial deposits, mar ginally af fect

ing magnitude of peak str eamflow and the duration of dr

y-season str eamflows. W

ater quality changes af fect aquatic habitats, downstr eam water management facilities, r ecr eation oppor tunities, and water tr eatment costs. Land man

agement can cause incr eases in flood peaks and r educed channel stability , and impact the ability of downstr eam water users to benefit fr om the str eamflow . The values of changes in the quality or timing of str eamflows have r eceived less attention by economists than has total quantity , par tly because quality and timing ar e mor e dif ficult to monitor . The economic value of car eful for est management—man

agement that pr otects soils and water quality and takes full advantage of the watershed’ s ability to tem

porarily stor e water and ameliorate downstr eam flood damage—calls for additional study , but it is not addr essed in detail in this paper . The economic analy

sis in this paper pr ovides only a first appr oximation of the minimum value to society of the waters flowing fr

om the national for ests. Other measur es of value attributable to national for est waters r emain to be filled in by fur ther studies 

### M

ANY 

### C OMMUNITIES 

### D EPEND ON 

### W

A

TER FROM THE 

### N A

TIONAL 

### F ORESTS In 1999, the Envir onmental Pr otection Agency (EP A) estimated that 3,400 public drinking-water systems ar

e located in watersheds containing national for est lands. About 60 million people live in these 3,400 communities. W e will eventually have a mor e accurate pictur e of the r ole of the for ests in pr oviding munici

F igure 9. Annual value of water fr om national for ests by r egion . The mar

ginal value of water fr om all national for est lands is at least $3.7 billion per year .

Norther n Region

Mar ginal V alue of W ater from National F orests Lands (millions of dollars) Rocky Mountain

Southwester n
Inter mountain
P acific Southwest
P acific Northwest
Souther n
Easter n 0 200 400 600 800 1000 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests8 pal water supplies. All 50 States and many par ticipat

ing tribes ar e now delineating the sur face watersheds and gr oundwater r echar ge ar eas that pr ovide public drinking water to the 68,000 communities that r ely on sur face water or gr oundwater for their public water supplies. This ef for t will extend over the next 4 years, as r equir ed by the Safe Drinking W ater Act. In most of the W est, a r elatively few public water systems and watersheds supply most of the popula

tion. For example, in W ashington State, 86 per cent of the population is ser ved by a few ver y lar ge public water systems, nearly all of which draw fr om national for est lands. However , the 69 per cent of public water systems that ser ve less than 100 connections (see fig

ur

e 10) could also be of major concer n to the For est Ser vice, because of the lar ge number of such systems and the passion with which people pursue pr otection of their water supplies. An update of the 1978 inventor y by Region 6 showed that the number of communities in Or egon obtaining drinking water fr om National For est Sys

tem watersheds in 1998 was mor e than 50 per cent higher than in 1978. W ater fr om national for est lands supply about 80 per cent of Or egon’ s population of 2.8 million people. The Siuslaw National For est in Region 6 has iden

tified 136 public water systems on national for est lands encompassing 36 per cent of the for est. Munici

pal water supply watersheds encompass 85 per cent of the Rogue River National For est and 94 per cent of the Umpqua National For est. In the Nor ther n United States (21 States), 76.5 million people ar e ser ved by water fr om nearly 4,000 sur face water systems. National for est lands contain 925 water systems ser ving about 7.75 million people. In Massachusetts, 11 per cent of the ar ea of the State ser ves the water needs of nearly 7 million people. The municipal watersheds ther e ar e mor e than 72 per cent for ested. New Y ork City’ s municipal watershed is mor e than 60 per cent actively managed for est. Califor nia’ s State W ater Pr oject, with 22 dams and 600 miles of canals, delivers water that originates lar gely on national for est lands in the Sier ra Nevada—mor e than 2 million acr e-feet annually—to 20 million urban and agricultural users in both the San Francisco Bay and souther n Califor nia. The Fed

eral Central V alley Pr oject includes another 20 r eservoirs and mor e than 500 miles of canals that deliver another 7 million acr e-feet to ir rigate 3 million acr es in the Central V alley and pr ovide drinking water to 2 million urbanites. Mor e than 900 cities r ely on National For est Sys

tem watersheds, including: Por tland, Salem, Eugene, and Medfor d, OR; Eur eka, Oakland, and Berkeley , CA; Denver , For t Collins, and Colorado Springs, CO; Hele

F igure 10. W ashington ’s community water systems. A r elatively small num

ber of water systems supply lar ge numbers of people. Numer ous water sys

tems serve small numbers of people each, but each of them that includes National F or

est could be an important issue for the F or

est Service. 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests

69% 8%
23% 10% 86% 4% >1000 Connections 197 Systems 4,133,286 pop.

>100 to <1000 Connections 544 Systems 483,893 pop. <100 Connections 1,591 Systems 175,503 pop. By Number of Systems By P opulation Ser ved W

ashington State Community P ublic W ater Systems9 na, Butte, and Bozeman, MT ; Salt Lake City , UT ; Reno, and Carson City , NV ; Little Rock, AR; and Ely , MN. Relatively mor e wester n than easter n cities use national for est water because of the r elatively lar ger land base in the W ester n States. Should municipal watersheds be managed under an active or a passive r egime? Many For est Ser vice specialists believe that long-term supplies of highquality water can best be sustained under an active pr ogram of vegetation management designed to maintain the for est system and watershed pr ocesses within their natural range of variability . Many people in urban centers believe that humans should not alter watersheds in any way , other than to diver t water . The scientific evidence indicates that watersheds can be ef

fectively managed for high-quality water while pr o

viding for other r esour ce outputs as bypr oducts. ❖ 

## W ater Quantity and the National F orests10 TREAMFL OW 

### R EGIMES 

### , T

IMING 

### , AND 

### F L OODS The experience of widespr ead flooding and sedimentation following on the heels of logging and fir e was one of the primar y r ea

sons for establishing national for ests. The timing of water yields was also an impor tant issue, especially the desir e to augment late-season flows. Extending the ir rigation season and limiting the adverse ef fects of dr ought wer e also significant concer ns. A wide range of human activities, including for est management, r oads, r eser voir and dam operation, loss of wetlands, development and urbanization of flood

plains and other flood-pr one ar eas, and str eam chan

nelizing have been implicated as factors incr easing the destr uctive potential of floods. A wide range of agencies is r esponsible for various aspects of flood pr ediction and contr ol, but no one agency or gr oup of agencies is char ged with evaluat

ing the consequences of its actions in r elationship to other par ties. Although for est practices may incr ease peak flows and sediment transpor t fr om upland str eams, downstr eam ef fects may be minimized wher e r eser voir operation r educes flood peaks and sediment accumulates in r eser voirs. On the other hand, sustained high-flow r eleases fr om dams may contribute to higher sediment and turbidity pr oblems downstr eam compar ed to shor ter but higher natural peak flows. In the Inter mountain and Southwest Regions, the r elationship between healthy vegetation gr oundcover and r eduction of summer floods fr om high-intensity stor ms has been well established, as summarized by Coleman (1953)(see figur e 11). The change in r unof f associated with dif fer ent degr ees of gr ound cover shows that watershed cover and on-site water contr ol measur es can r educe flood thr eats. Similar r eductions in flood peaks have been obser ved in the East after watershed r estoration. For mor e humid ar eas, the ef fect of vegetation manage

ment and healthy upland watershed conditions is still impor tant in limiting er osion and sedimentation ef

fects fr om floods. Substantial and dependable beneficial shifts in tim

ing of peak r unof f ar e unlikely to be achieved thr ough managing for est vegetation and snow . In the Easter n United States and to some degr ee in the W est, har vest 

# W ater Quantity Issues for F orest Planning

F igure 11. Experimental r esults of the effects of watershed condition on rainstorm runoff and er osion (data fr om Gr eat Basin Experimental Ar ea, UT). 

# S

GOOD Ground Cover 60-75% of ground covered with plants and litter

Sur face R

unoff 2% of rainfall Soil Loss 0.05 T ons per acre Sur face R

unoff 14% of rainfall Soil Loss 0.5 T ons per acre Sur face R

unoff 73% of rainfall Soil Loss 5.55 T ons per acre F AIR Ground Cover 37% of ground covered with plants and litter POOR Ground Cover 10% of ground covered with plants and litter11 activities have incr eased late-season flows. These changes ar e typically shor t lived, however , because of vegetation r egr owth. Sustaining late-season flows is an impor tant issue and limited scientific studies have focused on the r elation between healthy watershed conditions and sustaining late-summer flows. Anecdo

tal obser vations fr om a variety of watershed and chan

nel r estoration pr ojects suggest that per ennial flows have often been r estor ed to appar ently ephemeral channels by managing and r estoring vegetation. Many watersheds and meadows have been incised as a r esult of poorly located travelways and r oads. Other ar eas have gr eatly expanded channel networks as a r esult of excessive livestock use that pr oduced gullys and incised channels. The ef fect of these slope, meadow , and channel incisions is to drain local gr oundwater storage and transmit flows downstr eam mor e rapidly

. This pr ocess leaves little ef fective gr ound storage to sustain late-season flows or to car r y over water stor

age into a dr ought year . Pr eventing incisions and r estoring incised slopes, meadows, and str eams could impr ove late-season flows (see figur e 12). Impr oving these conditions should be a focus of watershed r estoration ef for ts. Concur r ently , additional r esear ch is needed to understand the pr ocess and consequences of incision and the values obtained in late season flows thr ough r estoration activities. Roads and their ef fects on draining slopes and incr easing channel density need additional study as well. In summar y

, limited but valuable oppor tunities thr ough for est management could shift the timing of flows. A vital aspect is to pr event or limit incisions in slopes, meadows, and channels. T r eatments that r estor e these ar eas and thus r estor e the r elation of channels to the floodplains and incr ease the contact time of r unof f on slopes and meadows ar e likely to r echar ge soil pr ofiles and shallow gr ound water r eservoirs, which would gr eatly incr ease the likelihood of sustaining late-season flows. 

### A

UGMENTING 

### S TREAMFL OW Pr

oducing substantial and extensive incr eases in water yields fr om the national for ests does not appear to be practical. Resear ch has demonstrated that water yields can be incr eased by r emoving vegetation and trapping additional snow . But application of the vege

tation management practices needed to incr ease flows on a watershed scale is limited in practice by For est Ser vice mandates to manage for a wide range of r esour ce values. Legal constraints, land allocations, technological limits, as well as societal values and envir onmental, ecological, and biological concer ns all favor not committing national for est lands to the management r egimes that would be needed to incr ease water yields. Ziemer (1987) of fers one of the best summaries and evaluations of the potentials and limitations of augmenting water yield on for ested lands in the Unit

ed States. His findings indicated that for a variety of r easons, water yield incr eases ar e likely to be unde

tectable. For est r esear ch has demonstrated that cut

ting tr ees, type conver ting of br ush to grass, and snow management can pr oduce incr eased water yields. These incr eases generally come fr om lands that r eceive mor e than 15 inches of annual pr ecipitation. In general, ar eas with higher pr ecipitation, typified by mixed conifer species; spr uce, fir , and lodgepole pine for ests; and easter n har dwoods pr oduce mor e yield per unit ar ea than other for est types. Although water -yield incr eases can r esult fr om for

est management activities, the incr eases pr oduced by nor mal silvicultural methods applied in the context of multiple use ar e modest. Even in wet envir onments of the Nor thwest (Har r 1983) and the Sier ra Nevada of Califor nia (Kattelmann and others 1983) these
F igure 12. Comparative rainfall and storm runoff hydr ographs, White Hollow , TN, befor e and after watershed r ehabilitation

.

3000

2000

1000

0 50

25

0

25

0

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 July 1938 sur face r unoffDischarge (Ls-1)Rainfall, (mm h-1)

August 1945 sur face r unoff July 1938 stor m rainfall, =29 mm

August 1945 stor m rainfall, =25 mm 

## W ater Quantity Issues

for F orest Planning12 incr eases could be in the range of 6 per cent, if water yield wer e str ongly emphasized, but mor e likely 1 per

cent under nor mal management. Detecting and meas

uring this small change is outside the limits of cur r ent technology (Ziemer 1987). The most pr oduc

tive ar eas for this potential would have the shor test duration because of rapid r egr owth of vegetation r eoccupying the site.

Pr

operly evaluating augmentation potential often overlooks the legacy of historical for est management actions. Fr equently , much of the potential for augmentation is alr eady being r ealized. For example, in the Southwest, Schmidt and Solomon (1981) esti

mated that about 50 per cent of the potential was alr eady being r ealized. Strategies for dealing with water shor tages should avoid r elying on augmentation fr om national for ests as a substitute for practices to r educe water consump

tion and impr ove conser vation. 

### I NSTREAM 

### F L OW 

### R EQUIREMENTS Sustaining viable native populations of aquatic species on national for est lands will r equir e securing instr eam flows that fall within the range of natural variation. Natural str eamflows exhibit complex r egimes, with impor tant and life-sustaining variations in their fr e

quency , magnitude, duration, and timing. Fish and other aquatic and riparian or ganisms depend dir ectly on this r egime and the habitats that it for ms and maintains. Some depar tur e fr om these r egimes is tol

erable and will not extirpate or ganisms, but this thr eshold is dif ficult to define. The For est Ser vice must actively par ticipate in the pr ocesses that allocate water and water rights to secur e instr eam flows suf fi

cient to sustain native populations. Policy Implications For est plans should be integrated with watershed assessments (assessments ar e conducted on all lands within a watershed not just national for est lands) and with watershed r ecover y plans so that goals ar e clear and of suf ficient scope to include watershed manage

ment and r estoration oppor tunities acr oss ownerships. See figur e 13 for examples of past and futur e strategies to obtain instr eam flows. Gr eater involvement of par tners and other mem

bers of the public in the planning pr ocess would likely need a better understanding of the need to integrate management oppor tunities on all lands within a watershed including private lands. For est plans, when they ar e r evised, should identify and quantify the amounts of sur face and gr oundwater needed to meet pr esent and futur e consumptive and instr eam water uses on national for est lands. When a State under takes a basinwide adjudication of water rights, all beneficial water uses on national for est lands should be claimed in accor dance with Federal and State pr ocedural and substantive laws and r egula

tions, unless other wise dir ected by the Of fice of the General Counsel. For est planning should use the most defensible methods and avoid inconsistent and piecemeal analyses. Early and intensive collaboration among existing and potential water users is a cost-ef ficient appr oach in most situations. Public collaboration in for est planning can achieve acceptable solutions and may lessen or avoid the costly litigation common to water rights issues. In many places, the For est Ser vice lacks the neces

sar y technical exper tise in hydr ology . Our pr esent level of in-house exper tise must be conser ved and
F igures 13. P ast strategies have been to litigate to secur e favorable flows and pr otect the public inter est. In the futur e, the agency will incorporate flows needed to meet multiple-use mandates thr ough for est planning, as well as by litigation and negotiation

.

Litigation

Litigation

P

ast Strategies for Obtaining Instream Flows

F

uture Strategies for Obtaining Instream Flows F

orest Plan

F

orest Plan Cost: $5 million/yr In: 39 basins, 8 States

43,000 claims pending State courts control timing,

duration, costs, claims Low to High rates of success Cost: $200K -$500K/forest Just a few forests have done Outside State court system High chance of success in East, Midwest U.S.

Cost range $200K -$500K per forest Needs to be done for all forests Better public involvement,

support V ariable rates of success Expected lower costs

F ewer claims to be defended V ariable rates of success mor e balanced policy strategy adjudication projects

adjudication projects 

## W ater Quantity Issues for F orest Planning13 P u

e r t o R

i c o H

a w

a i i A

l a s k

a U S

D

A

- F

S L a

n

d

s H

y

d

r o

p

o

w

e r d a

m

s

: o

n U S

D

A

- F

S L a

n

d

s o

u

t s i d

e U S

D

A

- F

S L a

n

d

s ●
● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●
● ● ● ●

● ●

●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ●

●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●
●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ●

● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●
● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

● ●

● ● F igure 14. Hydr oelectric dams in the 48 States both on and off national for

est lands. The lar gest number of small hydr oelectric dams is in the New England, Gr eat Lakes, southern Appalachian , and Mid-A tlantic ar eas. T able 2. Hydr oelectric dams licensed by the FER C in each F or

ests Service r egion , both on and off national for ests lands. Data derived fr om the National Inventory of Dams maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, com

piled and developed by the P acific Northwest R esear ch Station

. F or

est Service R egion Number on Number off NF

S land NF S land T otal Norther n (R1) 9 21 30 Rocky Mountain (R2) 21 71 92 Southwest (R3) 3 3 6 Inter mountain (R4) 10 34 44 P

acific Southwest (R5) 152 87 239 P

acific Northwest (R6) 35 74 109 Souther n (R8) 49 246 295 Easter n (R9) 31 1,318 1,349 Alaska (R10) 15 15 30 T otal 325 1,869 2,194 

## W ater Quantity Issues

for F orest Planning

enhanced if costly failur es, both in collaboration and in cour t, ar e to be avoided. 

### FERC R ELICENSING Fr

om the 1940’ s to the 1960’ s, 325 hydr oelectric pr oj

ects wer e licensed and built on the national for ests (see table 2). These facilities have generated power and pr ovided r ecr eation oppor tunities. But building and operating these pr ojects has also r esulted in sig

nificant adverse ef fects on national for est r esour ces. During the next 10 years, as mor e than 180 of these pr

ojects come up for r elicensing, the For est Ser vice will have a unique oppor tunity to deter mine how these pr ojects will operate for the next 30 to 50 years. The r elicensing pr ocess pr esents the only chance for the For est Ser vice to r everse existing r esour ce dam

age, impr ove water quality and aquatic habitat, miti

gate futur e adverse ef fects, and significantly incr ease r ecr eational oppor tunities to for est users. The national distribution of dams pr ovides an inter esting look at how these dams ar e spr ead acr oss national for est lands (see figur es 14 and 15).14 Ther e ar e nearly 2,200 hydr oelectric dams in the United States, excluding Hawaii and Puer to Rico; about 15 per cent of these ar e on national for est lands. For est Ser vice strategies for dealing with r elicensing may dif fer among the r egions because the issues and complexity var y with factors such as dam size, the river basin and biological contexts, interbasin water transfers, and cumulative ef fects. The lar ge-scale hydr ologic ef fects of American dams have r ecently been assessed by Graf (1999). Graf found that the gr eatest density of dams and the gr eat

est segmentation of river systems in Califor nia, the T

exas-Gulf, and South Atlantic water r esour ce r egions (see figur es 14 and 15). Regions with high ratios of storage capacity to drainage ar ea show the highest potential for changes to instr eam flows and ecological disr uption. The gr eatest flow ef fects ar e in some west

er

n mountain and plain r egions, wher e dams can stor e mor e than 3 years of r unof f. The least ef fects to flow ar e in the Nor theast, Upper Midwest, and Nor th

west wher e storage is as little as 25 per cent of the annual r unof f. The r egional variability of impacts and numbers of dams suggests that the For est Ser vice cannot tackle ever y dam r elicensing on national for ests with the same intensity . Nationally and r egionally , we must focus strategically on the basins and dams wher e we can expect to achieve the gr eatest benefits for biodi

versity , r

ecr eation, and ecosystem function in lar ge, complex, mixed-ownership watersheds. The For est Ser vice has binding statutor y authority and r esponsibility fr om the Federal Power Act (FP A) to stipulate license conditions the Federal Ener gy Regulator y Commission (FERC) must include in the new license. T o successfully condition these licenses, the For est Ser vice must develop a substantial and defensible administrative r ecor d to suppor t the ar ti

cles that have been “demonstrated necessar y for the adequate pr otection and utilization of national for est r esour ces.” Developing the administrative r ecor d r equir es a significant commitment by the For est Ser

F igure 15. Hydr oelectric dams in the 48 States on national for est lands. The lar gest number of these dams ar e on the west coast.

P

u

e r t o R

i c o H

a w

a i i A

l a s k

a ●
● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

●

● ● ● ● ● U S

D

A

- F

S L a

n

d

s H

y

d

r o

p

o

w

e r d a

m

s

: o

n U S

D

A

- F

S L a

n

d

s ● 

## W ater Quantity Issues for F orest Planning15 vice in ter ms of technical and pr ocess personnel and financial suppor t. Relicensing pr ocesses nor mally take 5 to 10 years. For est Ser vice par ticipation in the r elicensing pr

ocess could str engthen mitigation and r estoration pr

ograms on national for est lands that would lead to impr oved aquatic habitats and incr eased water quali

ty

. Estimates of these benefits to national for est lands exceed a billion dollars. Recr eation, fish and wildlife, and watershed r esour ces ar e the primar y ar eas af fect

ed by hydr oelectric generation, and these r esour ces stand to r ealize the gr eatest benefits fr om the r elicensing ef for ts. Potential benefits include new and upgraded r ecr eational facilities, r estor ed instr eam flow r egimes, enhanced aquatic habitats, and impr oved wildlife habitat. Recent r elicensing experi

ences have demonstrated that the benefit-to-cost ratio can be gr eater than 30:1; no other For est Ser vice pr o

gram has a higher potential payof f. 

### G

ROUND W

A

TER The gr oundwater r esour ce under the sur face of national for est lands has never been assessed at the national, r egional, or for est scales. The U.S. Geologi

cal Sur vey has compiled a national atlas of gr oundwa

ter in the United States, and published detailed r egional studies of all major aquifers. Although nei

ther of these sour ces show national for est lands, we can infer some things fr om them about gr oundwater in some par ts of the national for est lands. W e also have access to well logs wher e wells have been drilled on national for est lands by the agency or others. Many for est acr es ser ve as r echar ge ar eas for aquifers in nearby valleys that many citizens depend on for their drinking and ir rigation water . W e ar e unable to quan

tify the amount, timing, or quality of this r echar ge with available data. Over centuries, gr oundwater has been r eplenished by inflows fr om rivers, lakes, and wetlands. At shallow depths, the water table fluctuates with annual pr ecipi

tation af fecting lake levels and river flows. The value of gr oundwater depends on the depth of the water table due to drilling and pumping costs. W e ar e not awar e of any studies that have quantified the econom

ic values of gr oundwater functions. The States var y in their r egulation of under gr

ound water . In many States, ther e is little if any r egulation or monitoring of the extraction of under gr

ound water and ther e ar e unr esolved jurisdictional questions over who has contr ol over water extraction within the boundaries of the for ests. The ownership of gr oundwater is unr esolved or unaddr essed in many States. For example, the State of V

ir

gina claims the water underlying Federal lands and it r emains unclear if such a claim has merit. Some existing special use per mits involve the extraction of gr oundwater on national for est lands, but ther e is no agency policy on envir onmental ef fect analysis, valuation, metering, or r esale of this water

. At least thr ee gr oundwater -r

elated issues af fect national for est lands: ■ Some communities want to change fr om contami

nated gr oundwater wells to sur face water supplies, and national for ests ar e the logical or sole sour ce. ■ Gr oundwater extraction by adjacent communities or landowners may be dr ying up nearby str eams and af

fecting riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat. ■ The status of gr oundwater ownership within the national for ests is unr esolved in many States. The For est Ser vice lacks the scientific exper tise and data on the gr oundwater r esour ces underlying its lands to ef fectively cope with these gr owing issues. Policy Implications The gr owth of urban inter face adjacent to the Nation

al For est System has exceeded the agency’ s ability to r espond to the challenges of incr eased water demand. Most cur r ent for est plans do not addr ess water r esour ces in a compr ehensive manner . For ests ar e not adequately staf fed with technical exper ts to han

dle the issues r elated to water that evolve faster than they can be inventoried. Claims on water originating fr

om the National For est System far outstrip the agency’ s ability to track them, much less manage the issues. Star ting points for developing an ef fective appr oach to the complex issues involved in water r esour ces management include: a compr ehensive inventor y of State law , an analysis of conflicts with agency r esour ce management objectives, and a complete inventor y of W

ater Rights that ar e vested in the United States (within the National For est System). ❖ 

## W ater Quantity Issues

for F orest Planning16 or

ested watersheds have a well-deser ved r eputation for pr oducing clean water

. The For est Service has conducted longter m r esear ch on the ef fects of land man

agement on water quality at experimental for ests—such as Hubbar d Br ook in New Hampshir e, H. J. Andr ews in Or egon, and Coweeta in Nor th Car

olina. Resear ch shows that the quality of water in undisturbed for ests and grasslands is usually good. In managed ecosystems, water quality depends on the par ticular land-use practices being implemented. Some land-use practices can pr otect or r estor e water quality , but others may degrade or pose risks to clean water . Long-ter m studies conducted by the For est Ser

vice have pr ovided much of the cur r ent understanding of watershed pr ocesses in for ests and grasslands, and such studies will need to be continued to assess the ef

fects of for est management on water quality at land

scape scales and over longer periods of time. Most watersheds have several dif fer ent land uses that af fect sour ce waters in complex patter ns. These uses overlap acr oss the landscape and change over time. A few studies have examined the interactions among multiple land uses and their cumulative ef

fects over time, but most have examined small watersheds over shor t periods. Mor e infor mation is needed to assist managers in dealing with the com

plexity of these interactions for lar ger watersheds and longer time periods. A key action of the Clean W ater Action Plan dir ects the Depar tments of Agricultur e and the Interior to consult with other Federal agencies, States, tribes, and other stakeholders to develop a Unified Federal Policy to enhance watershed management for pr otecting water quality and the health of aquatic ecosystems on Federal lands. The purpose of the Unified Federal Poli

cy is to ensur e a consistent appr oach to managing Fed

eral lands on a watershed basis, to pr otect, maintain, and impr ove watershed conditions and water quality

. In summar y

, for ests and grasslands often pr oduce high-quality water . Long- ter m studies have shown this to be generally tr ue in undisturbed ecosystems and for some classes of land use. Other for ms of land use have been found to degrade water quality to var y

ing degr ees. The most significant water quality pr ob

lems found on national for ests ar e typically sediment (turbidity and bedload), nutrients, temperatur e, and hazar dous chemicals. Measur es to pr otect, r estor e, or mitigate water quality have been devised for many management practices. New r esear ch will be needed to understand the ef fects on water quality of innova

tive land management systems cur r ently being devised as par t of ecosystem management and to understand the cumulative ef fects of multiple man

agement actions that overlap in space and time acr oss lar ge landscapes. 

### T

OT AL 

### M AXIMUM 

### D AIL Y 

### L O

ADS Section 303(d) of the Clean W ater Act r equir es that total maximum daily loads (TMDL) be established by States, tribes, U.S. ter ritories, and EP A for waterbod

ies for which water quality standar ds ar e not being attained. Such waterbodies ar e generally r efer r ed to as “impair ed” or “water quality limited.” For est Ser vice policy is to par ticipate in pr eparing and implementing TMDL ’ s. The For est Ser vice is collaborating with the EP A and Bur eau of Land Management (BLM) to pr

epar e a policy and framework for developing and implementing TMDL ’ s in for est and rangeland envir onments. TMDL ’ s for a pollutant is defined by the EP A as the sum of the waste load allocation for point sour ces, plus load allocation for nonpoint sour ces of pollution, plus a load to allow a mar gin of safety (40 CFR 130.2). The load allocation for nonpoint sour ces of pollution includes “natural” backgr ound loads and the mar gin of safety accounts for uncer tainty . The TMDL appr oach is a mechanism for impr oving impair ed waters and a pr

ocess for deter mining tradeof fs between point and nonpoint sour ces. It pr ovides a focus for futur e water

shed management actions. A collaborative appr oach by all landowners in a watershed is the potential str ength of the TMDL pr

ocess. Its weaknesses ar e the cur r ent technical and scientific bar riers to connecting water -quality standar ds to specific nonpoint sour ces, par ticularly wher e the pollutants of concer n ar e native components of str eam systems, like sediment and heat. Because of highly variable natural backgr ound r egimes and long delays between the intr oduction of pollutants and downstr eam ef fects, r elating water quality standar ds to the ef fectiveness of individual contr ol measur es is often dif ficult or impossible. The lack of pr ecision and r elia

bility limits the utility of the TMDL pr ocess in allocat

ing loads to specific management practices or to individual landowners in for est and rangeland settings. Cr

eative appr oaches will be needed to salvage useful gains fr om a legal framework that was designed for point-sour ce pollution contr ol and fits nonpoint sour ce contr ol poorly . The For est Ser vice should continue to develop and monitor best management practices, ensur e a high rate of implementation, and r evise those 

# W ater Quality 

# F17 practices that ar e not ef fective, as the fundamental basis of our water quality management pr ogram. New technology developed by EP A and the For est Ser vice for temperatur e monitoring uses for war d-look

ing infrar ed radar to pr ovide a spatially continuous ther mal pr ofile over hundr eds of miles of str eams. This technology is pr oviding a framework for r estoring water quality and a pictur e of what sections ar e meet

ing and not meeting water -quality standar ds for tem

peratur e. This r elatively cheap and accurate method is an impor tant tool in pr oviding landscape context to water -quality pr oblems. 

### A

BANDONED 

### M INE 

### L ANDS AND 

### H

AZARDOUS 

### M A

TERIALS 

### S ITES At least 38,000 abandoned mine lands and hazar dous material waste sites exist on national for est lands. These sites, most common on wester n for ests, often cause sever e and chr onic water pollution. In the early 1990’ s EP A pr oposed that dischar ges fr om abandoned mines be subject to per mits under the Clean W ater Act. As an alter native, a “watershed appr oach” agr eement was made to coor dinate the ef for ts of all land managers and owners to ef ficiently and compr ehensively addr ess r estoration pr ojects in entir e watersheds, rather than spot-tr eating individual sites. Key steps in the intera

gency agr eement include setting priorities—among watersheds in each State and mine sites within each priority watershed—and monitoring. Several watersheds wer e selected as pilots, including Boulder River in Montana and Upper Animas River in Colorado. Now included in the Clean W ater Action Plan, coopera

tion and collaboration among States, Federal agencies, and tribes is fundamental to the watershed appr oach. This pr ogram is r elatively new , and few mines have been completely r estor ed. ❖ 

## W ater Quality18 ational for est activities have af fected water quality and pr oductivity of the land. Pr

oblem watersheds and pr ocesses ar e often masked by the size of the landscape, or noticeable only when flooding or other disturbances occur . Although most watersheds on national for ests appear healthy on a lar ge scale, extensive localized r ehabilitation needs still exist on these lands.

Concer ns include soil degradation, lack of vegeta

tive cover , er oding str eam channels, gullies, landslides, abandoned r oads, and compacted range

land. Some watersheds can be r estor ed by emphasiz

ing land management r equir ements and practices. Some watersheds ar e so seriously af fected that mak

ing a dif fer ence will be har d. Other watersheds ar e expected to r espond to intensive investment in er o

sion contr ol featur es. Some types of work ar e inten

sive, str uctural, and expensive for a r elatively small site and need to be monitor ed and maintained. Bio

logical tr eatments, like seeding, ar e extensive and r equir e little maintenance. Disturbances in for est and grassland vegetation fr

om dr ought, wind, fir e, insects, and diseases ar e par t of pr operly functioning ecosystems in watersheds. However , some past management practices—such as fir

e exclusion, timber har vesting, and human develop

ment—have cr eated watersheds that experience mor e fr

equent or intense fir e disturbances than in the past. Many of these for ests and grasslands ar e over cr

owded with incr eased susceptibility to dr ought, and insect and disease outbr eaks. The excessive amounts of dead wood and grass, especially in watersheds that histori

cally bur ned at fr equent inter vals, heighten the risk of high-intensity , destr uctive fir es. Lar ge-scale vegetative disturbances in a watershed adversely af fect waterbod

ies by incr easing soil er osion and nutrient r unof f. W

ith dense stands of vegetation and lar ge amounts of dead fuel on the gr ound, the size and intensity of fir es can incr ease significantly and be accompanied by gr

eater risks of er osion, severity of floods, and decr eases in water quality

. The long-ter m view is that healthy watersheds can only be achieved if the ecosystems on the watershed ar

e healthy . W atershed r estoration includes r ecover y of natural timber and grass stands and fuels composi

tion. Thinning, pr escribed bur ning, and other man

agement pr ojects ar e needed on a watershed (landscape) scale to significantly alter the pr edicted course of events leading towar d lar ge-scale er osion, flooding, and nutrient loss on disturbed watersheds. In the most compr ehensive landscape assessment to date—the Interior Columbia Basin Assessment— cur r ent condition of for est and rangeland ar eas had drastically depar ted fr om the historical condition. Fir e suppr ession and har vest of the lar ge pine tr ees r esulted in the buildup of fuels and changes in the ponder osa pine for ests. Rangelands have been invad

ed by exotic weeds. Dif fer ent management scenarios wer e modeled out over the next 100 years. The model found that, at the landscape scale, cur

r ent momentum towar d fur ther depar tur e fr om the desir ed condition will not be over come in the next 100 years, even with the most aggr essive pr oposed management. Management could not r everse the tr

end of for est changes at cur r ent or r easonably for e

seeable levels of staf f, activities, and budget. The sobering news is that, in the Interior Colum

bia Basin, for est and range health r estoration will pr o

ceed at such a slow rate that unnaturally lar ge, high-intensity fir es will continue to r eset landscape vegetation. This is pr obably tr ue in many other ar eas as well. These findings suggest that a mor e r ealistic assessment of the pr ospects for success is needed; ef

fective r estoration of all degraded ar eas is simply not feasible. W e do not have the r esour ces to make a dif fer ence at landscape scale unless we strategically focus our r estoration ef for ts. Focusing on selected watersheds at the scale of 200,000 to 500,000 acr es, wher e we can hope to make a dif fer ence, is a mor e r ealistic and pr omising appr oach. 

### W ETLANDS AND 

### R IP

ARIAN 

### A REAS Of the nearly 192 million acr es managed as national for ests and grasslands, fewer than 10 per cent ar e consider ed wetlands and riparian ar eas. Higher per cent

ages ar e found in Regions 8, 9, and 10 with significantly lower per centages (less than 2 per cent) in the arid and semi-arid por tions of Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. These ar e r ough estimates because the For est Ser vice has not conducted specific inventories of these ar

eas. Because of their limited extent and usually nar

r ow configuration, wetlands and riparian ar eas have often been mapped as inclusions in lar ger mapping units during soil sur veys, range analysis, and other inventor y and analysis ef for ts. A mor e definitive esti

mate is needed for impr oved management. These ar eas ar e often the most pr oductive and most used por tions of the landscape because they have mor e available water , deeper and mor e fer tile soils, r obust vegetation, and cooling shade. Riparian and wetland ar eas also r eceive the most intense use because they pr ovide abundant forage for wildlife and 

# W atershed Condition and Restoration 

# N19 domestic livestock, ser ve as transpor tation cor ridors, commonly pr oduce quality timber , concentrate r ecr e

ational use, and may hold valued minerals. The total grazing use of Federal lands has decr eased steadily since the mid-1950’ s. However , in the Pacific Nor thwest, grazing has incr eased on private lands near waterbodies and in riparian ar eas, bringing cor r esponding incr eases in grazing-r elated damage to riparian function and watershed condition. The condition of riparian ar eas and wetlands varies considerably acr oss the Nation, depending on a num

ber of physical and land use factors. Estimates indi

cate that conditions on national for est lands ar e good in over 90 per cent of Alaska, 70 per cent of the East, 60 per cent of the South, and in the W est ranges fr om over 50 per cent in the mor e humid sections to less than 30 per cent in semiarid and arid ar eas. Reasons for poor conditions var y significantly acr oss the coun

tr

y

. Past timber har vest, r oading, r ecr eation, and urban encr oachment account for much of the pr ob

lems in the East, South, Alaska, and humid por tions of the W est. Livestock grazing, r oading, r ecr eation, mining, and urban encr oachment account for much of the concer n in the drier par ts of the W est. Although these ar eas ar e easily over used and dam

aged, they also r espond quickly to impr oved manage

ment. W atershed impr ovement pr ograms, fisheries habitat impr ovements, range better ment ef for ts, enlightened r oad placement and maintenance, and r estoration of abandoned mines all contribute to impr oving these impor tant ar eas. Key elements of the For est Ser vice’ s Natural Resour ces Agenda and Clean W

ater Action Plan focus on r estoring and managing wetland and riparian ar eas. 

### R

O

ADS After the Second W orld W ar

, the gr owing demand for wood pr oducts fueled an exponential gr owth in for est r oad mileage. Fr om a limited mileage in 1960, the system of for est r oads has gr own to mor e than 400,000 miles. During this period, conventional wis

dom held that as long as a r oad r emained intact— comfor tably drivable—the sur r ounding ar ea would benefit fr om incr eased access. People also believed that adverse ef fects fr om r oads could be cor r ected and that physical and biological r esour ces would not suf

fer long-ter m changes. The engineering emphasis was on pr otecting the r oad fr om damage by water; other physical or biological ef fects r eceived little attention. In fact, many r oads posed sever e pr oblems and risks for for est r esour ces, both as land disturbance and as 

## W atershed Condition and Restoration

● ● ● ● ●

● ●

● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●

●

●

●

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■

■ ■

■ ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■

■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■

■

■ ■

■ ■ E

x

a

m

p

l e

: S

l o

p

e P o

s i t i

o

n
– L a

y

e

r W

a

t e

r s h

e

d

– S c

a

l e B

l u

f f C r e

e

k W a

t e

r s h

e

d O

r l e

a

n

s R a

n

g

e

r D i s t r

i c

t S

i x R i v

e

r s N a

t i

o

n

a

l F

o

r e

s t

A c r e s : 4 7 , 4 1 7 R

o a d m i l e s : 2

2

4 D

i s t r

i b u t i

o n o

f f

a i l u r e s i t e

s b

y s

l o p e p

o s i t i

o n U

p p e r : 3 M

i d d l e : 3 2 L o w

e r : 44 D

i s t r

i b u t i

o n o

f r

o a d m

i l e s b

y s

l o p e p

o s i t i

o n U

p p e r : 1 0 3 M

i d d l e : 7 8 L o w

e r : 4 3 F a i l u r e s p

e r m i l e b

y s l o p e p

o s i t i

o n U

p p e r : 0

. 0

3 M

i d d l e : 0

. 4 1 L o w

e r : 1

. 0 3

R

o a d f

a i l u r e s

i t e

s S u r f a c e e

r o s i o n ( 2 7 s i t e s ) M

a s s w a s t i n g ( 5 2 s i t e s ) B l u e - l i n e s

t r e a m

s R

o a d s

y s t e m

s D

e c o m

m

i s s i o n e d r o a d s S l o p e p

o s i t i

o n U

p p e r M

i d d l e L o w

e r N 1 0 M i l e s 1 : 1 1 5 , 0

0 0 2 F igure 16. R oad failur es ar e str ongly r elated to slope position in this northern California watershed. Note that most of the failur es ar e in middle and lower positions, with only thr ee in the upper slope position (USD A F or

est Service 1999). Effects vary gr eatly among r oads, and substantial effort is needed to distinguish high-impact and low -impact r oads to set pri

orities for watershed r estoration

.20 access r outes that concentrate human activities and pollution. Damages to watersheds and aquatic and riparian ecosystems accumulated in many places. In r ecent years, a gr owing concer n for water quali

ty

, r

unof f, and flood damage in for ests and rangelands has focused attention on r oads and their ef fects on water quality and watershed functions. The cur r ent For est Ser vice Natural Resour ces Agenda r eflects this concer n. Many studies have shown that r oads in for ests have elevated er osion rates and often incr ease the likelihood of landslides in steep or unstable ter rain. Both of these ef fects can be especially pr onounced wher e r oads cr oss or r un near str eams, r esulting in sediment dischar ge to sur face waters. Roads ar e also likely sites for chemical spills associated with traf fic accidents, with the highest risk of water contamina

tion wher e r oads cr oss str eams. Pr oper r oad engineer

ing, application of Best Management Practices (BMP), and emer gency pr epar edness can r educe but not elim

inate these risks. Unfor tunately , most of the r oads on national for ests and grasslands wer e built befor e curr ent engineering practices and BMP’ s wer e used, and the cost of upgrading to cur r ent standar ds is high. Other transpor tation cor ridors, such as pipelines and powerline rights-of-way , also pose pr oblems and risks. Not all r oads have the same ef fects on watersheds. V

ariation is great and discriminating between highimpact and low-impact r oads and r oad networks is an impor tant analytical challenge. For example, studies on national for est watersheds in nor ther n Califor nia (USDA 1999) found that r oads at or near ridgetops had far fewer failur es and generated far less sediment to str eams than r oads in lower slope positions (see figur e 16) . The specific ef fects of r oads ar e str ongly influenced by a variety of factors, including r oad build

ing techniques, soils and bedr ock, topography , and severity of stor m events. Resear ch has shown that impr oved design, constr uction, and maintenance can r educe the ef fects of r oads on water quality , wetlands, and watershed function. Remarkably little is known about r oad ef fects on hydr ology at watershed and subbasin scales, so ther e is inadequate basis to evaluate the hydr ologic functioning of the r oad system at lar ge scales. Analyti

cal techniques need to be developed fur ther . The specif

ic range of ongoing and likely watershed ef fects should be evaluated at both r egional and landscape scales. ❖ 

## W atershed Condition and Restoration21 In conser ving and r ecovering at-risk species and maintaining biodiversity , a str ong consensus among conser vation biologists suppor ts the need for r efugia or designated ar eas capable of pr oviding high-quality habitat. For aquatic species, watersheds ar e the basic unit for such a conser vation strategy . W atersheds that have maintained hydr ologic functions and pr ocesses, and those that suppor t healthy populations of the species of inter est or their specific habitats have been identified. These ar eas receive a combination of lowrisk land allocations, special land-use standar ds, or priority for analysis and r estoration ef for ts. Networks of r efugia must be lar ge and well distrib

uted to anchor the persistence and r ecovery of the atrisk species in cur r ent and futur e disturbance r egimes and ever -changing landfor ms and vegetation cover

. Refugia alone ar e not assumed to be suf ficient to con

ser ve species. Lands between r efugia ar e expected to be subject to land allocations and practices that will pr o

mote watershed function and conser ve species, comple

menting the special focus on r efugia. Some aquatic species (for example, inver tebrates) depend on local habitats. They may exist only in a sin

gle spring or a spring-str eam system in a single watershed. Wher e habitats ar e isolated or unique (because of water chemistr y

, vegetation, and a multi

tude of contributing factors), the potential for rar e species is high. The distribution of these habitats is not r estricted to any set of watersheds, lithology , or other ecological units. The impor tance of these “rar e” habitats must be r ecognized, with pr oper inventor y and site-specific pr otection measur es. Wher e lands ar e set aside or allocated for special low-risk management, br oad conser vation benefits accr ue, not just for tar geted rar e species, but for bio

diversity and watershed health as well. These ar eas pr

ovide a hedge against unanticipated pr oblems with species viability and lar ge-scale disturbances and cli

mate changes. Five r ecent, lar ge-scale, ecosystem-based For est Ser vice assessments have identified networks of aquatic conser vation watersheds: the Nor thwest For

est Plan (FEMA T 1993), the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Pr oject, The T ongass Nation

al For est Land Management Plan, the Sier ra Nevada Framework Pr oject, and the Souther n Appalachians Assessment. Of these, the Nor thwest For est Plan and the T ongass National For est Land Management Plan have r ecor ds of decision that delineate key watersheds or central ar eas for biodiversity . The stage is set and pr

ogr ess is being made in the other ar eas to identify special emphasis watersheds and to pr otect and, wher e needed, r estor e them. 

# Conser ving Aquatic Biodiversity and Threatened Species

T able 3. Land ar eas identified for aquatic conservation , biodiversity, and clean water in various r ecent lar ge-scale ecosystem analyses. 

# I

Assessement Ar ea Number of R efugia T otal ar ea, r efugia P r oportion of watersheds watersheds (acr es) total NF ar ea* Northwest F or

est Plan 164 8,678,600 (includes BLM lands) 33% (key watersheds) 1 T ongass National F or

est 2 T oo many to count 13,662,000** 80% Interior Columbia Basin 1,693 19,977,824 (includes BLM) 40% (str ongholds) 3 Sierra Nevada 4 139 5,747,261 47% (pr

oposed emphasis watersheds) Southern Appalachians 45 10,303,360 (17% is National F or

est) 38% (aquatic diversity ar eas) 5
*In the analysis ar ea. ** Conserve and r estor e land-use designations 1. FEMA T 1994. 2. T ongass Land Management Plan r evision , 1997. 3. Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management P r oject. 4. Draft information fr om of the Sierra F ramework pr oject, P acific Southwest R egion (Joseph F urnish, pers. comm). 5. Southern Appalachian Assessment.22 These ef for ts r epr esent a substantial actual and potential commitment of lands to conser ving aquatic species and could be r egar ded as a major par t of a national for est aquatic and biodiversity conser vation strategy . Mor e than 53 per cent of national for est lands ar

e r epr esented by the assessments in table 3. The r ole that the national for est lands play in anchoring fish and other aquatic species is not trivial, with gr

eater than one-thir d of national for est lands identi

fied as impor tant to maintaining aquatic biodiversity

. The Inland W est W ater Initiative, which includes Regions 1, 2, 3, and 4, will have completed its assess

ment and delineated special waterbodies and water

sheds by early FY 2000. The asssessment will identify which watersheds ar e impor tant and for what purpos

es (in a spatially explicit for mat), for mor e than 80 per cent of national for est lands in the four r egions. Recent strategies for national for ests have focused on r estoring the natural ecological pr ocesses that will cr

eate and maintain diverse and r esilient aquatic habi

tat (Nor thwest For est Plan, T ongass National For est, P

ACFISH; pr oposed for the Sier ra Nevada pr ovinces and the Interior Columbia Basin.) These ef for ts will move east and pr obably be incorporated into r evised for est plans in the next several years. ❖ 

## Conserving A quatic Biodiversity and Threatened Species23 ational for ests typically occupy the head

waters of lar ge river basins. For est activ

ities af fect the water r esour ce; so do downstr eam land uses. In general, water

sheds on the national for ests ar e in r elatively good shape compar ed to soils, waters, and riparian ar eas on private lands, ranches, and far ms, and urban ar eas that typically occupy the lower par ts of a lar ge river basin. It will take a compr ehensive, watershed appr oach to impr ove water quality or r estor e the full range of watershed function to the system. W

ater quality pr oblems, and solutions, ar e dispr o

por tionately tied to urban ar eas. Urban ar eas ar e often for ested and make a major contribution to maintain

ing and impr oving water quality . Counties classified as “urban” now contain one-quar ter of the total tr ee cover of the coter minous United States. Urban tr ees af fect the volume of r unof f by inter

cepting pr ecipitation, slowing water infiltration rates, and transpiring water . By inter cepting and r etaining or slowing the flow of pr ecipitation r eaching the gr

ound, tr ees (in conjunction with soils) play an impor tant r ole in urban hydr ologic pr ocesses. They can r educe the rate and volume of stor m water r unof f, flooding damage, stor mwater tr eatment costs, and other pr oblems r elated to water quality . Estimates of r unof f for an intensive stor m in Dayton, OH, showed that the existing tr ee canopy (22 per cent) r educed potential r unof f by 7 per cent and that a modest incr ease in canopy cover (29 per cent) would r educe r unof f by nearly 12 per cent (Sanders 1986). A study of the Gwynns Falls watershed in Baltimor e indicated that heavy for est cover can r educe total r unof f by as much as 26 per cent and incr ease low-flow r unof f by up to 13 per cent, compar ed with tr eeless ar eas, for equivalent land-use conditions (Neville 1996). T r ee cover over per vious sur faces r educed total r unof f by as much as 40 per cent; tr ee canopy cover over imper

vious sur faces had a limited ef fect on r unof f. In r educ

ing r unof f, tr ees function like r etention str uctur es. In many communities, r educed r unof f fr om rainfall inter ception can also r educe costs of tr eating stor mwater by decr easing the volume of water han

dled during periods of peak r unof f (Sanders 1986). Hydr ologic costs may also be associated with urban vegetation, par ticularly in arid envir onments wher e water is incr easingly scar ce. Incr eased water use in deser t r egions could alter the local water balance and various ecosystem functions tied to the deser t water cycle. In addition, annual costs of water for sustaining vegetation can be twice as gr eat as ener gy savings fr

om shade for tr ee species that use lar ge amounts of water , such as mulber r y (McPherson and Dougher ty 1989). In T ucson, AZ, 16 per cent of the annual ir riga

tion r equir ement of tr ees was of fset by the amount of water conser ved at power plants because of the ener gy savings fr om tr ees (Dwyer et al. 1992). Urban water ways ar e str ongly influenced by imper

vious sur faces that generate lar ge volumes of rapid sur face r unof f, contaminants, and ther mal loads. The ef

fects of temperatur e extr emes, nutrient loading, tox

ins, bed instability , cur r ent velocities, and disturbance fr

equencies ar e all magnified in urban watersheds. Urban vegetation can r educe many of these adverse ef

fects by cooling air temperatur es, shading water ways, r emoving pollutants fr om both water and air , r

educing sur face and subsur face flows, and by r educing pollutant emissions fr om various sour ces (Nowak et al. 1998). 

### P

OLICY 

### I MPLICA TIONS Resear ch is critically needed that integrates these numer ous vegetation ef fects to evaluate the total ef

fects of urban vegetation and various vegetation designs on water quantity and quality . This r esear ch should include field measur ements, computer model

ing, and model validation. The Baltimor e long-ter m ecosystem r esear ch pr oject is cur r ently investigating and integrating many of these r esear ch issues to help answer this complex question. Mor e r esear ch and field measur ements ar e needed to deter mine appr opriate urban vegetation management strategies and designs to impr ove water and str eam quality in and ar ound urban ar eas, and consequently impr ove human health and envir onmental quality in the Nation. ❖ 

# Integrating W atersheds from the Headwaters Through the Cities 

# N24 his r epor t contains infor mation that can be used to help ar ticulate and guide the agency’ s commitment to watershed health and r estoration. The r epor t is a first step in identifying the par ticular r ole of national for ests in pr oviding water to the Nation and r estoring watersheds to a healthy , sustainable functioning con

dition The r epor t has focused on answering basic ques

tions about the quantity , quality , uses, and value of waters that flow fr om the national for ests; about the condition and tr end of national for est watersheds; and about strategies for pr otecting and r estoring degraded waters and watersheds. W e have sur veyed the published infor mation and tried to captur e the cur

r ent state of our understanding in this paper—though in sharply condensed for m. Along the way , we have noted gaps in the data and questions par ticularly ripe for fur ther inquir y

. Action items for additional inves

tigation include: ■ Refine water -yield estimates to the national for est scale. Pr ecision estimates by for est and State ar e necessar y to drive water valuation models and aid in r evising for est plans. This action could be com

pleted in 6 to 12 months, with a ter m or post-doc

toral position. ■ Refine our estimate of the value of water on and flowing fr om national for est lands. The estimate of the value of water fr om national for est lands in this paper is a first appr oximation that does not include dilution, navigation, quality of water , and nonuse values nor does it estimate the value of car eful for est management in sustaining a water

shed’ s ability to stor e and distribute water and moderate downstr eam flooding. ■ Convene a leadership for um to examine the par tic

ular r ole that the For est Ser vice plays in pr oviding clean water to the Nation and deter mine the kinds of watershed and for est management pr ograms that will maintain long-ter m, high-quality water and keep national for est watersheds operating within their historical range of variability

. ■ Develop and activate a communications strategy on the connection of for ested watersheds and clean water in urban settings, addr essed to urban and suburban publics and policymakers. This strategy would highlight the contributions that national for est lands, technical assistance, and stewar dship pr

ograms can make to water quality , r

educed stor m r unof f, dr ought r eduction, and watershed health. ■ Complete an agency-wide assessment of specialemphasis and biodiversity watersheds, modeled on the assessment work of the Inland W est W ater Institute. In the meantime, the For est Ser vice is actively pursuing initiatives to r estor e watersheds, impr ove water quality , and pr otect aquatic habitats. The Chief has made watershed health and r estoration, r ecr eation, sustainable for estr y

, and r oads manage

ment the agency’ s top priorities. The Committee of Scientists r ecommended that the Secr etar y of Agri

cultur e highlight the need to plan for conser ving and r estoring watersheds thr ough maintaining flow r egimes. These ef for ts r ecognize that watershed integrity will be maintained and r estor ed, in par t, thr ough sustainable management of the national for ests. But watersheds ar e lar ger than for ests, water

shed health will be achieved only thr ough collabora

tive par tnership ef for ts at the watershed scale as envisioned in the Clean W ater Action Plan headed by the Administrator of the EP A and Secr etar y of Agri

cultur e. The For est Ser vice has a vital r ole to play on both sides of the national for est boundaries. The challenge for watershed-based appr oaches will be to develop a shar ed vision for healthy and pr oduc

tive watersheds, based on understanding natural and human-induced variability at scales ranging fr om small (<20,000 acr e) to lar ge (>1,000,000 acr e). New strate

gies ar e needed for managing in mixed-ownership watersheds, as well as cr eating new par tnerships for ef

fective lear ning, assimilating new knowledge, and implementing our shar ed vision. ❖ 

# Next Steps



# T25 Br

own, T . 1999. Notes on the Economic V

alue of W ater fr om National For ests. Unpublished r epor t. USDA For est Ser

vice, Rocky Mountain Resear ch Station, For t Collins, CO. Coleman, E.A. 1953. V egetation and W ater

shed Management. The Ronald Pr ess. Cr

oft, A.R. and Bailey , Reed W . May 1964. Mountain W ater . USDA For est Ser vice, Inter mountain Region, Ogden, UT Dwyer , J.F ., Nowak, D.J., Noble, M.H., and Sisini, S.M. (in pr ess). Connecting Peo

ple with Ecosystems in the 21st Centur y: An Assessment of our Nation’ s Urban For ests (PNW GTR xxx): U.S. Depar t

ment of Agricultur e, For est Ser vice, Pacific Nor thwest Resear ch Station. Por tland, OR.
For est Ecosystem Management Assessment T

eam: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment Repor t of the For est Ecosystem Management Assessment T

eam (FEMA T) 1993.
Fr

ederick, K. D. and Sedjo, R. A. 1991.

America’ s Renewable Resour ces: Histori

cal T r ends and Cur r ent Challenges. Resour ces for the Futur e, W ashington, DC.
Fr

ederick, K. D. 1991. W ater Resour ces: Incr easing Demand and Scar ce Supplies. In: America’ s Renewable Resour ces: His

torical T r ends and Cur r ent Challenges, Kenneth D. Fr ederick and Roger A. Sedjo, eds., Resour ces for the Futur e, W

ashington, DC. Gillian, D.M. and Br own, T .C. 1997. Instr eam flow pr otection: Seeking a balance in wester n water use. Island Pr

ess, W ashington, DC. Gleick, P . H. 1993. W ater in Crisis: A Guide to the W orld’ s Fr esh W ater Resour ces. Oxfor d University , Oxfor d. Gleick, P . H. 1998. The W orld’ s W ater: The Biennial Repor t on Fr eshwater Resour ces. Island Pr ess. W ashington, DC. Graf, W .L. 1999. Downstr eam Geomorphic Impacts of Lar ge Dams on American Rivers. Arizona State University , Depar t

ment of Geography , T

empe, AZ, (unpub

lished manuscript). Hansen, T . and Hallum, A. 1990. W ater allo

cation tradeof fs: Ir rigation and r ecr eation. Agricultural Economic Repor t number 634, Resour ces and T echnology Division, Economic Resear ch Ser vice, U.S. Depar tment of Agricultur e. Hann, W .J., Jones, J.L, Karl, M.G. [et al.] 1997. Landscape dynamics of the basin. In Quigley , T

.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., (tech. eds.). An assessment of ecosystem com

ponents in the interior Columbia Basin and por tions of the Klamath and Gr eat Basins. Gen. T ech. Rep. PNW -GTR-405, Chapter 3. U.S. Depar tment of Agricul

tur e, For est Ser vice, Pacific Nor thwest Resear ch Station. Por tland, OR.
Har r , R. D. 1983. Potential for Augmenting W

ater Y ield Thr ough For est Practices in W

ester n W ashington and W ester n Or egon. W ater Resour ces Bulletin 19(3):383-394. Kattelmann, R. C., Ber g, N. H., and Rector , J. 1983. The Potential for Incr easing Str eamflow fr om Sier ra Nevada W ater

sheds. W ater Resour ces Bulletin 19(3):395-402.
MacCleer y , D. W . 1992. American For ests: A Histor y of Resiliency and Recover y . USDA For est Ser vice, FS-540, in cooper

ation with the For est Histor y Society , Dur ham, NC. McPherson, E.G. and Dougher ty

, E. 1989. Selecting tr ees for shade in the South

west, J. Arboricultur e 15:35-43. Modeling the ef fects of urban vegetation on air pollution, In: Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XII. (S. Gr yning and N. Chaumerliac, eds.) Plenum Pr ess, New Y ork, pp. 399-407. Neville, L.R. 1996. Urban W atershed Manage

ment: the Role of V egetation. Ph.D. disser

tation, SUNY College of Envir onmental Science and For estr y , Syracuse, NY

. Moody , D.W . 1990. Gr oundwater contamina

tion in the United States. Jour nal of Soil and W ater Conser vation 45: 170-179.
National Resear ch Council. 1992. Restora

tion of aquatic ecosystems. National Academy Pr ess, W ashington, DC.
The Natur e Conser vancy . 1996. Aquatic/W etland Species at Risk Map, in: The Index of W atershed Indicators, U.S. EP

A. EP A-841-R-97-010, September 1997. p. 22 Neilson, Ronald. 1995. A model for pr edict

ing continental-scale vegetation distri

bution and water balance. Ecological Applications 5(2):362-385. Noble, E. 1965. Sediment Reduction thr ough W atershed Rehabilitation. USDA Agricultural Resear ch Ser vice, W ashing

ton DC. Paper 18, Interagency Sedimen

tation Confer ence 1963, p. 114-123. In: Pr

oc. Fed. Misc. Pub. 970 Nowak, D.J., Civer olo, K.L., Rao, S.T ., Sistla, G., Luley , C.J., and Crane, D.E., in r eview . The impact of urban tr ees on ozone in the Nor theaster n United States. Atmos. Env

. Pinchot, G. 1947. Br eaking New Gr ound. Har cour t and Brace, New Y ork. Rodgers, A. D. III. 1991. Ber nar d Eduar d Fer now: A stor y of Nor th American For estr y . For est Histor y Society , Dur ham, NC. 

# References26 Sanders, R.A. 1986. Urban vegetation impacts on the urban hydr ology of Day

ton Ohio, Urban Ecology 9:361-376. Schmidt, L. J. and Solomon, R.M. 1981. The National For est Role in Augmenting the Dr op of W ater . In: Arizona W ater Symposium 25th Annual Pr oceedings, Arizona Depar tment of W ater Resour ces, Repor t #3.
Shiklomanov , I. A. 1993. W orld Fr esh W ater Resour ces. In: W ater in Crisis: A Guide to the W orld’ s Fr esh W ater Resour ces. Oxfor d University Pr ess, Oxfor d. Solley , W . B., Pier ce, R., Perlman, H. 1998. Estimated use of water in the United States. In: 1995 U.S. Geological Sur vey . Cir cular 1200, Denver , CO. Souch, C.A. and Souch, C. 1993, The ef fect of tr ees on summer time below canopy urban climates: a case study , Blooming

ton, Indiana. J. Arboric. 19(5):303-312. Steen, H. K. 1991. The Beginning of the National For est System. FS-488, USDA For est Ser vice. W ashington DC
T

aha, H. 1996. Modeling impacts of

incr eased urban vegetation on ozone air quality in the South Coast Air Basin, Atmos. Env . 30(20):3,423-3,430.
T

ongass National For est, Land and Resour ce Management Plan, Recor d of Decision, signed April 12, 1999.
USDA For est Ser vice. 1998. Land Ar eas of the National Forest System, 1997. FS383. W ashington, DC.
USDA For est Ser vice. 1999. Roads Analysis: Infor ming Decisions About Managing the National For est T ranspor tation Sys

tem. FS-643. W ashington, DC. U.S. W ater Resour ces Council. 1978. The Nation’ s W ater Resour ces 1975-2000. W

ashington, DC: Gover nment Printing Of

fice.
U.S. W ater Resour ces Council, Second National W ater Assessment, V ol. I: Sum

mar y , 052-045-00051-7, W ashington, DC: Gover nment Printing Of fice, 1978. pp. 20, 21.
Ziemer , R. 1987. W ater Y ields fr om For ests: An Agnostic V iew . In: R.Z. Callaham and J.J. DeV ries (T ech. Coor d.) Pr oceedings of the Califor nia W atershed Management Confer ence, November 18-20, 1986, W

est Sacramento, CA. 74-78. W ildland Resour ces Center , University of Califor

nia, Berkeley CA. Repor t 11, Feb. 1982. 

## ReferencesCD The U.S. Depar tment of Agricultur e (USDA) pr ohibits discrimination in all its pr

ograms and activities on the basis of race, color , national origin, gender , r eligion, age, disability , political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all pr ohibited bases apply to all pr ograms.) Persons with disabilities who r equir e alter native means for communication of pr ogram infor mation (Braille, lar ge print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA ’ s T

ARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
T

o file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Dir ector , Of fice of Civil Rights, Room 326-W , Whitten Building, 14th and Independence A venue, SW , W

ashington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal oppor tunity pr ovider and employer

.