This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
W~ltel·sh.ed
Researcll for Mallagenlent Needs:
Wh.icll Way We Ollg)lt to Wal]( f-rolD Here
Rhey Solomon 1
The Fraser Experimental FQrest was established in 1937 to
study natural plant communities and determine their effects
on snow accumulation and water yield changes in response to
management of the SUbalpine forests. The work derived from
this experimental forest has serve.d well in providing ma.nagers
with watershed relationships that help them understand water
yield and snowpack processes (Alexander et at 1985).
Howe.ver, before we roundly endorse research from
Fraser and other experimental forests, let us step back a little
and take a more introspective look at where we have been and
how we have approached research and the management
application of research for the subalpine forest.
I'm going to be a little self-criticizing, only because I feel
self analysis is always helpful in keeping on the right track. In
this effort, I'll rely on a quote from Alice in Wonderland whe.re
Alice is confronted on her wa.lk by the Cheshire cat. Alice, not
really knowing where she wa.s or whe.re to go, aske.d the cat,
""Vould you tell me, please, which way I ought to walk from
hereT' The Cat answered with, "That depends a good deal on
where you want to go." Alice thought for a while and responded, "I don't much care where." The cat in his wisd.om
said, "Then, it doesn't matter which way you walk." Ahce,
being a little concerned, states, "So long as I get somewhere."
As a final reply the cat matter-of-factly says, "Oh you're sure
to do that if you only walk long enough."
I use this passage from Alke in Wonderland because I feel
it parallels, in many respects, the questioning and answering
that goes on between National Forest System man~gers an~
Research. l\1anagement often ask of Research whtch way It
ought to walk. Research properly asks mana~ement just whe~e
it wants to go. The question to evaluate m today's talk IS
whe.ther Management has adequately given Research the
desired destination (Objectives) or, as UkeAlice., didn't much
care. In the end, as the cat points out, "You're sure to get
somewhere if you only walk long enough." H as Research taken
l\ianagement where it wanted to go, or have we gone down a
path getting to some destination but not sure if it' 5 where we
wanted to be?
Let's evaluate ho\\iwell we did in our journey -- did we take
a path not really caring where we got to _.. or did we more
deliberately choose where we wanted to go? I'll start first by
expressing an overriding object~ve or destinati(~n for r:rati~nal
Forest System management denved from enablmg legls1atlon,
the Org~nk Act, which designates the. purposes of the National Forests:
... For the purpose of securing favora bJ.e conditions of
water flo\v, ~nd to furnish a continuous supply of
timber ....
We often lose sight of this objective, especially when
framing questions for Research. "Ve focus on very technical
questions. We therefore have to ask ourselves, can we better
define and manage for "favorable conditIons of flow" today
than we could before undertaking research at Fraser and the
other experimental watersheds? Thi.s is the cent~al theme of
my talk today -- do we better understand our bastc watershed
objective in today's world of simulation models, computer
tools, and mapping techniques than we· did 50 years ago?
We can start first by looking at how we· in the National
Forest System have chosen, through our actions and policies,
to defi.ne "favorable condi.tions of flow." Typically, favOJ:able
conditions of flow have been translated into three component
parts, (1'1 water quality, (2) water quantity, and (3) water
timing. Generally, these aspects of favorable conditions of
flow have been related to conditions of the land. Vle have
developed a term over the years that has come to encompass
all three measures of water as well as land conditions ft_ this
te·rm is "watershe.d condition."
U sing this watershed condition theme, the manageme.nt
issues emerging in the 1930s and 40s were related to off-forest
impacts -- flooding, lac.k of water, debris clogging of irriga.ti~n
works, and maintaining navigability of streams. How well dId
research, and more spe.cifically work at Fraser, respond to
these issues? The watershed work done at Fraser was primarily aimed at questions dealing with water yidd and specifically
s~owpack management to increase yields and affect runoff
timing. Table· 1 shows the published watershed re~earch from
the Fraser Expe.rime.ntaJ. Forest over the last fIve decades
(Alexander e.t a!. 1985).
.
.
As shown ill table 1, the work at Fraser was aImed at
answering manageme.nt questions about wate·r yield respOllse.
Over the first three decades this research appeared to be
steady. However, in the late 70s and on into the 80s dus
1Watershed and Air Management Staff, USDA Forest Service,
Washington D.C.
101
Table 1.--Publlshed watershed research from the Fraser ExperImental Forest.
going and took a deliberate path. However, we may be at a fork
in the road, and again need to ask "which way we ought to walk
from hem."
Decade
Water Yield
Sediment/Erosion
Measurement
40s
50s
60s
70s
80s
Total
17
20
21
2
18
7
8
8
84
11
2
5
Future Watershed Research Opportunities and Challenges
9
26
With the enyironmental aware·ness of the 1970s and the
increasing populations in the West, came water quality legislation and demands for water uses that form the watershed
issue.s of the 80s and 90s. The watershed issues of the future
focus around (1) instream water uses and needs and their
conflict with demands for water diversions, and (2) improying
or maintaining water quality while meeting increasing resource demands of the land. Issues such as minimum stream
flows for fisheries, instream flows for wilderness and riparian
communities, flushing flows, and channel maintenance flows
form the water yield and timing research needs for the coming
decades. Approaches to control and manage.me.nt of nonpoint
sources of pollution including monitoring techniques, water
quality standards, and Bl\IP design form the water quality
research needs.
Research results on water yield and snowpack dynantics
appear sufficient to answer management needs, and the
marginal benefi.ts to be gained from continuing' this research
do not warrant the investment, especially given the c.ritical
needs in the other areas of water quality and instream flows.
research declined and culminated i.n a serie.s of papers that,
generally, satisfie.d que.stions about the water yield issue in the
west (Hibbert et a1. 1974, Clary ~t al. 1974, Brown et al. 1974,
Leaf 1975). Of note, is the work done at Fraser on measurement and monitoring in the 40s and to a lesser extent in the 50s,
60s, and 70s. Some of the techniques of water measurement
deyeloped at Fraser have been used as the basis for some of
today's measureme·nt and monitoring approaches (\Vilm 1943,
Ooode1l1951, Leaf and Kovner 1970, Leaf and Kovner 1971).
Work from Fraser has demohstrated that cutting patterns
affect streamflow in both quantity and tinting of deliyery. The
work ove·r the last 50 years has led to some of the most applied
research emanating from experimental forests. The initial
studies focused on hydrologic processes that affect water
response (Bertle and Dunford 1950, Goodell 1948, Hoover
1962, Hoove.r and Leaf 1967). All of this process research on
water yield and timing culminated in hydrologic computer
models that synthesized work at Frase.r ( Leaf and Brink 1973,
Leaf and Brink 1975). These models have enabled managers
to easily ask "what if' questions and be provided answe·rs -- a
most valuable tool for management application of research
results. A final extension of the work done at Frase.r was made
by Troendle and Leaf in Chapter III, Hydrology of the
WRENSS Handbook (USDA Fore·st Service 1980). This
procedural handbook has served as a principal t.ool for hydrologic analysis in Forest Planning and in design of best management practices for control of nonpoint pollution.
Water Quality Research Needs
If the current reliance on BMPs as the mechanism to
control nonpoint pollution is to be succ.essful, research information has to underpin this strategy. But before focusing on
the.se research ne.e.ds, let me first state. the. strategy -- or for
Alice's sake, identify the destination. The ke.y to nonpoint
pollution control is through application of preventative practices (BMPs) rather than a strict reliance on instream numeric
water quality standards.
The Forest Service has developed a management strategy
that is compatible with the Clean Vol ater Act and resolves the
dilemma of using numeric water quality criteria as a performance standard. The primary strate.gy for control of nonpoint
sources should be based upon design and implementation of
preventive practices dete.rmine.d nec.essary for the protection
of identified uses. Surveillance should be based on ensuring
implementation of acceptable best management. practices.
The objectiye of BMP design should be that their implementation is the most practical means of attaining water quality
goals. Water quality goals include water quality standards that
adequately reflect the needs of identified beneficial uses.
It is inlportant that implementation of land management
practices developed to meet water quality objectives, and
agreed to by re.gulatory agencies and land managers as "Best
Management Practices," be sufficient to meet legal responsibilities of land managers. In an appropriate Bl\IP/water qual-
Of c.oncern, howe.ver, is that wate.rshed re.search derived
from Fraser has been declining over the last decade. This is,
perhaps, in part due to a shift in multiresource research, but
also due to a dee.mphasis on watershed research. A question
then arises, has Fraser fulfilled its watershed research purposes and few opportunities exist, or have we not refocused
research on Fraser to today's watershed condition issues?
Let's now come back to our general charge of maintaining
favorable c.onditions of flow. Has research helped to be.tter
define favorable c.anditions of flow and watershed condi.tion,
or have we been, like Alice, wandering down a path to get
somewhere not sure where we have gotten? I think it can be
said that the issues of the 30s, 40s, and 50s dealing with flood
flows and water yield have been adequately addressed by
research. The research done at Fraser and elsewhere has
he.1ped management better understand the processes affe.ct··
ing these components of watershed condition, and this re·search has been translated into better on-the-ground watershed management. Unlike .Alice, we did care where we were
102
ity standard relationship, the standards serve as a basi.s for
measuring accomplishment of protection to the "extent feasible" and "ma.~imum extent practicable." It is inappropriate
for nonattainment of a water quality standard to be grounds
for enforcement action where the agreed on BMI's were
implemented. Nonattainment should be grounds for reassessing the effectiveness of Bl\H)s and nonpoint source programs
in meeting water quality goals. l\lonitoring results should be
used for improvi.ngpractices where a higher level of protection
is feasible, and/or modifying water quality standards when
standards are found to be unrealistic. Water quality standards
are not re.placed by BMPs ip this strategy. Vi ater quality
standards serve as a means of evaluating program success and
determining needs for change in this program, rather than in
direct program enforcement. If we use the concept presented
here of BMP design, monitoring, feedback of information, and
adjustment of BMPs and/or water quality standards, we ean
and should expect that specified BMPs will meet water quality
standards with time.
The strategy as prese.nted does not presume that all responsibility for protection of the environment is automatically
taken care of by compliance with desi.gnated BMPs. If environmental harm is found following application, then mitigation measures must be considered and their application negotiated. The important point is that application of agreed-to
practices constitutes compliance with requirements of the
Clean Water Act.
The Forest Service nonpoint source management system
consists of: (1) design of site-specific BMPs based on technical, e.conomi.c, and institutional feasibility, (2) application of
B1\1I)s based on scheduling, intensity, placement, and maintenance, (3) monitoring to ensure that practice.s are correctly
designed and applied, (4) monitoring to determine effectiveness of practices in meetjng water quality objectives, the
appropriateness of water quality criteria for describing the
needs of water dependent resources, and (5) a mechanism to
adjust Bl\lPs and/or standards as appropriate.
Research has an important role in underpinning this strategy by (1) providing information for the design and implementation requirements of Bl\lPs, (2) providing monitoring
techniques and desi.gns t4at are cost-effective yet provide
meaningful results, and (3) deve.lopingwater quality standards
that better tie to the beneficial uses and do not have the
stochastic variability of water quality criteria c.urrentiy being
use.d.
Water quality standards as used in this discussion need to
be define·d in order to clarify the concepts presented here.
Water quality standards are made up of an identification of
beneficial uses, an identification of water quality criteria
necessary to support those uses, and an antidegradation policy
statement on how water is going to be maintained or improved.
It is important to consider problems and needs 'as related to the
thre.e component parts of water quality standards. When
reviewing existing State water quality standards, it becomes
readily apparent that many criteria do not adequate.ly represent the needs of be.neficial uses. Existing water quality
103
standards were primarily deve.loped during the early to mid
1960' s to address point sources of pollution, and tend to be
discrete values. To adequately reflect the variability of the
natural system, water quality standards need to be adjusted to
include a stochastic expression.
The relationship between many beneficial uses and water
quality criteria is not well understood, particularly in light of
the natural variability discusse.d above. Directly rela.ted to this
is a lack of understanding of the relationship between land
manage.ment practices and water quality impacts. U ntilland
use practices are better linked with water quality responses, it
is difficult to def~ne a water quality standard that is truly
meaningful in nonpoint source control.
The concept of antidegradation causes concern because
there are numerous ideas as to what Le; meant by the term. The
term is not found in the Clean Water Act,but has its origin
through EPA interpretation of the goals as stated in the Act.
Some inte.rpret antidegradation to mean no change at any
point at any time. Such an int~rpretation would preclude any
a.nd all land management activities. A more reasonable interpretation would include both a temporal and spatial component. In my view, this is the only way in which natural resources
can be managed in a multiple use context.
Time and space considerations of antidegradation raise
another concern facing the Forest Service. How can the
concern for cumula.tive effect be dealt with in both a planning
context, and in measurement or monitoring? Forest planning
and environmental analysis associatea with planning and
project design must consider cumulative impacts. Research
and technical development of evaluation techniques are
needed to discharge agency responsibilities.
Research can also help develop the water quality models
that will undoubtedly be needed for the prope.r design of
Bl\lPs and projecting Bl\lP effectiveness.
Instream Flow Research Needs.
Determining the instream flows nece·ssary to support waterdependent resources is critical to many land management
decisions. Management needs such information during water
rights adjudications and in establishing special use permit
c.onditions. A method has been developed for estimating the
amount of flow in quantity and timing nece·ssary to maintain
channel conditions. Unfortunately, this has been developed
for only one physiographic region. In addition to the need for
expanding this method to other areas, there is no method for
determining the amount of wa.ter needed for recreational use,
esthetics, and wilderness. This will be a critical need jn the very
near future, pa.rticularly in the \\Testern States where water is
in short supply. These are not easy questions. If water is
needed in a babbling brook or a water fall, how much is
needed? If water is needed to maintain the wilderness character, how much is needed? If some water can be removed, how
c.an an estimate be made? It is important that rational nlethods
In quests for a means to estimate effects of land uses in
advance of activities, regulators have often used, or proposed
to use, models to estimate impacts and to control land use.
~Thile it would be de·sirable to predict such impacts in advance,
it is not possible to do so at a level of accuracy and precision
sufficient for regulatory <!ontrol.
It is important for research to continue development of
bette.r and more accurate· cause-effect models and to accommodate stochastic inputs for evaluation of risk base.d on
dimaticvariability. It is incumbent on the technical community
to ensure that models are not misused by land managers and
regulatory agencies. Using a model just bec.ause it is the "best
we have" is not good enough. If it does not answer the
questions posed it should not be used.
The Fraser Experimental Forest c.an contribute to investigation of both the instream needs as well as the water quality
needs.
which are technically defensible be developed for these flow
determinations.
In most cases, courts have not ruled against agency decisions if those de.cisions were arrive.d at using procedures and
methods that produce consistent results. A proble.ms arises
when decisions are· shown to be. arbitrary and capricious. The
best defense is to have defensible methods upon which to base
decisions and to clearly display these efforts to the pUblIc.
Whether we like. it or not as resource managers, we operate in
a glass house and must justify our actions.
Hydrologic J\todels And Research Needs
For the forest land manager, existence and use of models
have been both a benefit and a curse. As a be.nerit, models have.
provided valuable insight for making land management decisions. As a curse, mode.ls have been used inappropriately by
regulators who choose not to recognize model limitations in
land use control decisions. A problem lIes in how models and
model use are viewe.d by the specialist or researcher, and how
they are viewed by a regulator. ~fode.Is as used in research are
ge.nerally constructed to better understand how a "system"
operates. Cause-effect relationships are established between
land use activities and hydrologic parameters to match the
natural system. The match is estabHshed through repeated
refine.ment of parameters and interrelationships among parameters based on runs of known data sets. Once a good
correlation is established betwe.e.n what actual1y occurs as
based on the data set and model prediction, then parameters
can be varie.d and re.sults evaluated based on mode.! output.
This process al10ws for study of the "syste.m;" hopefully,
providing insight into how natural processes work. Even in this
use of models, it is dangerous to place too much reliance on
absolute values obtained. How well models approximate the
real world is dependent on our interpretation of cause-effect
relationships: the more e.mpirical the relationships used the
more questionable the· results.
Conclusions
Research has provided useful information to help management better understand what has come to be broadly defined
as watershed condition. However, the research questions
asked today are far more complex than in the. past. To answer
these questions, rese.arch can no longer rely on an individual
scientist or singe experimental forest. Integrated research
must be employed. This integration will involve a team approac.h using hydrologists, soil scientists, geologists, fisheries
biologists, foresters, and other disciplines. This research will
also necessitate inte.gration of research results from many
experimental watersheds. The Fraser Experimental Forest
can contribute to investigation of both the instream needs as
we.ll as the water quality needs.
I challenge research to undertake these research opportunities discussed today in ways much different from the past.
The use of team researc.h may be somewhat new for many
scientists, but it is a necessity if we are to gain answers to the
complex issues of today. I also challenge research to keep a
focus on the overall objective, "favorable conditions of flow,"
as research projects are contemplated. Each watershed research project should fit within this overall objective.
Thus far in this discussion of model use, no attempt has
been made to apply the model to a situation outside data sets.
When models are applied outside data sets, reliance on
generate.d information must be viewed carefully. Specialists
have often used model extrapolation to make estimates of the
impact for propose.d land management practices. Such re.suIts
cannot be used as absolutes, however, and must be used as
indicators only so that informed decisions can be made based
upon risk. Unfortunately, in some cases in our attempts to get
"the job done," specialists and line office.rs have used model
outputs as accurate representations of reality, rather than as
only one piece of information with appropriate recognition of
limitations. In some cases, for example, we have displayed
comparisons between management alternatives based on
model estimates that indicate small differences, when in fact
the differences between alternatives are much less than the
statistical reliability of the models.
Literature Cited
Alexander, Robert R., Charles A. Troendle, ~fe·rril1 R.
Kaufmann, Wayne D. Shepperd, Glenn L. Crouch, and
Ross K. Watkins, 1985. The Fraser Experimental Forest
Colorado: research program and publishe.d research
1937-1985. Rocky Mountai.n Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report, R~f-118, 46p.
Fort Co1li.ns, Colo.
Bertle, F. A., and E. O. Dunford. 1950. A day's contribution to
the snowme.lt hydrograph. ~Teste·rn Snow Conference
Proceedings 18:60-64. [Boulder City, Nev., April 1950].
104
Brown, H. E., M. B. Baker, Jr., S. J. Rogers, V.i. P. Clary, J. L.
Kovner, F. R. Larson, C. C. Avery, and R. E. Campbell.
1974. Opportunities for increasing water yie.lds a.nd othe.r
mUltiple use values on Ponderosa Pine Forest lands.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Research Paper RJ\f-129, 36p. Fort Collins, Colo.
Clary, W. P., M. B. Baker, Jr., P. F. O'Connell, T. N. Johnsen,
Jr., and R. E. Campbell. 1974. Effects of pinyon-juniper
removal on natural resource products and uses in Arizona. Rocky l\fountain Fore.st and Range. Expe.riment
Forest, Research Paper RM-128, 28p. Fort Collins, Colo.
Goodell, B. C. 1948. Some observations on fall soil moisture
de.ficits under fore.st cover and their relation to the winte.r
snowpack. Western Snow Conference Proce.edings
16:152-156. [Re.no, Nev., Feb. 1948].
Goode.!l, B. C. 1951. A method for comparing the flow from
a pair of experimental watersheds. Transactions of the
Geophysical Union 32:927-930.
Hibbert, A. R., E. D. Davis aI\d D. O. Scholl. 1974. Chaparral
conversion potential in Arizona. Part I: Vlater yie.1d
response and effects on other resources. Rocky l\fountain
Forest and Range Experiment Forest, Research Paper
RJ\1-126, 27p. Fort Collins, Colo.
Hoove.r, l\fan'in D. 1962. Wate.r action and water movement
in the forest. p. 31-80. In Forest influences. FAO Forest
and Forest I'roducts Studies 15, 307p.
Hoover, l\farvin D., and Charles F. Leaf. 1967. Process and
significance of interception in Colorado subalpine forest.
p. 213-224. In Forest hydrology. Vi. E. Sooper and H. Vi.
Lull, editors. International symposium of forest hydrology. [University Park, Pa., Aug.-Sept. 1965]. 813p.I'ergamon press, N.Y.
105
Leaf, Charles F. 1975. Watershed management in the Rocky
J\lountain subalpine zone: The status of our knowledge.
USDA Forest Se·rvke Research Pa.per RM-137, 31p.
Roc.ky J\fountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Fort Collins, Colo.
Leaf, Charles F., and Olen E. Brink. 1973. Hydrologic sjmulation model of Colorado subalpine forest. USDA Forest
Service Research Paper Rl\I-107, 23p. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colo.
Leaf, Charles F., and Glen E. Brink. 1975. Land use simulation
model of the subalpine coniferous forest zone. USDA
Forest Service Research Paper Rl\I-135, 42p. Rocky
J\lountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, Colo.
Leaf, Charles F., and Jacob Kovner.1970. Sampling Re.quirements for areal water equivalent estimates in subalpine
watersheds. Transactions of the American Ge.ophysical
Union 51:750.I.Abstract].
Leaf, Charle.s F., and Jacob Kovner. 1971. Guide.Iines for
sampling area-mean equivalent jn forested watersheds. p.
159-167. In H ydrometeorological networks in Wyoming-their design and use. Hydrological Seminar Proceedings,
167p. [Laramie, V.lyo., May 1971]. "'ater Resources
Research Institute Report, University of "'yarning, Laramie.
USDA Forest Service. 1980. An approach to water resources
evaluation of non point silvic.ultural sources. Environmental !'rotection Age.ncy, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development,
Athens, Georgia.
"'Hm, H. G. 1943. Efficient Sampling of dimatic and relate.d
environmental factors. Transactions of the American
Geophysic.al Union 24: (Part I) 208-212.