EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,214,146
Abstracts:
29,074,682
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Critique of Washington's watershed analysis program






Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5): 997-1010

Critique of Washington's watershed analysis program

We evaluate Washington's program of watershed analysis with respect to its goals as a cumulative effects assessment method, adaptive management, and a restoration tool. We also evaluate the program as a framework for implementing ecosystem management. A strength of the cumulative effects assessment method is in identifying and reducing the dominant, direct physical effects of forest land uses on salmonid habitat. This could be further strengthened by more emphasis on identifying problems that can be immediately remedied (e.g., identifying road erosion and landslide trigger sites; correctly locating fish-bearing waters, and identifying anthropogenic fish passage impediments). More effectively assessing and integrating changes from more than one type of input to streams, including all relevant inputs, and examining whether assumptions about those inputs are scientifically defensible, will also improve the cumulative effects assessment. Treating experimentation more formally, including placing a greater emphasis on monitoring the outcome of prescriptions, and determining the scientific defensibility and certainty level of prescriptions, will strengthen adaptive management. As a watershed restoration tool, the program needs defined goals and critical assessment methods (e.g., of historic productive capacity of aquatic habitat). To be consistent with ecosystem management, analyses need to be integrated into a larger spatial scale, and to include all relevant land uses and effects within that scale; objectives for various stream "inputs" need to be evaluated with respect to managing for ecological integrity and the ability to provide a measurable standard.

Accession: 003082311

DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04119.x

Download PDF Full Text: Critique of Washington's watershed analysis program



Related references

Evaluation of forest practices prescriptions from Washington's watershed analysis program. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(5): 969-996, 1997

Watershed analysis of the Salmon River watershed, Washington. 2003

SCS Emergency Watershed Protection Program, Western Washington projects. Paper er 1991 (912582), 1991

The Future of Americas Upstream Watershed Program, June 19-22, 1977, Washington, D.C. 1977

Retrospective comparison of Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework and Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran applications to Mica Creek Watershed. Journal of Environmental Engineering 131(9): 1277-1284, 2005

Evolution of the small watershed program. Changes in Public Law 566 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program, 1954-72. Agricultural Economic Report, US Department of Agriculture (262): viii+58, 1974

The Collawash/ Hot Springs Fork Watershed analysis; a case study in one approach to watershed analysis, as undertaken by the Mount Hood National Forest, to address ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 28(5): 52, 1996

Watershed work plan, Twin-Rush Creek Watershed, Washington County, Indiana. 1964

Watershed work plan, Muddy Fork of Silver Creek watershed, Clark, Floyd, and Washington Counties, Indiana. 1964

Watershed analysis in forestry; the experience of the Washington timber/ fish/ wildlife system for assessment and management. Annual Meeting - Association of Engineering Geologists 43(4): 77, 2000