Summary of Recommendations 



1 he followingrecommendations have been 

 developed through interaction by the module 

 study leaders. The module summaries and the 

 "Summary of Conclusions" section, presented 

 earlier in this document, were organized in a 

 format that proceeded from analysis of histori- 

 cal records, direct study of water quality and 

 fisheries variables, auditing of adherence to 

 Best Management Practices (BMPs), expert 

 opinion to set riparian management guidelines, 

 and evaluation of watershed risk analysis. This 

 recommendation section is structured in two 

 parts: Part I deals with forestry practices at the 

 site level and evaluation of cumulative effects 

 at the watershed level and Part 11 deals with 

 general water quality and fisheries concerns. 



Part I: 

 Audits of Best Management Prac- 

 tices, Management Guidelines, 

 Watershed Evaluations, and Use of 

 Watershed Models and Inventories 



Basis for Recommendations 



IN o federal legislation has had greater sig- 

 nificance for management of the environment 

 than the National Environmental Policy Act of 

 1969 (NEPA). NEPA required federal agencies 

 to evaluate "the relationship between local short- 

 term uses of man's environment and the main- 

 tenance and enhancement of long-term produc- 

 tivity" and "any irreversible and irretrievable 

 commitments of resources which would be in- 

 volved in the proposed action should it be 



implemented." These evaluations, as they per- 

 tain to forest management, began the practice of 

 Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analy- 

 sis. 



Clearly, the best possible CWE analysis 

 would be the actual measurement of changes in 

 the environment. This is the role of monitoring 

 and field research. Approximately half of the 

 funds expended in this cooperative were de- 

 voted to that task. However, monitoring has 

 limitations, among these are cost and time. 

 Forest management takes place in thousands of 

 watersheds of varying size and environmental 

 sensitivity through the Flathead Basin. We sim- 

 ply cannot physically or financially afford to 

 monitor all of these activities. This problem is 

 not unique to the Flathead Basin. Consequentiy, 

 a great deal of effort has gone toward develop- 

 ing alternative methods (or strategies) for both 

 evaluating and preventing CWEs. 



Modeling is one of the alternatives for CWE 

 analysis and has been selected for use by the 

 Flathead National Forest and the Montana Cu- 

 mulative Watershed Effects Cooperative. Wa- 

 tersheds are very complex and our modeling 

 capabilities are limited. Furthermore we have 

 little faith in model predictions largely because 

 we have not tested our models by monitoring 

 and field research. Again, these problems are 

 not unique to the Flathead Basin. Consequentiy, 

 other National Forest Regions have also adopted 

 the more qualitative CWE "risk" assessment 

 procedure approach. Recent development of 

 Geographic Information Systems make appli- 

 cation of these procedures easier and more 

 comprehensive. 



Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, added 

 by amendment in 1987, requires states to estab- 



Flathead Basin Cooperative Program Final Report 



Page 153 



