# Implementation of Forestry **Best Management Practices:**

**2012 Southern Region Report**

Prepared by:

Water Resources Committee September 2012Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### i Water and the Southern Group of State Foresters 

## WATER AND THE SOUTHERN GROUP OF STATE FORESTERS

The Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) is a non-profit organization consisting of State
Foresters from:

 Alabama  Arkansas  Florida  Georgia  Kentucky  Louisiana  Mississippi  North Carolina  Oklahoma  South Carolina  Tennessee  Texas  Virginia  Puerto Rico  U.S. Virgin Islands

We work together to identify and address issues and challenges that are important to southern forests and citizens, many of which have been assessed with each state’s Forest Action Plan ( www. forestactionplans.org ). A common theme of these plans among southern states was water quality and quantity. The SGSF has incorporated a goal into our Implementation Plan that recognizes the role of forests and forestry to the long-term sustainable supply of clean water in the south.

The SGSF has identified several important actions to achieve this “water goal.” One of those actions is to continue state forestry agency programs directed toward nonpoint source pollution, specifically: “promote the protection of soil and water resources through the development, adoption, and implementation of silviculture best management practices (BMPs) or other suitable measures.” In order to achieve this component of our water goal, southern states will:

 Promote and encourage the use and proper implementation of Silviculture Best Management Practices (BMPs) through educational materials, training, technical assistance, incentives or other means necessary.

 Facilitate work to monitor, report, and demonstrate the implementation and effectiveness
of silviculture BMPs.

 Support watershed research that focuses on developing effective BMPs, quantifying/ modeling BMP efficiency, and increasing our overall understanding of forest hydrology.

 Document and report progress made in BMP implementation, load reductions, and water quality improvement.

 Promote science based silviculture that supports the conservation, sustainable management, and functionality of wetlands. 

### SGSF Mission

To provide leadership in sustaining the economic, environmental, and social benefits of the South’s forests.

SGSF Implementation Plan - Goal 5 “Water Goal”

The SGSF will provide leadership and support to state agency programs that work to

manage, conserve, restore, and enhance forests to provide a sustainable supply of clean water for economic, social, and ecological benefits.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### iii Forward 

# FORWARD

In order to improve and maximize the integrity of forestry Best Management Practices (BMP) implementation monitoring in the southeast, the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) appointed a Task Force to develop recommendations for a more consistent approach to this activity in the region. Specifically, the Task Force was charged with developing guidance on monitoring BMP implementation that would be statistically sound, objective, and technically defensible. This framework was to achieve analytical consistency, making monitoring results and data generally comparable across the southern states.

In 1997, the Task Force completed the initial document titled Silviculture Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring – A Framework for State Forestry Agencies (Framework). In 2002, this document was revised and re-published, and states began working toward conformance. As envisioned by the SGSF, one aspect of having multistate conformance with the Framework was the capability to compile BMP implementation data for participating states and periodically report this information at a regional level. Among other values, this “regional report” was expected to identify categories of BMPs for which implementation may need improvement throughout the region. It was further expected that those needs would then be addressed by the SGSF Water Resources Committee (WRC), through regional BMP training, demonstration, and information exchange.

In 2008, a small working group from the SGSF WRC solicited each of the southern states for all BMP implementation data that was collected in conformance with the Framework since 1997. This data was compiled, analyzed, and published in Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: A Southern Region Report, 2008

.
As a way to assess the ongoing educational efforts since 2008, the SGSF WRC again convened a working group to produce an updated “regional report.” The same data request format was used for easy comparison of results and included data collected between 2007 and 2012. Eleven of the 13 states submitted data for inclusion in this report.

Southern Group of State Foresters

Water Resources Committee www.southernforests.orgImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### v Executive Summary 

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Forty-four statewide monitoring surveys have been conducted since the initial development of the Framework in 1997, with 24 in the last five years. The number of surveys completed to date provides a useful dataset for determining BMP implementation across the region, as well as changes in state implementation, since the inception of the Framework.

For the seven BMP categories considered in this report, the lowest average implementation for the region was for Firebreaks (82 percent), and the highest average implementation was for Chemical Application (98.5 percent). The Harvesting, Forest Roads, Streamside Management Zone, Site Preparation, and Chemical Application categories all scored 90 percent or above, while Stream Crossings scored 89 percent.

Combining all BMP categories in all states, and using only the most recent survey data, the average overall BMP implementation for the southern region was 92 percent, up from 87 percent in 2008. The range of overall implementation reported by individual states for surveys included in this report was from 85 percent to 99 percent.

Change in BMP implementation has been positive across the region since the initial report in 2008. Most notably, BMP implementation in the Harvesting and Firebreak categories increased by seven percentage points and nine percentage points, respectively. All other BMP categories realized at least a one percentage point increase since the previous report.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### vii Table of Contents 

# LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Average Regional BMP Implementation by Category

................................................... 2 Figure 2. Comparison of Average Regional BMP Implementation by Category –

2008 vs. 2012

................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3. Changes in Overall BMP Implementation by State

....................................................... 6



# LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. BMP Implementation by State, Year, and Regional Category

....................................... 7
Table 2. Online Links to the Most Current State Forestry BMP Manuals in the Southern Region

......................................................................................................... 11
Table 3. Online Links to Forestry BMP Implementation Information in the Southern Region

......................................................................................................... 12 

# TABLE OF CONTENTS

WATER AND THE SOUTHERN GROUP OF STATE FORESTERS i

FORWARD iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v

INTRODUCTION 1

FINDINGS 2

Overall BMP Implementation

......................................................................... 2 Regional Averages

............................................................................................ 3 

## Implementation of BMPs by Report Category

................................................ 4 Harvesting

........................................................................................................ 4
Forest Roads

..................................................................................................... 4 Stream Crossings

............................................................................................... 4 Streamside Management Zones (SMZ)

.............................................................. 4 Site Preparation

................................................................................................ 4
Firebreaks

......................................................................................................... 5 Chemical Application

......................................................................................... 5


## SUMMARY 6

REFERENCES 10
Regional Reports

......................................................................................... 10
State BMP Manuals

..................................................................................... 11 State BMP Implementation Reports

............................................................. 12Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 1 Introduction 

# INTRODUCTION

Beginning in 1997, states in the southern region were introduced to a BMP monitoring protocol
titled Silviculture Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring – A Framework for State Forestry Agencies (Framework). At that time, states began working toward this monitoring approach. Currently, all states in the region are in conformance with the Framework. However, only 11 of the 13 states submitted eligible data for inclusion in this report.

The Framework calls for the evaluation of seven BMP categories: Harvesting, Forest Roads, Stream Crossings, Streamside Management Zones, Site Preparation, Firebreaks, and Chemical Application. In addition, conformance with the Framework requires that BMPs be evaluated at three implementation levels, including individual practice, category, and overall. In order to allow for regional comparisons, the Framework also asks that states express implementation as a percent.

As agreed to by the SGSF WRC, states in conformance with the Framework submitted BMP implementation monitoring data to a small working group. This data was to be extracted from all statewide surveys conducted in conformance with the Framework since the initial regional report published in 2008. For states that had not conducted monitoring since the initial regional report, their most recent data (2007) was used.

Since forestry practices are different across the region, not all states reported on all categories of BMPs referenced in the Framework. For example, forest chemical use in Tennessee is not common, therefore Tennessee did not report implementation monitoring data for this BMP category. Similarly, some states evaluate BMPs less frequently than others, resulting in disproportionate responses for certain BMP categories. Finally, BMP monitoring forms for states are organized differently with respect to the BMP categories called for in the Framework. For example, Harvesting is a BMP category referenced in the Framework, but North Carolina addresses “harvesting practices” throughout their BMP Manual, and captures these practices under multiple BMP categories during implementation monitoring. Consequently, for consistency in this report, regional criteria (shown below) for each of the seven BMP categories were developed.

 Overall BMP Implementation – Average of all BMPs evaluated

 Harvesting – BMPs for landings, skid trails, wetlands, and waste disposal

 Forest Roads – BMPs for permanent and temporary forest roads

 Stream Crossings – BMPs for stream crossings – permanent or temporary – haul or skidder

 SMZs – BMPs for SMZs

 Site Preparation – BMPs for site preparation and planting

 Firebreaks – BMPs for firebreaks – wildland fire pre-suppression or prescribed burn

 Chemical Application – BMPs for application of pesticides, fertilizers, or other chemicals

While there is extensive BMP implementation monitoring data across the region, direct state to state comparisons are difficult, given the natural variability in site characteristics, operational methods, and BMP specifications throughout the South. Table 1 on page 7 provides current and historical data to facilitate in-state comparisons.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 2 Findings



# FINDINGS

Overall BMP Implementation

The Overall Implementation statistic is reported for each site and accumulated for each survey. It includes all BMPs for a given forestry operation and is expressed as a percent of all applicable practices. Eleven states captured this statistic and responded with data (Figure 1). Overall implementation ranged from 85 percent to 99 percent for this reporting period, averaging 92 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, overall implementation showed a generally positive change. Figure 1 below illustrates the average regional BMP implementation by category using the most recent survey from each state.

Figure 1. Average Regional BMP Implementation by CategoryImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 3 Findings Regional Averages

Data reported by the individual states were analyzed to determine the current region-wide averages for overall BMP implementation and the seven BMP categories (Figure 2). This data was then compared to the region-wide average of the 2008 report to identify any change. The current overall BMP implementation average for the southern region is 92 percent, representing an increase of five percentage points since the initial survey (2008). Regional BMP implementation averages increased for all categories with notable improvement occurring in Harvesting (increase of seven percentage points) and Firebreaks (increase of nine percentage points). Figure 2 below illustrates the average regional BMP implementation by category from the previous regional report (2008) compared to the most recent survey data used in this report (2012).

Figure 2. Comparison of Average Regional BMP Implementation by Category –

2008 vs. 2012Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 4 Findings 

## Implementation of BMPs by Report Category

The following information addresses the data submitted by the states for each BMP category required by the Framework. A brief description of the category is provided below along with the average score and the range of responses.

Harvesting

The Harvesting category includes BMPs that address forestry activities, such as skidding, landings, wetlands, slash disposal, and timber felling. Eleven states captured harvesting BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 85 to 99 percent with a regional average of 95 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Harvesting BMPs showed a generally positive change.

Forest Roads

The Forest Roads category includes BMPs that address forestry activities, such as road construction, road maintenance, and runoff/erosion control. Eleven states captured Forest Road BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 78 to 99 percent with a regional average of 88 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Forest Road BMPs showed a generally positive change.

Stream Crossings

The Stream Crossing category includes BMPs that address forestry activities, such as culvert sizing and installation, construction of low-water crossings, and runoff/erosion control. This category includes both temporary and permanent as well as road and skidder crossings. Eleven states captured Stream Crossing BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 72 to 98 percent with a regional average of 89 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Stream Crossing BMPs showed a generally positive change.

Streamside Management Zones (SMZ)

The SMZ category includes BMPs that address forestry activities in proximity to streams, rivers, lakes, and other water resource features. Eleven states captured SMZ BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 85 to 99 percent with a regional average of 93 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of SMZ BMPs showed a generally positive change.

Site Preparation

The Site Preparation category includes BMPs which address forestry activities that facilitate reforestation, such as shearing, chopping, raking, and bedding. Nine states captured Site Preparation BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 74 to 99 percent with a regional average of 92 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Site Preparation BMPs showed a generally positive change.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 5 Findings Firebreaks

The Firebreaks category includes BMPs that address forestry activities, such as fireline construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation. While eight states captured Firebreak BMPs directly and responded with data, this category had the fewest number of sites, representing a relatively small sample size. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 33 to 100 percent with a regional average of 82 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Firebreak BMPs showed both positive and negative changes.

Chemical Application

The Chemical Application category includes BMPs that address forest chemical use, including pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, especially in close proximity to water resource features. Eight states captured Chemical Application BMPs directly and responded with data for this category. For this reporting period, implementation ranged from 94 to 100 percent with a regional average of 98.5 percent. In states where multiple surveys were reported, implementation of Chemical Application BMPs showed a generally positive change.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 6 Summary



# SUMMARY

This regional report on forestry BMP implementation monitoring is the second in a planned series to be published every three to five years. The objective of the report is to provide information at a regional level, for the purpose of continuously improving monitoring methods and BMP implementation, and to promote consistency among states in the southern region for this activity.

BMP implementation in the southern region is a high priority with the state foresters, as reflected in the continued support and coordination of the SGSF WRC. Although the regional data identifies several BMP categories in need of improvement, an overall regional implementation rate of 92 percent is considered notable. Likewise, positive change has been made in every BMP category since the 2008 report. Specific BMP categories that should be targeted by the SGSF WRC for improvement are Firebreaks, Stream Crossings, and Forest Roads.

Individual states in which multiple surveys have been conducted in accordance with the Framework have also shown positive changes in BMP implementation (Figure 3 and Table 1). This is largely attributed to the numerous educational, outreach, and training efforts being conducted across the southern region by the states and their cooperators, and to the efforts of the SGSF through
the Water Resources Committee.

Figure 3. Changes in Overall BMP Implementation by StateImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 7 SummaryYearBMP CategoryOverall BMPImplementationHarvestingForest RoadsStreamCrossingsSMZsSitePreparationFirebreaksChemicalApplicationAlabama20099796939692989010020109798939697989798Arkansas200388978189868552832006889685908186558720088694748683817296201189978584867480100Florida19979698919399979710019999697909197979610020019798949396969899200397989687959888100200599999810099999599200798100989998981001002009989998969799951002011999999989899100100Georgia199879877759819730992002869183778795719820049094898191998510020079297918489946898200994989090978888100201195989493959685100Table 1.BMP Implementation by State, Year, and Regional CategoryImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 8 SummaryYearBMP CategoryOverall BMPImplementationHarvestingForest RoadsStreamCrossingsSMZsSitePreparationFirebreaksChemicalApplicationMississippi200389939589899081952007939596919391929620109395919294969298North Carolina20038276806487NANA9920088585867291NANA94Oklahoma2004919682909793100100200692988391979050100201092968593969733100South Carolina2003949492788796929820059696949696NANANA20089796959499NANANATennessee2007899391808590NANATexas20008998846786969610020029297908588908895200592979281919596100200892989282889810010020119499968590988998Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 9 SummaryYearBMP CategoryOverall BMPImplementationHarvestingForest RoadsStreamCrossingsSMZsSitePreparationFirebreaksChemicalApplicationVirginia2007757870778260NANA20088279798181NA6810020098282758386807088201083857482868174NA201186867887918176NAImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 10 References



# REFERENCES

Regional Reports

Best Management Practices (BMP) Monitoring Task Force. 2007. Silviculture Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring . In: Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: A Southern Regional Report . Appendix 1. Southern Group of State Foresters, Water
Resources Committee. Available online at: www.southernforests.org/publications/SGSF%20 Regional%20BMP%20Framework%20Protocol%20publication_2007.pdf

. Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF). 2008. Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: A Southern Region Report. Southern Group of State Foresters, Water Resources
Committee. Available online at: www.southernforests.org/publications/Regional%20BMP%20 Report%202008.pdf/view

.Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 11 References Table 2. Online Links to the Most Current State Forestry BMP Manuals in the Southern Region 

## State BMP Manuals

Table 2 below provides an online link to the most current forestry BMP manual for each state in the southern region.

State Year
Published Online Link

Alabama 2007 www.forestry.state.al.us/Publications/BMPs/2007_BMP_Manual.pdf

Arkansas 2002 arkforests.org/PDFs/BestManagementPractices.pdf

Florida 2011 www.floridaforestservice.com/publications/silvicultural_bmp_ manual2011.pdf

Georgia 2009 www.gfc.state.ga.us/resources/publications/BMPManualGA0609.pdf
Kentucky 2001 www.ca.uky.edu/forestryextension/Publications/FOR_FORFS/FOR67.pdf

Louisiana 2007 www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Portals/0/FOR/for%20mgmt/BMP.pdf

Mississippi 2008 www.mfc.ms.gov/pdf/Mgt/WQ/Entire_bmp_2008-7-24.pdf

North Carolina 2006 ncforestservice.gov/water_quality/bmp_manual.htm

Oklahoma 2008 www.forestry.ok.gov/Websites/forestry/Images/documents/ WaterQuality/Oklahoma%20Forestry%20BMPS%202008.pdf

South Carolina 2007 www.state.sc.us/forest/bmpmanual.pdf

Tennessee 2003 www.tn.gov/agriculture/publications/forestry/BMPs.pdf

Texas 2010 txforestservice.tamu.edu/sustainable/BMP_Manual

Virginia 2011 www.dof.virginia.gov/wq/resources/ManualBMP/2011_Manual_BMP. pdfImplementation of Forestry Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern Region Report



### 12 References 

## State BMP Implementation Reports

Table 3 below provides an online link to where forestry BMP implementation information for each state in the southern region can be obtained.

State Online Link

Alabama www.forestry.state.al.us/bmpmon.aspx?bv=2&s=1

Arkansas forestry.arkansas.gov/Services/ManageYourForests/Pages/ bestManagementPractices.aspx

Florida www.floridaforestservice.com/forest_management/hydrology_index.html

Georgia www.gfc.state.ga.us/forest-management/water-quality/bmps/index.cfm
Kentucky www.ca.uky.edu/forestryextension/publications_BMPS.php

Louisiana www.ldaf.state.la.us/portal/Offices/Forestry/ForestManagement/ BestManagementPractices/tabid/232/Default.aspx

Mississippi www.mfc.ms.gov/water-quality.php

North Carolina ncforestservice.gov/water_quality/wq_bmp_studies.htm

Oklahoma www.forestry.ok.gov/h2o-compliance-monitoring

South Carolina www.state.sc.us/forest/menvir.htm

Tennessee www.tn.gov/agriculture/forestry/waterquality.shtml

Texas tfsweb.tamu.edu/BMPMonitoring

Virginia www.dof.virginia.gov/wq/monitoring.htm 

### Table 3. Online Links to Forestry BMP Implementation Information in the Southern Region

## www.southernforests.org