Michael
P. Goggin
USDA Forest Service,
Northern Region
Missoula, MT 59801
I
am pleased to be here to share with you Forest Service water quality monitoring
activities in the Clark Fork River basin. Throughout the day, we have heard
about the many and varied studies and approaches to monitoring water quality in
the Clark Fork River. It is important that this information be brought together
and shared so that we can understand the cumulative impacts from all ownerships
and activities on the Clark Fork River. Under- standing the cumulative impacts
is paramount to the management of the water resource in the Clark Fork basin.
As
you may know, there are six National Forests that occupy portions of the Clark
Fork basin: Flathead, Kootenai, Lolo, Bitterroot, Helena, and Deerlodge. These
Forests encompass substantial acres of the watershed and contribute
significantly to the flows in the river. These areas are an essential part of
the headwaters of the Clark Fork.
Since
we have heard a considerable amount of information regarding the results of
studies and monitoring, I would like to use my limited time to give you an
overview of Forest Service water quality monitoring activities. For this
discussion I would like to take a moment to discuss monitoring activities as
they relate to National Forest land management activities. Monitoring on
National Forest lands can be categorized into three basic kinds. These are
broadly described as (I) administration of on-the-ground land management
activities, (2) hydrologic monitoring, and (3) aquatic monitoring. Of the three,
it is extremely important that we place a high value on supervision of land
management activities "on-the-ground" as essential to the protection
of water resources.
The design, administration, and follow up review of our
day-to-day land management activities is critical in the effort to reduce
impacts to the water resource. Monitoring in this category includes timber sale
administration to assure compliance with contract requirements and to confirm
the implementation of best management practices. Other kinds of monitoring in
this category might include administration of road construction, grazing permit
administration, mining activities, and so on.
The specific "best management practices" and
requirements to be applied during land management activities are developed and
determined through the environmental analysis (EA) process. As you know,
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that these analyses be
developed through an inter- disciplinary process. For those activities, which
can potentially impact water resources, hydrologists and/or fisheries biologists
serve on the teams and do the analyses.
Another key element is the gathering of input from other
agencies as well as the interested public. Included is the effort we are
currently undertaking with the State Water Quality Bureau, State Forester and
other agencies in the design and implementation of a best management practices
package that could be used statewide. All of this provides for the recognition
of all the values, which could be affected by the activity.
Finally, to plan for and implement appropriate mitigating
measures and other requirements set forth in the EA and contracts provides the
critical ingredient in reducing and preventing unacceptable impacts to the water
resources.
Hydrologic and aquatic monitoring programs provide the means
to determine the effects on the water resources and the aquatic environment.
These monitoring processes are especially useful where there is a site-specific
proposal where we want to check a change in management direction, a new best
management practice, or a highly significant project.
All Forests in the basin have implemented monitoring plans,
which provide .for hydrologic and aquatic monitoring along with the
administration of on-the- ground activities. The Forest Service collects data
from almost 100 stations in the Clark Fork basin which are read on the average
of six times per year.
Through
these monitoring efforts a variety of parameters are measured depending on
projected or anticipated impacts. These include stream flows, sediment--both
suspended and bed load, chemical analysis--especially phosphates, and
macroinvertebrates.
I think it would be worthwhile to cover in some detail a
monitoring activity representing a special project undertaken by the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA). This will do several things: (1) provide an example
of a monitoring technique, (2) demonstrate the importance of professional
interpretation of the data, and (3) show the need for long-term review before
drawing conclusions.
In 1983, two stations in Randolph Creek were monitored to
assess the water quality effects of building a Bonneville Power substation and
the reconstruction of an access road. During the winter of 1982-83, western
Montana experienced less than average snowfall. However, a cool and moist spring
and summer helped maintain stream flows throughout the year. By April 1, the
watershed had much less than average levels of water accumulated in the snow-
pack. By June 1, about half the season's snow accumulation had melted. The
runoff during these periods produced very little flooding. Cooler temperatures
occurred during June, which helped sustain the gradual runoff. The low snow
packs and early season melting allowed access to monitoring stations in late
March.
The average discharge of the streams monitored was actually
lower than the previous year, but the peak discharges were generally within 20%
of the 1982 peak.
The
two stations on Randolph Creek included an upper station and a lower station.
The upper station was above the BPA activity and was supposed to represent
relatively undisturbed conditions and should therefore have lower concentrations
than the disturbed downstream station. However, during the time of peak flow,
the sediment concentrations at the upper Randolph Creek Station were higher than
at the lower station. Upon investigation it was determined that the sediment
recorded at the upper station was the result of drainage from the surface of a
road further up the drainage. This sediment dropped out before reaching the
lower station.
This technique of both before and after stations is commonly
used. When analysis of the data from these kinds of stations indicates an
increase in sediment, adjustments in activities have been made.
This example indicates the difficulty encountered in
measuring sediment as it relates to land management activities and the need for
professional review and interpretation. Data from monitoring activities do not
always represent what it seems to be. As we learn and apply state-of-the-art
methods, we will be better able to interpret these effects. However, this also
reinforces the importance of monitoring and inspecting land management
activities for the appropriate implementation of best management practices and
requirements.
All these categories of monitoring activities will be an
important part of forest plan implementation. As you are aware, plans for the
forests within the basin are or have been available for public review and
comment. I urge you to review these plans and comment on ways they may be
strengthened. Simply do not zero in on the monitoring section, rather look at
the whole plan, especially the standards and guidelines. Emphasis will be given
to the monitoring and supervision of on-the-ground activities. In addition,
site- specific hydrologic and aquatic monitoring stations will be established to
validate the assumptions used in developing forest plans as well as to measure
impacts. Your participation in the review of the implemented best management
practices and feedback to us of their success or failure is most important to
us.
I have appreciated the opportunity of providing you an
overview of Forest Service water quality monitoring activities and encourage you
to contact me for specific information regarding monitoring activities in the
Clark Fork basin.