1. Watershed Analysis Presented to the Washington State Forest Practices Board By Mary McDonald and Marc Engel Department of Natural Resources, Forest Practices Division Special Meeting of the Forest Practices Board, March 31, 2009

2. Watershed Analysis During 2008 the Board directed staff to perform forest practices program review of Watershed Analysis and Forest Practices Application Review and Approval Processes

3. Watershed Analysis Presentation Two Parts  Forest Practices Application (FPA) review –Findings –Actions initiated by Forest Practices Program  Review of Watershed Analysis statutes and rules –Findings –Staff recommendations

4. FPA Review What is a Watershed Administrative Unit (WAU)?  Assessments of DNR-identified WAUs  WAUs usually between 10,000 and 50,000 acres  WAUs defined by hydrology and geomorphology  NOTE: there are 846 WAUs of which 466 are under forest practices jurisdiction.

5. FPA Review What is Watershed Analysis?  Biological and physical assessment of a watershed  Looks at cumulative effects of forest practices on resources addressed by Forest Practices Act and rules  Includes evaluation modules

6. FPA Review Watershed Analysis Modules  Mass Wasting  Surface erosion  Hydrologic change  Stream channel  Fish habitat  Public works  Cultural resources

7. FPA Review Watershed Analysis  All Watershed Analysis subject to SEPA review and DNR approval  Forest practices activities incorporating prescriptions are not subject to SEPA review for the specific issue covered

8. FPA Review Mass Wasting Prescriptions  Harvesting  No ground system logging  Cable logging permitted with partial suspension  Road Building  No new road construction on to scree slopes

9. Watershed Analysis Mass Wasting Prescriptions in FPAs  WAC 222-16-050(1)(d)(iii) directs that certain FPAs are not to be classified as Class IV-Special for potentially unstable slopes or landforms if 3 criteria apply: –within a WAU with an approved watershed analysis; and –conducted according to an approved watershed analysis prescription; and –prescription is specific to the site or situation, as opposed to a prescription that calls for additional analysis

10. Review Findings  The three criteria are not always correctly applied: –Some FPAs are being classified as Class III rather than Class IV-Special based on watershed analysis prescriptions that are not specific or call for additional analysis.

11. Review Findings Specific vs. Non-specific prescriptions  Specific Prescriptions –No road construction except where slopes are less than 40% and are stable  Non specific prescriptions/additional analysis –Proposed harvest unit shall be reviewed under direction of a qualified geologist

12. Review Findings  21% of mass wasting prescriptions were determined by FP to be specific  If FPA has a WA and is proposing an activity on an unstable landform that is utilizing nonspecific mass wasting prescriptions, the FPA is a Class IV-Special

13. Actions Initiated  Watershed Analysis Worksheet required  Guidance Spreadsheet identifying specific prescriptions  Review/training of region/division staff  Geologist review sample to verify specific prescriptions

14. Actions Initiated  Resources regarding mass wasting prescriptions  Programmatic FPA review and documentation expectations implemented  Master Forest Practices Application log sheets used by all regions  Interactions with DOT concerning FPA’s

15. Review of Watershed Analysis Statutes and Rules  The Board asked staff to recommendation how to eliminate Watershed Analysis. Staff found: –Has been treated as legacy under forests and fish rules –Training is not being offered and as a result, there are no certified experts –21% of mass wasting prescriptions are specific

16. Watershed analysis modules  Mass Wasting  Surface erosion  Hydrologic change  Stream channel  Fish habitat  Public works  Cultural resources

17. Class IV-Special Trigger for Unstable Slopes WAC 222-16-050(1)(d) Timber harvest, or construction of roads, landings, gravel pits, rock quarries, or spoil disposal areas, on potentially unstable slopes or landforms … (with) the potential to deliver sediment or debris to a public resource or that has the potential to threaten public safety

18. Exemption from Class IV-Special (iii) An application (is) not classified as Class IV-Special for potentially unstable slopes or landforms if: (A) The proposed forest practice is located within a WAU that is subject to an approved watershed analysis; (B) The forest practices are to be conducted in accordance with an approved prescription from the watershed analysis (or as modified through the five-year review process); and (C) The applicable prescription is specific to the site or situation, as opposed to a prescription that calls for additional analysis. The need for an expert to determine whether the site contains specific landforms will not be considered "additional analysis," as long as specific prescriptions are established for such landforms.

19. Three ways change to the Watershed Analysis rules:  Legislation  Courts  Adaptive management

20. Staff Recommendation Board direct staff to prepare:  A mass wasting adaptive management proposal; and  Answers to the questions listed in Part 3.1, Proposal Initiation of Board Manual Section 22, Guidelines for the Adaptive Management Program.

21. Staff Recommendation Proposal is to change the rules through the Adaptive Management program to:  Remove the exemption for mass wasting prescriptions from the definition of Class IV- Special in WAC 222-16-050; and to  Add language in WAC 222-22-070 establishing that the current rules supersede all mass wasting prescriptions.

22. Staff Recommendation Board directs staff to present for review the mass wasting adaptive management proposal at their May 20 th meeting.  With Board approval the proposal will be forwarded to the Administrator to initiate review under Part 3 of the Adaptive Management Program.

23. Questions