Soil and Water Conservation Handbook.pdf

2509.22_10

FOREST SERVICE HANDBOOK

ALASKA REGION (REGION 10)

JUNEAU, ALASKA

FSH 2509.22 – SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION HANDBOOK

Amendment No.: R-10 2509.22-2006-2

Effective Date: July 14, 2006

Duration: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

Approved: /s/ Paul K. Brewster (for)

DENNIS E. BSCHOR

Regional Forester

Date Approved: 06/22/2006

Posting Instructions: Amendments are numbered consecutively by Handbook number and calendar year. Post by document; remove the entire document and replace it with this amendment. Retain this transmittal as the first page(s) of this document. The last amendment to this Handbook was 2509.22-2006-1 to zero code chapter.

New Document

2509.22_10 117 Pages

Superseded Document(s) by Issuance Number and Effective Date

2509.22,10 Contents (2509.22-96-1, 10/31/96) 2509.22, 11-11.7 2509.22,12-12.17 2509.22,13-13.18 2509.22,13 Exhibit 01 2509.22,14-14.27 2509.22,14.5 Exhibit 01 2509.22,15-15.5 2509.22,16-16.5 2509.22,17-17.6 2509.22,18-18.5 2509.22,19-19.5

3 Page

14 Pages 21 Pages 18 Pages 2 Pages 30 Pages 4 Pages 4 Pages 4 Pages 12 Pages 5 Pages 4 Pages

Digest:

Combines individual documents into one chapter document. Although some minor typographical and technical errors have been corrected, this amendment contains no changes to substantive direction.

R-10 AMENDMENT 2509.22-2006-2

EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/14/2006

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

CHAPTER 10 – WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FOR

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS IN ALASKA

Table of Contents

11 – INTRODUCTION

11.1 - BMP Application

11.2 - BMPs as Administrative, Preventive, and Corrective Actions

11.3 – Development Considerations

11.4 – NEPA and Interdisciplinary Involvement

11.5 – Training

11.6 – Monitoring Process

11.61 – Monitoring

11.62 – Evaluation

11.63 – Refinement

11.7 - Format

12 – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

12.1 – PRACTICE: Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

12.2 – PRACTICE: Rehabilitation After Mass Wasting

12.3 – PRACTICE: Watershed Rehabilitation Planning and Implementation

12.4 – PRACTICE: Floodplain Identification, Evaluation, and Protection

12.5 – PRACTICE: Wetland Identification, Evaluation, and Protection

12.6 – PRACTICE: Riparian Area Designation and Protection

12.6a – PRACTICE: Buffer Design and Layout

12.8 – PRACTICE: Oil Pollution Prevention and Servicing/Refueling Operations

12.9 – PRACTICE: Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Planning

12.10 - PRACTICE: Control of Activities Under Special Use Permit

12.13 – PRACTICE: Administrative Site Planning and Management

12.14 – PRACTICE: Planning, Design, and Management Utility Corridors

12.15 – PRACTICE: Management of Sanitary Facilities and Sanitary Guidelines for

Temporary Camps and Primitive Developments

12.16 – PRACTICE: Control of Solid Waste Disposal

12.17 – PRACTICE: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas

13 - TIMBER MANAGEMENT

13.1 – PRACTICE: Timber Sale Planning

13.2 – PRACTICE: Timber Harvest Unit Design

13.3 – PRACTICE: Designating Water Quality Protection Needs on Sale Area/Unit Release

Maps

13.4 – PRACTICE: Timber Sale Operating Schedule

13.5 – PRACTICE: Identification and Avoidance of Unstable Areas

13.9 – PRACTICE: Determining Guidelines for Yarding Operations

13.10 – PRACTICE: Log Landing Location and Design

13.11 – PRACTICE: Scheduling and Enforcement of Erosion Control Measures During

Timber Sale Operations

13.12 – PRACTICE: Site Preparation

13.14 – PRACTICE: Completion of Erosion Control for Unit Acceptance and Sale Closure 49

13.16 – PRACTICE: Stream Channel Protection (Implementation and Enforcement)

13.17 – PRACTICE: Nonrecurring "C" Provisions For Soil and Water Quality Protection ... 54

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

13.18 – PRACTICE: Modification of the Timber Sale Contract

14 - TRANSPORTATION AND OTHER FACILITIES MANAGEMENT

14.1 – PRACTICE: Transportation Planning

14.2 – PRACTICE: Location of Transportation Facilities

14.3 – PRACTICE: Design of Transportation Facilities

14.4 – PRACTICE: Location, Permitting, and Design of Log Transfer Facilities (LTFs)

14.5 – PRACTICE: Road and Trail Erosion Control Plan

14.6 – PRACTICE: Timing Restrictions for Construction Activities

14.7 – PRACTICE: Measures to Minimize Mass Failures

14.8 – PRACTICE: Measures to Minimize Surface Erosion

14.9 – PRACTICE: Drainage Control to Minimize Erosion and Sedimentation

14.10 – PRACTICE: Pioneer Road Construction

14.11 – PRACTICE: Timely Erosion Control For Incomplete Projects

14.12 – PRACTICE: Control of Excavation and Sidecast Material

14.14 – PRACTICE: Control of In-Channel Operations

14.15 – PRACTICE: Diversion of Flows Around Construction Sites

14.17 – PRACTICE: Bridge and Culvert Design and Installation

14.18 – PRACTICE: Development and Rehabilitation of Gravel Sources and Quarries

14.19 – PRACTICE: Disposal of Construction Slash and Stumps

14.20 – PRACTICE: Road Maintenance

14.22 – PRACTICE: Access and Travel Management

14.23 – PRACTICE: Snow Removal Operations

14.24 – PRACTICE: Road Obliteration

14.25 – PRACTICE: Surface Erosion Control at Facilities

14.26 – PRACTICE: Daily LTF Cleanup

14.27 – PRACTICE: Log Storage/Sort Yard Erosion Control

15 - PESTICIDE-USE MANAGEMENT

15.1 – PRACTICE: Pesticide-Use Planning

15.2 – PRACTICE: Follow Pesticide Label and EPA Registration Directions

15.4 – PRACTICE: Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning

15.5 – PRACTICE: Protection of Water Quality, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas During

Pesticide Application

16 - RECREATION MANAGEMENT

16.1 – PRACTICE: Recreation Facilities Planning and Location

16.4 – PRACTICE: Trail Construction and Maintenance

16.5 – PRACTICE: Management of Off-Highway Vehicle Use

17 - MINERALS MANAGEMENT

17.1 – PRACTICE: Mining Site Conditions, Planning, and Design

17.2 – PRACTICE: Placer Mining - (NPDES) Permits

17.3 – PRACTICE: Hard Rock Mining

17.4 – PRACTICE: Permits and Administration of Geophysical Operations

17.5 – PRACTICE: Site Closure and Rehabilitation

17.6 – PRACTICE: Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation

18 - FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT

18.1 – PRACTICE: Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Planning

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

18.2 – PRACTICE: Development of Groundwater-fed Spawning and Rearing Habitat from

Gravel Extraction and Other Sites

18.3 – PRACTICE: In-Channel Excavation or Disturbance During Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Improvement Projects

18.4 – PRACTICE: Ground Fertilization for Wildlife Habitat Improvement

18.5 – PRACTICE: Lake Fertilization for Fish Habitat Improvement

19 - FIRE SUPPRESSION AND FUELS MANAGEMENT

19.1 – PRACTICE: Fire and Fuel Management Activities and Prescriptions

19.2 – PRACTICE: Protection of Water Quality Through Prescribed Burning Prescriptions

19.3 – PRACTICE: Minimizing Watershed Impacts from Fire Suppression Efforts

19.4 – PRACTICE: Stabilization of Fire Suppression Related Watershed Damage

19.5 – PRACTICE: Emergency Watershed Rehabilitation

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

11 – INTRODUCTION

Soil and water resources are most efficiently protected from nonpoint sources of pollution by implementation of the iterative Best Management Practices (BMP) process, and the site-specific application of BMPs. The BMPs presented in this Handbook were compiled from Federal Law, Forest Service Manual and Handbooks, contract and permit provisions, policy statements, planning documents, Regional guides, applicable State laws and regulations, and other pertinent sources.

This handbook provides the complete package of BMPs for consideration in project plans. The site-specific application of individual BMPs involves consideration of design standards and risks; environmental effects; practicality; and institutional, political, social, economic, and technical feasibility. (For additional discussion, see: W.C. Harper, "A Resource Agency's Perspective on Nonpoint Source Management", Symposium on Monitoring, Modeling, and Mediating Water Quality, American Water Resources Association, May 1987, pages 641-652).

BMPs are grouped by management activity for ease of presentation and understanding. The management activities are: Watershed, Timber, Transportation and Facilities, Vegetation, Recreation, Minerals, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Improvements, and Fire Suppression and Fuels.

Although a practice might be shown under only one activity designation, it may also apply to other activities.

The purpose of BMPs is to directly or indirectly protect water quality and abate or mitigate adverse water quality impacts while meeting other resource goals and objectives. BMPs have three basic forms: administrative, preventive, and corrective. These practices are neither detailed prescriptions nor solutions for site-specific problems. They are action initiating mechanisms which call for the development and application of detailed prescriptions and solutions. They identify management requirements and considerations which are to be addressed prior to and during the formulation of alternatives for land management actions. They serve as standards which are considered in formulating a plan, a program, and/or a project.

The term "Best Management Practice," or BMP, is a legal term relating to practices used for the protection of water quality. The term BMP has also been used to describe good management techniques unrelated to water quality (for example, for habitat improvement projects). These other uses of the term BMP do not have legal implications under the Clean Water Act and may confuse the water quality program with other resource goals.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

11.1 - BMP Application

BMPs can be:

Corrective or Preventive - Restore or maintain water quality

Site-specific Method - Structural (dams and ditches)

- Nonstructural (vegetation, mulch)

Pre-Project - Operations (planning and design of activities)

Post-Project - Maintenance (to assure function of structures and facilities)

Temporal - Schedules (season or chronology of activity initiation)

Spatial - Distribution (activity location relative to water)

11.2 - BMPs as Administrative, Preventive, and Corrective Actions

1. Administrative actions are implemented as organizational controls. Examples are:

a. Incorporating water quality protection measures into a contract

b. Scheduling an activity to avoid wettest season

c. Criteria that govern road layout and design

d. Review project implementation documents to ensure protection method and measures are incorporated

e. Inspect project sites to ensure protection measures are in place and working properly

f. Controlling the magnitude or aggregate of activities in a watershed

2. Preventive actions are measures that are applied to an activity to minimize its effect on water quality. Examples are:

a. Construction of water bars across roads or skid trails

b. Spreading grass seed on exposed soil

c. Placing mulch and/or erosion fabric as a temporary cover on cut or fill slopes

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

3. Corrective actions are measures that are applied on the ground to solve a problem.

Many methods used in prevention are also suitable for correction. Examples are:

a. Adding large woody debris to a stream channel (to form pools for the benefit of fish habitat)

b. Placing riprap to stop stream bank erosion

c. Reconstructing or obliterating an abandoned road that is degrading water quality.

The site-specific application of BMPs lead to custom fit practices, measures, and methods for water quality protection. They are applied following inventory and/or scientific analysis of a land management proposal. Some BMPs require that several resource specialists visit the proposed project area to assess on-site potential for adverse impacts to water quality and the designated beneficial uses as defined in Alaska Water Quality Criteria (18 AAC 70.020). Field data is collected to help predict impacts and identify mitigation measures. Analysis often involves interaction with other specialists (for example, design engineers, economists, contracting officers). Field data is analyzed to identify site-specific specifications designed to protect water quality and/or reduce pollution. BMPs establish a procedure to follow that will result in the formulation of site-specific methods and techniques for nonpoint source pollution control.

11.3 – Development Considerations

The effects of land management activities on soil and water resources, and water-related beneficial uses can vary considerably. The effects are a function of:

1. Physical Environment. The physical, meteorological, hydrological, and biological environment where the activity takes place (topography, physiography, precipitation, channel density, geology, soil type, and vegetative cover.

2. Current or Prospective Beneficial Uses. The specific water-related beneficial use(s), importance to various publics, and sensitivity to management influences.

3. Activity Type. The type of activity imposed (recreation, mineral exploration, timber management), its extent, and its magnitude.

4. Project Prescription. Site-specific implementation (road construction method(s) or silvicultural practice(s) used, constant use v. seasonal use, recurrent or one-time application, etc.).

5. Duration. The length of time that the activity occurs or is applied.

6. Timing. The season of the year that the activity occurs or is applied.

7. Maintenance Strategy. How will effectiveness of the project be assured?

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

Site-specific BMP applications will vary since no single practice, method, or technique is best in all circumstances. BMPs presented in this Handbook include qualifiers such as "according to design," "as prescribed," "where practicable," and "within acceptable limits." BMP applications are developed through professional interdisciplinary involvement. These applications are tailored to meet local resource and environmental requirements.

Since land managers work with the natural environment, with all its complexities and uncertainty, it is necessary to accept some level of risk with any design. This important (and difficult) task of project risk assessment must be based on predictable effects on other resources, and the overall need to conduct the management activity. Evaluation of risk is part of the interdisciplinary NEPA analysis for each project. Determining the appropriate risk level is part of the line officer's decision for each project.

11.4 – NEPA and Interdisciplinary Involvement

The NEPA process and interdisciplinary involvement is critical for the development of the site-specific application of BMPs. Direction for the NEPA process (environmental analysis and documentation) is contained in Forest Service Policy and Procedures found in FSM 1950 and FSH 1909.15. These sources also provide direction to incorporate the interdisciplinary process in planning and decision making.

Interdisciplinary involvement is the use of a team of individuals who represent two or more areas of professional knowledge and/or skill. Team members combine the skills necessary to provide input for alternative formulation and evaluation, BMP selection, and aid in the Forest Service decision-making process. The final responsibility for decision-making lies with the Line Officer (District Rangers, Forest Supervisors, or Regional Forester). The team's task is to provide the decision maker with alternatives and evaluations needed to make a responsible decision.

11.5 – Training

After BMPs are selected, they are applied to site-specific conditions. Training in the application of BMPs is critical for effective water quality protection. A training and information program should include: 1) objectives for water quality protection and management; 2) State designated beneficial uses of water; 3) cause and effect relationships in nonpoint source pollution and storm water runoff; 4) the relevance of BMPs; 5) legal aspects; and 6) the site-specific application of BMPs.

Training should be given to personnel with contract responsibilities and specialists involved in activities which have the potential to affect water quality, beneficial uses, and soil resources.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

11.6 – Monitoring Process

Monitoring is an essential part of all BMPs as well as the overall BMP process. Regionally approved monitoring techniques will be used. Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, EPA, May 1991, will be the starting point for all BMP monitoring plans. Specific monitoring plans will be coordinated among Forests and Areas and with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

Monitoring plans should include or consider the following:

1. Development of monitoring questions

2. Define personnel and budgetary constraints

3. Review of existing data and literature

4. List of parameters to be measured

5. Methodology for analysis and evaluation, and the rational

6. Location of monitoring sites

7. Intensity, frequency, and duration of monitoring

8. Responsibilities and roles of monitoring personnel

9. Report preparation and dissemination

When impacts from management activity are detected, the appropriate Forest Service Line Officer will evaluate the significance and determine appropriate action. Where project level activities are not meeting Forest Plan or State Water Quality Standards, they will be redesigned, rescheduled, or modified.

Water quality data will be placed or duplicated in a recognized computer system for storage, analyzation, and public review. It is also desirable to place appropriate data into GIS Data Bases.

11.61 – Monitoring

Monitoring is the first step of the feedback mechanism. It responds to questions about the site-specific application of BMPs, and their implementation, effectiveness, and validation.

1. Implementation monitoring determines whether the necessary BMPs, mitigations, constraints, and decisions were actually applied to an activity as planned.

2. Effectiveness monitoring determines the success of BMPs in protecting water quality and beneficial uses.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

3. Validation monitoring determines if an underlying assumption, or model, is correct.

When monitoring BMP effectiveness the appropriate level of monitoring should also be determined using the guidelines found in G.E. Dissmeyer's, "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards", pg. 41, 54, and 55. USDA, Forest Service Misc. Pub. 1520, July 1994

The monitoring level selected is appropriate to the objective of the monitoring program. Four levels of monitoring are used for evaluating the effectiveness of forestry BMPs in meeting water quality goals or standards: BMP I, II, III and IV They are defined as follows:

BMP Effectiveness I uses empirical observations and a limited amount of qualitative data to evaluate effectiveness. A heavy reliance on experience is used to judge whether BMP's are effective in protecting water quality. It is a professional judgment as to whether there is a problem or not.

BMP Effectiveness II depends mainly on qualitative data and limited quantitative data for analysis leading to the evaluation of effectiveness.

BMP Effectiveness III relies predominantly on quantitative data, with some qualitative data for detailed analysis to evaluate effectiveness.

BMP Effectiveness IV relies predominantly on quantitative data, with some qualitative data for detailed analysis to evaluate effectiveness, to establish water-quality criteria, goals, or cause and effect. This level of monitoring is usually associated with research.

Low-level monitoring (BMP Effectiveness I and II) identifies high-level needs and also extends the information developed by high-level monitoring. High-level monitoring (BMP Effectiveness III and IV) develops information that supports or validates decisions made in low-level monitoring.

The level selected is determined by:

1. The type of question or issue to be addressed.

2. The resources available.

3. The number and stratification of reference and study streams.

4. The practicality of acceptable monitoring methods for evaluating: (a) on-slope conditions, (b) chemical and physical components, (c) channel geomorphology and stability, (d) biology, (e) habitat, and (f) aquatic vegetation.

5. Amount of data to be collected, time required, and number of streams that can be monitored.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

6. The quality of data needed for making decisions.

7. The kind of decisions needed and the potential risk in making the wrong judgments.

The quality of data vary by monitoring level, methods used, and the skill of the people involved.

Three types of data are taken: (1) empirical, (2) qualitative, and (3) quantitative.

The methods used at each level do not always clearly reveal whether goals or standards have been met. This uncertainty is termed the "grey area." As the monitoring level increases, the grey area decreases. Within these grey areas, the tendency is to assume the goals or standards have been met, even though higher levels of monitoring might reveal impairment. Uncertainty occurring with BMP Effectiveness I and II monitoring could trigger the use of higher levels of monitoring to resolve grey-area issues.

Monitoring Level

I | |

| Area of | | Uncertainty | | Area of Area of | | Discernment (Grey Area) Discernment |

III | |

IV | |

| Unimpaired | ? | Impaired |

Water Quality Condition

The area of discernment of water quality condition by BMP effectiveness monitoring level.

(From Figure 8, pg 55. G.E. Dissmeyer, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. USDA, Forest Service Misc. Pub. 1520, July 1994.)

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

11.62 – Evaluation

Evaluation is the second step in the feedback mechanism. To evaluate monitoring information and judge the effectiveness of site-specific application of BMPs, criteria must be defined. The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, and State Water Quality Standards serve as evaluation criteria. When possible, criteria should be defined in quantitative terms and should consider:

1. Attributes and characteristics of the particular resource or use

2. Natural background temporal and spatial variability

3. Limits of acceptable change in magnitude and duration

4. Transport mechanisms and pathways

5. Time delayed effects

6. Risk

Monitoring and evaluation are designed to improve knowledge of the link between land management activities and the resulting impacts on soil and water resources. Monitoring and evaluation provide an early warning system where research information may not exist for guidance. If site specific application of BMPs is based on sound research that addresses water quality issues, monitoring and evaluation can be less intensive.

11.63 – Refinement

The last step of the feedback mechanism is refinement. If monitoring and evaluation indicates evaluation criteria are not being met, an adjustment of the site-specific application of BMPs is needed, and/or the BMP itself needs modification.

Adjustments vary depending on the type and severity of the impact to the soil and water resource or designated beneficial use. For minor to moderate impacts, the application of site-specific BMPs are redesigned or upgraded to assure the criteria are not exceeded. If the impact is major, the project activity is re-evaluated, redesigned, or terminated. Corrective actions to prevent or minimize significant negative resource impacts will be initiated immediately.

The feedback mechanism is an iterative process involving monitoring, evaluation, and refinement of BMP applications or the BMPs themselves, and/or refinement of the evaluation criteria, which can include the State Water Quality Standards.

This Handbook will be evaluated annually for its effectiveness in protecting water quality and the designated beneficial uses, and in meeting State Water Quality Standards. Establishment of a cooperative evaluation process between ADEC and the Forest Service is specified in the Alaska Non-point Source Pollution Control Strategy (pg. 2, Items 2.3 and 2.4) as approved by EPA August l990.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

When monitoring results consistently indicate the implementation of BMPs are effective in protecting the designated beneficial uses, yet do not totally comply with State Water Quality Standards, it may be necessary to revise and/or refine the standards. This may be particularly appropriate for the recognition of the great temporal and spatial variability of both flow and water quality parameters within natural stream systems.

Feedback 6 1 BMP Design/Redesign

Report 5 2 BMP Application

Evaluation 4 3 Monitoring

STEP DESCRIPTIONS

1. STEP 1 - BMP DESIGN

IDENTIFY BENEFICIAL

USES

Fisheries, domestic water supply, wildlife, or other beneficial uses

IDENTIFY FS GOALS &

OBJECTIVES

Forest Plans, State Management Plans, Water Quality Standards

PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Climate, geology, hydrology, topography, soils, vegetation, land disturbance history

BMP ALTERNATIVES List BMPs and site-specific design

FEASIBILITY Social, political, technical, economic, and institutional constraints

RISK Hazard analysis, design risk

FINAL BMP DESIGN Select BMP alternative(s) or fine-tune BMP design(s) to protect recognized beneficial uses and meet resource management objectives

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

In the selection and site-specific design of BMPs, water quality controls are tailored to each site.

This approach evaluates a multitude of control opportunities for preventing and mitigating impacts from nonpoint source pollution. BMPs will protect water quality, if properly implemented, on those sites where conditions are appropriate.

2. STEP 2 - BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND APPLICATION.

The BMPs should be documented in the NEPA document so that there is no confusion about what is expected for water quality protection. The documentation should include requirements for when the BMP will be applied. The BMPs are translated into contract clauses, special use permit requirements, project plan specifications, regulatory framework, and so forth. The last step is to ensure that the BMP process is implemented and the individual BMPs are applied to the site-specific conditions as designed.

3. STEP 3 - BMP MONITORING.

Types of Monitoring:

I. IMPLEMENTATION II. EFFECTIVENESS III. VALIDATION

Purpose of Monitoring:

BMP APPLICATION AS

DESIGNED

? contract specs followed ? timely in application

PROTECTING BENEFICIAL USES

? fish habitat affected ?fish population down

MEETS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

? Forest Plan Thresholds

PROJECT SITE POTENTIAL

? erosion ? productivity ? channel conditions

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Numeric Criteria Valid Models

- improve coefficients

- develop/improve statistical basis

Responsibility for Monitoring:

Forest Supervisors’ Office Ranger Districts Regional Office

Forest Supervisors’ Office Regional Office

Forest Supervisors’ Office Regional Office Research

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

Monitoring is imperative to ensure that BMPs are being implemented and are effective in protecting beneficial uses. In monitoring, the criteria (either numeric or narrative) assigned to either a beneficial use or a specific stream segment are used as the yardstick to measure BMP effectiveness. For example, to test whether fish and aquatic life are impaired, the turbidity, dissolved oxygen and temperature numerical criteria for cold water biota might be agreed upon as the parameters to monitor. If one of these parameters is exceeded as a result of a land management activity where BMPs are applied, then the BMP or activity would be modified.

Where a criteria is consistently exceeded, and the beneficial use is not impacted, it is possible that the water quality criteria may need to be re-evaluated. Where no numerical criteria exists for a parameter assigned a beneficial use, the limits set for sediment or water yield increases, channel stability, and fry emergence success identified in Forest Plans should be used as the yardstick to measure BMP effectiveness.

Within each Forest Plan, monitoring and evaluation requirements are described to track compliance with the standards and guidelines and direction in the Plan. Monitoring and evaluation of the Forest Plan and project level effects on water quality is conducted at various levels. Project plans and administrative contracts are reviewed during and after project implementation. More specific monitoring is performed by the Forest Service on a representative sample basis to evaluate site-specific BMP application effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses, and to test if they are appropriate to achieve Forest Plan and project objectives.

Checks and balances (also viewed as monitoring) are planned to occur throughout the Forest planning and project level planning processes.

4. STEPS 4 and 5 - EVALUATE and REPORT.

The monitoring data will be evaluated and summarized in an annual monitoring report. The report identifies what was done, how it was done, what was found, and recommended actions on BMPs based on the findings. Water quality standards, natural variability, time delayed effects, hydrologic risk, and other factors are considered in the interpretation of the results. The report is provided to the appropriate line officers and interested public, as requested.

If monitoring shows that the project design and mitigation measures are inadequate to meet management goals, objectives, or standards, then the practices will be changed in future projects, and further corrective actions will be taken, if needed, to mitigate damaged caused by BMP failure. When the mitigation measures need to be modified or upgraded, more stringent soil and water conservation practices will be applied, or the implementation process revised.

5. STEP 6 - FEED BACK.

The ultimate purpose of monitoring is to provide feedback information that can be used to improve future land management decisions. Monitoring and evaluation in all phases of our resource decisionmaking process are used as tests. Feedback mechanisms are needed within management decisionmaking and work processes to assure the utility of validated assumptions and estimations of effects. This information can be used to revise BMPs, to initiate changes and amendments to Forest Land Management Plans, and revisions to State Water Quality Standards.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

LAND USE ACTIVITY EXAMPLE: Construction of four miles of road.

STEP DESCRIPTION

STEP 1 – BMP DESIGN: Design to protect beneficial uses and to meet resource management objectives.

Identify Beneficial Uses Fish, domestic water supply, certain wildlife

Identify FS Goals and Objectives Prevent soil erosion Meet water quality standards

Physical Conditions FIELD INVESTIGATION:

1. road is 200 feet up sope from a stream

2. hill slope is 35 percent

3. soils very deep, well drained and highly erosive when vegetative cover is removed

4. 85% ground cover

5. land stability problems are not evident

6. channels stable

OFFICE INVESTIGATION:

1. total precipitation averages 90 inches

BMP Alternatives BMPs 12.17, 14.5, and 14.8 apply to this situation. The soil scientist and hydrologist identify three possible applications of these BMPs to control road cut and fill slope erosion. All three applications have proven equally effective elsewhere in the watershed.

1. Broadcast seed the exposed slopes with grass and cover with jute matting. (Seeding to occur within one week of fill slope construction.)

2. Broadcast seed with grass and put a filter windrow at base of fill slope toe.

3. Contour furrow cut and fill slopes to enhance infiltration and prevent slope surface runoff.

Feasibility Interaction with the design engineer indicates contour furrowing is not cost-effective for this road. The wildlife biologist expresses concern ovr the use of jute matting in the proximity of deer fawning area. Through IDT interaction, the team agrees on application 2.

Risk Grass fails to become established.

Erosion/sedimation occurs.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

Final BMP Design The IDT agrees on application 1 and 2 with modification: fescure grass seed in place of rye, and placement of jute matting on ½:1 cutslopes.

STEP 2 - BMP IMPLEMENTATION:

Implementation Erosion control needs are identified in NEPA document. BMPs 12.17, 14.5, and 14.8 are applied through the Road Cards and Road Management Objectives for project implementation.

Application Contract stipulations are written that require the contractor to broadcast seed the slopes with fescue.

Stipulations are incorporated into the contract and it is put out for bids. Apply practices as called for in contract.

STEP 3 - BMP MONITORING:

a. Types of Monitoring:

I. IMPLEMENTATION II. EFFECTIVENESS

b. Purpose of Monitoring:

BMP APPLICATION AS DESIGNED

Contract specs followed

Timely in application

PROTECT BENEFICIAL USES

Fish Habitat Affected

MEETS GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

State Water Quality Standards

PROTECT SITE

Erosion Reduced/Prevented

c. Who Monitors:

COR inspects the application of seed during road construction

Hydrologist/Soil Scientist/Fish Biologist evaluate effectiveness of the BMP to reduce erosion, protect fish habitat, and meet water quality standards.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

STEP 4 - EVALUATION:

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

DATA SHOW

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

DATA SHOW

BMPs Implemented with Erosion Reduced to Background Levels?

site-specific Application Beneficial Uses Protected?

Water Quality Standards Met?

(Numeric Criteria Met?)

STEP 5 - REPORT:

What were the monitoring questions?

How and where were they monitored?

What does the raw data show?

Based on data analysis and evaluation:

Supply feedback to the BMP iterative process Make management recommendations

STEP 6 - FEEDBACK: - ENSURES WE LEARN FROM WHAT WE DO. The documented data, along with the Report, are the mechanism to communicate the total of our experience for the benefit of future land management activities.

11.7 - Format

The general format used to present each BMP is as follows:

HEADING CONTEXT

PRACTICE Includes the sequential number of the practice and a brief title. The numbering of the activities does not have any intended significance.

OBJECTIVE Describes the desired results or attainment of the practice as it relates to soil and water resource or beneficial use protection.

EXPLANATION Further defines the brief title and expresses how the practice is applied. Describes criteria or standards used when applicable.

IMPLEMENTATION Describes where the practice is applied, who is responsible for application, direction and supervision, and when the practice is employed.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

REFERENCES Identifies the Forest Service Manual and Handbooks, contract or permit provision, Code of Federal Regulation, policy statement, and/or other references where the practice is further documented. The reference listings are not all inclusive.

12 – WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

Watershed management is the art and science of conserving soil and water resources and projecting water-related beneficial uses. The management objective is to "secure favorable conditions of water flow"; that is, to maintain or enhance watershed conditions favorable for optimum water quality, water yield and timing, and soil productivity. To secure both favorable conditions of water flow and quality requires maintaining the dynamic equilibrium of the stream channel system within its natural range of variation. This in turn will maintain healthy aquatic habitats. Watershed management includes the improvement of soil and water resources on National Forest System lands damaged by catastrophic events or degraded by past use.

Generally, water quality management is focused on the protection of surface waters from both point and nonpoint source pollution. However, in karst areas, surface flow may instantly become underground flow as it enters a sinkhole. In this situation there is little or no opportunity to filter out nonpoint source pollutants from the surface runoff. Therefore, karst features may need to be treated similar to live stream courses, with buffers and/or other protection measures.

The practices listed in this section are applicable to most resource functions. They should be applied to all management activities that have the potential to adversely affect water quality and/or the designated beneficial uses as defined in Alaska Water Quality Criteria (11 AAC 70.020).

12.1 – PRACTICE: Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

1. OBJECTIVE. To determine the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) on the beneficial uses of water caused by multiple land management activities, distributed over both time and space.

2. EXPLANATION. This is an administrative and preventive practice. BMPs are designed and applied to protect water quality. The scope and scale of the BMPs can vary from an individual protective measure at one location to a procedure for deciding what, when, and where management activities are to occur over a large land area. BMPs are applied individually at a site to deal with specific situations. BMPs can be applied in a series, or in conjunction with other practices. Examples could be a number of water bars along a road segment or ditch lining and cross-drain culverts

Cumulative Watershed Effects analyses procedures are tools to assist in deciding the appropriate amount, timing, and placement of various activities in a watershed to achieve water quality objectives. Natural watershed sensitivity, and land disturbance history and recovery are factors

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

that should be evaluated in the CWE analysis. Data from long-term monitoring and research studies of watershed, riparian, and aquatic habitat conditions will be needed to refine and validate CWE models.

Using roads as an example, there may be a limit to the amount of road that should be built in a given watershed to avoid the concentration and acceleration of runoff and sediment farther downstream which may result in channel changes and mobilization of additional sediments.

Past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in a watershed are evaluated relative to natural or undisturbed conditions. Cumulative Watershed Effects are changes in beneficial water uses caused by the accumulation of individual impacts. To avoid adverse CWE, recovery should occur before the impact of the next individual practice.

Watersheds will be managed to avoid significant adverse CWE on the soil and water resource and to produce water of quality and quantity sufficient to maintain beneficial uses in compliance with State Water Quality Standards. Examples of potential cumulative effects are:

1. Reduced natural woody debris input to stream channels that may cause alterations in channel morphology and reductions in fish habitat.

2. Excess sediment production that may reduce fish habitat and other beneficial uses.

3. Water temperature and nutrient changes that may affect beneficial uses.

4. Disturbed soils that may cause increased soil erosion and sedimentation.

5. Changes in water yield and peak flow that may upset stream channel equilibrium.

6. Changes to the hydrology of karst areas.

3. IMPLEMENTATION. As part of the NEPA process, the Forest Service will consider the potential CWE of multiple land management activities within a watershed that may exceed the stream's capacity to maintain its equilibrium and/or to recover to near-natural conditions before the next management disturbance. Cumulative Watershed Effects screening and/or analysis is required of projects involving significant vegetation removal, or soil disturbing activities to ensure that the project, considered with other activities, will not increase sediment or water yields beyond acceptable limits. An acceptable analysis includes such components as:

watershed condition, watershed sensitivity, threshold-of-concern criteria, and mechanisms for quantifying existing and proposed alternative management activities. The Forest Service will also coordinate and cooperate with State and private landowners in assessing cumulative effects in multiple ownership watersheds.

4. REFERENCES. 40 CFR 1508.7; Section 208(b)(2)(f) of the CWA; Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990; Cumulative Silvicultural Impacts on Watersheds, USDA Forest Service, Mar 1988, Silver Fire Recovery Process Paper, Siskiyou National Forest; Washington Forest Practice Board, Oct. 1992, Standard Methodology for

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

Conducting Watershed Analysis; USDA Forest Service, Report to Congress, Anadromous Fish Habitat Assessment, Jan. 1995, R10-MB-279; FEMAT Report, 1993.

12.2 – PRACTICE: Rehabilitation After Mass Wasting

1. OBJECTIVE. To identify actions to be taken where mass wasting threatens water quality.

2. EXPLANATION. This is a corrective practice. Mass wasting is a natural event that may occur with or without management disturbance. When a mass wasting event threatens water quality a prompt assessment of the risk of impairing the designated beneficial uses is needed. Opportunities to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects will be identified.

When mass wasting is visually observed in the field and enters flowing surface water or is expected to exceed water quality standards, the ADEC will be informed as soon as possible. The Forest Service Line Officer, or designated representative, should contact ADEC, Division of Air and Water Quality, directly with information on the location, size, and prognosis of events, and describe corrective actions being taken. Where practicable, and after taking personal safety into account, surface and subsurface flows should be diverted away from the slide and dispersed onto stable vegetated areas.

3. IMPLEMENTATION. Appropriate actions are needed to protect public safety followed by assessment, rehabilitation, and monitoring. (See BMPs 14.5, 14.7 and 14.8) When mass wasting is triggered by operations, the Forest Service will take effective and appropriate actions to stabilize the slide path and all associated exposed soils. A wide range of methods is available including bioengineering and nonstructural measures.

When mass wasting results in debris and sediments entering surface waters, an assessment of the methods and feasibility of rehabilitation actions should be done quickly (See BMP 19.5).

Following the assessment, which should consider both onsite and downstream impacts, a decision on the most effective and feasible way to protect and restore water quality and aquatic habitat will be made in consultation with ADEC.

4. REFERENCES. 11 AAC 95.330; FSM 2522; FSM 2534.

12.3 – PRACTICE: Watershed Rehabilitation Planning and Implementation.

1. OBJECTIVE. To identify degraded watershed conditions, to plan and prioritize watershed rehabilitation projects, and to minimize soil erosion and improve water quality.

2. EXPLANATION. This is an on going administrative and corrective practice. Factors considered in the evaluation of soil and water resource problems and subsequent improvement opportunities are: predicted changes in water quality and its associated effects on on-site and downstream beneficial uses, soil productivity, threat to life and property, direct and indirect economic returns, and social and scenic benefits. Watershed improvement includes both structural and nonstructural measures. Structural measures such as water bars and check dams

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

require long-term inspection, and maintenance. Bioengineering and nonstructural measures such as land shaping and revegetation are self-maintaining once vegetation is established (See BMP 12.17).

Before major watershed rehabilitation or stream channel manipulation projects are initiated, a watershed assessment including a cumulative watershed-level analysis, should be conducted. It is essential to understand the runoff and geomorphic processes that exist within a watershed and also the equilibriums that exist within the various reaches of the channel system before undertaking rehabilitation and/or enhancement projects. For example, some project designs and techniques will work well in channel types with armored banks or low sediment transport rates, yet be total failures or cause additional damage if constructed in channel types with alluvial banks and/or high sediment yields.

3. IMPLEMENTATION. This practice is typically implemented through the development and maintenance of a comprehensive soil and water resource improvement inventory, the approval of cost effective plans, and the funding of the plan and subsequent improvement actions.

Watershed rehabilitation and/or enhancement projects will be planned and prioritized on a watershed basis. It may be necessary to construct both in-channel and hill-slope projects to rehabilitate a degraded watershed or stream channel. These projects should be designed and phased to complement each other. The NEPA process will be followed in the planning and implementation of improvement measures. The actual implementation work may be done by Forest Service crews or contract. Effectiveness of improvement measures will be monitored and evaluated.

4. REFERENCES. FSM 2522; Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale, Version 2.2, August 1992; 11 AAC 95.330.

12.4 – PRACTICE: Floodplain Identification, Evaluation, and Protection.

1. OBJECTIVE. To identify floodplain values and, where practicable, avoid adverse impacts to soil and water resources associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.

2. EXPLANATION. This is an administrative and preventive practice. A flood hazard analysis and evaluation will be made prior to acquisition or exchange of land within floodplains.

A floodplain analysis and evaluation will be made when sites within floodplains are considered for structures or development. Environmental quality, ecological effects, and individual safety and health are considered. Flood frequencies, watershed conditions, climatic and environmental factors associated with past flood events, flood flow quantities, and specific flood boundaries are all evaluated.

3. IMPLEMENTATION. The Regional Forester is responsible for ensuring consideration of floodplain hazards and values in all NEPA planning processes. The Forest Supervisor, through use of technical staffs, is responsible for:

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

a. Determining if proposed facilities are within the 100-year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for "critical" actions).

b. Notifying the public at the earliest possible time of any plan or proposal to undertake, support, or allow an action resulting in occupancy, modification, or development in a floodplain, and involving affected and interested public in the decision-making process.

c. Identifying and evaluating practicable alternatives to locating a proposed action in a floodplain, including alternative sites outside the floodplain.

d. Modifying plans, activities, and designs to minimize impairment of the natural functions and values of the floodplain (where off-floodplain alternatives are not practicable).

e. Requiring flood hazard evaluations prior to issuance of special-use permits.

f. Ensuring that floodplain hazards, management considerations, and appropriate restrictions are included in authorizing documents.

4. REFERENCES. E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management; FSM 2527; Maxwell, J. and LaFayette, R., 1986. Identification of Streamside Riparian Areas of the Tongass NF, Martin et.

al. 1988. Guidelines for Making Floodplain and Wetland Evaluations for Land Exchanges.

USDA, Forest Service, Southwestern Region Hydrology Note No. 19a.

12.5 – PRACTICE: Wetland Identification, Evaluation, and Protection

1. OBJECTIVE. To identify wetland functions and value, and provide appropriate protection measures designed to avoid adverse hydrologic impacts.

2. EXPLANATION. This is an administrative and preventive practice. Peat lands (muskegs) are considered wetlands by all Federal and State Agencies. The Forest Service responsibility for protection of wetlands is directed by 33 CFR 323.3(b) and Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) regulates dredge and fills on all waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The construction or maintenance of forest roads is exempt (Silviculture Road Exemption) from these permits where such roads are constructed and maintained in accordance with the following 33 CFR Best Management Practices.

a. Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the U.S.

shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width and total length consistent with the purpose of specific farming, silviculture or mining operations, and local topographic and climatic conditions.

DURATION: This amendment is effective until superseded or removed.

b. All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S..

c. The road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of flood flows.

d. The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained during and following construction to prevent erosion.

e. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to construct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within waters of the Unites States (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself.

f. In designing, constructing,…