Landslide Standards Implementation Group

1. Landslide Standards Implementation Group August 2011

2. Overview of process • In 2007, MHHA raised concerns to BOF about public safety hazards from landslides associated with proposed timber harvesting. • BOF asked S&TC to assess scope of public safety hazards from landslides in commercial forest areas

3. Background, cont. • S&TC developed scoping model and maps and drafted definitions • BOF decided not to pursue FRPA amendments for public safety • BOF decided to ask the S&TC to review and recommend updates to the BMPs on landslide impacts on fish habitat and water quality • BOF reviewed and forwarded S&TC recommendations to an Implementation Group (I.G.) for review

4. i.g. focus • S&TC focused on science and technical information • The I.G. also considers economics and land ownership into account along with impacts on fish habitat and water quality in making its recommendations.

5. I.G. Membership • Agencies and organizations that may be affected by updates to FRPA with respect to landslides: • State FRPA agencies • Forest landowners • Local governments • Forest industry • Commercial and sport fisheries • Water users • MHHA invited to participate, but declined

6. I.G. Meetings • August 9 – Ketchikan • August 23 – Web conference • September 27 – videoconference • Feedback from Board (e.g., on blasting and indicators) • S&TC C9 Saturated soil indicators • S&TC non-consensus item on end-hauling and full-bench construction • Review of overall package

7. Public outreach • Notice of process sent to public mailing list • Minutes of all meetings sent to the public mailing list • 126 individuals, organizations, municipalities, Native corporations, and agencies • Board meetings publicly noticed and provided opportunity for public comment • Comments received were conveyed to the I.G.

8. Public comment to I.G. • Contact from Van Abbott, KGB planning commission re non-FRPA harvest and slide at Ward Cove (9/21/11) • Letter from MHHA re Sept. 23, 2011 slide along Mitkof Highway (9/24/11, in Board packet) • Copy of 3-8-10 City of Petersburg resolution regarding MHT land exchange proposal and landslide risks

9. FInalI.g. recommendations

10. Igc 1 - landslide definition • IGC 1. Concur with S&TC C1: For the purposes of the FRPA and its regulations, define both “landslide” and “mass wasting” using the definition under 11 AAC 95.900 (44): • "mass wasting" means the slow to rapid downslope movement of significant masses of earth material of varying water content, primarily under the force of gravity.

11. Igc 2 “slope failure” • The I.G. concurred with the S&TC that no change is needed to the term “high risk of slope failure” in 11 AAC 95.280(d)(1) [slope stability standards]

12. Igc 7 “unstable” terms • S&TC (C2): change “unstable slope” and “unstable or slide-prone slope” to “unstable slope or slide-prone area” wherever they appear in the regulations. Note: this amends the term used in 11 AAC 95.220(a)(9)(A) [DPOs] and .290(d)(2) [road construction • IG: • Change “unstable or slide-prone slope” to “unstable area” with regard to the DPO • Use “unstable slope” in the other BMPs requiring specific actions.

13. Igc 8 “unstable” definitions S&TC: “Unstable slope or slide-prone area” means a slope or area, generally in excess of 50% gradient, where one or more of the following indicators may exist. Slide risk depends on the combination of factors at a given site. • landslide scar initiation zones, • jack-strawed trees, • gullied or dissected slopes, • a high-density of streams or zero-order basins (source basins for headwater streams), or • evidence of soil creep.

14. Igc 8, cont. - DPO I.G.: Revise 11 AAC 95.220(a)(9) - “[provide] the following [SLOPE] information for areas that are located in cutting units or traversed by roads: (A) any known unstable [SLIDE-PRONE SLOPE] area. For the purposes of identifying unstable areas under this section, consider sites with slopes generally in excess of 50% gradient, where one or more of the following indicators may exist. • landslide scars, • jack-strawed trees, • gullied or dissected slopes, • a high-density of streams or zero-order basins (source basins for headwater streams), or • evidence of soil creep.”

15. Igc 8, cont. - BMPs • In 11 AAC 95.290 (road construction), .340 (planning), .345 (landings), and .360 (cable yarding) the term “unstable slope” means: “A slope exhibiting mass wasting or where mass wasting is likely to occur.”  • "Mass wasting" is already defined in the regulations as “the slow to rapid downslope movement of significant masses of earth material of varying water content, primarily under the force of gravity.”

16. Unstable slope indicators • For implementing BMPs, the unstable slope indicators are helpful and should be included in training for agencies and operators • The I.G. did not reach consensus on whether the indicators would be best located in the regulations or the BMP implementation field book (“purple book”).

17. Unstable slope indicators as bmps • DEC, UFA, TU, Petersburg recommend putting the indicators in the regulations because • The S&TC indicators are based on field studies and experience, and exist in the great majority of sites with unstable slopes • Including them in regulation helps clarify what is expected, aid enforcement, and ensure that operators consider these factors • Knowledge of the indicators helps operators to be in compliance with the BMPs • Not all operators use the “purple book” (BMP implementation book)

18. Unstable slope indicators as info in “purple book” • ADF&G, DOF, MHT, Sealaska, forest industry consultant recommend putting indicators in the purple book • Unstable slopes should be identified in the field based on site-specific conditions & best professional judgment • Enforcement is based on the BMPs, not the indicators; DOF can direct operators to use practices like full-bench construction if needed • Potential costs to operators are high • Training can ensure operators are familiar with the indicators

19. Igc 3 - Unstable fill • The I.G. concurred with the S&TC (C5am): Add to the definitions in 11 AAC 95.950: “Unstable fill material” means organic debris, organic soil, or fine-textured mineral soils. A fine-textured soil has a texture of silty-clay, sandy-clay, or clay.

20. IGC 3, cont. IG concurs with S&TC with deletion of “slide-prone area”: Revise 11 AAC 95.290(b). Road construction – balancing cuts & fills (b) If constructing a road on a slope greater than 67%, or on an unstable slope [, OR IN A SLIDE-PRONE AREA] is necessary, an operator (2) shall balance cuts and fills so that as much of the excavated material as is feasible is deposited in the roadway fill section; however, unstable fill material may not be used [IF IT IS UNSTABLE, FINE TEXTURED, OR PRONE TO MASS WASTING] and cuts must be minimized where fine textured soils are known or encountered;

21. Igc 4 - cable yarding I.G. concurs with S&TC with deletion of “slide-prone area” • Add to 11 AAC 95.360 Cable yarding: […] (c) The following standards apply to cable yarding operations: […] • (6) on unstable slopes [OR SLIDE-PRONE AREAS], an operator shall minimize disturbance to soils, understory vegetation, stumps, and root systems.

22. Igc 5 - harvest planning • Concur with S&TC concept to add a subsection to .340, clarify the objectives, and drop “slide-prone areas” • S&TC: On unstable slopes or slide-prone areas, an operator should consider partial cuts, helicopter yarding, retention areas, or other techniques designed to meet these objectives.

23. IGC 5, cont. • I.G.: Add new subsection to .340, Harvest unit planning and design: To minimize disturbance to soils, understory vegetation, stumps, and root systems on unstable slopes, an operator should consider techniques such as partial cuts, retention areas, and use of helicopter or skyline systems to achieve full suspension of logs.

24. Igc 6 - tracked & wheeled harvest systems • I.G. concurs with S&TC, but drop “slide-prone area” • Add to 11 AAC 95.365. Tracked and wheeled harvest systems: (a) A person may not skid timber or operate construction equipment or machinery in a water body catalogued as anadromous under AS 16.05.871, without written approval of the Department of Fish and Game, or in any other surface waters, marshes, [OR ]non-forested muskegs, or unstable slopes without prior notice to the division except, that equipment may be operated on frozen surface waters, marshes, or non-forested muskegs without prior notice to the division.

25. Igc 9 - training • IG concurs with S&TC with rewording for consistent terms • Training needs include, • Identification and mapping for DPOs of “unstable areas” and identification of “unstable slopes” in BMPs • information available from the scoping maps, digital elevation models, and other sources to identify and map these areas • identification of which slopes <67% are unstable, including application of the indicators

26. Igc 10, cont. • Identification of “saturated soils” and understanding of the indicators for saturation on slopes • Assessment of likely runout zones for potential slides (e.g., see Chatwin et al., 1994 illustrations) • Connection between FRPA standards and water quality standards, and sources of information on water uses • Use of the “purple book”

27. IGC 9, cont. • Mapping for DPOs, e.g., regarding yarding techniques and landing location • Any changes adopted in regulation or made to the DPO form.

28. Non-Consensus: degradation of water quality in .290 (b)(3) and (d) • Blasting & excavation on saturated soils • End-hauling and full-bench construction

29. S&TC recommendation-blasting • S&TC C8. Unanimously recommended prohibiting blasting in saturated soil conditions in 11 AAC 95.290(b)(3): • “(b) If constructing a road on a slope greater than 67%, on an unstable slope, or in a slide-prone area is necessary, an operator • (3) may not conduct excavation and blasting activities during saturated soil conditions. [IF MASS WASTING IS LIKELY TO RESULT AND CAUSE DEGRADATION OF SURFACE OR STANDING WATER QUALITY.]

30. S&TC Recommendation-End hauling • Non-consensus: The S&TC was split on whether to make a similar change in 11 AAC 95.290(d): • “An operator shall use end-hauling and full-bench constructions techniques if mass wasting from overloading on an unstable slope or erosion of sidecast material is likely to occur and cause degradation of surface or standing water quality.” • Disagreed on whether to delete the red phrase in relation to mass wasting only (retain for erosion of sidecast material)

31. Non-consensus, cont. • The I.G. did not reach consensus on these issues, and deferred to the unanimous recommendation from the Board (Aug.30-31, 2011) to retain the reference to degradation of water quality

32. Recent comment • MHHA letter November 8, 2011 (see handout) re Sept. 24, 2011 slide that damaged buildings above Mitkof Hwy., Board liability, and request for roll call vote on decision to not include public safety in FRPA

33. Next steps • Board review of I.G. recommendations • Board review and vote on overall approach from March 2010: • Do not change FRPA regarding public safety • Update BMPs for fish habitat and water quality • Implementation actions • Regulations process • Training program • Other actions as needed (e.g., purple book updates)

34. Q&A Board S&TC I.G.