This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Streamside Management Units in the Pacific Northwest
Gerald
w.
1
Swank2
ABSTRACT.-- Since 1970 the National Forests in Oregon
and Washington have been operating under a Regionally developed streamside management unit (SMU) concept which is
essentially a stream classification system based on use
made of the water with specific water quality objectives
established for each of the four classes of streams.
Inherent in the concept is the underlying premise that the
land immediately adjacent to streams is key to protecting water
quality but that this land can be managed to protect the riparian values and in most cases still achieve a reasonable return of other resource values.
INTRODUCTION
areas be identified, carefully managed, and monitored.
The riparian related resources in the Pacific
Northwest are extremely important. On the 23
million acres of land for the 19 National Forests,
there are about 22,000 Giles of fish bearing
streams and over 200,000 surface acres of lakes
and reserviors, and an unknown additional acreage
of wetlands and floodplains. The riparian areas
support habitat for a countless number of
anadromous and resident fish, and wildlife.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT UNIT
(SMU)
In an effort to address this important riparian resource and prompted by executive and legislative action a Pacific Northwest Region Forest
Service team in 1970 started developing a policy
referred to as "Streamside Management Units (SMU)."
This team included representatives from Timber
Management, Engineering, Range, Fish and Wildlife,
Watershed, and Recreation.
Riparian areas also provide various recreation uses. Last year there were over
32,000,000 recreation visitors days (RVD's) of
which at least 3,000,000 were related to use
directly in the streams and lakes.
In developing the policy, the team went to the
field several times to look at a variety of specific
site conditions. The proposed concept was then
sent to selected specialists in research, Universities, State agencies, and administrators for
technical review. Comments were incorporated into
a revised proposal which was formally sent for
review to all Forests plus over 30 out-service
people and agencies. In 1971 the final SMU policy
was finally adopted as policy of the Pacific
Northwest Region and a series of field training
sessions started. Through the first several
years of the policy, about a thousand people
where trained in it's on-the-ground application.
Riparian areas provided part of the forage for
almost 255,000 cows and sheep.
Riparian areas are also the most productive
sites for growing timber. Almost 5 billion board
feet of timber valued at over $460,000,000 was
sold last year. Some of this timber was in or
immediately adjacent to riparian areas.
Of the 75 million acre feet of water that
flows from National Forest land in the Pacific
Northwest some is used by over 200 municipalities
for about 3 million people. Present irrigation
withdrawals average almost SO million acre feet
annually much of which is derived from Forest
runoff.
THE POLICY
Streamside Management Units are defined as
"the stream and an adjacent area of varying width
where practices that might affect water quality,
fish and other aquatic resources are modified, as
necessary to meet water quality goals for each
class of stream."
In short, riparian areas are used for a variety of purposes and are an extremely important
social, economic, and environmental part of the
Regional and National Forest land base.
However, many of these uses compete with each
other. Therefore, it is important that riparian
The width of this area will vary with the
management goals for each class of stream,
characteristics of the stream and surrounding
terrin, and type and extent of the planned
activity. SMU'will be managed for water qualilty
for the benefit uses, and to comply with the
intent of the Clean Water Act.
lpaper presented at the Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management, Reconciling Conflicting
Uses~ Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18, 1985.
Gerald w. Swank, Water Group Leader, USDA
Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
435
Where floodplains, wetlands, riparian type
areas, recreation areas or other uses associated
with streams exist or are potentially important,
the boundaries of SMU's may overlap. If
management constraints are in conflict, the most
restrictive practices will apply.
water quality standards developed under the Clean
Water Act.
Basically, the SMU concept is a stream classification system where four classes of streams are
established based on use of the water. Water
quality objectives are prescribed for each class.
Management practices are designed to meet the
objectives of each stream class based on the
characteristics or sensitivity of the site in
question.
Where better information is available for the
particular stream in question goals may be ,modified
if formally documented and reviewed.
SMU management goals recognize that some water
quality changes may inevitably occur for certain
classes of streams in order to obtain the best
overall yield and mix of the many land and water
resources. Resource planning is aimed at minimizing
such changes, in accordance with environmental
protection responsibilities.
The present and foreseeable uses made of the
water, and the potential effects of on-site
changes on downstream uses, are the criteria
for defining four stream classes. For example,
a logjam may prevent fish from using a section
of good spawning gravel but if the obstruction
were removed, the potential use of stream may
be very important.
More specifically, the SMU goals for each class
of streams are as follows:
The importance of use is relative to the
general area. Consequently, size of the stream is
not necessarily a criterion for classification.
Whole streams or parts of streams can be
classified. One stream may be sectionalized into
several classes.
Class I. The use of the water and downstream
influence of this class of stream justify the highest level of protection and enhancement. Management
activities should not degrade water quality, fish
or aquatic resources below the existing or natural
level except for temporary changes resulting from:
Class I is defined as perennial or intermittent streams, or segments thereof, that have one
or more of the following characteristics:
1.
For example, Oregon's General Water Quality
Standards restrict water temperature increases to 2°
F. If the water temperature is already 64° F., no
increase is allowed. There are also limiting
criteria for turbidity changes and other water
quality characteristics. Standards may vary by
basin within the state.
1. Activities designed to improve the
stream, e.g., restoration and habitat improvement.
Direct source of water for domestic use.
crossings~
2. Used by large numbers of fish for spawning,
rearing or migration.
3. Flow enough water to be a major contributor
to the quantity of water in a Class I stream.
2. Necessary transportation system
e.g., bridges, culverts or
3. Structures associated with putting
the water to beneficial uses, e.g., irrigation
diversion, domestic supply intakes.
Temporary changes are those which are transitory in nature; i.e., the effect ceases and water
quality returns to its previous level when the permitted activity ceases. Temporary changes do not
include increased water temperature, which takes a
minimum of several years for shade reestablishment,
or turbidity from long-term disturbances such as
roads or large denuded areas that act as a recurring
source of sediment for a period of time until
stabilization is achieved.
Class II is defined as perennial or intermittent streams that have one or both of the following characteristics:
1. Used by moderate, though significant numbers of fish for spawning, rearing or migration.
2. Flow enough water to be a moderate or not
clearly identifiable contributor to the quantity
of water in a Class I stream, or be a major
contributor to a Class II stream.
Class II. The use of the water and downstream
influence of these streams justify a high level of
protection and enhancement. Management activities
should not deteriorate water quality below established water quality goals except for temporary
changes resulting from essential short-term
activities.
Class III is defined as all other perennial
streams or segments thereof not meeting higher
class criteria.
Class IV is defined as all other intermittent
streams or segments thereof not meeting higher
class criteria.
Class III and IV. The minor on-site use and
downstream influence justifies a normal 'level of
protection. Management activities should not
deteriorate water quality below existing established water quality goals for downstream Class I
and II streams.
Quantitative management goals, the very heart
of the policy, are established for each class of
stream. These quantitative goals relate to the
436
Water quality changes in Class III and IV
streams may involve some temperature and turbidity
increases, provided these do not cause Class I or
II waters to fall below established goals.
Temperature increases in Class IV streams are
normally not a concern as such streams are dry
during the critical summer temperature period.
The States of Oregon and Washinton have
incorporated similar concepts in their Forests
Practice Acts. While there are some differences
in the classification systems there is a
correlation as shown in Table 1.
Table 1.--STREAM CLASSIFICATION CORRELATION
Although Class III and IV streams may individually be small and seem insignificant, they might
make up the bulk of the stream mileage within a
watershed. Therefore, their cumlative effect can
be significant within a particular area and must be
considered in overall planning efforts.
I
USFS
I
I
I I I I lII
I
I
I
I I I I I I 'I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I I II ---i
I I
I I ---iI
I I I I I I I I
X
II
I
Management practices should be designed to meet
the objectives for each class of stream based on
the characteristics or sensitivity of the site in
question. These practices for Class III and IV
streams may, in some instances, be more restrictive
than for Class I or II streams. For example, a
small Class III stream in a V-type canyon of
unstable, steep slopes, may require more restrictive practices to achieve on and off-site water
quality goals than a Class I stream in a flat,
stable valley bottom.
WASHINGTON
3
4 5
X
X
r
X
X
I
II
III
IV
Unclassified
·xI
r
X
X
X'
X
X
'
The SMU policy has been applied in the timber
sale contracts. Special contract clauses have been
developed and may be inserted, where appropriate,
as a legal requirement.
The current Forest planning effort underway
under the National Forest Management Act formally
recognizes SMU's (and other riparian-type areas) and
focuses more attention on their importance.
Management direction is being prescribed in the
planning effort.
HOW IS IT WORKING?
Since the policy was formally adopted twelve
years ago, over 112,000 miles of
stream have been classified as follows:
Class I - 8,500 miles (8%), Class II- 10,300
miles (9%), Class III- 31,300 miles (28%), and
Class IV- 62,300 miles (55%).
Some may debate that the policy has specifically
resulted in better "on-the-ground" implementation.
However, there is no doubt there has been an
increased awareness and understanding of riparian
areas. While undisputable evidence may be difficult
to document, a better job is being done on-theground because of this increased concern. The SMU
policy in the Pacific Northwest has contributed
significally to that concern.
The original intent was to deal primarily with
water quality and fisheries concerns in streams.
The SMU policy is only one part of good land management to protect water quality and fish, as it is
aimed primarily at land practices in and immediately adjacent to the stream. Activities far
removed from streams can also influence the water
streams, significant progress can be made in some
of our land management problems. You might say the
policy is trying to address the "unpardonable
sins."
FUTURE NEEDS
As discussed previously, the SMU policy: (1)
addresses primarily water quality and fisheries (2)
is intended to address only the area in and immediately adjacent streams and (3) does not describe
"how" to meet management goals.
The SMU policy does not imply arbitrary
abstention from all activities near streams. It
stresses the need for applying special care in
management and prescribes where this special care
might occur and to what extent. This provides the
land manager with an operational tool which can be
translated to activities on-the-ground.
Therefore, general action needed for improvement
of the three limitations are to:
1. Develop a coordinated resource policy for
all riparian-dependent resources such as wildlife
and threatened and endangered plants and animals.
Implemention should be through an interdisciplinary
approach.
The land manager is faced with the task of
deciding how to meet these goals. Rather than
trying to prescribe a lot of "thou shall" and "thou
shall not" type of practices, the SMU policy
recognizes that there may be several ways to
accomplish the management goals. On-site characteristics (e.g., slope, cover, soil, etc.) dictate
the practices that best meet these goals.
2. Develop more technical "how to" guidelines
for the general practitioner. An example, is the
water temperature publication developed by the
Pacific Northwest Region entitled, "Guides for
Protecting Water Quality".
437
Such guidelines shoulci be developed based on
"on-site" sensitivity characteristics. This
leads to the third recommendation.
3. Develop means to predict how and over
what timeframe different riparian areas will
respond to different kinds and intensities of
management activities. For example, if grazing
is controlled or eliminated on a particular
riparian area will this result in more large
herbaceous shade such as willows, alders etc.
and if so how long will it take?
4. Develop a more formalized or structured follow-up process for monitoring and/or
tracking the riparian condition and changes due
to natural and man-caused impacts.
In brief conclusion the Streamside Management
Unit Policy in the Pacific Northwest Region is one
way of addressing selected riparian concerns.
With more coordinated, technical, and administrative development the program can be improved.
438