s 634.92 N7MFBMP 1992 1 £^6 kyc-kisje^ Ffi r MONTANA Forestry Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring THE 1992 FORESTRY BMP AUDITS FINAL REPORT Wit DOCUMENTS COLLECTION PR ' 7 2002 Montana state library 1515 E. 6th AVE, HELENA, MONTANA 59620 MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS FORESTRY DIVISION MISSOULA, MONTANA 59801 MONTANA STA1 0864 0015 4106 2 MONTANA FORESTRY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING THE 1992 FORESTRY BMP AUDITS FINAL REPORT MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANDS FORESTRY DIVISION MISSOULA, MONTANA 59801 Report Prepared by Bill Schultz Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/montanaforestryb1992mont TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION 7 METHODS 9 The Audit Teams 9 The Study Area 10 Site Selection 10 Sample Size 14 The Rating Form 14 Audit Site Inspections 15 Limitations of the Audit Methods 16 RESULTS 16 High Risk BMPs 17 Some Practices Not Rated . 17 Application of BMPs 18 Effectiveness of BMPs 20 Supplemental Questions 22 DISCUSSION 24 Streamside Management Zones 27 Results by Ownership Group 28 Comparison with Previous Audits 28 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS 32 REFERENCES 33 APPENDICES A. Audit Team Members A-l B. Hazard Matrix B-l C. Rating Form C-l D. Rating Flow Chart D-l E. Audit Sites E-l F. Audit Results by Individual BMP F-l - 1 - INDEX OF TABLES AND FIGURES PAGE Table 1 Percent of Sites Meeting High Hazard Criteria 12 Table 2 Size of Harvest Units Evaluated By Ownership Group 13 Table 3 Application of BMPs to All Rated Practices 18 i Table 4 Application of High Risk BMPs 18 Table 5 Audit Sites with Departures from BMP Application 19 Table 6 Effectiveness of BMPs for All Rated Practices 20 Table 7 Effectiveness of High Risk BMPs 21 Table 8 Audit Sites with Impacts 22 Table 9 Number of Stream Crossings and Width of SMZs 27 Table 10 Effectiveness of SMZ-BMPs by SMZ Width 27 Table 11 Comparison of BMP Audit Results-- 1992 vs. 1990 29 Figure 1 BMP Application- All Practices versus High Risk 19 Figure 2 Percent of Practices Causing Impacts 21 Figure 3 Comparison of BMP Application 30 Figure 4 Comparison of BMP Effectiveness 30 Figure 5 Comparison By Study Year-Sites With Major Departures or Impacts .... 31 Figure 6 Comparison By Study Year-Impacts Per Site 31 - 2 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Forestry Division of the Montana Department of State Lands graciously acknowledges the many people who gave their time and energy to the 1992 forestry BMP field audits. Special thanks to the audit team members who travelled extensively, worked long days in the field, and made lots of hard decisions in a professional manner. Thanks to the Environmental Quality Council for recognizing the significance of the forestry water quality issue and for mandating that the audit process be continued in 1992. Thanks to all who supplied information to select the sites and who gave access to private lands. Don Essig did a fine job compiling the results of the audits and producing the figures. Katie Mac Millen provided excellent editorial assistance. Thanks to Lucy Borer for typing the document. -3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Best Management Practice (BMP) audit process is used to evaluate whether BMPs are being applied and whether they are effectively limiting non-point source pollution. In 1991, the Montana Legislature directed the Montana Department of State Lands (DSL) Forestry Division to evaluate forest practices for BMP implementation and report to the EQC before the 1993 legislative session. This report summarizes the findings of Montana’s 1992 forestry BMP audits. A similar study and report was completed in 1990. Three teams conducted the audits. Each audit team was composed of six members: a fisheries biologist, a forester, a hydrologist, a representative of a conservation group, a road engineer, and a soil scientist. DSL used site selection criteria to choose 46 timber harvest sites harvested since 1990. The selection criteria limited the sample to those sites most sensitive to the practices that affect water quality. The audit teams evaluated a maximum of 58 practices at each site, rating application and effectiveness for each BMP on a 5-point scale. The audit teams evaluated up to 58 practices on 46 sites for a total of 2029 practices rated for BMP application. 87% of the practices rated on all sites met BMP requirements. Because practices vary greatly in their potential impact, the application of nine high risk BMPs was evaluated separately. 72% of the high risk BMPs met application requirements. High risk BMPs are among those most important for protecting watersheds. Most sites— 40 of 46— had at least one minor departure from BMP application; 20 of 46 sites had at least one major departure. Non-industrial private lands averaged 1 1 departures per site, the highest among all ownership groups. The average for all ownership groups was six departures per site. The audit teams evaluated up to 58 practices on 46 sites for a total of 2029 practices rated for BMP effectiveness. 90% of the practices rated on all sites were judged to provide adequate protection. Of the nine high risk BMPs evaluated on each site, 77% of the practices were rated as providing adequate protection. 32 of the 46 sites audited were producing minor, temporary impacts to the soil and water resource; 17 of 46 sites had at least one major, temporary or minor, prolonged impacts; 5 of the sites had at least one major, prolonged impact. The average number of minor, temporary impacts per site was 2.8; the average number of major, temporary or minor, prolonged impacts per site was 1.4; the average number of major, prolonged impacts per site was 0.4. On 21 of 36 audit sites, teams noted that a change in stream crossing design would have prevented or reduced sediment discharge. The average length of streambank left unshaded was 28 feet. Ground skidding through a perennial stream occurred on 2 of the 46 sites, although no damage was noted. The average stream side management zone was 53 feet wide. Overall, the wider the SMZ, the fewer impacts in the SMZ from harvest practices. The greatest departure from BMPs, and the most impacts, were associated with road drainage. The text includes a list on pages 26 and 27 of problematic BMPs and BMPs that are usually applied properly. - 4 State lands had a higher rating than other ownership groups in application and effectiveness of BMPs, although the desired number of high hazard sites were not available. Results from Federal (USFS and BLM) and industrial sites were similar and ranked second among the ownership groups. Non-industrial private ranked fourth. A similar audit was conducted in 1990 and can be compared to the 1992 results. The 1992 audits show improvement in the application and effectiveness of BMPs when compared with the 1990 results. Comparison of BMP Audit Results - 1992 vs. 1990 1992 1990 Application of practices that meet or exceed BMP requirements 87% 78% Application of high risk practices that meet or exceed BMP requirements 72% 53% Number of sites with at least one major departure in BMP application 20 of 46 (43%) 27 of 44 (61%) Average number of departures in BMP application, per site 5.6 9 Number of practices providing adequate protection 90% 80% Number of high risk practices providing adequate protection 77% 58% Number of sites having at least one major temporary or minor prolonged impact. 17 of 46 (37%) 28 of 44 (64%) Average number of impacts per site 4.6 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS • Continue the interdisciplinary forestry BMP audits, whether under a non-regulatory or regulatory program. The audit process has been fundamental in educating and making people aware of BMP requirements. Conduct the audits every two years. • Update the rating form. Adjust for the Streamside Management Act, and for recommended improvements to the rating guide and practices listed. • Continue educating loggers, landowners, and foresters, concentrating on problem areas documented through BMP audits. Concentrate educational efforts on NIP landowners. - 5 - • Actively encourage the sites’ owners and logging contractors to attend the audit. The Montana Logging Association and the Montana Wood Products Association will assist DSL in notifying contractors. At a minimum, give contractors a copy of the audit results for their sites. • The team leader should encourage the landowner and contractor, and if needed in the case of NIP lands, the DSL Service Forester, to develop a remedy for problems noted. An audit team member will assist if necessary, especially to identify problems. Industry groups, such as MLA and MWPA may participate as needed. • Continue funding volunteer audit team members. • Institute a similar BMP audit process for other land uses, including mining, livestock grazing, agriculture and subdivision development. -6- INTRODUCTION The forest lands of Montana form the headwaters of several of major river basins and produce large quantities of high quality water. The high quality water nurtures some of the west’s best fisheries, and provides water for irrigation and livestock, and for domestic, recreational and industrial purposes. These same lands supply the logs that sustain the forest products industry, an important component of Montana’s economy. All products from Montana’s 22.5 million acres of forest land contribute in an essential manner to Montana’s economy and way of life. Montana’s water quality protection program for forestry involves a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. Since the 197Q’s, voluntary Forestry Best Management Practices have provided guidance as minimum water quality protection standards for forestry operations. The BMPs, if properly designed and and effectively applied, can limit non-point source pollution— the kind of diffuse pollution that forestry operations often produce, such as sediment from a road or timber harvest. The BMP audit process is used to evaluate whether BMPs are being applied and whether they are effectively limiting non-point source pollution. Concern over the impacts of forest management on the State’s watersheds prompted the 1987 Montana Legislature to pass House Joint Resolution 49. This resolution directed the Montana Environmental Quality Council (EQC) to study "how current forest management practices are affecting watersheds in Montana. " The EQC established a BMP technical committee that revised Montana’s forestry BMPs, as a result of HJR-49, in 1989. Prior to 1990, forestry water quality was addressed through a voluntary approach. In 1990, the legislature enacted the BMP Notification Law (76-13-101 MCA) which requires private landowners who plan to harvest timber to notify the state of their plans. Under this law, forestry BMP information is sent to landowners. Implementation of practices is voluntary. DSL Service Foresters review a limited number of high risk sites prior to timber harvest. Nearly all sites on private land reviewed by these audits were subject to the BMP Notification law. Since October 1991, the Streamside Management Zone Law (77-5-301 MCA) regulates forestry practices along streams. This law prohibits certain forest practices along stream channels. These BMP audits did not evaluate compliance with the SMZ law because most operations were completed prior to the effective date of the law. - 7 - Forestry BMP audits have been conducted previously in Montana. As part of HJR-49, audit teams conducted the first State-wide assessment of forest practices for BMPs during the summer of 1988 (Zackheim, 1988). In 1989, the University of Montana, under the Flathead Basin Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative, audited more sites for BMPs in the Flathead River drainage (Ehinger and Potts, 1990). The Montana Legislature directed DSL to conduct another round of statewide BMP audits in 1990 (Schultz, 1990). In 1991, the Montana Legislature directed the Montana Department of State Lands (DSL) Forestry Division to once again evaluate forest practices for BMP implementation, and report to the EQC before the 1993 legislative session. This report summarizes the findings of Montana’s 1992 forestry BMP audits. The BMP audit process, which the EPA calls BMP implementation monitoring, is a widely used means of evaluating forest practices. Implementation monitoring is a surrogate for water quality monitoring, a more quantitative approach. Water quality monitoring is a long-term and expensive endeavor. Water quality varies naturally, due to variable geology, land forms, soils, and climatic events. Due to this variability, investigators have to collect large numbers of samples at the right time and over a long period of time to accurately characterize water quality. Investigators use qualitative implementation audits to find out if BMPs are being applied and whether they are controlling erosion; they can use quantitative water quality monitoring to determine if BMPs are protecting beneficial water uses. Since BMPs are recognized by State and federal legislation as a method to control non-point source pollution, it makes sense to check the application and effectiveness of BMPs as part of a such a program. States are increasingly relying on qualitative surveys, using interdisciplinary teams to assess forest practices on-site, to monitor their silvicultural non-point source control programs (NCASI, 1988). California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, Minnesota, Washington, South Carolina, and Florida all use a similar qualitative approach to assess the control of non-point source pollution. - 8 - METHODS The 1992 audits were conducted with the same objectives and criteria as the 1990 audits in order to produce comparable results. The objectives for the 1990 and 1992 BMP field audits were to: 1 . Determine if BMPs are being applied on timber harvest operations. 2. Evaluate the general effectiveness of BMPs in protecting soil and water resources. 3. Provide information on the need to revise, clarify, or strengthen BMPs. 4. Provide information to focus future study efforts by identifying subjects and geographic areas in need of further investigation. DSL sought a broad range of participation in planning the 1990 audits. Since the 1992 audits were to be conducted with the same objectives, criteria, and methods, less planning was necessary for the 1992 audits. The Audit Teams DSL designated three audit teams— one for the northwest, one for the west central, and one for the southwest and east parts of the State. Each team was composed of six members— a fisheries biologist, a forester, a hydrologist, a representative of a conservation group, a road engineer, and a soil scientist. A member of each audit team was assigned to lead the team. The team leader was responsible for filling out the consensus rating form and for overseeing the logistics of the team. Team members were employees of federal and state agencies, private industry, and independent consultants. The legislature provided funds to pay volunteer members who could not participate as a part of their regular job. Continuity in team membership was excellent. Sixteen of the 18 team members from the 1990 audits participated in the 1992 audits. DSL named an alternate for each member in order to ensure a full range of interdisciplinary participation at each site. Most of the alternates had also participated in the 1990 audits. See Appendix A for a complete list of team members. -9- The Study Area The Department limited the study area to the western half of the State, where a vast majority of the timber harvest operations in Montana occur. This is consistent with the 1990 audits. The most easterly sites selected were in the White Sulphur Springs area. MAP # 1 . GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF AUDIT SITES Site Selection The criteria for selecting sites was identical to the 1990 audits, with an updated timeframe. The purpose in defining the criteria was to concentrate on sites that were more likely to have potential for water quality impacts. The selection criteria limited the sample to only those timber harvest sites most sensitive to the practices that affect water quality. Selecting the sites was the responsibility of DSL. - 10- DSI^FORESTRY DIVISION 1992 FORESTRY BMP FIELD AUDITS SITE SELECTION CRITERIA The initial criteria for selection were: • Sites were selected from areas with timber harvested in 1990, 1991, or 1992. Priority was given to most recently harvested sites. • A portion of the sale needed to be located within 200 feet of a stream (see BMP definition). • Minimum size for harvest units to be included in the audit process was 5 acres. Minimum timber removal was 7,000 board feet per acre. Some flexibility was allowed if smaller or low volume harvest met other criteria. • The distribution of audit sites reflected the distribution of timber harvest in Montana, geographically, and by owner. • Sites were classified into four land ownership classes— nonindustrial private, industrial private, federal, and state. The number of sites per ownership group was to be proportional to the volume of timber each group harvested in 1990, the latest complete reporting period. A minimum of five sites per ownership class was audited. For sites that met the initial criteria, DSL made further stratification: • Sites with road construction or reconstruction and slash disposal completed were given first priority. • Sites with road construction or reconstruction but slash disposal not completed were given second priority. • Sites with slash disposal completed but no road construction were given third priority. • Sites were further stratified by erosion hazard. Two- thirds of the audits were located on high erosion hazard sites. One-third were to be located on low to medium erosion hazard sites. This stratification was subject to availability of sites in the various hazard groups. Erosion hazard was determined as a function of slope steepness and erosivity based on geologic parent material and soil texture. Erosion hazard was stratified by ownership class so that a disproportionate number of high hazard sites did not fall in any one ownership class. Erosion hazard was determined using an erosion hazard matrix developed through the Montana Riparian Association. See Appendix B. Timber harvest in riparian zones was categorized as high hazard. The number of days that team members would be able to conduct audits limited DSL to choosing 46 sites for the teams to visit. The maximum time commitment for audit team members was set at 10 days, since a longer commitment would likely jeopardize the ability of individuals to participate. On most days, teams could audit a maximum of two sites. See Appendix E for the list of the sites. The four ownership groups and number of sites audited were: OWNERSHIP GROUP NUMBER OF SITES AUDITED Federal (USFS and BLM) Industrial Private Non-Industrial Private Dept, of State Lands 1990 1992 16 16 7 5 16 (14-USFS, 2--BLM) 16 9 5 TOTAL 44 46 The goal for the audits was to have two-thirds of the sites in the "high hazard" category, as explained in the criteria for selecting sites. In order to meet the high hazard criteria, a site had either to rank high in a risk matrix that considers slope steepness, soil erodibility, and type of operation, or to be in a riparian zone. See Appendix B. Table 1 shows the percent of audited sites that met the high hazard criteria, whether included by matrix, riparian, or both. Just over three-quarters of the total sites audited were high hazard. This is similar to the number of high hazard sites in 1990. Due to lack of available sites, the state ownership group did not meet the criteria for two-thirds high hazard sites. The Department of State Lands has harvested timber on very few high hazard sites in the time period sampled. Table 1 Percent of Sites Meeting High Hazard Criteria Ownership Group Number of Sites Matrix Riparian Matrix, Riparian or both Federal 16 75% 69% 88% Industrial 16 69% 56% 81% NIP 9 67% 33% 67% State 5 40% 0% 40% All Sites 46 67% 50% 76% - 12 - Members of all the ownership groups provided excellent cooperation as DSL selected sites. Industry and government supplied all information requested, and in most cases, in a very timely manner. DSL acquired the information about recent timber sales as follows: The affected National Forests and BLM searched their recent timber sales for sites that met some or all of the criteria. DSL finished refining the search where needed. For non-industrial and industrial private lands, DSL searched Hazard Reduction Agreements and Master Hazard Reduction Agreements for sites that met the criteria. DSL searched its own timber sale accounting program for sites that met the criteria. DSL listed sites that met the criteria, by region within ownership groups. Sites to be audited were selected from the pool of suitable sites within each ownership group. Only those sites with potential to impair water quality were judged to be suitable. In the case of non-industrial private lands, DSL contacted landowners for permission to visit their lands. Two landowners denied the audit teams access. Alternate sites were selected. Access to the other ownership groups was not an issue. The size of audited sites varied greatly. See Table 2 for information on size of harvest units evaluated by ownership group. On very large sites, time did not allow the teams to review every acre of the site. Teams concentrated on areas with the greatest potential for problems. Table 2 Size of Harvest Units Evaluated By Ownership Ownership Group Number of Sites Average Unit Size (Ac.) Maximum Unit Size (Ac.) Minimum Unit Size (Ac.) Federal 16 24 39 7 Industrial 16 125 400 32 NIP 9 102 300 10 State 5 34 90 5 All Sites 46 75 400 5 - 13 - Sample Size Because the total number of cutting units in the State is not known, it is not possible to say what percentage of them the 46 sites represent. It is a representative sample of logging operations conducted in Montana since 1990 that meet the selection criteria. The selection criteria limited the sample to only those timber harvest sites most sensitive to the practices that affect water quality. The results are indicative of conditions for sites with potential to impair water quality. The results do not represent a sample of all timber harvest operations in Montana. In 1990, the 44 sites represented approximately 1 % of the total volume harvested in the state for the study period. The Rating Form The audit teams used a rating form similar to that of previous audits. See Appendix C for a copy of the form. The form was revised for the 1990 BMP field audits to reflect the changes HJR-49 made to forestry BMPs. The guide for rating application was the same as used in the 1988 audit. The guide for effectiveness changed the definition for a "2" rating from major and temporary to include minor and prolonged. The audit teams evaluated a maximum of 58 practices at each site, rating application and effectiveness for each on a 5-point scale. The audit team rated practices for BMPs by noting if the BMP, first, was applicable to the site, and then if so, whether it was applied correctly and in the proper locations. Lack of adequate application or misapplication are departures from BMPs. The rating guide for application of BMPs was: 5 - Operation exceeds requirements of BMP. 4 - Operation meets requirements of BMP. 3 - Minor departure from intent of BMP. 2 - Major departure from intent of BMP. 1 - Gross neglect of BMP. The following description of the rating guide is adapted from Ehinger & Potts, 1990. Ratings of 5 and 4 are self-explanatory. The 3 rating, minor departure, applies to departures of small magnitude distributed over a localized area, or over a larger area where potential for impact is low. The 2 rating, major departure, applies to departures of large magnitude or BMPs being repeatedly neglected. The 1 rating, gross neglect, applies where risks to soil and water resources were obvious and yet there was no evidence indicating that operators had applied BMPs to protect these resources. - 14 - The effectiveness rating answered questions concerning impacts. For example "has the application or misapplication of a particular forest practice increased the likelihood of, or actual occurrence of, surface sediment in the stream channels?" Lack of effectiveness results in impacts. The rating guide for effectiveness was: 5 - Improved protection of soil and water resources over pre-project condition. 4 - Adequate protection of soil and water resources. 3 - Minor and temporary impacts on soil and water resources. 2 - Major and temporary, or minor and prolonged, impacts on soil and water resources. 1 - Major and prolonged impacts on soil and water resources. The work group defined these terms prior to the 1990 audits to help the audit teams use them consistently: Adequate - Small amount of material eroded; material does not reach draws, channels, or floodplain. Minor - Some material erodes and is delivered to draws but not to stream. Major Material erodes and is delivered to stream or annual floodplain. Temporary - Impacts lasting one year or less; no more than one runoff season. Prolonged - Impacts lasting more than one year. The audit teams used a flow chart to help rate application and effectiveness, and, again, to keep the rating consistent. See Appendix D. Audit Site Inspections The first audit site inspection served as a calibration audit for the teams. Since most team members participated in previous audits, this session served as a refresher. The goal was to have the audit teams establish a consistent method of rating that could carry through the rest of the audits. Team members and alternates met for several hours of classroom instruction on the BMP audit process, and then evaluated the first audit site in the field. The team members shared their results with the other members, and identified and discussed their differences and ways to be consistent. The teams conducted the audits July through September of 1992. The field routine consisted of meeting at a central location in the morning of each audit day. Teams traveled to the audit site. On site, the team leader provided maps and audit forms. Usually a representative of the landowner briefed the team by giving background information on the silvicultural prescription, time of operation, and associated practices. Team members walked the site, reviewing potential impact areas such as roads, streams, streamside management zones (SMZs), skid trails and firelines. Teams typically spent about two hours inspecting each site. - 15 - After finishing the inspection, the team gathered to discuss the rating while still on site. The team leader was charged with leading the discussion and recording the consensus rating for each item on the rating form. Each team completed a single rating form for each site. For ratings where the team could not reach consensus, the team took a vote and recorded the rating with the most votes. The team leader noted dissenting values in the Comments section. Teams almost always reached consensus. Twenty-five individual ratings came to a vote. Twenty-two of these were on sites reviewed by the Southwest Team. Limitations of the Audit Methods (in part, adapted from Idaho DHW, 1989.) In analyzing the audit results, readers need to consider the limitations of the techniques used in the audit. The audit technique consisted of a one-time field inspection and assessment. This approach documents erosion and sedimentation problems which occur in the first or second year after harvest. This is generally the critical period for erosion associated with timber harvests. Some practices conducted during harvest cannot easily be evaluated in post- harvest audits. The assessment was based on visual appraisal of practices and impacts to surface soils and streams. The results are a snapshot-in-time of the practices and subsequent impacts. They do not necessarily reflect future impacts. Sites were split among three teams. There are likely some differences in how the teams may have rated individual items. Lack of consistency is probably not a big problem, based on discussion with other teams and through overlap of team members on some audits, but it should not be overlooked. Also, auditors may rate several practices connected with one action. In some cases, one action may result in more than one rating. For example, if a skidder operates extensively in the Streamside Management Zone, the practice may rate poorly under both "Adequate SMZ Maintained" and "Equipment Operation Minimized in SMZ." Even given these limitations, the BMP audit process is an effective way to promote BMPs and encourage landowners and operators to protect water quality on managed forests. RESULTS The results of the 1992 BMP field audits are presented in several categories, including application of BMPs, effectiveness of BMPs, supplemental questions on the audit form, and comparison of the 1992 results with previous audit results. There are several ways to analyze and summarize the qualitative data generated by this study. One method is simply to look at what percent of the practices audited for BMPs fell into each rating category, by ownership group. This information is presented, for application and effectiveness of BMPs respectively, in Tables 3 and 6. While this is useful information for some purposes— including documenting problem BMP areas and comparing these results with other audits— readers should not base their conclusions on these simple percentage ratings. Appendix F tabulates how the ownership groups complied with each BMP. - 16- All the practices evaluated in the audits can have an effect on water quality, but vary greatly in their potential impact. For example, BMPs in the "Road Planning and Location" section do not have as direct a potential impact on water quality as the practices in "Providing Adequate Road Surface Drainage" or "Adequate SMZ Maintained." High Risk BMPS Focusing on the simple percentages will not give a clear picture of how well or poorly Montana’s watersheds are being protected. Even a low percentage of misapplied BMPs can still result in serious impacts. To provide several perspectives, the data has been analyzed in different ways. In particular, a subset of nine high risk BMPs has been analyzed separately. These nine high risk BMPs are among the most important for protecting Montana’s watersheds. The nine high risk BMPs are: BMP NUMBER PRACTICE DESCRIPTION I.C.l Provide adequate road surface drainage. I.C.6 Route road drainage through SMZ. I.D.2 Stabilize erodible soils. I. E.2 Erosion control features functional. II. A. 5 Skid trail design avoids concentrating runoff. II. B.l Adequate SMZ maintained. III. C.3 Prevent erosion of culvert and bridge fills. II.C.2a Adequate drainage for temporary roads, skid trails, fire lines. II. D. 9 Limit water quality impacts of prescribed fire. The results for application and effectiveness of the nine high risk BMPs is presented in Tables 4 and 7, and Figure 1 . Tables 5 and 8 summarize the data on a site basis, displaying the percent of sites with departures or impacts and the average number of departures or impacts per site. Some Practices Not Rated The number of practices rated represents 76% of the total possible number of practices. Some BMPs did not apply to a site: some sites did not have stream crossings; most sites did not have borrow pits; in several instances, slash disposal and site preparation had not been completed; the Hazardous Substances section of BMPs does not apply on most sites. In other cases, the audit team could not rate the BMP at the time of the audit-BMPs having to do with timing of operations during the harvest cannot be judged post-harvest. - 17 - Application of BMFs The application rating measures whether the BMP was applied, whether it was applied correctly, and whether it was applied in the proper locations. See page 14 for further explanation of the application rating. The audit teams evaluated a total of 2029 practices to assess how landowners and operators applied BMPs. Table 3 lists the percent of practices that fell in each application rating category, by ownership group. Rather than focusing on simple analysis, the reader should refer to other tables (Tables 4, 5, 7 and 8) that better indicate how well Montana’s watersheds are being protected. Table 3 Application of BMPs to All Rated Practices by Ownership Group and Rating Category Percent (%) Practices Rated As Ownership Group tt Practices Rated Meet or exceed Minor departures Major departures Gross neglect Federal 734 88% 9% 2% <1% Industrial 738 91% 7% 2% 0% NIP 339 70% 13% 10% 7% State 218 97% 3% 0% 0% All Sites 2029 87% 8% 3% 1% Table 4 shows the BMP application for the nine high risk BMPs that were evaluated separately (see page 17). The percent of practices with departures is higher for the high risk group (Table 4) than for all audited practices (Table 3), as shown in Figure 1. Table 4 Application of High Risk BMPs by Ownership Group and Rating Category Percent (%) Practices Rated As Ownership Group it Practices Audited Meet or exceed Minor departures Major departures Gross neglect Federal 129 71% 21% 7% 1% Industrial 135 75% 18% 7% 0% NIP 64 50% 16% 20% 14% State 40 95% 5% 0% 0% All Sites 368 72% 17% 8% 3% - 18- BMP Application - All vs. High Risk Figure 1 . Table 5 shows what percentage of sites departed from BMPs, and the average number of departures per site. The average number of departures per site includes all the sites, not just the sites with departures. Table 5 shows that most sites 87% -- 40 of 46 — had at least one minor departure. It also shows that 43% -- 20 of 46 — sites have at least one major departure in BMP application. Table 5 Audit Sites with Departures from BMP Application and Average Number of Departures per Site Percent (%) of sites with departures # of departures/total # of sites = ave. #/site Ownership Group Total U of sites Minor Major Gross Minor Major Gross Federal 16 100% 44% 6% 4.0 1.0 0.1 Industrial 16 75% 38% 0% 3.3 0.7 0 NIP 9 100% 78% 44% 5.0 4.0 2.4 State 5 60% 0% 0% 1.4 0 0 All Sites 46 87% 43% 11% 3.7 1.4 0.5 - 19 - Effectiveness of BMPs The effectiveness rating evaluates how well BMPs protected soil and water resources. See page 15 for further explanation of the effectiveness rating. The audit teams evaluated a total of 2029 practices to see how effective the BMPs were. Table 6 provides a summary of the effectiveness of all practices audited, by ownership group. As with the corresponding table for BMP application (Table 3), this information should be used with discretion. While simple percentage ratings may be relatively high for the category Adequate Protection, poor effectiveness of a single BMP may still result in impacts. Table 6 Effectiveness of BMPs for All Rated Practices by Ownership Group and Rating Category Percent (%) Practices Rated As Ownership Group Number of Practices Rated Adequate Protection Minor/Temp Impacts Major/Temp, Minor/ Prolong Major/ Prolong Federal 734 92% 5% 2% <1% Industrial 738 92% 6% 2% 0% NIP 339 73% 12% 11% 4% State 218 99% 1% 0% 0% All Sites 2029 90% 6% 3% 1% -20- Figure 2 presents the percent of practices audited that are contributing to impacts by ownership group. This figure shows differences among ownership groups in effectiveness of their BMP implementation. V) 0) o 4— ’ o CO 1— Q. "D CD CO o 0s 1992 BMP’s Resulting in Impacts by Ownership Figure 2. Major impacts are practices with an effectiveness rating < 3. Minor impacts are practices with effectivness rating of 3. Table 7 shows the effectiveness of the nine high risk BMPs listed on pages 17. The percent of practices providing adequate protection is lower for the high risk BMPs than for the total BMP results presented in Table 6. The percent of practices resulting in impacts is higher for the high risk BMPs than for practices in general. Table 7 Effectiveness of High Risk BMPs by Ownership Group and Rating Category Percent (%) Practices Rated As Ownership Group Number of Practices Audited Adequate Protection Minor/Temp Impacts Major /Temp, Minor/ Prolong Major/ Prolong Federal 129 83% 8% 8% 1% Industrial 135 76% 19% 5% 0% NIP 64 56% 13% 23% 8% State 40 95% 5% 0% 0% All Sites 368 77% 12% 9% 2% - 21 - Table 8 lists the percentage of sites with impacts and average number of impacts per site. This table shows that 74% of the sites audited were producing at least minor, temporary impacts— at an average of 2.8 per site. 37% of all sites were producing major, temporary impacts— an average of 1.4 per site. This analysis illustrates that, while the percent of practices rated as providing adequate protection may be quite high (90%), impacts were still occurring on a majority of the sites audited. Table 8 Audit Sites with Impacts and Average Number of Impacts per Site Percent (%) of sites with impacts # of impacts/total # of sites = ave. #/site Ownership Group total # of sites Minor/ Temp Major/Temp, Minor/ Prolong Major/ Prolong Minor/ Temp Major/Temp, Minor/ Prolong Major/ Prolong Federal 16 75% 38% 6% 2.4 1.1 0.2 Industrial 16 75% 31% 0% 2.9 0.7 0 NIP 9 67% 67% 33% 4.6 4.0 1.7 State 5 40% 0% 0% 0.6 0 0.0 All Sites 46 70% 37% 10% 2.8 1.4 0.4 Supplemental questions The audit teams answered seven supplemental questions to address EPA concerns about the adequacy of Montana’s BMPs. The supplemental questions and answers to them are: 1. When roads were closed, or after use of temporary roads, were culverts or stream crossing structures removed and the stream channel reformed to its pre-road configuration? This question applied to only 7 of the 46 sites audited. No problems were noted on 5 of the 7. One site needed grass seed. One site needed additional water bars. - 22 - 2. What condition were temporary roads left in after their use? Temporary roads were treated with a variety of measures, including kelly humps, water-bars, seeded with grass, or obliterated. In one instance, the audit team noted that the road needed to be seeded with grass in addition to the water bars that had been installed. 3. Would a change in stream crossing design have prevented any observed sediment discharge problems attributable to the crossings? Explain. This question applied to 36 of the sites evaluated. On 21 of the 36 applicable sites (58%), teams noted that, yes, a change in crossing design would have prevented or reduced sediment discharge. Recommendations include installing slash filter windrows; adjusting the grade of the road so the crossing does not concentrate road surface runoff; installing drain dips and ditch relief culverts on crossing approaches; seeding with grass; constructing cut slopes at stable angles; rock armoring the inlet of the culvert; using adequate size and length culvert; and, avoiding the crossing altogether. 4. Describe the width and depth of the active channel for the stream(s) associated with this sale. Most audits were conducted along small streams in upland areas. Most of these streams were not fisheries streams, but were important to downstream water quality. The average dimensions of the stream channels on the audited sites was 5.8 feet wide and 0.8 feet deep. Stream width ranged from 1 to 50 feet. Depth ranged from 0.25 to 3.0 feet deep. These figures are similar to the 1990 results. 5. What length of streambank was left unshaded due to timber harvest and vegetation removal in the streamside zone? Ownership Maximum Length Average Length Group in feet in feet Federal 500 31 Industrial 250 24 NIP 200 57 State 0 0 All Sites 500 28 - 23 - 6. Did ground skidding take place through any perennial streams? Ground skidding through a perennial stream occurred on 2 of the 46 sites audited, or 4%. In one case the stream was 3 feet wide and approximately 10 logs were pulled across the stream. No impacts were noted. In the other case, the stream was 10 feet wide and logs were skidded in the winter over a snow bridge. No impacts were noted. 7. Did timber harvest planning include considerations for watershed condition and cumulative effects of multiple timber management activities on water yield and sediment production? The audit teams judged landowners to have considered cumulative effects if they had assessed at least one of the following: water yield, sediment yield, or the total amount of timber harvest that had occurred in the basin, compared to the size of the basin. On two sites, the audit teams did not have enough information to judge whether cumulative effects had been considered or not. Sites Where Landowners Ownership Group Assessed Cumulative Effects Federal Industrial NIP State 13 of 15 = 87% 2 of 16 = 13% 0 of 8 = 0% 5 of 5 = 100% All Sites 20 of 44 = 45% (2 sites - insufficient information) DISCUSSION Table 3 indicates that 87 % of the practices applied on all sites met or exceeded BMP standards. This type of analysis does not accurately represent the impact that practices have had on the audited sites. Not all practices are equally important for protecting water quality. 72% high risk BMPs, as listed in Table 4, met BMP requirements. 23% of the high risk BMPs resulted in impacts, as shown in Table 7. Table 8 indicates that 70% of the audited sites (32 out of 46) produced minor, temporary impacts and 37% (17 out of 46) produced either major, temporary or minor, prolonged impacts. Five of the sites produced major, prolonged impacts. These impacts could have been prevented if landowners and operators had properly applied BMPs. As was true for the 1990 audits, the results of the 1992 audits show that the greatest departure from BMPs, and the most impacts, were associated with road drainage. Inadequate streamside management zones, poor skid trail design, and prescribed fire in poor locations also resulted in a large number of deficiencies in application and impacts. - 24 - The list that follows is of individual BMPs that most often are not properly applied or result in impacts, ranked in order, by the sum of departures and impacts. Ranking from the 1990 audit is listed in parenthesis. ( - ) indicates not frequent enough to be in top 18 in 1990. 1992 1990 PRACTICE DESCRIPTION PRACTIC 1. (6.) Adequate drainage for temporary roads, skid trails, and fire lines (IIC2a) 2. (3.) Route road surface drainage through an SMZ (IC6) 3. (1.) Provide adequate road surface drainage (IC1) 4. (11.) Adequate SMZ maintained (IIB 1 ) 5. (9*) Skid trail design avoids concentrating runoff (IIA5) 6. (16.) Limit water quality impacts of prescribed fire (IID9) 7. (15.) Grade roads to maintain drainage (IE1) 8. (18.) Skidding operation minimizes soil displacement (IIC la) 9. (12.) Avoid equipment operations in wetlands (IIB3b) 10 (2.) Prevent erosion of culvert and bridge fill (IIIC3) 11. (8.) Minimize equipment operation in SMZ (IIB3a) 12. (-) Cut and fill slopes at stable angles (ID5) 13. (19.) Adjust road grades to reduce concentration of water (IIIBlb) 14. (13.) Minimize compaction and displacement of soil (IID5) 15. (4.) Stabilize erodible soils (seeding) (ID2) 16. (-) Adequate roadside SMZ (IA5) 17. (-) Restrict road use when wet (IE6) 18. (-) Dozer operations on suitable slopes (IID6) These 18 practices accounted for 73% of all departures and 66% of all impacts. The remaining BMPs had a lower frequency of departures in application or resultant impacts. The following practices were on the 1990 list of BMPs most often not applied or resulting in impacts but did not make the list in 1992. The number in parenthesis on the left is the ranking from the 1990 report. (5.) Install slash filter windrows (ID3). (7.) Streams free of logging debris (IIB4). (10.) Erosion control features (ditches and culverts) functional (IE2). (14.) Culverts conform to natural streambed and slope (IIIC2). (17.) Vary road grade for drainage (IB4). r* -25 - On the positive side, BMPs that were nearly always properly applied, resulting in few impacts (three or fewer minor temporary impacts), include: • Most BMPs related to road planning and location (IA). • Skew ditch relief culverts (IC2). • Energy dissipators at CMP outlets (IC4). • Overburden placed to avoid entering streams (ID8). • Avoid cutting the toe of cut slopes (IE3). • Suitable location, size, & number of landings (II A6). • Keep openings under 600 feet along channel (IIB2c). • Brush blades used on dozers (IID2). • Skidding operation minimizes compaction (IlClb). • Adequate drainage for landings (IIC2b). • Get proper permits for stream crossings (IIIA1). • Cross streams at right angles if practical (IIIBla). • Minimize stream channel disturbance (IIIC1). • Adequate storage and disposal for fuel, waste oil (VA2). Logging contractors attended 12 out of the 46 audits. Team members felt it was beneficial for all if contractors attended. Audit team members noticed a range of potential or actual water quality impacts that are not reflected in the results. In some cases, other land uses in the vicinity of the audits were noted as potential impacts. These other land uses include grazing, mining and subdivision development. In some cases, road erosion problems were noted as potential impacts. These other land uses include grazing, mining and subdivision development. In some cases, road erosion problems were noted outside of the BMP audit area. When possible, team members notified landowners of these situations. Three non-industrial sites had a pre-harvest visit under the BMP notification law. Pre-harvest visits are limited to high risk sites. In application of BMPs, one of these sites had 26 departures, one had 21 departures and one had 8. The average number of departures on all sites was 5.6. See Table 5. -26- Streamside Management Zones Audit teams collected information on the number of stream crossings on the sites and the width of the Streamside Management Zone delineated for the harvest site. Where a range of values was given for SMZ width, the mean value was used. Table 9 Number of Stream Crossings and Width of SMZs on Audited Sites Ownership Group # of Stream Crossings Width of SMZs in feet Min. Max. Ave. Min. Max. Ave. Federal 0 5 1.9 0 150 44 Industrial 0 6 2.1 20 105 55 NIP 0 3 1.0 0 200 53 State 0 3 1.6 70 100 83 All Sites 0 6 1.7 0 200 53 Table 10 shows the effectiveness of BMPs applied in the SMZ with respect to the width of the SMZ. Sites with wider SMZs resulted in fewer impacts from harvest practices within the SMZ. Table 10 Effectiveness of SMZ-BMPs by SMZ Width ; SMZ Width Percent (%) Rated As # of Sites Adequate Protection Minor/Temp Major/Temp, Minor/Prolong Major/Prolong < 25 ft. 5 47% 13% 16% 24% 25-50 ft. 25 92% 7% 1% 0% > 50 ft. 16 96% 4% 0% 0% Overall 46 88% 7% 2% 3% - 27 - Results by Ownership Group and Geographic Area There are notable differences among the ownership groups in their application and effectiveness of all BMPs. State lands had a higher rating than the other ownership groups, although the desired number of high hazard sites were not available. Results from Federal (USFS and BLM) and industrial sites were similar and ranked second among the ownership groups. Non-industrial private ranked last. See Figure 2. Non-industrial private lands eshibited the highest average number of departures per site. Six of the nine sites on non- industrial private lands had major or prolonged impacts (an effectiveness rating less than 3.) There appears to be no notable differences among regions of the State in application and effectiveness of BMPs. Comparison with Previous Audits The 1992 audits were conducted in a manner directly comparable to the 1990 audits. The same selection criteria and rating format were used. Most audit team members had participated in the 1990 audits. Earlier audits, conducted in 1988 and 1989 were similar, but had some differences in design and content. The most accurate comparison is between the 1990 and 1992 audits. The 1992 audits show improvement in the application and effectiveness of BMPs for all ownership groups when compared with the 1990 results. See Table 11 for a comparison of the 1990 and 1992 results. -28- Table 11 Comparison of BMP Audit Results: 1992 vs. 1990 1992 1990 Application of practices that meet or exceed BMP requirements 87% 78% Application of high risk practices that meet or exceed BMP requirements 72% 53% Number of sites with at least one major departure in BMP application 20 of 46 (43%) 27 of 44 (61%) Average number of departures in BMP application, per site 5.6 9 Number of practices providing adequate protection 90% 80% Number of high risk practices providing adequate protection 77% 58% Number of sites having at least one major temporary or minor prolonged impact. 17 of 46 (37%) 28 of 44 (64%) Average number of impacts per site 4.6 8 Non-industrial private sites showed improvement over 1990, but still rank the lowest of all ownership groups. In 1990, NIP sites averaged 15 impacts per site. In 1992, NIP sites averaged 10 impacts per site. Minor temporary impacts were reduced, but there were more major prolonged impacts. State lands was the only ownership group that had no major temporary or prolonged impacts on 1992. In 1990 7% of BMPs on state sites were rated as major/ temporary or minor/prolonged impacts. In 1992, industrial lands had 6 sites with major temporary or minor prolonged impacts. In 1990 the count was 11. The same number of sites was visited each year. In 1992, federal lands showed a small increase in percent of sites with minor temporary impacts but reduced percentage of sites with major temporary or minor prolonged impacts. Federal sites showed a decrease in the average number of impacts per site. -29- Figure 3 displays BMP application results for the four forestry BMP audits conducted in Montana. Comparison of BMP Application to 0) o S3 o (0 CL ■o 0 to DC H— o Major Departures Minor Departures Adequate or Exceeds Major departures are practices with an application rating < 3. Figure 3. Minor departures are practices with an application rating of 3. Adequate or exceeds are practices with an application rating > 3. Figure 4 displays BMP effectiveness results for the four forestry BMP audits conducted in Montana. Comparison of BMP Effectiveness Figure 4. Major impacts are practices with an effectiveness rating < 3. Minor impacts are practices with an effectiveness rating of 3. Adequate protection is a practice with an effectiveness rating > 3. -30- The 1992 audit ratings showed improvement over the 1990 ratings when one looks at the percent of sites with major departures or impacts, as in Figure 5. (O 0 C/3 H— o vP O'' Sites with Major Departures or impacts 100 80 20 - 0 w/ Major Departure w/ Major Impacts Fiaure 5. Major deoartures are Dractices with an aDDlication ratina of 1 or 2. The 1992 audits had fewer major impacts per site than the 1990 audits did. See Figure 6. Impacts per site are expressed as a percentage of rated practices per site, in order to account for differences in the average number of rated practices per site between study years. Audited Practices with Impacts per Site Figure 6. Major impacts are practices with an effectiveness rating of < 3. Minor impacts are practices with an effectiveness rating of 3. - 31 - RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS • Continue the interdisciplinary forestry BMP audits, whether under a non- regulatory or regulatory program. The audit process has been fundamental in educating and making people aware of BMP requirements. Conduct the audits every two years. • Update the rating form. Adjust for the Streamside Management Act, and for recommended improvements to the rating guide and practices listed. • Continue educating loggers, landowners, and foresters, concentrating on problem areas documented through BMP audits. Concentrate educational efforts on NIP landowners. • Actively encourage the sites’ owners and logging contractors to attend the audit. The Montana Logging Association and the Montana Wood Products Association will assist DSL in notifying contractors. At a minimum, give contractors a copy of the audit results for their sites. • The team leader should encourage the landowner and contractor, and if needed in the case of NIP lands, the DSL Service Forester, to develop a remedy for problems noted. An audit team member will assist if necessary, especially to identify problems. Industry groups, such as MLA and MWPA may participate as needed. • Continue funding volunteer audit team members. • Institute a similar BMP audit process for other land uses, including mining, livestock grazing, agriculture and subdivision development. - 32 - References Ehinger W. and D. Potts. 1990. On-Site Assessment of "Best Management Practices as an Indicator of Cumulative Watershed Effects in the Flathead Basin." Flathead Basin Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative. University of Montana School of Forestry. Missoula, Montana 137 pp. Idaho Dept, of Health and Welfare. 1989, Final Report: Forest Practices Water Quality Audit 1988. Idaho DHW, Division of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho, 26 pp. Montana Dept, of Health and Environmental Sciences. 1990. Montana Water Quality, 1990. Montana DHES, Water Quality Bureau. Helena, MT. 21 pp. National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). 1988. Procedures for Assessing the Effectiveness of Best Management Practices in Protecting Water and Stream Quality Associated with Managed Forests. NCASI Technical Bulletin 538. January, 1988. 23 pp. Schultz, Bill. 1990. Montana Forestry Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring — The 1990 Forestry BMP Audits Final Report. Montana Department of State Lands, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 32p. Zackheim, Hugh. 1988. House Joint Resolution 49--Forest Practices and Watershed Effects: Final Report. Montana Environmental Quality Council. Helena, MT. 95 pp. - 33 - . . ' APPENDIX A 6/92 1992 BMP FIELD AUDITS BMP AUDIT TEAM MEMBERS EXPERTISE AUDIT TEAM NORTHWEST WEST CENTRAL SOUTHWEST/ EAST Fisheries +S. Rumsey, DFWP +D. Workman, DFWP +G. Phillips, DFWP ( +T . Weaver , DFWP ) (+C. Clancey, DFWP) (J. Brammer, DFWP) or ( +M. Enk, USFS) or (+D. Peters, DFWP) Hydrology +B. Putnam, USFS ML +S. Tralles, WQB (J. Schumaker, DNRC) (+G. Frank, DSL) (W. Kellogg, WQB) Soils +J. CoUlo** USL +B. Dutton, PVT +V. Ciliberti, BLM (+T. Wiersum, SCS) (+T. Wiersum, SCS) (M. Browne, BLM) Forestry +R. Hudson, PVT +G. Sanders, CIC +S. Flynn, LP (V. Anderson, PCTC) (+P. Davis, PCTC) (R. Franke, LP) Eng. /Roads F. McCubbins, Stoltze +Joel Marshik, USFS +D . Wick, PCTC (+J. Okonski, Private) (Jim Saubier, USFS) (S. Anderson, Cont.) Conservation +Don Alley +B . Benson, CFC +P. Hackley, EIC (+R. Ash, Audub. ) (B. Farling, CFC) (+C. Jones, EIC) Legend : REDLINE denotes Team Leader . ( ) denotes alternate. + denotes prior BMP audit team experience. A-l . ... . • .. i APPENDIX B 1992 BMP FIELD AUDITS RISK RATING GUIDE MONTANA "RISK" MATRIX (3/91) TYPE CLEARCUT PARTIAL CUT SITE PREP ROADS SLOPE SOIL EROD. TRACKED EQUIP. RUBBER SKID PARTIAL SUSP. FULL SUSP. TRACKED EQUIP. RUBBER SKID PARTIAL SUSP. FULL SUSP. MACHINE PILE/SCAR BRDCAST BURN OTHER PERM. TEMP. 0-5% H 2 2 2 1 2** 2** 1 1 2 1 1 2** 3 M 2 1 1 1** 2 1 1 2*< 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5-20% H 4 3 2 1 4* 3 2 1 4 2 1 3 4 M 3 2 1 1 3* 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 3 L 2 2 1 1 2* 2* 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 20-40% H 5 5 4* 2 5* 5* 3** 1 5 3** 1 4 5 M 4* 4 3 1 3 3 2 1 4 3 1 3 4* L 3* 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3* 3 > 40% H 5 5 4 2 5 5 4 2 5 4 1 5 5 M 5 5 4 2* 5 5 3 1 5 4 1 5 5 L 4 4 3 1 4 4 2 1 4 3* 1 4 4 ( * Indicates Mean Value Used, ** Final Group Consensus Adjustment for Internal Consistency) MONTANA EROSION- IMPACT MATRIX From: "Management Guidelines For Riparian Forests” by Robert Pfister and Kim Sherwood. Flathead Basin Forest Practices Water Quality and Fisheries Cooperative Program. LEGEND 1 = LOW RISK 2-3 = MODERATE RISK 4-5 = HIGH RISK SOIL ERODIBILITY HIGH ERODIBILITY GRANITICS ALLUVIUM LACUSTRINE MODERATE ERODIBILITY SCHIST SOFT/HARD SEDIMENTS BASIC IGNEOUS LOW ERODIBILITY ARGILLITE/QUARTZITE METAMORPHIC (BELT) HIGH RISK DUE TO RIPARIAN HARVEST "HIGH" risk will be assigned to sales with logging in riparian zones along streams. Riparian zones are located between aquatic and terrestrial environ- ments and are identified by distinct vegetation that requires or tolerates free or unbound water. This includes but is not limited to the following habitat types: ABLA/CACA, (all phases), ABLA/OPHO, PICEA/EQAR, THPL/OPHO. B-1 ■ ' ' . DS-49 APPENDIX C MONTANA FOREST PRACTICES REVIEW WORKSHEET DATE: OWNER: HRA #: CONTRACTOR: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: DRAINAGE: SALE NAME: GEOLOGY & SOILS: SLOPE RANGE: PRACTICES STAGE: (X IF COMPLETED) PREHARVEST ( ) ROAD CONSTRUCTION < ) HARVEST ( ) SLASH DISPOSAL ( ) ROADS: NEW CONSTRUCTION (LENGTH): RECONSTRUCTION (LENGTH): HARVEST: CLEARCUT _ SEEDTREE (ACRES & METHOD) OSR SHELTERWOOD IND. SELECTION SITE PREPARATION: SLASH DISPOSAL: NR- -NOT REVIEWED NA--NOT APPLICABLE EFFECTIVENESS 5-- IMPROVED PROTECTION OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES OVER PRE- PROJECT CONDITION 4- -ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 3--MINOR AND TEMPORARY IMPACTS ON SOIL & WATER RESOURCES 2- -MAJOR AND TEMPORARY OR MINOR AND PROLONGED IMPACTS ON SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES. 1- -MAJOR AND PROLONGED IMPACTS ON SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES. DEFINITIONS (BY EXAMPLE): ADEQUATE- -SMALL AMOUNT OF MATERIAL ERODED; MATERIAL DOES NOT REACH DRAWS, CHANNELS, OR FLOODPLAIN. MINOR- -EROSION AND DELIVERY OF MATERIAL TO DRAWS BUT NOT STREAM. MAJOR- -EROS I ON AND SUBSEQUENT DELIVERY OF SEDIMENT TO STREAM OR ANNUAL FLOODPLAIN. TEMPORARY- -IMPACTS LASTING ONE YEAR OR LESS; NO MORE THAN ONE RUNOFF SEASON. PROLONGED- -IMPACTS LASTING MORE THAN ONE YEAR. RATING GUIDE APPLICATION 5--OPERATION EXCEEDS REQUIREMENTS OF BMP 4- -OPERATION MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF BMP 3- -MI NOR DEPARTURE FROM BMP 2- -MAJOR DEPARTURE FROM BMP 1- -GROSS NEGLECT OF BMP RECOMMENDED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO SITE (Y/N) APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS ROADS ROAD PLANNING & LOCATION — SECTION I, A. la. MINIMIZE NUMBER OF ROADS NECESSARY . lb. USE EXISTING ROADS UNLESS AGGRAVATE EROSION. 3a. FIT ROAD TO THE TOPOGRAPHY. 3b. AVOID LONG, SUSTAINED, STEEP ROAD GRADES. 4. LOCATIONS AVOID HIGH HAZARD SITES. 5. ADEQUATE SMZ BETWEEN ROAD AND STREAM CHANNELS. 6. MINIMIZE NUMBER OF STREAM CROSSINGS. NUMBER R: 6/90 C-l I.D RECOMMENDED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO SITE (Y/N) APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS ROAD DESIGN — SECTION I.B. 2. DESIGN ROADS TO MINIMUM STANDARD NECESSARY . 4. VARY ROAD GRADE FOR DRAINAGE. 5. PROPER SIZING FOR CROSSING STRUCTURES . DRAINAGE FROM ROAD SURFACE SECTION I.C. 1. PROVIDE ADEQUATE ROAD SURFACE DRAINAGE. 2. SKEW DITCH RELIEF CULVERTS. 4. PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATORS AT CMP OUTLETS WHERE NEEDED. 6. ROUTE ROAD DRAINAGE THROUGH SMZ. CONSTRUCTION — SECTION I.D. 1. EROSION CONTROL WORK CURRENT WITH CONSTRUCTION. 2. STABILIZE ERODIBLE SOILS (SEEDING) . 3. SLASH FILTER WINDROWS INSTALLED. 5. CUT AND FILL SLOPES AT STABLE ANGLES. SLOPE RATIO: 6. CLEAR VEGETATION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. 8. OVERBURDEN PLACED TO AVOID ENTERING STREAM. 9. SEDIMENT FROM BORROW PITS MINIMIZED. 10. RECONSTRUCT ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY. ROAD MAINTENANCE — SECTION I.E. 1. GRADE ROADS TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE. 2. EROSION CONTROL FEATURES (DITCHES AND CULVERTS) FUNCTIONAL. 3. AVOID CUTTING THE TOE OF CUT SLOPES. 6. RESTRICT USE OF ROADS DURING WET PERIODS AND SPRING BREAKUP. 8. ABANDONED ROADS IN CONDITION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. R: 6/90 C-2 I.D. RECOMMENDED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TIMBER HARVESTING HARVEST DESIGN — SECTION II. A. 2. SUITABLE LOGGING SYSTEM FOR TOPOGRAPHY . 5. SKID TRAIL DESIGN AVOIDS CONCENTRATING RUNOFF. 6. SUITABLE LOCATION, SIZE, AND NUMBER OF LANDINGS. STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT — SECTION II. B. 1. ADEQUATE SMZ MAINTAINED (WIDTH ). 2a. VEGETATION MAINTAINED ALONG STREAM. 2b. RETAIN TREES FOR STABILIZATION. 2c. OPENINGS UNDER 600 FT. ALONG CHANNEL. 3a. EQUIPMENT OPERATION MINIMIZED IN SMZ. 3b. AVOID EQUIPMENT OPERATION IN WETLANDS . 3c. AVOID EQUIPMENT OPERATION IN STREAM CHANNELS. 4. STREAMS FREE OF LOGGING DEBRIS. OTHER HARVESTING ACTIVITIES SECTION II.C. la. SKIDDING OPERATION MINIMIZES SOIL DISPLACEMENT. lb. SKIDDING OPERATION MINIMIZES COMPACTION. 2a. ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR TEMPORARY ROADS, SKID TRAILS AND FIRE LINES. 2b. ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR LANDINGS. SLASH TREATMENT AND SITE PREPARATION SECTION I I.D. 2. BRUSH BLADES USED ON DOZERS. 4. SCARIFY ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY. 5. COMPACTION AND DISPLACEMENT MINIMIZED. 6. DOZER OPERATIONS ON SUITABLE SLOPES ONLY. 9. LIMIT WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF PRESCRIBED FIRE. APPLICABLE TO SITE (Y/N) APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS R: 6/90 C-3 I.D RECOMMENDED BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPLICABLE TO SITE (Y/N) APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS COMMENTS STREAM CROSSINGS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS — SECTION III. A. 1. PROPER PERMITS FOR STREAM CROSSINGS. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS — SECTION III.B. la. CROSS STREAMS AT RIGHT ANGLES. IF PRACTICAL. lb. ADJUST ROAD GRADES TO REDUCE CONCENTRATION OF WATER. 2. AVOID UNIMPROVED STREAM CROSSINGS. INSTALLATION OF STREAM CROSSINGS SECTION III.C. 1. MINIMIZE STREAM CHANNEL DISTURBANCE. 2. CULVERTS CONFORM TO NATURAL STREAMBED AND SLOPE. 3. PREVENT EROSION OF CULVERT AND BRIDGE FILLS. 5. MINIMUM COVER FOR CULVERTS PROVIDED. HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES GENERAL — SECTION V.A. 1. COMPLY WITH REGULATION ON STORAGE , HANDLING, APPLICATION, AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES. 2. ADEQUATE STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FOR FUEL, SHOP DEBRIS, AND WASTE OIL. PESTICIDES AND HERBICIDES SECTION V.B. 1. PREVENT ENTRY OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES INTO SURFACE WATERS. OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS R: 6/90 C-4 I . D. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS 1990 BMP AUDITS 1. When roads were closed, or after use of temporary roads, were culverts or stream crossing structures removed and stream channel reformed to its pre-road configuration? (EPA #7 A.) 2. What condition were temporary roads left in after their use? (EPA #7B. ) 3. Would a change in stream crossing design have prevented any observed sediment discharge problems attributable to the crossings? Explain. (EPA #9A.) 4. Describe the width and depth of stream(s) associated with this sale. (EPA #12B.) 5. What length of streambank was left unshaded due to timber harvest and vegetation removal in the streamside zone? (EPA #13B.) 6. Did ground skidding take place through any perennial streams? (EPA #15A. ) 7 . Did timber harvest planning include considerations for watershed condition and cumulative effects of multiple timber management activities on water yield and sediment production? (EPA #21A.) C - 5 . . ' ' . ■ - APPENDIX D RATIONALE FOR THE RATING SYSTEM POST HARVEST EVALUATION ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ APPLICATION APPLICATION RATING 4 OR 5 RATING 2 OR 3 D-l ' n ' ■ , APPENDIX E 1992 BMP FIELD AUDITS SITES PICKED FOR AUDITS BY OUNERSHIP GROUP Rusher Sale Naae Location County Owner Tea* DSL-1 Burke Creek Sec. 36, T15N-R3U Lewis & Clark DSL SU DSL-2 Butler Creek Sec. 24, T16N-R23U Missoula DSL wc DSL-3 Round Meadow Sec. 8, T33N-R23W Flathead DSL MW DSL-4 Lower Stillwater Lk. U. #2 Sec. 7, 18, T32N-R23U Flathead DSL NW DSL-5 Gobbler's Knob Sec. 16, T27N-R26U Flathead DSL MU IND-1 Sumor Flatheads Sec. 21, T3N-R6E Gallatin P.C. sw IND-2 Battle 9 Tractor Sec. 9, T1N-R7E Gal latin P.C. sw IND-3 Cathouse Cr. Sec. 9, T3N-R19W Raval l i DL wc IND-4 Haskill Gate Sec. 9, T31N-R21W Flathead Stol . MW IND-5 Old Mill Site Sec. 32, T28N-R25W Flathead Champ. MW IND-6 Rock Cr. Cat Sec. 28, T31N-R26W Lincoln Champ. NW IND-7 Cow's Bottom Sec. 5, 6, T28N-R28W Lincoln Champ. MW IND-8 S. Blanchard Sec. 25, T15N-R16W Missoula Champ. WC IND-9 E. F. Ashby Sec. 11, 12, 13, T12N-R16W Missoula Champ. WC IND-10 Work Center Line Sec. 19, T12N-R22W Missoula Champ. WC IND-11 Hemlock Pt. Sec. 33, T20N-R17W Missoula PC WC IND-12 Elbow Sec. 22, 27, T19N-R17W Missoula PC WC IND-13 Elk Mountain Sec. 7, T11N-R17W Missoula PC WC IND-14 Baldy 15 Sec. 15, T26N-R21W Flathead PC MU IND-15 Barnum LPP Sec. 2, T27N-R27W Lincoln PC NW IND-16 Mu l lan Pass Sec. 23, T10N-R6W Powel l PC SW NIP-1 Silverthorn Cr. Sec. 31, 32, T9N-R20W Raval l i NIP WC NIP-2 Swamp Cr. Sec. 13, T25N-R32W Sanders NIP WC NIP-3 Clark Fork Bench Sec. 27, T27N-R34W Sanders NIP WC NIP-4 McDonald Cr. Sec. 34, T10N-R9W Powel l NIP SU NIP-5 Mule Creek Sec. 21, 22, T29N-R14W Flathead NIP NW NIP-6 Noisy Creek Sec. 26, 27, T28N-R19W Flathead NIP NW NIP-7 Big Lodge Cr. Sec. 13, T25N-R21W Lake NIP NW NIP-8 Rocker Gulch Sec. 3, 10, 11, T7N-R8W Powel l NIP SU NIP-9 Guicici Cow Sec. 15, T8S-R7W Beaverhead NIP SW NIP-10 Arrow Creek Sec. 22, T19N-R9E Judith Basin NIP SW NIP-11 Spring Cr. Sec. 35, T13N-R19E Fergus NIP SW FED-1 China Yankee Sec. 6, T4S-R5E Gallatin USFS SW FED-2 Portal Salvage Sec. 20, T6S-R5E Gal latin USFS SW FED-3 Stoner Cr. Sec. 32, T27N-R21W Flathead USFS NW FED-4 Lion Whelp Sec. 23, T30N-R19W Flathead USFS NW FED-5 American Gulch Sec. 10, 11, T11N-R6W Lewis & Clark BLM SU FED-6 Yank Swamp Sec. 24, T3S-R17W Beaverhead BLM SU FED-7 Lower Larry Sec. 19, T33N-R29W Lincoln USFS NW FED-8 Hold-Up Gulch Sec. 9, T35N-R28W Lincoln USFS NW FED-9 Sanders Face Sec. 2, T29N-R26W Lincoln USFS NW FED-10 Lookout Below Sec. 1, T29N-R34W Lincoln USFS NW FED-11 Treasure Mtn. Sec. 15, T8N-R6W Powel l USFS SU FED-12 Odouir Sec. 29, T11N-R10E Meagher USFS SW FED-13 Chippy Cr. Sec. 29, T24N-R25W Sanders USFS WC FED-14 Lairdon Gulch Sec. 14, T4N-R20W Raval l i USFS WC FED-15 W.F. Swartz Cr. Sec. 13, T11N-R18W Missoula USFS WC FED-16 Alpine Divide Sec. 19, T17N-R24W Missoula USFS WC E-l . . APPENDIX F 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP Practice Owner 1 A P P L 2 I C A 3 T I 0 4 N 5 NR E 1 F F E 2 C T I 3 V E N 4 ESS 5 NR ROAD PLANNING Minimize # DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 of Roads FED 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 l.A.Ia IND 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 NIP 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 1 Total : 0 0 0 44 0 2 0 0 0 44 0 2 Use Existing DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Roads FED 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 I. A. 1b IND 0 0 1 13 0 2 0 0 1 13 0 2 NIP 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 5 0 3 Total : 0 1 1 38 0 6 0 1 1 38 0 6 Fit Road to DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Topography FED 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 I .A. 3a IND 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 NIP 0 0 1 5 0 3 0 1 0 5 0 3 Total : 0 0 2 39 0 5 0 1 0 40 0 5 Avoid Long, DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Steep Grades FED 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 I. A. 3b IND 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 NIP 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 4 Total : 0 0 0 39 0 7 0 0 0 39 0 7 Avoid High DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Hazard Areas FED 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 I. A. 4 IND 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 0 1 14 0 1 NIP 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 3 Total : 0 2 1 37 0 6 0 2 1 37 0 6 Adequate SMZ DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Planned FED 0 0 3 10 0 3 0 0 2 11 0 3 I. A. 5 IND 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 NIP 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 1 1 4 0 3 Total : 0 2 4 33 0 7 0 1 3 35 0 7 F-1 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N ESS Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR Minimize # of DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Stream X'ings FED 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 I .A. 6 IND 0 0 0 13 0 3 1 0 0 12 0 3 NIP 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 4 Total : 0 0 0 37 0 9 1 0 0 36 0 9 ROAD DESIGN Minimum Design DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Standards FED 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 1 .6.2 IND 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 1 0 14 0 1 NIP 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 4 Total : 0 0 1 38 0 7 0 1 0 38 0 7 Vary Grade DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 for Drainage FED 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 I.B.4 IND 0 0 2 13 0 1 0 0 1 14 0 1 NIP 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 0 1 4 0 4 Total : 0 1 2 36 0 7 0 0 2 37 0 7 Crossings DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 Properly Sized FED 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 3 1.8.5 IND 0 0 1 13 0 2 0 1 0 13 0 2 NIP 0 2 1 3 0 3 0 2 1 3 0 3 Total : 0 2 2 32 0 10 0 3 1 32 0 10 ROAD DRAINAGE Adequate Sur- DSL 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 face Drainage FED 0 3 2 10 0 1 0 2 1 12 0 1 I.C.1 IND 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 1 4 10 1 0 NIP 2 2 1 3 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 Total : 2 5 ? 9 28 0 2 1 5 7 30 1 2 Skew Relief DSL 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 Culverts FED 0 0 0 6 0 10 0 0 0 6 0 10 I.C.2 IND 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 11 NIP 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total : 0 0 1 11 0 34 0 0 0 12 0 34 F-2 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N ESS Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR Energy Dissip. DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 at CMP Outlets FED 0 0 1 8 0 7 0 0 1 8 0 7 I.C.4 IND 0 0 0 12 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 4 NIP 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 0 1 1 0 7 Total: 0 0 2 24 0 20 0 0 2 24 0 20 Route Drainage DSL G 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 Through SMZ FED 0 3 2 8 0 3 0 3 0 10 0 3 I.C.6 IND 0 4 3 8 0 1 0 3 3 9 0 1 NIP 1 0 2 4 0 2 1 1 1 4 0 2 Total : 1 7 8 23 0 7 1 7 5 26 0 7 ROAD CONSTRUCTION Erosion Control DSL 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Concurrent FED 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 0 1 4 0 11 I.D.1 IND 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 10 0 6 NIP 1 0 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 1 0 7 Total : 1 0 1 19 0 25 1 0 1 19 0 25 Stabi l i ze DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Erodible Soils FED 0 0 1 13 0 2 0 1 0 13 0 2 I.D.2 IND 0 0 2 13 0 1 0 0 3 12 0 1 NIP 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 0 2 3 0 4 Total : 0 1 4 34 0 7 0 1 5 33 0 7 Slash Filter DSL 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 Windrows FED 0 0 1 6 0 9 0 1 1 5 0 9 I.D.3 IND 0 1 1 7 0 7 0 1 1 7 0 7 NIP 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total: 0 1 2 15 0 28 0 2 2 14 0 28 Slopes at DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Stable Angle FED 0 0 3 11 1 1 0 0 3 12 0 1 I.D.5 IND 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 NIP 0 1 1 4 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 Total: 0 1 5 34 1 5 0 0 7 34 0 5 F-3 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP A P P L I c A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N E S S Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR Clear Veget. DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Before Const. FED 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 1 .0.6 IND 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 NIP 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 4 Total : 0 0 1 38 0 7 0 0 0 39 0 7 Overburden DSL 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 4 Placement FED 0 0 1 6 0 9 0 0 1 6 0 9 I.D.8 IND 0 0 0 3 0 13 0 0 0 3 0 13 NIP 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total : 0 0 1 10 0 35 0 0 1 10 0 35 Sediment From DSL 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Borrow Pits FED 0 0 1 6 0 9 0 0 0 7 0 9 I.D.9 IND 0 0 1 2 0 13 0 1 0 2 0 13 NIP 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 7 Total : 0 0 2 10 0 34 0 1 0 11 0 34 Minimize DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Reconstruction FED 0 0 0 10 0 6 0 0 0 10 0 6 I.D.10 IND 0 0 0 9 1 6 0 0 0 10 0 6 NIP 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 4 0 4 Total : 0 1 0 27 1 17 0 1 0 28 0 17 ROAD MAINTENANCE Grade Roads DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 for Drainage FED 0 1 0 14 0 1 0 1 0 14 0 1 I.E.1 IND 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 NIP 2 3 1 2 0 1 1 2 2 3 0 1 Total: 244340 2 134360 2 Erosion Control DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 Functional FED 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 I.E.2 IND 0 0 1 13 0 2 0 0 1 13 0 2 NIP 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 0 4 Total: 0 0 5 35 0 6 0 0 4 35 1 6 F-4 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP Practice Avoid Cutting Slope Toe l.E.3 Restrict Use When Wet I.E.6 Adequate Drain, on A band. Roads I.E.8 HARVEST DESIGN Logging Suits Topography II. A. 2 Skid Trai l Design II. A. 5 Landing Size Location II. A. 6 A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N ESS Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 FED 0 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 IND 0 0 2 14 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 NIP 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 0 2 0 7 Total : 0 0 2 35 1 8 0 0 1 37 0 8 DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 FED 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 IND 0 1 1 14 0 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 NIP 0 1 2 4 1 1 0 1 2 5 0 1 Total : 0 2 3 37 2 2 0 1 4 39 0 2 DSL 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 FED 0 0 1 7 1 7 0 0 0 9 0 7 IND 0 0 0 5 1 10 0 0 1 5 0 10 NIP 0 0 1 2 0 6 0 0 1 2 0 6 Total : 0 0 3 16 2 25 0 0 2 19 0 25 DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 FED 0 1 0 15 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 0 IND 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 NIP 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 Total : 0 2 1 43 0 0 1 1 2 42 0 0 DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 FED 0 1 4 9 0 2 0 1 1 12 0 2 IND 0 1 1 13 0 1 0 1 1 13 0 1 NIP 0 5 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 Total : 0 7 5 30 0 4 0 6 2 34 0 4 DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 FED 0 1 0 15 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 0 IND 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 NIP 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 Total: 0 2 1 43 0 0 0 2 1 43 0 0 F-5 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N ESS Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT Adequate SMZ DSL 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Maintained FED 1 0 5 10 0 0 1 1 1 13 0 0 II.B.1 IND 0 2 2 8 4 0 0 0 4 12 0 0 NIP 3 0 1 5 0 0 2 1 1 5 0 0 Total : 4 2 8 26 6 0 3 2 6 35 0 0 Stream Veget. DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Maintained FED 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 II.B.2a IND 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 0 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 0 Total : 0 1 2 43 0 0 0 1 2 43 0 0 Retain Bank DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 T rees FED 0 0 2 13 1 0 0 1 1 14 0 0 II .8. 2b IND 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 Total : 0 0 3 41 2 0 0 1 2 43 0 0 Stream Openings DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 <600 Feet FED 0 0 2 13 0 1 0 0 2 13 0 1 II.B.2c IND 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 3 NIP 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 2 Total : 0 0 2 36 0 8 0 0 2 36 0 8 Equip. Operation DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 Minimized in SMZ FED 0 1 2 12 1 0 0 1 1 14 0 0 II.B.3a IND 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 3 1 0 5 0 0 2 1 1 5 0 0 Total : 3 2 2 37 1 1 2 2 2 39 0 1 Equip. Operation DSL 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 in Wetlands FED 1 0 3 5 1 6 1 0 3 6 0 6 1 1 . B . 3b IND 0 0 1 9 0 6 0 0 1 9 0 6 NIP 2 0 1 2 0 4 1 1 0 3 0 4 Total : 3 0 6 19 1 17 2 1 4 22 0 17 F-6 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N E S S Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR Equip. Operation DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 in Streams FED 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 II.B.3c IND 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 2 0 2 5 0 0 2 0 2 5 0 0 Total : 2 0 3 40 0 1 2 0 2 41 0 1 Streams Free of DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Logging Debris FED 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 II. B. 4 IND 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 Total : 0 1 4 41 0 0 0 1 3 42 0 0 OTHER HARVEST ACTIVITY Skid to Min. DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Displacing Soil FED 0 1 1 14 0 0 0 0 2 14 0 0 Il.C.la IND 0 0 3 12 1 0 0 0 3 13 0 0 NIP 0 1 3 5 0 0 0 1 3 5 0 0 Total : 0 2 7 36 1 0 0 1 8 37 0 0 Skid to Min. DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 Compacting Soi l FED 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 0 1 15 0 0 Il.C.lb IND 0 0 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 Total : 0 0 3 42 1 0 0 0 3 43 0 0 Adequate Drain. DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 for Skid Trai Is FED 0 1 6 9 0 0 0 2 2 12 0 0 II.C.2a IND 0 1 4 10 0 1 0 1 3 11 0 1 NIP 1 4 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 4 0 1 Total : 1 6 11 26 0 2 1 6 5 32 0 2 Adequate Drain. DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 for Landings FED 0 0 1 14 0 1 0 0 2 13 0 1 1 1 . C . 2b IND 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 NIP 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 0 1 7 0 1 Total : 0 0 2 40 0 4 0 0 3 39 0 4 F-7 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP Practice Owner 1 A P P L 2 I C A 3 T I 0 4 N 5 NR E 1 F F E 2 C T I 3 V E N 4 ESS 5 NR SITE PREPARATION Brush Blades DSL 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 Used FED 0 0 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 8 II. D. 2 IND 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 11 NIP 0 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 5 Total : 0 0 0 19 0 27 0 0 0 19 0 27 Scarify Only DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 to Extent FED 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 3 Necessary IND 0 0 0 11 0 5 0 0 0 11 0 5 II. D. 4 NIP 1 0 1 3 0 4 1 0 1 3 0 4 Total : 1 0 1 31 0 13 1 0 1 31 0 13 Compaction and DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 Displacement FED 0 0 1 12 1 2 0 0 2 12 0 2 Minimized IND 0 0 0 8 2 6 0 0 0 10 0 6 II. D. 5 NIP 1 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 2 2 0 3 Total : 1 1 3 25 3 13 1 1 4 27 0 13 Dozer Operation DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 on Suitable FED 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 1 0 11 0 4 Slopes Only IND 0 0 1 6 0 9 0 0 1 6 0 9 II. D. 6 NIP 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 Total : 0 0 6 22 0 18 0 1 3 24 0 18 Limit UQ Impact DSL 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 of F i re FED 0 1 1 11 0 3 0 0 2 11 0 3 II. D. 9 IND 0 0 4 9 1 2 0 0 3 11 0 2 NIP 1 0 4 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 2 Total : 1 1 9 26 1 8 0 2 7 29 0 8 STREAM CROSSINGS Proper Permit DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 Obtained FED 0 0 0 6 0 10 0 0 0 6 0 10 III.A.1 IND 0 0 0 5 0 11 0 0 0 5 0 11 NIP 0 1 0 4 0 4 0 1 0 4 0 4 Total: 0 0 18 0 27 0 1 0 18 0 27 F-8 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OWNERSHIP GROUP Practice Owner STREAM XING DESIGN Cross Stream DSL at Right Angle FED III. B. la IND NIP Total: Reduce Concen. DSL of Runoff FED III. B. 1b IND NIP Total Avoid Unimproved DSL Crossings FED II1.B.2 IND NIP Total STREAM XING INSTALLATION Min. Channel DSL Disturbance FED III.C.2 IND NIP Total: Culverts Conform DSL to Streambed FED Slope IND III.C.2 NIP Total Prevent Fill DSL Erosion FED III.C.3 IND NIP Total APPLICATION EFFECTIVENESS 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 11 0 15 0 7 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 0 36 0 10 0 0 0 36 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 2 1 10 0 3 0 1 1 11 0 3 0 0 3 11 0 2 0 0 2 12 0 2 1 0 0 4 0 4 1 0 0 4 0 4 1 2 4 28 0 11 1 1 3 30 0 11 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 0 13 0 3 0 0 1 11 1 3 0 0 1 12 0 3 0 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 2 32 1 11 0 0 2 33 0 11 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 11 0 5 0 0 0 11 0 5 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 0 1 34 0 11 0 0 0 35 0 11 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 3 8 1 4 0 0 1 11 0 4 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 1 4 30 1 10 0 1 1 34 0 10 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 0 2 10 0 4 0 1 2 12 0 1 0 1 3 11 0 1 1 1 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 4 0 3 1 2 4 29 0 10 0 3 5 28 0 10 F-9 1992 BNP RATINGS BY PRACTICE AND OUNERSNIP GROUP A P P L I C A T I 0 N E F F E C T I V E N E S S Practice Owner 1 2 3 4 5 NR 1 2 3 4 5 NR Adequate Cover DSL 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 2 for Culverts FED 0 0 1 11 0 4 0 0 0 12 0 4 III.C.5 IND 0 0 0 15 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 NIP 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 4 0 3 Total : 0 0 4 32 0 10 0 0 2 34 0 10 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES Comply With DSL 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 Regulations FED 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 V.A.1 IND 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 NIP 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total : 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 46 Proper Storage DSL 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 and Disposal FED 0 0 3 12 0 1 0 0 0 15 0 1 V.A.2 IND 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 NIP 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 Total : 0 0 4 41 0 1 0 0 0 45 0 1 Prevent Entry DSL 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 into Streams FED 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 V.B.1 IND 0 0 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 16 NIP 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total : 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 46 GRAND TOTALS: 24 63 168 1749 25 639 19 64 128 1816 2 639 F- 10 Printed on recycled paper. 600 copies of this public document were published at an estimated cost of $2.50 per copy, for a total cost of $1500.00, which includes $1500.00 for printing and $0.00 for distribution.