5PA 9100-91-009
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seatfe WA 98101
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Water Division
Nonpolnt Sources Section
February 1991
Riparian Policy
Summary and Analysis
-------
RIPARIAN POLICY
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS
EPA 910/9-91-009
Robert Goldberg
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
February, 1991
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary iii
Introduction 1
Riparian Management Problems 1
Criteria for Effective Riparian Policies 3
Agency Reviews 5
USDA - Soil Conservation Service 5
USDA - Forest Service 7
USDI - Bureau of Land Management 11
State Agencies 15
Conclusions and Recommendations 17
References 20
Appendix A: Riparian Management Cases A -1
Appendix B: Agency Riparian Policy Statements B -1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper reviews federal and state agency riparian protection policies for
agencies in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). Riparian zones
are areas adjacent to streams and lakes where the high water table creates distinct soil
and vegetative characteristics from the uplands. Research has shown that
management of riparian areas has a direct impact on meeting state water quality
standards and the "swimmable" and "fishable" goals of the Clean Water Act [U.S.
Congress, 1972]. The review is part of the EPA's effort under the Clean Water Act of
1987 to assist such agencies in implementing programs to evaluate and control the
impact of nonpoint source pollution on waterbodies. This review will provide an
analysis of the policies and make recommendations on ways agencies' policy
implementation may improve the protection of riparian areas.
The review includes the USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Forest
Service (FS), and the USDI's Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The policy analysis
focuses on these federal agencies because they have riparian policies.
The review also includes a summary of riparian protection measures
implemented by state agencies, included in State Forest Practice acts. These
regulations affect riparian management on a large number of waterbodies. For
example, the Oregon Department of Forestry is responsible for about 13,000 miles of
class I streams, out of 90,000 miles of all stream types in the state [Dagenhart, 1990].
Additionally, federal agencies must meet or exceed Forest Practice Acts standards in
states in EPA Region 10.
Riparian Management Problems:
This paper focuses on policies developed in response to impacts on riparian
areas from timber-harvesting and related road building and livestock-grazing. Many
other activities can directly or indirectly impact riparian areas, such as conversion to
urban uses or crop production, mining, and transportation development. However, the
main impacts to riparian areas in EPA Region 10 stem from timber-harvesting and
livestock-grazing. Each agency reviewed has a different combination of these activities
on its lands or its clients' lands.
A major component of the management policies seek to improve and protect
riparian areas by limiting the amount of vegetation disturbed by land use activities.
The determination of the limits to place on current users of riparian vegetation
represents both a technical problem and a political problem. The technical problem
agencies face is determining the level of extractive activity that does not adversely
impact water quality or riparian habitat. The political problem occurs when the agency
has to choose between use and non-use or to enforce a limitation on the use of
riparian vegetation in order to achieve water quality and fishery goals.
HI
-------
Criteria for Effective Riparian Problems:
This analysis uses criteria, or factors an agency needs to address in developing
and implementing an effective riparian protection policy. The analysis uses information
gathered from written and interview sources. The criteria in brief are:
1. The clarity of the policy's goals and objectives:
The clarity of the stated goals and objectives influence policy success by
establishing priorities, identifying necessary actions, and facilitating interpretation by
agency personnel and the public.
2. Level of legal and de facto authority to carry out policy:
An agency's ability to mandate Best Management Practice (BMP) application
strongly influences the success of any riparian protection policy.
3. The extent to which the agency emphasizes watershed-wide protection:
An agency that emphasizes watershed-wide planning may improve overall
results of their projects by encouraging other landowners in a watershed to apply
BMPs to riparian areas.
4. The agency's progress in implementing the policy:
An agency's workplans and technical guides should provide details on the
policy's implementation. Essential details include schedules, resources, and
techniques the agency will follow to improve and protect riparian areas.
5. The use of feedback mechanisms to improve implementation:
The feedback mechanism should apprise agency managers of BMP application
and resource protection.
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The policy statements represent one step in an agency's overall management of
riparian areas. Many other factors both internal and external to the agency can affect
policy implementation. Therefore, an agency with an adequate policy statement needs
to improve riparian condition at the site-specific level.
IV
-------
Policy Statement Develop:
-Riparian policies need to support controversial steps staff may need to take to
improve riparian areas:
Without full support, agency staff may only make incremental progress in
improving riparian areas.
-Po//cy statements need to support coordinated planning efforts:
Off-site riparian improvements are often necessary for agency projects to reach
their full potential.
Agency management needs to develop riparian improvement workplans:
Some of the benefits of developing riparian workplans include:
-Allows for the development of interim goals;
Agencies need to establish milestones of progress to implement the long-term
policy goal.
-Identifies financial and staff resources to achieve interim goals;
The identification of resource needs with expected results should help the
agency preserve the policy goal in the budget process.
-Develops a good feedback loop to the management level;
Good baseline inventory information can help management identify major
problems and priorities.
-Demonstrates management commitment to policy goals;
Public accountability can be an effective incentive for managers to achieve
policy goals.
Site-specific riparian improvements:
-Continue to develop successful demonstration projects;
Successful demonstration projects help field staff build support for good riparian
management within the agency and among agency clients.
-------
-Develop and distribute educational materials;
Useful educational materials include non-technical publications that document
examples of successful riparian management.
-Document benefits of riparian improvements;
Agencies with advisory authority may more effectively persuade land managers
to apply BMPs when such efforts create a positive economic return.
-Develop, revise, and update site-specific plans to improve riparian areas;
Agencies need to ensure that current land uses will permit progress towards
policy goals. Agencies have the most direct control over these land uses through the
contents of site specific land use plans.
VI
-------
Introduction
This paper reviews federal and state agency riparian protection policies for
agencies in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington). Research has
shown that the management of riparian areas has a direct impact on meeting state
water quality standards and the "swimmable" and "fishable" goals of the Clean Water
Act [U.S. Congress, 1972]. This review is part of the EPA's efforts under the Clean
Water Act of 1987 to support such agencies' evaluation and control of nonpoint source
pollution on waterbodies. This review will provide an analysis of the policies and make
recommendations on ways agencies' policy implementation may improve the
protection of riparian areas.
There is no consensus among agencies or scientists on the definition of a
riparian area. However, riparian areas are generally areas adjacent to streams and
lakes. The moisture from the high water table affects the soil and vegetation of the
riparian zone. Healthy riparian areas protect many water quality and quantity
parameters, such as temperature, sediment, and flow. Riparian areas provide many
other benefits, such as wildlife habitat, nutrient supply, and large organic debris
necessary for the formation of fish habitat. [Elmore and Beschta, 1987]
This paper will begin with a discussion of the types of problems agencies
addressed during the development of their riparian policies. The criteria used to
evaluate the policies in this analysis will then be discussed. The paper will describe
each agency's policy development efforts. A summary evaluation of the policy will
follow each background section. The final section will provide recommendations to
support agencies efforts to improve the management of riparian areas.
Riparian Management Problems
This paper focuses primarily on policies developed in response to concern over
the impact of timber-harvesting and livestock grazing in riparian areas. Several other
activities impact riparian areas, such as conversion to urban uses or crop production,
mining, and transportation development. However, the main impacts to riparian areas
in EPA Region 10 stem from timber harvesting and livestock grazing. Each agency
reviewed has a different combination of these activities on its lands or its clients' lands.
Timber harvesting on public and private forest lands presents several riparian
management issues. The technical issues include the correction of problems from
past activities and making current forest practices protective of water quality and
fisheries.
Past timber harvest activities in the riparian area that have degraded water
quality include road construction, streambank erosion, and the removal of large woody
debris that form pools and diversify fish habitat. Many of these problems are
expensive and difficult to correct. Agencies generally recognize the difficulty of
correcting past mistakes and therefore place restrictions on current timber harvest
activities in the riparian zone. Agencies must determine what limitations on riparian
-------
timber harvesting protects water quality and fish habitat. Agencies may also have to
consider the preservation of wildlife habitat and biodiversity in determining harvest
restrictions.
Agencies attempting to place limitations on harvesting of timber in riparian areas
face several socio-economic problems. These problems include changing the values
of loggers to recognize riparian values, ensuring that harvest on public lands preserves
multiple-use of the riparian area, and harvest on private land preserves public values.
The real or perceived economic impact of placing restrictions on timber harvesting in
the riparian zone constrains management options. Finally agencies have to consider
the concerns of environmental groups. For example, some environmental groups
argue that the value of merchantable timber in the riparian area is low relative to the
total timber base, and should be left to protect water quality and other values [Elicker,
1990].
There are some similarities and some differences in the problems agencies face,
depending on whether they have jurisdiction over public or private lands. Agencies
attempting to control livestock use of riparian areas on public and private land face
similar problems, despite their authority over land management. The traditional factors
associated with livestock grazing of riparian areas represents a problem for both types
of agencies. These factors include the rancher's right to water for their livestock, a
tradition of non-interference by the land management agencies, and agency staff that
are often members of the community dependent upon the industry (true in timber
areas as well).
The main difference between agencies that manage livestock on public versus
private lands is that federal land management agencies have a mandate to manage
public land for multiple uses. Agencies with jurisdiction on private lands must consider
that one of the land manager's primary objective is economic profit. Agencies with
jurisdiction over private lands do not face the same level of scrutiny as public land
management agencies.
The public land management agency must address the concerns of permittees',
government regulatory agencies, and public interest groups. Permittees' want grazing
on public lands to continue, even if modified somewhat by the agencies to address
environmental concerns.
Some public interest groups would like to see several changes in grazing on
public riparian areas. Some groups advocate complete removal of cattle from public
lands, such as the group "Cattle Free by '93". Other environmental groups advocate
removal of cattle from riparian and upland areas that are in fair or poor condition,
rather than continued development of riparian improvement projects such as fenced
exclosures [Elicker, 1990]. These groups include the Sierra Club, and the National
Wildlife Federation [Strickland, 1990] Finally, some environmental groups would like to
see Congress increase grazing fees on public lands to market rates. [Wuerthner, 1990]
-------
BMPs for grazing activities typically differ in emphasis from forest practices.
Forestry BMPs frequently focus on preventing adverse impacts to water quality,
whereas grazing BMPs frequently focus on rehabilitation of degraded areas. BMPs for
both of these activities seek to limit the amount of vegetation removed from the riparian
area. Forestry BMPs focus on buffer strips with limited removal of merchantable
timber. BMPs for livestock-grazing frequently emphasize recovery for the riparian area.
Options for recovery on rangeland focus on limiting utilization of riparian forage.
Criteria for Effective Riparian Policies
The following criteria were used in this analysis to evaluate the success of the
riparian management policies of the various agencies. The agencies generally do not
have complete summary data on the effectiveness of their riparian policies [U.S. GAO,
1988].
Clear Goals and Objectives:
The clarity of the policy's goals and objectives influence policy success. A
policy with well stated goals should establish the ecological significance of riparian
areas relative to other areas and uses. The policy should specify the types of actions
needed to achieve its objectives. A policy with clear goals and objectives will be more
consistently interpreted by agency personnel and the public.
Level of Authority for Implementation:
An agency's ability to mandate BMP application strongly influences the success
of any riparian protection policy. An agency with strong regulatory authority could
specify and enforce management conditions that aggressively protect riparian areas.
An agency with no regulatory authority generally functions in an advisory capacity to
those with direct control over the management of the riparian area [ie, Paris, 1990;
Heimer, 1990].
Watershed Emphasis:
Offsite riparian activities often limit the water quality improvements of agency
projects. An agency that emphasizes watershed-wide planning may encourage more
consistent BMP application by other landowners in the watershed.
Federal agencies already have a mechanism to address this problem,
Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP). There are two major ways the
CRMP process may improve the results of agency riparian projects. First, agencies
may use the CRMP process to address the cumulative effects of different activities on
a watershed. Second, the involvement of several parties increases the level of funding
to improve a given watershed.
-------
There are some problems with past CRMP agreements. They have often
focused on a single use such as grazing, rather than incorporating all riparian
extractive activities, such as timber, mining, and cropland agriculture [Lines, 1990].
Additionally, the agencies used the process more in some states than others. For
example, SCS offices in Oregon and Idaho participated in more CRMP agreements
than Washington and Alaska [Lines, 1990]. Most agency staff interviewed agree that
the CRN/IP's benefits outweigh its drawbacks, and that the process can contribute
significantly to riparian improvement efforts.
Agency's progress in implementing the policy:
Two measures of implementation progress are the incorporation of the policy
into workplans and agency technical documents. The workplan can identify the
problems, objectives, and solutions in measurable units that should simplify the
monitoring of policy progress. Planning documents that promote good riparian
management indicate that the policy has been effective guidance to agency decision-
makers. Agency technical documents that incorporate the intent of the policy educate
and direct agency staff.
Use of Feedback Mechanisms:
Feedback mechanisms allow the agency to revise implementation tools to
ensure continued progress towards policy goals. Feedback mechanisms include
various types of monitoring to evaluate BMP application and BMP effectiveness
[Anderson and Gehrke, 1988]. Feedback mechanisms are enhanced if the agency
has a good inventory of baseline conditions.
-------
AGENCY REVIEWS
USDA - Soil Conservation Service:
Background.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) based past riparian management practices
on two technical documents. The SCS's National Range Handbook, and the Field
Office Technical Guide call for agency activities to meet federal and state water quality
protection standards. Riparian management activities, such as demonstration projects,
have gone on within the SCS since the mid-1970's. These projects show how
conservation practices can improve riparian areas [Fitch, 1990].
SCS does not have a specific policy on riparian areas, but they did develop
formal riparian guidance (SCS National Bulletin No. 450-0-8) in response to staff
requests. SCS staff wanted formal riparian guidance for support when planning
riparian activities with other agencies that had adopted riparian policies. SCS staff also
wanted a guidance document because some riparian improvement activities involved
controversial actions such as fenced exclusion of livestock. Many land owners
consider fenced exclosures from riparian areas as a infringement on their property
rights.
The Western States Range Advisory Committee (an SCS advisory group to the
National Technical Centers) responded to these emerging staff concerns by
developing draft riparian guidance in 1988. The Advisory Committee submitted the
draft to the West National Technical Center (WNTC). The WNTC then forwarded the
draft to the SCS National Headquarters. SCS headquarters staff revised and issued
the guidance in February, 1990. Other government agencies and outside groups did
not review the guidance before SCS issued the final version. The SCS recently formed
a interdisciplinary task force to revise the 1990 guidance into a formal agency policy
[Montgomery, 1990].
The SCS riparian guidance directs the staff to recognize the ecological
significance of riparian areas in carrying out agency activities. The guidance includes a
riparian definition, criteria for riparian classification, and references to relevant agency
technical documents. The guidance identifies the SCS conservation planning process
as the principle mechanism for recognizing and improving the condition of riparian
areas.
The guidance describes several management options for riparian areas. It
indicates that the riparian area should be treated as part of the entire management unit
in creating resource management systems. It indicates that, "fencing shouldn't be
considered a management option in rangeland situations". It also emphasizes that
economic feasibility for the landowner should be a priority in riparian management.
Finally, the guidance states that the staff should use the SCS National Range
Handbook to assess riparian area condition.
-------
Summary Evaluation of Guidance:
1. Goal should be clarified:
The guidance's goal is recognition of riparian values by SCS staff and clients
(private landowners). A policy should clarify how recognition of riparian areas will
result in greater riparian protection. The guidance does enumerate riparian benefits.
However, the guidance does not plainly state that the agency will promote the
improvement or protection of riparian areas to protect these benefits.
2. Fencing should be an option in developing conservation plans:
SCS projects and technical guides suggest fencing as one of several options for
the management of livestock. Other livestock control measures include the
development of upland watering systems, or specific watering access points along the
stream. In many situations, livestock exclosure is necessary for recovery of the
riparian zone [Easter, 1990].
3. Good riparian definition:
The guidance statement includes a good definition of the riparian zone. The
definition includes characteristics from various disciplines, such as biology, rangeland
management, hydrology, ecology, and soil science. This definition recognizes the
complexity of the field technician's task of defining riparian areas.
A national policy should not use the range-site condition index exclusively, for
classification of riparian areas. While appropriate in many areas of the West, range-
site condition may not apply to Eastern riparian areas or conditions in the coastal
areas of the Pacific Northwest [Montgomery, 1990].
4. Consideration of entire watershed:
The guidance encourages consideration of an entire watershed in the
development of individual conservation plans. The SCS already has a mechanism for
such watershed planning, Coordinated Resource Management Planning. The Upper
South Fork of the John Day River, Oregon and Tucannon River, Washington projects
show that coordinated resource planning can be used to improve riparian areas (see
Appendix A).
5. No development of workplans to achieve guidance goals:
The SCS has not initiated the development of any workplan(s) to carry out the
guidance. This may change when the agency revises its guidance into a formal policy.
-------
6. Benefits and improvements not adequately documented:
The agency needs to improve its management of the information and
knowledge gained from various riparian improvement projects. In many agency
projects, the personnel could not document water quality or riparian improvements as
a result of the projects. The agency staff often relied on visual surveys by the SCS
project managers as evidence of positive results from riparian projects.
7. Limited agency authority to require application of BMPs:
The SCS cannot legally require landowners to spend time or money on riparian
activities. The agency relies on education and cost-sharing to encourage landowners
to improve their riparian management. Landowner participation has is the key to the
success of SCS riparian projects. However, some landowners may place greater value
on economic use of the riparian area than the various public benefits achieved through
riparian improvements.
USDA - Forest Service:
Background:
The FS developed its current riparian policy over several years in response to
legislation and with input from several sources. FS researchers and specialists played
a significant role in developing the policy. They demonstrated the need for a riparian
policy by documenting the importance of healthy riparian systems to resident and
anadromous fish populations.
The FS research effort has shown the importance of riparian zones to fisheries
populations in different ecological regions. For example, research efforts in Alaska
have illustrated the importance of mature trees in providing material for pool formation.
Research efforts in the Intermountain West and Pacific Southwest regions have shown
the importance of healthy riparian vegetation to high value fish species by providing
regular stream flow and improving water quality. Finally, a national study by the FS in
1976-1977 showed significant gaps in the management of riparian zones within the
agency [Leven, 1984].
The FS has authority to manage resources on public lands from the Organic
Administration Act of 1897. These resources include both timber and water flow. The
FS has authority to improve riparian areas based on water quality laws, multiple-use
planning laws, and two executive orders [Grosse, 1989]. The Multiple-Use Sustained
Yield Act of 1960 directs the FS to plan for multiple use of National Forest resources.
-------
The most direct legal authority for the FS riparian policy comes from the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) and accompanying regulations. The
statute requires that timber harvests should not be conducted unless:
. .protection is provided for streams, streambanks,
shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other bodies of water
from detrimental changes in water temperature, blockages
of water courses, and deposits of sediment, where
harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect
water conditions or fish habitat [16 U.S.C. 1604 (E) iii].
The regulations require a 100 foot riparian management zone from the waterbody's
edge. The regulation requires that management practices in these areas not degrade
water quality or fish habitat (36 CFR Part 219).
The Clean Water Act requires the federal agencies, including the FS, to comply
with all federal, state, and local water quality standards [Anderson and Gehrke, 1988].
In addition, the FS has signed memoranda of agreement with Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington state water quality agencies in EPA Region 10. The Forest Service
generally agrees to meet or exceed state water protection measures [Dagenhart,
1990].
The FS mandate to develop land management plans stems from several laws.
First, the FS must identify the environmental impacts of its planned activities under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Second, the FS must develop and adhere
to land use plans under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Act of 1974
and the NFMA of 1976 [Anderson and Gehrke, 1988].
The FS also has authority for its policy based on Executive Orders 11988
Floodplain Management" and 11990 "Wetlands Protection" of May 24,1977. The
management of development on floodplains to minimize future damage implies
protection and improvement of federally managed riparian areas. Executive Order
11990 recognizes that healthy riparian areas have many of the same values found in
wetlands such as species diversity, hydrologic values, etc.
The FS issued its national riparian management policy in 1980. The policy takes
the form of a section of the national FS manual, with each FS region issuing manual
supplements or action plans [Appendix C]. The FS revised the policy in 1986 to omit
areas in the 100 year floodplain that are not perennial streams, such as ephemeral
side-drainage's [L Schmidt, 1990].
The FS has riparian management obligations under some state land use laws in
EPA Region 10. The FS signed the Idaho Antidegredation Agreement to control
nonpoint source pollution. The FS must meet Idaho's water quality standards, and
can be audited by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality to ensure compliance.
The FS in Oregon signed a memorandum of agreement to meet or exceed the stream
protection measures in that state's Forest Practices Act.
8
-------
Congress has prescribed additional riparian management standards on National
Forest System lands in Alaska through passage of the Tongass Reform Bill, an
amendment to ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Claim Act, 11/30/90). The
Tongass Reform Bill:
1. Reduces the yearly timber production to the market demand from the current
target of 450 million board feet;
2. Eliminates the annual road building appropriation of $40 million;
3. Will require re-negotiation of 50 year contracts with the two timber companies
involved;
4. Grants authority to the Forest Service for choosing harvest sites and size;
5. Establishes a minimum 100 foot buffer along major streams that support
anadromous fish [Cloud, 1990].
Summary Evaluation of Policy:
1. FS Regions rely on the National policy supplements rather than regional
supplements:
FS Region 1 (includes northern Idaho in EPA Region 10) and Region 6 (Oregon
and Washington) have issued regional policy supplements on riparian area
management. These regional policy supplements differ in some instances from the
national policy. The Region 1 supplement emphasizes the use of interdisciplinary
teams to achieve policy goals [U.S. FS Region 1,1983]. Region 6 emphasizes the
characterization of the riparian zone based on site-specific characteristics. The
national policy emphasizes the approximate 100 foot measure to define the riparian
management zones [U.S. FS Region 6,1987]. For example, the Malheur National
Forest (Oregon) plan requires a 100 foot area of special consideration for timber
harvesting and livestock grazing.
2. Legal authority to implement policy appears adequate:
The FS has sufficient legal authority to incorporate riparian area protection
measures into its activities. The FS has responsibility to improve and protect riparian
areas under the NMFA of 1976. NMFA requires that FS activities be consistent with
standards and guidelines in the land use plans. These standards and guidelines
should meet federal or state water quality standards, as specified by the Clean Water
Act.
3. Goal is clear and well stated:
It is clear from the goal statement that activities on FS land should not degrade
riparian areas [ie, Fischer, 1990]. The policy provides guidance to agency managers
-------
when use conflicts occur between the riparian dependent resources and man's use of
the environment. The statement identifies the importance of protecting riparian-
dependent resources when conflicts exist. These goal statements should give the FS
land managers enough support to protect riparian areas.
4. Policy statements need to better emphasize watershed planning:
The FS national policy does not require the agency to participate in the full
range of watershed planning opportunities available. This includes opportunities with
federal, state, and private landowners. The FS national policy calls for coordination
with other federal agencies at the national level. However, this ignores the many
opportunities for coordinated planning with state land management agencies and
private landowners.
The FS Region 6 supplement requires some coordination with state and federal
agencies in stream classification and designing management activities. The policy
requires the FS Region 6 to solicit comments and recommendations from other state
and federal agencies. This could be a basis for FS participation in watershed-wide
planning.
The FS participates in some watershed-wide plans in EPA Region 10 with
federal and state agencies, and private landowners. The policy statement should
reflect this reality on the ground.
5. The national policy requires National Forests to monitor the policy's effectiveness:
Forest plans are incorporating a "feedback loop" by developing inventories of
baseline riparian conditions and schedules for different types of monitoring. Some
National Forests, such as the Nez Perce in Idaho, have developed annual monitoring
reports which include information on progress towards riparian policy goals.
6. The policy statement does not address the role of specialists in riparian
management and protection:
The GAO's 1988 review of riparian management on FS and BLM rangelands
identified the use of specialists as essential for riparian protection and improvement
[U.S. GAO, 1988]. Specialists necessary to protect riparian areas include hydrologists,
fisheries biologists, wildlife biologists, range scientists, soil scientists, and cultural
resource specialists. Specialists improve a planning teams' ability to identify all the
impacts of planned activities.
7. The FS is generally incorporating Its policy into National Forest management plans
and technical documents:
The FS is incorporating its riparian management policy into forest plans. Forest
plans often include inventories of riparian condition, standards and guidelines for
resource activities in the riparian zone, and identification of riparian improvement
projects [ie, Collins, 1990]. Each National Forests plan varies in the thoroughness of
10
-------
its efforts to "protect, manage, and improve" riparian areas. Ranger Districts may have
to revise site specific activities, ie. timber sales and allotment plans, after issuance of
the final forest plan in order to meet the forest plan standards and guidelines.
The FS plans contain riparian standards and guidelines for timber-harvesting
and livestock-grazing. The timber standards and guidelines generally require an area
of special consideration at least a 100 feet from the high watermark on each side of a
waterbody. They generally restrict the felling of trees into the stream channel. Other
general requirements include:
- leaving a certain percentage of cover to shade the stream;
- avoiding clear-cutting in the riparian zone;
- protection of streambank, understory vegetation, and groundcover;
- uneven-aged timber management in Eastern Oregon, Washington, and Idaho;
The grazing standards and guidelines generally in FS plans require specific
limits on the percentage of forage utilization, and a schedule for the updating of
allotments plans. The plans generally call for limited use of fencing of riparian areas
and riparian pastures. The 100 foot area of riparian management zone in the policy
statement applies to rangeland management as well as timber management.
The FS Regions have also developed technical documents for the management
of riparian areas and related resources. These documents include BMP Handbooks
and Riparian Inventory Handbooks. The FS continues to build its technical base with
more research efforts on the effects of various riparian activities on water quality.
USDI - Bureau of Land Management:
Background:
The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) riparian policy developed as part of a
movement to reform grazing practices on public lands. The Natural Resources
Defense Council won a suit against the BLM in 1974. The court required the BLM to
develop Environmental Impact Statements for livestock grazing. The BLM returned to
court in 1977 and obtained permission to include the EIS within their resource
management plans [Clark, 1990],
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) provided the
agency a framework for the development of resource plans. FLPMA requires BLM to
consider all uses of its lands in resource planning. For example, BLM must meet
recreational and wildlife needs in addition to traditional uses of the public lands such as
grazing, timber harvesting and mining [Clark, 1990].
BLM has conducted riparian management activities since the mid-1970's. The
BLM manages approximately 6,715,550 acres of riparian area in EPA Region 10,
6,563,000 acres of which are in Alaska. The BLM projects the potential for riparian
rehabilitation using a number of techniques, including exclosure and limited season
11
-------
grazing. The BLM used manual section 6740 as a basis for the development of these
projects [BLM, 1988]. However, even with these efforts, a majority of riparian areas on
BLM land remain in a degraded condition.
The Public Lands Advisory Council suggested BLM adopt a riparian policy in
response to the discussions surrounding the Omnibus Range Bill of 1984. The Bureau
responded by forming an interdisciplinary task force to draft a policy. BLM selected
task force members form both agency field offices as well as headquarters. State
directors, other agencies and interested groups reviewed the task force's draft policy
statement [Clark, 1990]. The BLM issued the final policy statement in February, 1987
[BLM, 1988]. BLM state offices in Alaska and Idaho have both issued a riparian policy
statements similar to the national policy statement [BLM Alaska, 1989; BLM Idaho,
1990].
Summary Evaluation of Policy:
1. Policy goal is clear but doesnt emphasize the value of riparian-dependent
resources relative to other resource activities:
The BLM policy states that riparian area condition should not decline, and in
many cases should improve. The BLM draft action plan states that 75 percent of their
riparian areas should be in good or improving condition by 1997. Currently on BLM
lands outside of Alaska, 6 percent are "meeting objectives", 9 percent are "not meeting
objectives", and 85 percent are in unknown condition [BLM, 1990].
2. Policy has adequate legal authority to attain goal but de facto authority is sometimes
limited:
The BLM has adequate legal authority to implement its policy. Legal authority
for achievement of policy goals includes:
- Multiple use mandates of FLPMA of 1976;
- Clean Water Acts requirement of Federal Agencies to comply with state water
quality standards and nonpoint source management programs;
- Taylor Grazing Acts requirement that BLM issue permits for livestock use of
public lands.
The BLM has numerous de facto constraints on its authority. First, the agency
needs permittee cooperation in management of livestock. The BLM lacks the
resources to rigorously enforce all permit conditions or allotment plan conditions.
BLM needs cooperation in areas such as moving cattle on schedule, observation of
the planned number of cattle on a pasture, and respecting fenced riparian exclosures.
BLM often cannot control degraded upstream riparian areas that adversely affect their
riparian projects. Finally, the political power of private livestock operators that are
economically dependent on public lands constrains BLM riparian activities [Gooch,
Guenther and Kotansky, 1990].
12
-------
3. The policy statement has an adequate watershed planning emphasis but
implementation is often constrained:
The national policy directs the BLM to cooperate with other public and private
land managers in information, management, activities and education [BLM, 1987].
Idaho's policy directs the State Office to cooperate in monitoring in addition to the
items listed in the national policy [BLM, 1990]. The BLM has begun implementing this
part of the policy through participation in land exchanges and coordinated plans
[Thomas, 1990].
The Bureau faces constraints in developing watershed plans. First, the agency
often owns only a small part of the watershed. Second, private landowners sometimes
are unreceptive to participation in watershed plans for financial reasons [Morgan,
1990]. Third', the agency staff often lacks resources to develop all of the needed
watershed plans.
4. BLM riparian and riparian-related activities are expanding as more resources
become available:
There are indications that the policy has built support among agency personnel
for the improvement of riparian areas. Both management and field staff appear to be
more supportive of riparian management than in past years. For example, the new
BLM Director has endorsed the agency's riparian management efforts [BLM, 1990].
This appears to give the staff flexibility to conduct somewhat controversial activities.
Controversial activities may include reduction of animal unit months (AUMs) and
riparian exclosures to improve riparian/range condition. The GAO report cited lack of
management support as a major obstacle to rapid improvement in riparian areas [U.S.
GAO, 1988].
The BLM's riparian effort depends upon the commitment of resources - both
staff and financial. An increase in the number of field technicians could provide
valuable support for a riparian management program. The field technicians could
provide support to specialists by maintaining the various riparian projects and
conducting routine monitoring [Gooch, Guenther, and Kotansky, 1990].
«
5. Some agency plans and technical documents incorporate the policy:
The BLM is incorporating good riparian management into its resource
management plans. The plans often include inventory information on current and
future condition of riparian areas. The plans make limited use of livestock exclusion.
The plans improve riparian areas through temporary exclosures, limited season
grazing systems, and AUM reductions. These area resource plans do generally set
quantitative objectives for riparian recovery [BLM Oregon, Burns District, 1989].
The BLM national office and the Washington/Oregon State Office have
developed riparian management plans [BLM, 1990; BLM Oregon/Washington, 1987].
The BLM State Office in Idaho is in the process of developing a riparian resource plan.
These plans establish quantitative goals and specify resources needed to accomplish
13
-------
these goals. The GAO cited the establishment of quantitative goals as necessary for
improvement of riparian management [U.S. GAO, 1988].
The BLM has developed technical documents for the management and
evaluation of riparian areas. These documents establish guidelines for riparian area
inventory and monitoring (see Appendix B) [BLM, 7/89].
6. Feedback mechanism is adequately stated in policy but somewhat lacking in
implementation:
The BLM's national riparian policy, the draft "Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for the
90's", and the "Oregon/Washington Riparian Enhancement Plan" require monitoring as
an integral part of riparian management. The two plans identify the specific financial
resources needed to carry out a successful riparian monitoring program.
The BLM conducts some monitoring of riparian demonstration projects. Often,
the BLM relies primarily on photo-point monitoring to show the regrowth of vegetation.
However, the Bureau in many cases does not document water quality and beneficial
use improvements. Monitoring often becomes a lower priority than other more
product-oriented activities because of scarce staff resources [Gooch, Guenther, and
Kotansky, 1990].
7. The BLM Alaska faces some different riparian management problems than other
western states:
The Bureau's Alaskan riparian management problems stem in part from the
enormous amount of riparian area in Alaska [Dwight Hovland, 1990]. About 90
percent, or 6,563,000 acres of riparian area the BLM manages is in Alaska [U.S. BLM,
1990]. Both public and private land managers in Alaska often perceive alteration of
riparian vegetation as insignificant relative to the total acreage.
Mining is responsible for many of the riparian management problems on BLM's
Alaskan lands. The mining law of 1871 places extraction of minerals as the highest
priority land use. Interpretation of this law limits many BLM initiatives to riparian
mitigation or rehabilitation instead of riparian protection [Joe Webb, 1990].
14
-------
STATE AGENCIES:
Summary:
States in EPA Region 10 regulate riparian areas through state forest practices
acts. The forest practice acts generally authorize state forestry agencies to enforce
the regulations on private and state lands. Typically, forest practices laws and
regulations require state and private forest managers to notify state forestry agencies
of planned timber harvest activities. State forestry agencies review the notices to
ensure that they include the appropriate BMPs. State forestry agencies inspect the
most sensitive planned harvest areas to ensure BMP application. BMP requirements
vary in the size of the Riparian Management Zone (RMZ), the class or category of
stream to which the RMZ applies, and the number of trees left after harvest (leave-
trees).
Idaho has a multi-party cooperative agreement which affects management of
riparian zones for a number of different practices. Idaho's Antidegradation agreement
addresses several land use practices that result in nonpoint source pollution to
waterbodies. The agreement has provisions for mining, forestry, and agriculture (both
crop and range land). It applies to both public and private forest lands. The
agreement seeks to identify stream segments of concern in six river basins. The
agreement emphasizes and strengthens the provisions of the Forest Practices Act.
The agreement addresses agricultural nonpoint source pollution through voluntary
application of BMPs. The agreement authorizes the Department of Lands to require
the use of BMPs and the protection of beneficial uses in mining operations.
The regulations specify a number of BMPs. State forest regulations typically
require operators to apply a number of BMPs addressing the following concerns:
- Minimum areas of special consideration on streamsides with leave tree
requirements;
- Limits on road-building and equipment handling in the riparian zone;
- Removal of slash debris from the riparian area;
- Minimizing the number of stream crossings.
Ideally, agencies should characterize riparian management areas on a site-
specific basis to consider various physical characteristics, such as topography and
stream channel morphology. As a matter of policy and regulation, the FS and states
specify minimum widths of riparian management zones, the number of trees and
percent of shading harvesters should leave to protect water quality. There is no
consensus on which requirements and widths of RMZs are the correct broad scale
minima to protect water quality and aquatic life.
Clearly, more research is needed to answer these questions. Research to date
supports a 66 to 100 foot minimum riparian management area with limited or no
logging allowed [Corbett, Lynch, Sopper, 1978]. Some researchers have found that
15
-------
the riparian management areas should be a 100 foot buffer strip on each side of the
waterbody [Erman, et al, 1977; Hesser et al, 1975].
State agencies' monitoring and evaluation of timber harvest activities varies from
state to state. Idaho's water quality agency, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
has conducted several audits of forestry BMP application and effectiveness. The DEQ
auditors found that operations that complied with BMPs in state regulations generally
protected water quality. The DEQ auditors commented that some aspects of the
Forest Practices Act did not adequately protect streams. The auditors found that
loggers needed to leave more large woody debris in the RMZ, better flag Class I
stream protection zone boundaries, and the state Department of Public Lands should
clarify the definitions of the two stream classes.
An environmental groups review of Oregon's revised Forest Practices Act found
a need to improve protection along class II streams, and to increase in the number of
large conifers left in the RMZ on Class I streams [Ketchum, 1987]. The group also
found the Department of Forestry's monitoring inadequate to determine BMP
effectiveness [Ketchum, 1990].
The Oregon Department of Forestry has plans to do extensive monitoring of
their Forest Practices Acts' BMPs. They will compare pre- and post- harvest riparian
and stream conditions. Funding constraints have limited most monitoring to tracking
the administrative records of timber operations, such as the number of inspections,
and the number of violations.
Washington's Timber, Fish, and Wildlife (TFW) Agreement requires monitoring of
BMPs effectiveness for protecting stream conditions, and wildlife habitat needs in the
Riparian Management Zone. The results of the TFW study are not yet available.
Appendix A includes a summary of TFWs monitoring plan for downstream riparian,
fish and wildlife effects.
16
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Policy statements represent one step in an agencies' overall management
scheme. The impetus for agencies to develop riparian policies generally begins with
research and field-level initiatives. The agency adopts a policy to get these desireable
practices implemented agency-wide. The agency then may develop national and
regional action plans, and field-level projects.
Many factors may affect how agency change takes place, in addition to the
formal policy statement. Regional differences between agency organizational units can
affect riparian management. The personal values and experience of the staff may
account for variations in riparian management emphasis [Sasich, Ricketts, Smart,
1990]. The values and attitudes of the agency's clients can affect the policy
implementation. The level of funding and resource specialist staffing (ie, hydrologists,
fisheries biologists) have a significant impact on an agency achieving its policy goals
[U.S. GAO, 1988].
Once the agency develops an adequate policy statement, agency attention
should focus on other parts of the riparian management program. An adequate policy
states a clear goal and supports staff actions to reach that goal. A clear goal may
simply say that agency activities should protect and improve riparian areas. Agencies'
policy development or revision can support staff in several ways.
Policy Statement Development:
-Riparian policies need to support controversial steps staff may need to take to
improve and protect riparian areas:
A policy statement should support all techniques an agency's staff may need to
employ to improve and protect riparian areas. The policy statement should not
preclude use of a particular riparian management technique because it imposes some
costs or represents a non-traditional approach to riparian management. The policy
statement should recognize agency staffs interest in maintaining a long-term
relationship with clients, and give them the discretion to chose an appropriate
combination of management options.
-Policy statements need to support watershed planning efforts:
Agencies developing riparian management programs need to address and
coordinate with other lands and differing activities in the watershed. Activities on other
lands in the watershed can limit the benefits from the agency's riparian improvement
efforts. The agencies reviewed in this paper have made some progress in using
different types of watershed plans. Some agency policy statements emphasize
watershed planning.
There is a need for continued development of watershed plans, based on the
cases examined in preparation of this report. Managers of several projects discussed
in Appendix A pointed to adverse water quality impacts from riparian management on
17
-------
other lands in the watershed outside of their jurisdiction. Agency staff should be
assured that they have support for cooperative efforts and development of any type of
watershed plan which will address this problem.
Agency management needs to develop riparian improvement workplans:
Agency management may promote the improvement of riparian areas through
the development of riparian management workplans. Workplans are useful for
specifying how an agency will reach its stated policy goal. Workplans have the
following specific benefits:
-Allows for the development of interim goals;
An agency may take many years to reach the general goal identified in the
policy statement. Agencies need to establish interim goals to measure progress
towards the long term policy goal. For example, an interim goal might be the quantity
of riparian area to be in good or improving condition by a specific date.
-Identifies financial and staff resources needed to achieve interim goals;
The identification of resource needs with expected results should be a valuable
asset in the budget appropriation process. The breakdown of specific staff and
resource needs also presents an opportunity for an agency to identify those activities
and staff positions which are necessary to accomplish the interim goals.
-Develops a good feedback loop to the management level;
The feedback loop should contain both quantitative and qualitative information.
Quantitative information may include baseline inventory of riparian condition, annual
summaries of riparian and water quality improvements in a district, and identification of
remaining riparian inventory and improvement needs.
Qualitative information in the feedback loop should give management an idea of
the most common obstacles to good riparian management. The identification of these
problems may change the resource emphasis of the workplan, for example, by
budgeting more resources for education. Continued flow of such information allows
the workplan to remain responsive to those in the field.
-Demonstrates management commitment to policy goals;
Agency managers can publicly commit to specific actions to achieve policy
goals. Public accountability can be an effective incentive for managers to achieve
established policy goals.
18
-------
Site-specific riparian improvements:
The final stage in a riparian management program is changing activities at the
site-specific level to protect and improve riparian areas. Agency field staff need
materials to educate clients about good riparian management, and resources to
implement specific projects. Important components to successful implementation of
workplans include the following:
-Continue to develop successful demonstration projects',
Successful demonstration projects are useful tools in agency efforts to improve
riparian management (See Appendix A). Successful projects show specifically how
BMP application protects biological and water quality objectives. Demonstration
projects' educational value improves with documentation of pre-project conditions and
post-project results.
-Develop and distribute educational materials;
Non-technical publications that document examples of good riparian
management assist staffs riparian efforts. The useful publications document examples
that have taken place nationally, regionally, or in a particular forest or resource area.
Agency staff use these publications to persuade clients that riparian improvement
efforts represent a national trend, and that the economic activities in the riparian zone
can be maintained while protecting riparian values and water quality.
-Document benefits of riparian improvements;
Riparian BMP applications may result in economic benefits to the landowner or
client in the short or long term. Documentation of a positive economic return may
assist agency staff in persuading clients to pursue good riparian management. Most
examples are from grazing cases. Examples of economic benefits from good riparian
management include:
(1) Cattle experienced greater weight gain when excluded from the riparian area
at certain seasons of the year;
(2) Land managers saved money by increasing stream flow and eliminating the
need for expensive water development projects;
(3) Rehabilitated riparian pastures were grazed at a higher intensity for short
periods of time.
-More resources to develop, update, and revise site-specific resource use plans;
Land Management Agencies have the most direct control over riparian
management through site specific resource use plans. Agencies can specify use
conditions in the plans to protect riparian areas. Agencies often develop riparian
standards and guidelines after development of these site-specific land use plans.
Agency staff need resources and management support in order to revise and update
site-specific land use plans to decrease disturbance of riparian vegetation.
19
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, H. Michael, and Gehrke, Craig. National Forests: Policies for the Future
Vol. 1: Water Quality and Timber Management. (Washington, D.C.: The
Wilderness Society, August, 1988). 61 pp.
ASC 41.17.115-119
11 AAC95.QQQ (draft)
Bacon, George. Idaho Department of Public Lands - Dierre District. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Brutscher, Steve. Oregon Water Resources Department. Personal Communication,
August, 1990.
Capital Press. 9/21/90. pp. 3.
Clark, Ron. U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Washington, D.C. Personal
Communication, October, 1990.
Cloud, David S. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. June 16,1990. pp. 1871.
Collins, Tim. U.S. Forest Service Region 4, Ogden, Utah. Personal Communication,
September, 1990.
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1978. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly,
Inc., 1978). pp. 716-718.
Dagenhart, Dave. Oregon Department of Forestry. Personal Communication, August,
1990.
Easter, Frank. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Spokane, Washington. Personal
Communication, July, 1990.
Elicker, Roy, National Wildlife Federation, Portland; personal communication,
November, 1990.
Elmore, Wayne, and Beschta, Robert L "Riparian Areas: Perceptions in Management".
in Rangelands 9:6. December, 1987. pp. 260-265.
Eddy, John. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Dayton, Washington. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Paris, Tamra. National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Personal Communication,
July, 1990.
20
-------
Elicker, Roy E. National Wildlife Federation, Portland Office. Personal Communication,
November, 1990.
Fischer, Dave. U.S. Forest Service Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
Fitch, Byron. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Ritzville, Washington. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Gerhard, Nick. U.S. Forest Service Region 1, Nez Perce National Forest. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
Gooch, Tom; Guenther, Glen, and Kotansky, Dan. Discussions during field trip to
Bureau of Land Management - Idaho Falls District - Big Butte Resource
Management Area. September, 1990.
Grosse, Daniel J. "Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Protecting
Fish Resources of Two National Forests in Western Washington". (Seattle, WA:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July, 1989). 39 pp.
Heimer, John. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Personal Communication,
August, 1990.
Henry, Joe. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Renton, Washington. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Hovland, Dwight. U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Alaska. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Idaho Anti-Degradation Agreement
Idaho E.O. 88-23, "Anti-degradation Policy - Implementation, Water Quality Advisory
Working Commission, and Assignment of Function to State Agencies". 12 pp.; 3
pp.
IDAPA 20.15
Jacobsen, Nathan. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Lake Stephens, Washington.
Personal Communication, August, 1990.
Ketchum, Paul. 1000 Friends of Oregon. Personal Communication, November, 1990].
Kotansky, Dan. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Falls District. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
LaPlant, Dan. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Alaska. Personal Communication,
August, 1990.
21
-------
Leven, Andrew A. "Riparian Area Management In the Pacific Southwest Forest Service
Region", in Warner, R. E. and Hendrix, K.M., eds., California Riparian Systems.
(Berkeley, CA: Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, 1984). pp. 800-807.
Lines, Ivan. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Spokane, Washington. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Montgomery, Gerald. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Seattle, Personnel
Communication, November, 1990.
Morgan, Lee. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Vale District, Oregon. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
Oliverson, Gary. U.S. Forest Service Colville National Forest. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
Oregon Governor's Watershed Enhancement Board. "Projects Approved for Funding"
February 22,1990. 7pp.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. "1988 Oregon Statewide Assessment of
Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution". Portland, Oregon. August, 1988.169 pp.
ORS 527.610-527.730; 527.990.
Region of the Forest Service" in Warner, Richard E. and Hendrix,
Sasich, Joni, Ricketts, Stephen, and Smart, Alan. Discussion during field trip to
Quilcene District, Olympic National Forest. September, 1990.
Schmidt, Larry. U.S. Forest Service Washington, D.C. Personal Communication,
October, 1990.
Scott, Clyde. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Portland, Oregon. Personal
Communication, July, 1990.
Strickland, Rose. Taking the Bull by the Horns", in Sierra. September/October, 1990.
pp. 46-8.
Theurer, Fred. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Personal
Communication, October, 1990.
Thompson, Joe. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Bums, Oregon. Personal
Communication, September, 1990.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Oregon/Washington, Bums District. "Draft Three
Rivers Resource Management Plan". October, 1989. pp. v.
22
-------
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. "Riparian Management: Inventory and Monitoring
of Riparian Areas". TR 1737-3-1989. (Denver, CO: BLM Service Center, July,
1989). 80 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Idaho. "Idaho Riparian Management Policy". July,
1990. 3pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Washington, D.C. "Riparian Area Management
Policy". January 22,1987.1 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Washington, D.C. draft "Riparian-Wetland Initiative
for the 1990's" July, 1990. 60 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Washington, D.C. "Briefing for Director Burford:
Riparian Management Initiative" and notes. July 29,1988. 16 pp.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Oregon/Washington. "Oregon/Washington
Riparian Enhancement Plan". June, 1987.13 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. "Riparian Area Management". Forest Service Manual Section
2526. March, 1986.
U.S. Forest Service - Colville National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan.
1988.
U.S. Forest Service - Malheur National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan.
1990.
U.S. Forest Service - Nez Perce National Forest. Management Plan. 1987.
U.S. Forest Service - Nez Perce National Forest. Second Annual Monitoring and
Evaluation Report. 1989.
U.S. Forest Service - Olympic National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan.
1990.
U.S. Forest Service Region 1 - Missoula, Montana. Section 2526, Regional
Supplement Number 37. November, 1983.
U.S. Forest Service Region 4 - Ogden, Utah. "Riparian Action Program: Intermountain
region, 1988 -1992". February, 1988. 6pp.
U.S. Forest Service Region 6 - Portland, Oregon. Section 2526, Regional Supplement
Number 51. June, 1987.
U.S. Forest Service Region 10 - Juneau, Alaska. "Riparian Action Plan". April, 1990.
23
-------
U.S. Forest Service - Umatilla National Forest. Land and Resource Management Plan.
1990.
U.S. General Accounting Office. "Public Rangelands: Some Riparian Areas Restored
but Widespread Improvement Will Be Slow*. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. General
Accounting Office, June 1988). 85 pp.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Reid Office Technical Guide Sections 528 and 556.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service. "Guidelines for Riparian Area Recognition and
Management Options". Technical Memorandum 450-0-8. February, 1990. 3 pp.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. 1987. Timber, Fish and Wildlife
Agreement: A Better Future in Our Woods and Streams". Final Report.
Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 57 pp.
WAC 222-08.
Webb, Joe. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Seward Peninsula. Personal
Communication, August, 1990.
Woodworth, Keith. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Steese/White Mountain District,
Alaska. Personal Communication, August, 1990.
Wuerthner, George. The Price is Wrong", in Sierra. September/October, 1990. pp.
38-43.
Yankey, Thomas. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington County, Idaho.
Personal Communication, August, 1990.
Yost, Dick. "Good Resource Use Boosting Grazing". Oregon Farmer-Stockman,
August, 1990.
16 USC 1601-1604.
33 USC 1251 et. seq.
36 CFR Part 219 - National Forest System Land and Management Planning, Rules for
NMFA
24
-------
APPENDIX A: RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT CASES
The following project summaries were identified by agencies as representing
good, and poor examples of riparian area management. They represent a small
sample of the wide variety of riparian area projects in EPA Region 10
Idaho Department of Public Lands:
Big Sandy Creek, Idaho: This project was informally coordinated between the
Dept of Lands, two timber companies (Potlatch Corp. and Plum Creek) and the U.S.
Forest Service. The objective of the agreement was to repair sources of sediment
loading to the creek from past timber practices, such as deteriorating roadbeds, so
that the Forest Service could conduct new harvests without violating the states's water
quality standards for sediment [Bacon, 1990].
Oregon Department of Water Resources:
Rhea Creek, Umatilla Basin, Oregon: This was one of three projects funded by
the Oregon state legislature in 1985. The project focuses on revegetation, fencing in
the riparian zone and erosion control on the uplands. The project is being monitored
through photos, and visual surveys [Brutscher, 1990].
North Fork Walla Walla River, Umatilla Basin, Oregon: This project involved
riparian treatments on about 2 miles of stream, including fencing, and in-stream
structures. The project was started in 1985. Photo-point monitoring is being done by
the Mitton-Freewater Steelhead Club and Umatilla Soil Conservation District. Visual
surveys by Department personnel reveal improved vegetative growth [Brutscher,
1990].
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Alaska:
Nome Creek, Steese/White Mountain District This proposed project would re-
establish about 1/4 mile of stream at the upper end of the creek. The channel had
been diverted, and the topsoil removed as part of mining operations. Some monitoring
will be done if the project is funded, with special attention paid to the success of any
effort to re-establish fisheries(grayling) [Woodworth, 1990].
East Fork Solomon River, Seward Peninsula District: This project would
reestablish the stream channel that was disrupted when the Alaska Department of
Transportation moved a road out of the stream bed. The result has been very poor
fish habitat in this section of the river, with a wide braided channel. Additionally, during
construction of the road, significant quantities of gravel were removed from the stream
in broad, shallow, long scrapes. Project activities currently focus on monitoring to see
when the channel will become stable enough for willow plantings [Webb, 1990].
Nome River, Seward Peninsula District. This stream was also damaged as a
result of channelization from a Department of Transportation project. The project
moved the stream and put the road in the streambed. The BLM hopes to move the
A-1
-------
stream back into its former channel. About 2 miles of stream is affected. The project
has not been funded yet.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Idaho:
Big Elk Creek(Management Program), Coeur d'Alene District: This 1987 plan
addresses riparian management in about 2 miles of stream. The stream is habitat for
both anadromous and resident salmonids. This project is a cooperative one between
BLM and a private landowner that owns about .8 miles of the project area. The main
problem in the stream stems from high sediment loads as a result of highly
destabilized banks. The planned riparian improvement activities are limited fencing,
and reductions in the season of grazing use. Monitoring activities are planned, such
as photo-point, vegetative condition and trend, evaluation of spawning gravels, and
macro-invertebrate sampling.
Rabbit Creek Management Plan, Boise District This 1987 plan includes a
number of riparian improvement measures to allow vegetative recovery and formation
of a narrower and deeper channel. BMPs will include 11.5 miles of fencing of both
riparian and upland pastures, a new upland water system and use of salt-blocks. The
plan also addresses off-road recreational use of the riparian zone.
Little Lost River tributaries, Idaho Falls District:
Sawmill Creek: This project was begun in 1986, and involved rehabilitation of
approximately 7 miles of the creek. The problems on the creek included an unstable
channel and streambank erosion as a result of past grazing practices, fires, and
floods. Funding for the project came from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as
mitigation funds for loss of fish habitat as a result of the diversion of the lower Little
Lost River. The project is divided into about 4 miles of spring only grazing, and 3 miles
of exclosure.
Summit Creek: This project began in 1981, with fencing of 3.2 miles of the
upper creek, an additional 3.0 miles of fencing occurred in the lower creek in 1986
and 1988. Dramatic results from both fencing projects include increases in fish
populations and narrowing of the channel.
Wet Creek: The upper 4.0 miles of this stream were fenced from cattle grazing
in 1981. Riparian improvements along this section of the creek have been impressive,
including the presence of a beaver-created riparian wetland. The stream required
about 5-6 years of non-use before showing significant improvement in riparian
vegetation, due to the years of heavy cattle grazing.
Shoshone Creek, Burley District This project includes several measures to
improve riparian vegetation through limiting or excluding livestock use on lower
segments of the creek and its tributaries. Riparian treatments began in 1982, and
continue to expand. The project area is about 15 miles long. This plan sets
quantitative objectives for the improvement of the riparian area. There are plans for
several types of monitoring, such as low-level aerial photography, periodic
A-2
-------
electrofjshing, channel stability, and vegetative succession. This plan incorporates
both private and BLM lands.
Thorn Creek, Shoshone District: The BLM district chose this creek in 1987 as
its riparian demonstration project. The main emphasis of this project is a rest-rotation
system of grazing, generally not to exceed 1 month of use or 50 percent of the
vegetative utilization of a pasture. There will be only limited exclosures on the creek,
as study areas. The district plans to monitor parameters that would indicate riparian
recovery, such as peak flows, water quality, streambank erosion, and woody
vegetation, at sites designated in the plan.
U.S. Bureau of Land Management - Oregon/Washington Office:
Bear Creek, Prinneville District, Oregon: This was one of the earliest successful
riparian improvement projects, it began in 1976. This project began with livestock
exclosure, and eventually allowed limited season grazing, without inhibiting
improvement of the riparian area [U.S. GAO, 1988].
Camp Creek, Prinneville District, Oregon: This stream had been heavily
impacted from a number of sources, including overgrazing, road-building, logging, and
fires. The BLM district exclosed about 6.1 miles of stream bank in the early 1970's.
The project showed improvements in vegetation, and channel depth and stream flow.
Recovery in this stream was observed to be more difficult due to the unstable bank soil
conditions [U.S. GAO, 1988].
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Alaska:
Clearwater and Sawmill Creeks, Delta Junction, Alaska: This project has
focused on preserving riparian areas for water quality despite the conversion of the
uplands for agriculture. The SCS has promoted various quantities of leave-tree
requirements in the development of the land for agriculture.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Idaho:
Clear Creek, Idaho: This coordinated resource management plan was
developed between the Soil Conservation Service, the Forest Service, the Nez Perce
Tribe, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Idaho County Road Department, and the Idaho Department of Lands. The plan was
designed to protect water quality and flow for a downstream salmon and steelhead
hatchery. The plan developed in 1988 and 1989, and has not yet yielded results.
Crane Creek, Idaho: This project is designed to reduce both riparian and
upland sources of pollution to protect a downstream municipal reservoir. The project
began in 1990. This project is large scale, with some $973,000 in expenditures and
30-35 miles of upland and riparian fencing expected. The Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality is the primary monitoring agency [Yankey, 1990].
A-3
-------
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Oregon:
Upper South Fork John Day River, Oregon: Sections of this watershed
upstream of the town of Izee have severely degraded riparian areas. The main impact
on the riparian zone has been through livestock grazing, as well as wildlife and
livestock on the upper portion of the project area. The participants include the SCS,
two National Forests, the BLM, three timber companies, and seven private ranches
[Thompson, 1990].
The group made an extensive planning effort, inventorying about 80 percent of
the project area, focusing on two tributaries, Uttely Creek and Corral Creek. The
project activities varied with the landowner. On the private ranches, the activities
included cross-fencing, vegetation plantings, and installation of grazing management
systems [Yost, 1990]. On the upstream portions of the watershed on National Forest
System land, the activity focused on vegetative manipulation, such as thinning of white
fir undergrowth and use of slash to keep livestock and wildlife off the streambank and
on the uplands. The Forest Service also adjusted some permits to require more
patrolling by livestock owners and agency personnel to keep the livestock from
congregating in one place for the whole grazing season.
The activities on Forest Service land were just completed this summer, so it is
too early to examine the results. The ranches riparian activities are also fairly recent,
and therefore have not yet yielded results. However, the extent of BMP
implementation makes positive improvements in riparian condition likely.
U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Washington:
Burie Creek, Washington: The problems on this small creek (2 miles long) were
the result of livestock activities. These included bank instability and erosion as a result
of livestock trampling, overgrazing of riparian vegetation, and animal wastes in the
creek. The main adverse impact came from the activities of the one landowner who
participated in this project.
Improvement activities concentrated on a 1,000 foot stretch of streambank and
included limiting the livestock access to the riparian area through fencing, installation of
in-stream structures (approximately 12-15 drop logs), and installation of some
sediment-trapping ponds. The landowner contributed approximately 40 percent of the
$15,000 - $20,000 project cost (1989 dollars). Again, the project seems to be showing
some vegetative improvements, but have not been documented as yet.
Cow Creek, Adams County, Washington: This riparian project began about 15
years ago as a demonstration project. The project covered about 2 miles. Activities
included livestock exclusion with water gaps every 1/4 mile. The project resulted in
significant improvement in riparian vegetation and increased stream flow [Fitch, 1990].
Newacum Creek, King County, Washington: This riparian project began in 1987
through funding from the P.L566- Small Watershed fund. The land treatments related
A-4
-------
to riparian improvement included off-site and designated watering spots, and fencing.
The project has not yet shown results [Henry, 1990],
Tucannon River, Washington: This project consisted of three project areas
designed to address nonpoint source problems in the watershed. The problems
included heavy sediment loading, high summer water temperatures, and poor fish
habitat (pool formation, etc.) These problems resulted from cropland erosion of the
uplands, and overuse of the riparian area by livestock. The project involved four
private landowners, the SCS, Forest Service, and several state and county agencies.
The riparian project area consisted of 2 and 1/2 miles of vegetation plantings
(willow, cottonwood, and alder), 11/4 miles of streambank fencing and development
of watering access areas. These projects were completed about 1987 [Sunderlund,
1990] In-stream structures, such as rock and log jetties and groins, and log weirs were
installed in 1989 and are due to be completed in 1991.
The results of the project have largely been visual improvements in vegetation
and streambank stability. The Department of Fisheries is conducting some long-term
monitoring to see if there is a decrease in temperatures as vegetation matures.
Washington Department of Fisheries:
Bell Creek, Washington: This was a mitigation project that involved re-
establishing a meandering pattern for a stream that had been channelized. The
Department was able to due this because developers adjacent to the stream had
requested hydrologic alteration permits for building projects.
Mattrodick Creek, Dungeness River Tributary, Washington: The Department of
Fisheries worked with the Department of Transportation to correct earlier poor riparian
practices through the hydrologic alteration permit process. The Department of
Transportation paid for the installation of 24 in-stream cedar weirs and improved
culverts, in exchange for a permit to move one mile of road from the riparian area to
the uplands.
U.S. Forest Service, Olympic National Forest, Washington:
These sites in the Quilcene District were visited as part of a field trip. The focus
of riparian management in forest practices is the prevention of impacts to the stream
through good management of the riparian zone.
Tunnel Creek, Quilcene District Recent harvest sites along this stream have
had protective measures included in the harvest plans. These measures include
protective buffering of the riparian zone, avoiding yarding timber in the riparian zone,
and pulling back slash/debris from the stream/riparian zone.
Townsend Creek, Quilcene District Recent harvest sites showed evidence of
protective buffers left along the stream. Some harvesting had occurred in the buffer,
but snags, some young timber, and less merchantable mature species had been left.
A-5
-------
Gold Creek, Quilcene District. This site was planned in about 1975-1978. The
site was a "buy-back" sale, in which the Forest Service bought back the contract in the
early 1980's. The 1987 harvest was probably not replanned, and no riparian harvest
protection zone was left. The riparian area was protected from slash-burning,
however. There were some indications that this stream had nonpoint pollution
problems, such as sedimentation, and raw, eroded banks along part of the stream.
This area does not represent current policy.
Edds Creek, Quilcene District: A 1989 harvest of 55 acres along this stream left
about a 100 foot buffer, with almost no harvest in the riparian zone, and a "feathered"
edge to avoid wind damage to leave-trees.
A-6
-------
APPENDIX B: AGENCY RIPARIAN POLICY STATEMENTS
B-1
-------
Bureau of Land Management
Riparian Area Management Policy
BACKGROUND
Riparian areas are unique and among the most productive and important
ecosystems, comprising approximately 1 percent of the public lands.
Characteristically, riparian areas display « greater diversity of plant, fish,
wildlife, *nd other animal species and vegetation structure than adjoining
ecosystems. Healthy riparian systems filter and purify water as It moves
through the riparian cone, reduce sediment loads and enhance soil stability,
provide micro-climate moderation vhen contrasted to extremes ia adjacent
areas, and contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow.
PEFIMITIOMS
Riparian Area - an area of land directly influenced by permanent water.
It has visible vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent
water Influence;. Lake shores and stream banks are typical riparian areas.
Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit the
presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil.
Riparian Area-Dependent Resources - resources such as water, vegetation,
fish, and certain wildlife that owe their existence to the riparian area.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of riparian area management is to maintain, restore, or improve
riparian values to achieve a healthy and productive ecological condition for
maximum long-term benefits.
POLICY SIATEKEKTS
In order to meet the foregoing objective, the Bureau will to the extent
practical*:
o Achieve riparian area improvement and maintenance objectives through the
management of existing uses wherever feasible.
o Ensure that new resource management plans and activity plans, and
existing plans when revised, recognise the Importance of riparian values,
and Initiate management to maintain, restore, or improve the*.
o Prescribe management for riparian values that is based upon site-specific
characteristics and settings.
o Give special attention to monitoring and evaluating management activities
in rlp«iian are** aod retive management practices where site-specific
objectives are not be In* met.
o Cooperate with and encourage the involvement of Interested Federal, State,
and local governments and private parties to share information, implement
management, coordinate activities, and provide education on the value.
productivity, and management of riparian areas.
o Retain riparian areaa in public ownership unless disposal would be in
the public Interest, as determined in the land use planning system.
o Identify, encourage, and support research and studies needed to ensure
that riparian area management objectives can be properly defined and met.
1967
Director, Bureau of Land Management Data)
Attachment 1
-------
Bureau of Land Management
Alaska State Office
Riparian Area Management Policy
BACKGROUND
Riparian areas are among the most productive and important ecosystems,
comprising approximately 20 percent of the Public Lands in Alaska.
Characteristically, riparian areas display a greater diversity of plant and
animal life, with more diverse and complex vegetative communities than
adjoining ecosystems. Riparian areas play an important role maintaining
biological diversity, filter and purify water as it moves through the riparian
zone, reduce sediment loads and enhance soil stability. They also provide
micro-climate moderation when contrasted to extremes in adjacent areas, and
contribute to groundwater recharge and base flow.
DEFINITIONS
Riparian Area - Riparian areas make up a form of wetland transition between
permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas are those
unique zones that border streams, springs, bogs, wet meadows, lakes and
ponds. These zones are identified with hydrophytic vegetation that grows in
nonhydric (moist but not wet) soils.
Riparian Area-Dependent Resources - Virtually all living resources, such as
wildlife and fish, depend to some extent on riparian zone vegetative
associations and characteristics for their well-being. These same riparian
zone associations and characteristics are also important in the determination
of stream and lake morphology and related water quantity and quality. In
addition, human uses, such as recreation, subsistence, and occupancy are
directly affected by riparian area conditions.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of riparian area management is to maintain, restore, or improve
riparian values to achieve healthy and productive conditions for maximum
long-term benefits and assured resource diversity.
POLICY STATEMENTS
In order to meet the foregoing objective, BLM-Alaska will, to the extent
practicable and consistent with the Alaska Riparian Area Management Strategy:
- Achieve riparian area improvement and maintenance objectives through
the management of existing uses.
- Ensure that land use plans (resource management plans and management
framework plans) and activity plans recognize the importance of
riparian values and initiate management to maintain, restore, or
improve those values.
-------
Prescribe management for riparian values based upon site-specific
ph«rartpri fit"! re anrf c«f-t--?no-c
characteristics and settings
With all associated resources in an integrated effort, include
special attention to monitoring and evaluating management and
restoration activities in riparian areas and revise management
practices where site-specific objectives are not being met.
Cooperate with and encourage the involvement of interested Federal,
State, and local government, private parties and organizations to
share information, implement management, coordinate and prioritize
activities, and provide education on the value, productivity, and
integrated management of riparian areas. In partnership with these
groups, implement a state-wide program to inventory, evaluate, and
monitor key riparian areas.
Retain riparian areas in public ownership unless disposal would be
in the public interest, as determined through the land use planning
process.
Identify, encourage, and support research and studies needed to
ensure that riparian area management objectives can be properly
defined and met.
. .
iaMG^tate Director, Alaska Date
-------
Idaho Riparian Management Policy
Bureau of Land Management
Background
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages approximately 12 million acres of public land in
Idaho. Riparian areas make up a very small portion of the total acreage, but they have values far
beyond their size. The beneficial values of riparian areas include water purification, water storage
.and recharge, fish and. wildlife habitat, forage and water for livestock, and recreation. Initial
inventories show that many riparian areas are in less than optimal condition. Some of the major land
uses that negatively impact riparian areas include improper livestock grazing, timber harvest, road
construction, mining, and recreational use.
Definition
Riparian Area. An area of land directly influenced by permanent water. It has visible vegetation or
physical characteristics reflective of permanent water influence. Lake shores and stream banks are
typical riparian areas. Excluded are such sites as ephemeral streams or washes that do not exhibit
the presence of vegetation dependent upon free water in the soil
Goal
The Bureau's goal is to maintain, restore and improve riparian areas as healthy and productive plant
communities.
Policy Statement
In order to accomplish the Bureau's goal, the BLM in Idaho will:
• Use land use plans (LUPs) for establishing management goals for riparian areas.
- Amend LUPs that do not address critical riparian issues on specific areas.
- Address riparian issues in all LUP revisions.
• Assess riparian resources using a classification system1 that includes the current ecological status,
relative health, and improvement potential.
• Use an interdisciplinary approach to develop well defined and site-specific riparian management
objectives that reflect land use plan goals.
• Complete and implement monitoring plans to determine the trend of riparian conditions and
measure progress towards meeting established objectives under management prescriptions.
-------
- Whenever appropriate, establish cooperative monitoring programs with other agencies,
public land users and affected public interests.
- Support inventory and monitoring information with the experience of resource
specialists and apply current science and professional judgment in management
decisions.
• Use the selective management process2 to categorize grazing allotments with riparian values3 and
assign priority for completion of allotment management plans, use supervision, and monitoring.
° Make changes in management to achieve riparian objectives, based on evaluation of inventory and
monitoring information.
° Emphasize the preparation of interdisciplinary and where appropriate inter-agency activity plans
to achieve specific objectives for riparian areas.
- Use an interdisciplinary approach in developing activity plans.
- Develop and apply best management practices4 based on the specific site characteris-
tics and potential.
— Address all ecological components of the watershed including the uplands.
— Examine management alternatives before adopting use exclusion.
• Designate a portion of range betterment funds3 for implementing projects that help achieve LUP
goals and site-specific riparian objectives.
— Pursue other funding sources (federal and non-federal), innovative approaches and coopera-
tive arrangements to implement riparian improvement projects.
e Consult, coordinate, and work cooperatively with affected public land users, adjacent land
owners, Federal and State agencies and affected public interests to develop riparian management
programs.
* Promote an understanding of the riparian resource and social benefits of improved riparian
management through public information and education programs, including publications, visual
programs, field tours, and demonstrations.
r
,
,4
State Director date
-------
2526.03
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2526 - RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT. Riparian areas consist of
riparian ecosystems, aquatic ecosystems, and wetlands.
2526.02 - objectives. To protect, manage, and improve
riparian areas while implementing land and resource
management activities. TO manage riparian areas in the
context of the environment in which they are located,
recognizing their unique values.
2526.03 - Policy
1. Manage riparian areas in relation to various legal
mandates, including, but not limited to those associated
with floodplains, wetlands, water quality, dredged and fill
material, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, and
cultural resources.
2. Manage riparian areas under the principles of
multiple-use and sustained-yield, while emphasizing pro-
tection and improvement of soil, water, vegetation, and
fish and wildlife resources. Give preferential considera-
tion to riparian dependent resources when conflicts among
land use activities occur.
3. Delineate and evaluate riparian areas prior to
implementing any project activity. Determine geographic
boundaries of riparian areas by onsite characteristics of
water, soil, and vegetation.
4. Give attention to land along all stream channels
capable of supporting riparian vegetation (36 CFR 219.27e).
5. Give special attention to land and vegetation for
approximately 100 feet from the edges of all perennial
streams, lakes, and other bodies of water. This distance
shall correspond to at least the recognizable area domi-
nated by the riparian vegetation (36 CFR 219.27e). Give
special attention to adjacent terrestrial areas to assure
adequate protection for the riparian dependent resources.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2526.04
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2526.04 - Res pons ib i1i t i es
2526.04a - Associate Deputy Chief for Resources, National
Forest System"! The Associate Deputy Chief for Resources,
National Forest System, shall:
1. Provide national policy, objectives, guidelines,
and minimum standards for protection and improvement of
riparian areas on National Forest System lands.
2. Coordinate Forest Service research programs with
riparian area management needs.
3. Coordinate riparian area management direction with
that of other Federal agencies at the national level.
2526.04b - Regional Foresters. Regional Foresters shall:
1. Ensure that riparian area management is included in
the land management planning process.
2. Provide technical standards, guidance, training,
and quality control for the management of riparian areas.
3. Provide criteria for monitoring effectiveness of
measures implemented for the protection and improvement of
riparian areas.
4. Develop more specific criteria as needed to define
riparian areas in terms of soil, vegetation, and landforms.
2526.04c - Forest Supervisors. Forest Supervisors shall:
1. inventory riparian areas in the Forest land manage-
ment planning process.
2. Develop and implement measures to manage and pro-
tect riparian areas according to national objectives and
Regional standards.
3. Monitor the effectiveness of measures implemented
for the management and protection of riparian areas (FSM
1922.6).
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2526.1
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2526.05 - Definitions
1. Aquatic Ecosystems. The stream channel, lake or
estuary bed, water, biotic communities and the habitat
features that occur therein.
2. Perennial Streams. Permanently inundated surface
stream courses. Surface water flows throughout the year
except in years of infrequent drought.
3. Riparian Dependent Resources. These are resources
that owe their existence to the riparian area.
4. Riparian Areas. Geographically delineable areas
with distinctive resource values and characteristics that
are comprised of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
5. Riparian Ecosystems. A transition between the
aquatic ecosystem and the adjacent terrestrial ecosystem;
identified by soil characteristics or distinctive vegeta-
tion communities that require free or unbound water.
2526.1 - Inventory and Analysis. In addition to routinely
collected data, collect, analyze and interpret the follow-
ing information as needed for land and resource management
planning:
1. Riparian dependent resources.
2. Streamside vegetation and its value as fish and
wildlife habitat and its relation to the control of sedi-
ment originating on upland areas, to the maintenance of
stream temperatures, and to the stability of streambanks
and channels.
3. Ground water recharge.
4. Possibility of reducing or otherwise modifying the
risk of flooding.
5. Water quality and the deposition or buffering of
potential water pollutants.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2526.2
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
6. Fluctuations in water levels, quantities, and
timing of flow in relation to habitat of fish, waterfowl,
mammals and aquatic organisms and to maintenance of phre-
atophytes and other riparian vegetation.
7. Cumulative effects of management activities.
2526.2 - Monitoring. Apply a monitoring system consistent
with the sensitivity of the riparian area and capable of
measuring attainment of Forest plan objectives for
dependent resources.
2527 - FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND WETLAND PROTECTION
2527.01 - Authority. Executive Orders 11514, 11988, 11990,
and general authority cited in FSM 2501.
2527.02 - Objectives
1. To reduce risk of flood loss.
2. To minimize impacts of floods on human safety,
health and welfare.
3. To minimize destruction, loss, and degradation of
wetlands.
4. To preserve and restore the natural and beneficial
values of floodplains and wetlands.
2527.03 - Policy
1. Recognize floodplains and wetlands as specific
management areas.
2. Provide opportunity for early public review of
plans or proposals for actions in floodplains.
3. Avoid adverse impacts which may be associated with
the occupancy and modification of floodplains and with the
destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands.
4. Do not permit floodplain development and new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable
alternative.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.04b
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
5. Promote nonstructural flood protection methods to
reduce flood hazard and flood loss.
6. Preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial
values of wetlands.
7. Provide technical assistance to Federal-State
forestry programs.
2527.04 - Responsibilities
2527.04a - Associate Deputy Chief for Resources, National
Forest System.The Associate Deputy Chief for Resources
National Forest System, shall ensure that floodplain man-
agement and wetland protection and management considera-
tions are included in all Forest Service activities and
programs affecting land use.
2527.04b - Regional Foresters and. Area Director. The
Regional Foresters, and Area Director shall:
1. Ensure that flood hazards, floodplain and wetland
values, and all alternatives that affect a floodplain or
that involves new construction in wetlands are fully con-
sidered in the Forest Service planning and decision making
processes. (FSH 1909.15).
2. Coordinate activities and interchange of floodplain
and wetlands information with other concerned Federal and
State agencies.
3. Ensure that cooperative technical and financial
assistance programs include an evaluation of floodplain and
wetland values.
4. Ensure that all documents conveying interest in or
authorizing use of floodplains and wetlands on National
Forest System lands contain restrictions which will reduce
the risk of loss and preserve the national and beneficial
values served by floodplains and wetlands.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.04c
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2527.04c - Forest Supervisors. Forest Supervisors shall:
1. Analyze proposed actions affecting floodplains or
involving new construction in wetland to assess the spe-
cific flood hazards, quantify floodplain or wetland values
of the areas; determine the impacts of the proposal on
those hazards and values; formulate and evaluate land and
resource management options; come up with a practicable
alternative action or location, and determine whether the
"no action" option is practicable.
2. Modify plans, activities, and designs to minimize
impacts of the action and to mitigate its effects on the
natural and beneficial values of the floodplain or wetland
in all actions where an alternative to an action in or
affecting the floodplain or new construction in a wetland
is not practicable.
3. Ensure that all practicable and necessary miti-
gating measures are incorporated in specifications for the
proposed action, and that the implementation of the
selected action is accomplished in a manner that to the
extent practicable, restores and preserves the natural and
beneficial values served by floodplains and preserves and
enhances the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.
4. Require flood hazard and wetlands evaluations prior
to issuing of licenses, permits, loans, or grants-in-aid,
and provide assistance to applicants in obtaining help to
make such evaluations in their proposals.
5. Ensure that design, construction, or rehabilitation
of Forest Service real property is in accordance with stan-
dards and criteria outlined in the National Flood Insurance
Program (42 U.S.C. 4001 and following) using flood proofing
measures and structural elevation, where practicable.
6. Provide for the placement of appropriate signs to
enhance public awareness of and knowledge about flood
hazards.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.05
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
7. Establish specific management standards and guide-
lines for .floodplains and wetlands as a part of forest
planning actions.
8. Cooperate with State and County governments in the
development and implementation of appropriate early flood
warning and evacuation plans.
2527.05 - Definitions
1. Action. Any Federal activity including (1)
acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and
facilities, (2) providing federally undertaken, financed,
or assisted construction or improvements, and (3) conduct-
ing Federal activities and programs affecting land use,
including but not limited to, water and related land
resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
2. Critical Action. Any action for which even a
slight chance of flooding would be too great.
3. Facility. Any man-made or man-placed items other
than a structure.
4. Flood or Flooding. A general or temporary condi-
tion of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from the overflow of inland and/or tidal waters,
and/or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of sur-
face waters from any source.
5. Flood Risk. The probability that one or more
events will exceed a given flood frequency within a speci-
fied period of years.
6. Base Floodplain. The lowland and relatively flat
areas joining inland and coastal water including debris
cones and flood-prone areas of offshore islands, including
at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent (100-year
recurrence) or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
a. Coastal Floodplain. A flood-prone area adjacent to
estuaries or oceans. Flooding in these areas is due pri-
marily to landward flows caused by unusually high tides,
storm surges, tsunamis, or a combination of these causes.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.06—1
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
b. Lake Shore Floodplain. A flood-prone area adjacent
to lakes"! Flooding in these areas is due primarily to
inflow of water exceeding that of outflow. It may also be
due to landward flows of water caused by strong winds,
unusually high tide, or a combination of these causes.
7. Floodway. That portion of the floodplain which is
effective in carrying flow, within which this carrying
capacity must be preserved and where the flood hazard is
generally highest, that is, where flood depths and veloci-
ties are the greatest.
8. Wetlands. Those areas that are inundated by
surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to
support, and under normal circumstances do or would sup-
port, a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life that
requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions
for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs,
potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and
natural ponds.
2521 .Q6 - Applicability and Exemptions From Executive Order
Requirements.Apply the Water Resources Council prescribed
eight-step decisionmaking process in applying the flood-
plain management Executive order. The eight steps shall be
included in any environmental assessment prepared under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The eight steps
are as follows:
1. Determine whether the proposed action is located
in the base floodplain (500-year floodplain for critical
actions); or whether it has the potential to affect a
floodplain or indirectly support floodplain development.
If not, or if an action is of an emergency nature
(FSM 2527.06b), requirements of the Executive order will
have been satisfied. Methods for delineation of flood-
plains are described in chapter 20, FSH 2509.17, Water
Information Management System Handbook.
2. Notify the public at the earliest possible time of
any plan or proposal to undertake, support, or allow an
action which would result in the occupancy, modification,
or development in a floodplain, and involve the affected
and interested public in the decisionmaking process.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.06a
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
2527.06a - Test for Applicability. Analyze the proposed
action's potential to result in longer short-term adverse
impacts associated with:
1. The occupancy or modification of floodplains.
2. The direct and indirect support of floodplain
development.
3. The destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands.
4. The direct or indirect support of new construction
in wetlands.
2527.06b - Exempted Emergency Actions. Assistance for
emergency work performed pursuantto sections 305 and 306
of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 148, 42 U.S.C.
5145 and 5146) are exempted from requirements of the Execu-
tive orders. This exemption applies to unanticipated emer-
gency situations that require immediate action to prevent
or reduce risk to public health or safety or serious prop-
erty or resource losses.
2527.1 - Identification of Floodplains and Wetlands.
Identify the general location of floodplains and wetlands
on National Forest lands during the land and resource
management planning process in the delineation and inven-
tory of riparian areas (FSM 2526). Define specific loca-
tions during the preliminary phases of project planning for
proposed development or new construction within floodplains
or wetlands. See FSH 2509.17, chapter 20, for floodplain
delineation methods.
2527.2 - Public Notice Requirements. Provide opportunity
for public review and commenton all proposed actions
involving occupancy, modification, or development in or
affecting floodplains or the destruction, loss, degradation
of or new construction in or affecting wetlands at the
earliest possible time and throughout the decisionmaking
process. Upon completion of this process, provide the
public with an account of the final decision. Specific
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.31
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
procedures-for public involvement may be found in 40 CFR
1507.1, 1502.25 and 1506.6, and in FSH 1609.13, Public
Participation Handbook. For actions involving floodplains
or wetlands, a finding of no significant impact will be
made available for a 30-day public review before implemen-
tation of the action may take place (FSH 1909.15).
2527.3 - Analysis and Evaluation of Proposed Actions and
Practicable Alternatives.If it has been determined that a
proposal involves an action in or affecting a floodplain or
wetland, and that if the action could result in adverse
impacts, analyze and evaluate all practical alternatives.
Give special emphasis to exploration of alternatives which
would relocate the proposed action outside of the area, as
opposed to simply minimizing the adverse impacts of the
proposed action. Consider alternatives to non-structural
proposals in or affecting the area. Follow the procedures
for analysis and evaluation specified in FSH 1909.15, NEPA
Procedures Handbook.
Avoid filling of land within floodplains and wetlands
wherever practicable. Use the complete decision analysis
process as outlined in FSH 1909.15, NEPA Procedures Hand-
book, to document the selection of an alternative which
will affect a floodplain or wetland.
2527.31 - Evaluation Factors. Evaluate three types of
floodplain impacts:(1) positive and negative, (2) concen-
trated and dispersed, and (3) short- and long-term. Assess
them in terms of the resource values associated with water,
living resources, cultural resources/ agriculture, aquacul-
ture, and forestry. Develop evaluations and decisions in
the total land management planning context considering the
public interest in: (1) human health, safety, and welfare;
(2) preventing loss of property values; (3) maintenance of
natural systems; (4) economic efficiency; and (5) resource
needs of Regions and localities. Evaluate risk character-
istics including depth, velocity, and rate of rise of
floodwater; location in a floodway or coastal high hazard
area; available warning and evacuation time, and special
problems, such as flood related erosion, subsidence, sink-
holes, and combination of flood sources.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.06—2
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to
locating a-proposed action in a floodplain including
alternative sites outside the floodplain, alternative
actions serving the same purpose as the proposed action,
and .the "no action" option.
4. Identify the full range of potential direct or
indirect adverse impacts associated with the occupancy or
modification of floodplain and the potential direct and
indirect support of floodplain development that could
result from the proposed action.
5. Identify and evaluate mitigating measures that will
minimize the potential adverse impacts of the action if
avoidance cannot be achieved, and measures that will pre-
serve and restore or enhance the natural and beneficial
floodplain values that would be adversely impacted by the
action.
6. Reevaluate the proposed action to determine first,
if it is still practical, even with the application of
appropriate mitigating measures, in light of its exposure
to flood hazards and its potential to adversely affect the
floodplain and, second, if the alternatives identified in
step 3 are practicable in light of information gained in
steps 4 and 5 above.
7. Prepare and provide the public with a finding and
public explanation of any final decision that there is no
practicable alternative to locating an action in, or
adversely affecting, a floodplain.
8. Provide ongoing review of implementation and post-
implementation phases of the proposed action to ensure that
all provisions associated with the action, including appro-
priate mitigating measures as identified in the environ-
mental assessment, are fully implemented.
The numbering of steps 1 through 8 does not firmly require
that the steps be followed sequentially. As information is
gathered throughout the decision-making process and as
additional information is needed, reevaluation of lower-
numbered steps may be necessary.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
2527.32
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Follow the specific requirements of Executive orders 11988
and 11990 in-preparing the planning criteria to guide the
Regional and Forest planning process, and management
direction concerning floodplains and wetlands.
2527.32 - Data Needs for Floodplain and Wetland Evaluation.
Establish the appropriate type, scope, and intensity of
study and analysis for any particular area and proposed
action through the land and resources management planning
process. Chapter 20, FSH 2509.17, contains guidelines for
selecting the appropriate method for delineation of flood-
plains for the level of study to be made.
2527.33 - Provision for Minimizing Flood Damage. Minimize
adverse impacts to improvements within floodplains and
wetlands. Avoid new construction or substantial improve-
ment of a structure or facility in a floodway unless it is
consistent with the criteria of the National Flood Insur-
ance Program or any more stringent Federal, State, or local
floodplain management standards, and one of the following
conditions exist:
1. It is a functionally dependent use, such as a
bridge or culvert.
2. It will facilitate an open space use.
3. It is designed to preserve, restore, or enhance the
natural and beneficial resources or uses of the floodplain.
2527.34 - Documentation of Analyses and Evaluations. See
FSH 1909.15, chapter 20, for documentation procedures.
2527.4 - Restrictions. When property in floodplains or
federally owned wetlands or portions of wetlands is pro-
posed for lease, easement, right-of-way, or disposal to
nonfederal public or private parties, (1) reference in the
conveyance documents those uses that are restricted under
identified Federal, State, or local floodplain or wetland
regulations; and (2) attach other appropriate restrictions,
which have been identified in the environmental analysis,
to the use of the properties by the grantee or purchaser
and any successors.
*-FSM 3/86 AMEND 48-*
-------
$&m
®*S2&K«*?W
**t-:»9 **»j*«f" *•-.-£•» . - ''•- -ry.
^>ra»^A.rfc-4j^^«&^
I.- - ' ';l:V*f*' »^
I?T1TIJ;¥ 2500 '^ VWATERSHll^'M^G'EM^^;;'^.':.';S.V..' - .. .-. ....
posting retain this transmittal until theJnext "supplement;to this
^ . - ^ ^ -. , \ > _ ^ '-'_.-—..•.. -i - ^^t _••'•' vi'V "•."•• •FK v#-fileti!'_. * ' *-j >?W * .
>'.7..•';•%• *"- . • ' • •'•'* •• '• , "-v-<
iwii^jyV'-^.a-y-'-Page Code'' **• -y*^f
S-^^-VV^;:-• ..-•;.-. ••-;•"••'-..' - •
~N^T- '-^' v-'=-';--' .- •' - -
?':--*-^ 2526.XWC - 25(26,3
/
Digest;
2526 - Adds Regional direction for riparian area management.
TOM COSTON
Regional Forester
DEC 12 1983
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
R-10
•3-'. _.ir,- ''-"igl'lL-l
i r
-------
iRIPA*IANgAAEAS.^RiiferiWare^
t : rs rri ,.1^^-iiSi*is.^^U'r«r.^«««rt%^^«W<^--v^:*ft^ «£?**:»*,--.*- : ^-<^* 3SS£r€3sS£$
|s£jtatn|^f^^^
»8fJE|8tii«w^pj^^ e sff^ £?• Par i-an v*"c i"!--*rC> 1;!
^fC-Jud'e^ the'Jcomb ina t ionv.o.fX the "aqua't i cjandj;' r i par ianj ecosystems—— **^Sivj
?«^S^l^«Jit ^ «« W«* ••«. «• **. fw* ^a_4*««« ^V» ^ ^ ^ ^**V%^^»^T*^ ninln0l^fli TT1 flllfl 1 _
'"•'\r..,'-&x.'• preserve and enhance productivity through maintenance and-improvement'
:of dependent resources (high water quality^5_fi8hi>.certain^wildlife and
1. As project-level plans are developed-or* updated ^describe the v^ff
desired, riparian habitat condition at some future^specif Ied^:time using;**$££''•-
specific riparian related resource objectives and develop management '•-• -:.
alternatives to accomplish these desired conditions.
2. Apply Best Management Practices (BMP's) to all riparian area
management activities on National Forest lands. ..
3. Implement riparian area management through the inter-
disciplinary process.
2526.04b - Regional Forester. Develop a procedural guide for the
description, inventory, analysis, protection and improvement of
riparian areas.
2526.04c - Forest Supervisor.
1. Delineate alL existing riparian areas during the land alloca-
tion process and describe current and desired conditions for all iden-
tified dependent resources in riparian areas, in project plannning.
2.. Insure that interdisciplinary teams representing dependent and
nondependent riparian resource areas evaluate planned projects,
describe desired future riparian habitat condition, develop management
objectives, and develop and update project plans.
FSM 11/83 R-l SUPP 37
-------
I Management' activities•shall-encourage"improver
protection of riparian 'areas".""/Opportunities for
le'nt^include, but are not limited to: ;~ •'"••-•'•. - ">•-..
.'---'*7--lil> -" .' •'" " ' . • "" • • < • ' • •- •
•c>'.- a.-, planting or otherwise encouraging indigenous riparian vegeta-
tion to provide additional cover or shade^ • • , . , .'' ...
":''i.0'5":"'i'"'''V': '*'"?• "•'" ' • ' '"•: ,-'"• ' ~-;'.
4-rb;;; stabilizing damaged streambanks.
- •I'c'f controlling surface erosion within the riparian ecosystem. '•
"v. * d,. . controlling gully erosion and reestablishing water tables";^-' :,
e... . initiating structural habitat improvement projects." '"J.~ '•„
In addition to P&M funds, K-V and Range Improvement are sources for _____
financing .riparian area improvements. : Planning- .fqr^,the-use^.pf- other, :,
funds must be 'done well in advance so they iwy be^pbtained 'through f
eatablished procedures. ' ' - ":> ?U-:.5iy-/**^^r?i^>rv^"-'^r"^
" ''
. . .
''X^f->^f'~':-jf*'".^:-
FSM 11/83 R-l SUPP 37
-------
-'>i.'v .•--••.:- .*-•..•. -.,
-;^ Convene'"ID-teams composed of specialists representing both
-• Jz$'S- dependent" and. nondependent. riparian resources to develop and implement
.:££l/plans, to accomplish site specific riparian objectives (includes:
.i^' timber sales, range allotments, habitat improvement projects,
. ,'"':,:";'watershed improvements, roads, etc.).
, * "*' *z"- *""'"''"".",•..
':-~.\j-.-^'!^' 3/ Establish monitoring needs, criteria and procedure..
.'2526.12 - Inventory and Analysis. , • . ....
i ' . T . - -*-,. "" ' ' ** " ""
*_J •'"•-,,' ' '' ' - ' - -
-,,v^: 1. Land and Resource Management Planning Process. Delineate and
..%...;provide general direction for managing riparian areas in Forest Plans.
j- 2. Project-Specific Planning Process. Evaluation of'^present and
•>y;-potential resource conditions and development of management; prescrip-
l':"Vi" tions wil-1 .be by an interdisciplinary team familiar with^sdil, water,;
' ''and vegetative potential as well as fish and wildlife requirements of
:-' j the riparian zone.' ";:^> .... ^ -,v: . .
.' After determining the present and potential resource conditions/ the
team will establish objectives for each of the identified dependent
riparian resources. In assigning objectives, the interdisciplinary.
team must keep in mind the specific site potential for vegetative
•response, the timeframe required to attain the desired response, and
management prescriptions to attain the objectives.
2526.2 - Monitoring and Evaluation. The Forest Supervisor shall
designate a certified silviculturist and other appropriate specialists
to prepare management prescriptions to meet the recommended resource
management objectives (i.e., hydrologist for BMP development,
fisheries biologist for fish habitat needs, etc.). The team will
establish a procedure to monitor the riparian zone and assess trends
toward achieving the recommended resource conditions. Monitoring
should be specific to evaluate progress toward a desired future con-
dition with defined success/failure levels.
2526.3 - Protection and Improvement.
L. Protection.
a. Best Management Practices as defined by journeyman hydrolo-
gists and/or soil scientists will be incorporated into the design of
all projects in the riparian area to maintain dependent.riparian
resources at desired management levels.
FSM 11/83 R-l SUPP 37
-------
2526
TITLE 2500 — WATERSHED MANAGMENT
2526 - RIPARIAN AREA MANAGEMENT. A Streamside Management Unit (SMD) is the
stream and an adjacent area of varying width where practices that might
affect water quality, fish, and other aquatic resources are modified to
meet water quality goals for each class of stream.
The width of this area will vary with the management goals for each class
of stream, characteristics of the stream and surrounding terrain and type
and extent of the planned activity. SMD's will be managed for water
quality for the benefit of all water uses, and to comply with the intent of
the Clean Water Act.
Where floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, esthetic or recreation areas
or other uses associated with streams exist or are potentially important,
the boundaries of SMD's may overlap. If management constraints are in
conflict, the most restrictive will apply.
As part of the multiple use plan, classify streams and show on a map and
include in the Forest Plan and Total Resource Inventory (TRI) aquatic
subsystem. Prescribe special management practices on a case-by-case basis
to meet goals established for each class of stream, considering the
cumulative downstream effects frpm a number of individual streams when
planning the^overall extent and timing of management activities.
The delineation of SMD's helps in designing measures to minimize water
temperature increases, reduce turbidity and channel erosion, avoid the
accumulation of man-caused woody debris, and lessen other impacts "on water
quality resulting from land management activities.
Some streams, because of their present or foreseeable use, provide a higher
measure of protection than normal watershed management practices would
dictate.
The SMD concept does not imply arbitrary abstention from all activities
near streams but stresses the need for applying special care in
management. However, to meet SMD management goals, severely restrict
activity along some streams where the potential for unacceptable impact is
high.
Design management practices to meet the objectives for each class of stream
based on the characteristics or sensitivity of the site in question. Along
Class III and IV streams, these practices may be more restrictive than for
Class I or II streams. A small Class III stream in a V-type canyon of
unstable, steep slopes, may require more restrictive practices to achieve
on- and off-site water quality goals than a Class I stream in a flat,
stable valley bottom.
»- FSM 6/87 R-6 SDPP 51 -•
-------
2526.05—1
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Ensure a desirable level of protection for streams to involve more than
just the application of the SMU concept. Ephemeral streams are not
delineated in the SMU concept but apply satisfactory land management
practices along these streams as well as throughout the watershed.
2526.05 - Definitions
6. Stream. A watercourse or section of a watercourse —
that has perennial flow, or that has intermittent flow.
7. Perennial Streams. Normally flow yearlong, except during periods
of extreme drought. Have well-defined channels and show signs of washing
and scouring.
8. Intermittent Streams. Carry water most of the year, but cease to
flow during the dry season because evaporation and percolation into their
bed and banks exceeds the available streamflow.
Have well-defined channels. Include channels showing active scouring or
washing in this category even though they may flow only during or
immediately after periods of precipitation or the melting of snow.
Normally lack litter, except during the fall of the year, indicating
streamflow sufficient to move material during runoff.
Intermittent streams do not include ephemeral streams.
9- Ephemeral Streams. Carry only surface runoff and flow only during
and immediately after periods of precipitation or the melting of snow.
Form in slight depressions in the natural contour of the ground surface but
do not normally develop sufficient flow to wash or scour their channels.
Can usually be identified by the presence of needles or other litter in the
depressions.
«- FSM 6/87 R-6 SDPP 51 -»
-------
2526.05—2
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
10. Coordination. In classifying streams, utilize the best resource
data available. Solicit input from outside resource agencies such as State
Fish.1 and Game, Ecology and Environmental Quality, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection
Agency, and so forth. Coordinate and cooperate with other agencies,
individuals, and groups in an early and continuing effort.
Review and solicit recommendations of proposed stream class delineations
and management practices for activities within the SMU's with appropriate
State and Federal agencies prior to on-the-ground application when there is
a possibility that such practice(s) may have an adverse effect upon the
water or aquatic resources.
Verify stream classifications in the field as soon as practicable, but no
later than when environmental assessment reports are prepared for
activities adjacent to stream segments.
Correlation with the States of Oregon and Washington stream classification
system is shown in Table 1 below.
TABLE 1
STREAM CLASSIFICATION CORRELATION
USFS
I
II
III
IV
!
! Unclassified
WASHINGTON ! OREGON
1
-
X
2
X
3
X
4
X
X
5
1
X
X
I
x !
2
X
X
Unclassified
I
x !
•- FSM 6/87 R-6 SUPP 51 -«
-------
2526.05—3
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
11. Stream Class. The present and foreseeable uses made of the water
and the potential effects of on-site changes on downstream uses, are the
criteria for defining four stream classes. The importance of use will be
relative to the general area. Size is not necessarily a criterion for
classification^ Classify whole streams or parts of streams. One stream
may be sectionalized into several classes.
a. Class I. Perennial or intermittent streams or segments thereof
that have one or more of the following characteristics:
Direct source of water for domestic use (PSM 2543 - cities, recreation
sites, and so forth).
Used by large numbers of fish for spawning, rearing or migration.
Flow enough water to be a major contributor to the quantity of water in a
Class I stream.
b. Class II. Perennial or intermittent streams or segments thereof
that have one or both of the following characteristics:
Used by moderate though significant numbers of fish for spawning, rearing
or migration.
Flow enough water to be a moderate or not clearly identifiable contributor
to the quantity of water in a Class I stream, or be a major contributor to
a Class II stream.
c. Class III. All other perennial streams or segments thereof not
meeting higher class criteria.
d. Class IV. All other intermittent streams or segments thereof not
meeting higher class criteria.
12. Management Goals. Design management activities within the SMD to
meet goals established for each class of stream.
The broad management goal for all streams is to apply the best management
practices consistent with achieving specific water quality goals, and
protect the stream and adjacent area to maintain the aquatic resources at
high natural levels.
Water quality standards established by State or Federal agencies may not be
appropriate for nonpoint sources and Forests may establish more specific
water quality goals, and formally document these new goals in a retrievable
file (for example, TRI). Formulate or review goals by appropriate
specialists and approve by line authority.
•- FSM 6/87 R-6 SDPP 51 -»
-------
2526.05—4
TITLE 2500 - WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Specific management goals, as itemized below, recognize that some water
quality changes inevitably occur for certain classes of streams in order to
obtain the best overall yield and mix of the many land and. water
resources. Aim resource planning to minimize such changes, in accordance
with our environmental protection responsibilities.
a. Class I. The use of the water and downstream influence of this
class of stream Justify the highest level of protection and enhancement.
Management activities will not degrade water quality, fish or aquatic
resources below the existing or natural level, except for temporary changes
resulting from:
Activities designed to improve the stream, for example, restoration and
habitat improvement.
Necessary transportation system crossing; for example, bridges, culverts.
Structures associated with putting the water to beneficial uses; for
example, irrigation diversions, domestic supply intakes.
Temporary changes are those which are transitory in nature; that is, the
effect ceases and water quality returns to its previous level when the
permitted activity ceases. Changes as a result of these activities must be
minimal and .adequately monitored.
b. Class II. The use of the water and downstream influence of these
streams Justify a high level of protection and enhancement. Management
activities will not deteriorate water quality below established water
quality goals except for temporary changes resulting from essential
short-term activities.
Temporary changes include those defined for Class I streams but shall not
include:
Increased water temperatures which take a minimum of several years for
shade reestablishment, or
Turbidity from long-term disturbances such as roads or large denuded areas
that act as a recurring source of sediment for a period of time until
stabilization is achieved.
c. Class III and IV. The minor on-site use and downstream influence
Justify a normal level of protection. Management activities will not
deteriorate water quality below existing established water quality goals
for downstream Class I and Class II streams.
Water quality changes in Class III and IV streams may involve some
temperature and turbidity increases, provided these do not cause Class I or
II waters to fall below established goals. Temperature effects usually
diminish when shade is reestablished, and turbidity when erosion control
measures become effective. Temperature increases in Class IV streams are
not normally a concern as such streams are dry during the critical summer
temperature period.
*- FSM 6/87 R-6 SOPP 51 -•
-------
—UUN i i«t r < L.U on
I
StetM Soil P.O. Vox 2000
D»Mrtm»ni of ConMrviOon Washington. D.C.
Aohcuitur* S*rvie« 20013
February 5, 1990
NATIONAL BULLETIN NO. 450-0-8
SUBJECT: TCH - GUIDELINES FOR RIPARIAN AREA RECOGNITION AND
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Purpose. To provide a definition and guidance to the field
office* when providing management options which effect riparian
areas.
Expiration Date. This bulletin expires when replaced by
inclusion or tnis information in appropriate handbooks and
manuals.
Background. Recent public interest in the nature and condition
or riparian areas has highlighted the need to recognize special
management strategies. Land management agencies such as the
Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service have policies
and procedures recognizing such areas. The following guidance is
provided when planning with private land-users, public agencies
and other interested parties.
Definition. Riparian areas are wetland ecosystems which have a
nign water table because of proximity to an aquatic ecosystems or
subsurface water. Riparian ecosystems usually occur as an
ecotone between aquatic and upland ecosystems but have distinct
vegetation and soil characteristics. Aridity, topographic relief
and presence of depositional soils most strongly influence the
extent of high water tables and associated riparian ecosystems.
These ecosystems are most commonly recognized as bottomland
hardwood and floodplain forests in the Eastern and Central United
States, and as bosque or streambank vegetation in the West.
Riparian ecosystems are uniquely characterized by the combination
of high species diversity, high species densities and high
productivity. Continuous interactions occur between riparian,
aquatic and upland terrestrial ecosystems through exchanges of
energy, nutrients, and species.
Guidance.
1. SCS technicians in the conservation planning process
should be prepared to help the land-user recognize the value
of riparian areas and their contribution to flood control,
streambank stabilization, nutrient cycling, wildlife
habitat, livestock production and the local water cycle.
- MORE -
DIST: Sf T, L
Th« Sol CooMfvaUan Swrie* WO-AS-i
« «n lovncy el Hw 10-79
DiBtflmiiit el Aaneuftura
-------
o 423 t>30B 5>Cb-WNTC.PTLD OR 04x02/90 10:22 003
2. Riparian areas should be classified according to the SCS
range site and condition procedure from the National Range
Handbook', Section 300 and 400.
3. Riparian areas are to be planned within the Resource
Management System planning process for rangelands as
contained in the National Conservation Planning Manual and
•National Range Handbook, Sections 900, 1000 and 1200.
4. Riparian areas are to be planned and management options
developed, as an integral part of the overall watershed or
operating unit.
5. Criteria that can be used to identify riparian areas
include:
a. Vegetation - Kinds and amounts that are influenced
by the watercourse or water body.
b. Soils - Soils in natural riparian areas will
generally be in the Fluvent, Aquent, or Aquoll
suborders.
c. Water - Riparian areas are hydrologically
influenced by water from the watercourse or water body.
Natural riparian areas may occur along natural
watercourses, such as perennial streams, intermittent
streams, and rivers, or adjacent to natural lakes..
Riparian areas may also occur along man-made
watercourses or water bodies such as ditches, canals,
ponds and reservoirs.
6. Management Considerations
a. wet meadow, subirrigated and overflow are examples
of riparian range sites. Range sites are the management
units that SCS uses in developing management options
for land-users on rangeland, other interpretative
groupings such as pasture and hayland suitability
groups will be the interpretative units where
appropriate.
b. The management options should encompass all sites
within the pasture or management unit, not just the
riparian sites. These options should be based on
resource problems and conservation treatment necessary
to protect the resources and meet the land-users
objectives. Zf the land-users objectives are in
conflict with the capabilities of the resources,
alternatives should be presented.
c. Range improvements, such as planned grazing -systems
and proper grazing use have been successfully used in
several states to improve riparian areas while
improving upland sites. Adequate rest or nongrazing
periods may need to be incorporated in the planned
grazing system to allow the grazed vegetation to
recover before the next grazing event.
-------
d. Fencing for livestock exclusion is not considered a
necessary or practical management option for rangeland
situations. Fencing may be a practical management
option for concentrated livestock operations such as
dairies and feedlots. Zn some instances fencing may be
a practical management option for land use conversions
desired by a land-user, for example, changing a pasture
to a stream corridor recreation area.
e. 8C8 Range 414 and 416 worksheets can be used to
judge proper grazing use on riparian as veil as upland
range sites. Proper grazing use evaluation procedures
or forms can be used for grazed woodland and/or
pastureland as appropriate.
f. Key species and key grazing areas are important
concepts to remember when providing assistance on
grazing management.
g. Grazing management options should be based on the
following considerations.
1. Be simple and practical.
2. Be flexible.
3. Be economically feasible.
4. Provide adequate rest for recovery and •
litter accumulation.
*
5. Be fitted to individual ranch operation, kind
and class of grazing animals, topography and
specific needs of the resources.
6. Where periodic drought is an expected event in
the area, planned forage reserves for drought are
essential and should be included in the
conservation plan.
These guidelines are to assist field personnel and provide
assistance on land units that include riparian areas. Our
assistance is relied on by producers and land-users to make sound
resource management decisions. We must constantly strive to
provide the best alternatives for the proper use and management
of these important resources.
Actin« for
WILSON SCALING
Chief
------- |