N A T U R A L R E S O U R C E S

Washington State Department of 

Natural Resources

Forest Practices Division

Biennium 2006-2007

Compliance Monitoring

SUMMARY REPORT

March 2009

i 

Compliance Monitoring Summary 

Report: Biennium 2006-2007

April 2009 

Leslie Lingley and David Gregory 

Forest Practices Division

Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Alice Shelly – TerraStat Consulting Group 
ii

Acknowledgements 

All contributors are DNR staff unless otherwise indicated.

Copies of this report may be obtained from Mary McDonald, DNR.

Gary Graves, Forest Practices Division Assistant Manager for Operations, provided 

continual guidance, historical insight, and valuable rule interpretation to the Compliance 

Monitoring program. 

Stakeholder Repres entatives who collated their caucus comments regarding this report: 

Pete Heidi: Washington Forestry Protection Association

Michelle Stevie, John Heimburg, and Jeff Davis: Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife

Mark Hicks: Washington Department of Ecology 

Nancy Sturhan: Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

Chris Mendoza: Conservation Caucus. 

Data entry of field information 

Lisa Renan

John Heimburg 

Craig Graber 

This program would not be successful without the continued participation of the field review 

teams including:

• Tribal representatives

• Biologists and geologists form Washington State Departments of Ecology, and Fish 

and Wildlife

• Forest Practices Foresters who have incorporated Compliance Monitoring into their 

work requirements and who have been a continued source of knowledge of Forest 

Practices

 
iii

 Contents 

Summary 1 

Introduction 5 

Program Design Elements 7 

What is an activity?

Sampling and Field Protocols 

Compliant and Non-Compliant Decisions

Landowner Types

Rule Groups Not Reported for this Summary Report 

Misuse of Compliance Monitoring Data 

Stream typing for Riparian Activities

Results 11 

Results for Riparian Activities

Riparian Activity Questions

Spatial Distribution of the Compliance Monitoring Results 

for Riparian Activities

Professional Judgment and Non-Compliant Ratings for Riparian 

Activities

Results for Road Activities

Road Activity questions 

Spatial Distribution of the Compliance Monitoring Results 

for Road Activities

Professional Judgment and Non-Compliant Ratings for Road 

Activities 

Conclusions 45 

Opportunities for improving rule implementation 47 

Future intentions 51 

References 52 

Appendix A – Statistical methods 53 

Appendix B – Compliant and Non-compliant Definitions from 

the 2006-2007 Program Design Status of Compliance 57 

Professional Non-compliance Ratings
iv

Appendix C – Details of stream inconsistencies with

the approved FPA 61 

Appendix D – Did the information on the FPA provide adequate 

means to evaluate the activities on the ground? 67 
v 

Figures

Figure 1. Spatial Distribution of the 2006 - 2007 Forest Practices 

 Applications Reviewed 4 

Figure 2. Distribution of Statewide Compliant Ratings for Riparian

 and Road Activities for the 2006 - 2007 biennium 13 

Figure 3. Percent Compliant for all 2006 - 2007 Riparian Activities 16 

Figure 4. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Type F and 

Wetland Riparian Activities 21 

Figure 5. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Type N Riparian

Activities 22 

Figure 6. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Type F and 

 Wetland Riparian Activities 23 

Figure 7. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Type N 

Riparian Activities 24 

Figure 8. Northeast and Southeast Regions Type F and Wetland

Riparian Activities 25 

Figure 9. Northeast and Southeast Regions Type N Riparian

Activities 26 

Figure 10. Non-compliant ratings for Riparian Activities Based on 

 Professional Judgment of the Field Review Teams 27 

Figure 11. Distribution of Statewide Non-Compliant Ratings for

 Riparian Activities 28 

Figure 12. Percent Compliant for all 2006 - 2007 Road Activities 31 

Figure 13. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Road Construction, 

 Maintenance, and Abandonment Activities 36 

Figure 14. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Landings and 

 Type N Crossings 37 

 Figure 15. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Road 

 Construction, Maintenance, and Abandonment Activities 38 
vi 

Figure 16. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Landings 

 and Type N Crossings 39 

Figure 17. Northeast and Southeast Regions Road Construction, 

 Maintenance, and Abandonment Activities 40 

Figure 18. Northeast and Southeast Regions Landings and 

 Type N Crossings 41 

Figure 19. Non-compliant Ratings for Road Activities Based on 

 Professional Judgment of the Field Review Teams 42 

 

Figure 20. Distributions of Statewide Non-Compliant Ratings for

 Road Activities 43 

Figure 21. Type F Stream Segments not Consistent with

 the Approved FPA 62 

Figure 22. Type N Stream Segments not Consistent with the

 Approved FPA 64 
vii 

Tables

 

 

Table 1. Distribution of FPAs for the 2006-2007 Field Seasons 3 

Table 2. Compliance Results for All Statewide Activities 

 2006 - 2007 Biennium 12 

 

Table 3. Compliance Status for 2006 - 2007 Riparian Harvest

 Activities 15 

Table 4. Western Washington No Inner Zone Harvest Questions 17 

Table 5. Western Washington DFC Option 1 “Thinning from Below” 

 Questions 18 

Table 6. Western Washington DFC Option 2 “Leaving Trees 

 Closest to the Water” Questions 18 

Table 7. Statewide Wetland Questions 19 

Table 8. Eastern Washington Mixed Conifer Habitat Questions 19 

Table 9. Statewide Type N Harvest Questions 19 

Table 10. Compliance Status for 2006 - 2007 Road Activities 30 

Table 11. Statewide Road Construction Questions 32 

Table 12. Statewide Road Maintenance Questions 33 

Table 13. Statewide Road Abandonment Questions 33 

Table 14. Statewide Landing Questions 34 

Table 15. Statewide Permanent and Temporary Crossing Questions 34 

Table 16. Statewide Fords Questions 34 

Table 17. Field Review Comments Relating to the Inconsistencies 

 with Type F Stream Segments and the Approved FPA 63

 

Table 18. Field Review Comments Relating to the Inconsistencies

 with Type N Stream Segments and the Approved FP 65 

 

1 

Summary 

The Compliance Monitoring Program is an important element in the Forests and Fish Report 

(1999) and later adopted as a requirement by the Legislature during its 2000 session. In 

response to this legislation, the Forest Practices Board directed the Department of Natural 

Resources (DNR) to implement a compliance monitoring program (WAC 222-08-160(4)). 

The DNR Forest Practices Division completed a Compliance Monitoring Study Design and 

implemented an initial phase of its program in the spring of 2006. The results of this initial 

phase and the first year of field reviews are given in the 2006 Field Season Interim Report 

which was presented to the Forest Practices Board during its February 2007 meeting. This 

report can be found on the DNR website at: 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram.aspx

Following submission of the Interim Report, DNR re-evaluated its protocols and Study 

Design using two third-party statisticians, an independent technical review, and a stakeholder 

comment process. 

This report describes the findings of the Forest Practices Compliance Monitoring Program 

for the 2006/2007 Biennium. Except where stated otherwise, the results presented herein are 

presented with scientifically appropriate treatment of uncertainty. The results are not, 

however, comprehensive; we intend to build on the 2006/2007 findings in order to provide 

progressively more detailed analyses of compliance data with the Forest Practices Rules and 

associated Forest Practices Applications (FPAs). 

Work during the 2006/2007 field seasons encompassed an assessment of 289 riparian and 

234 road activities contained in 174 approved Forest Practices Applications (FPAs) (Fig. 1). 

FPAs are submitted for forest practices activities on all private and public forest land not 

owned by the federal government. Approved applications were reviewed by Forest Practices 

field foresters and were available to our sister agencies, the Washington Department of 

Ecology (WDOE), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Native American 

Tribes (Tribes), and other interested parties during the designated comment period prior to 

approval. The FPAs are submitted to DNR as a vehicle to convey the landowner’s intent to 

implement a forest practice which in approximately 75percent (Linda Chiles, personal 

communication)1

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/fp_form_wwfpan.pdf

of the time includes timber harvesting and/or road activities. By signing the 

FPA the landowner acknowledges that they “understand that this proposed Forest Practice is 

subject to the Forest Practices Act and Rules” 

 Therefore, using approved 

applications provided the best starting point for Compliance Monitoring field reviews. 2

 

1 Query of the Forest Practices Application Review system Oracle database. 

2 The versions of FPAs selected for 2006-2007 field reviews had different wording: “I/We are familiar with the 

requirements of the Forest Practices Act, RCW 76.09 and Forest practices rules, WAC Title 222”. Both of these 

statements indicate that the landowner is aware of the rules associated with the approved FPA.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
2 

Specific rules are associated with each of the forest practices FPAs and these rules define the 

procedures to follow in order to complete the forest practices. The rule package is extensive 

and prescriptive, so DNR attempted to sensibly choose the sections of the rules that best 

afforded direct measurement to determine compliance. Currently we measure Riparian 

Management Zones (RMZs) and specific leave tree requirements from WAC 222-30-021 

“Western Washington Riparian Zones” and WAC 22-30-022 “Eastern Washington Riparian 

Zones.” However there are rule requirements that can be added every year to expand the 

compliance effort. For example; we may add other questions from WAC 222-30-060 “Cable 

yarding” for the 2009 field season if stakeholders deem this a priority. 

The Study Design uses a rigorous random sampling procedure to select FPAs from those 

submitted for a single year. Then a typical field investigation consists of five experienced 

forest practice professionals making 75 repeatable measurements and numerous carefullydefined observations. The data is recorded on forms largely developed verbatim from the 

Forest Practices (WAC 222-24 Road Construction and Maintenance and WAC 222-30 

Timber harvest) rules. 

Results of the 2006/2007 Biennium are: 

 

1. Eighty percent of all activities surveyed (419 out of 523; ±5 percent) are in 

compliance.

2. Seventy-five percent of riparian activities (216 out 289; ±7 percent) are in 

compliance 

3. Eighty-seven percent of road activities (203 out of 234; ±7 percent) are in 

compliance 

 

Some opportunities for improving rule implementation include training in and/or clarification 

of the following: 

1. Determining bankfull stream width using physical characteristics consistent with 

WAC 222-16-031 and Forest Practices Board Manual Section 2; 

2. Determining the appropriate number of leave trees at intersections of streams 

where Riparian Management Zones overlap; 

3. Assuring that applicants provide shade documentation when harvesting within 75 

feet of a fish stream (Type F and S streams);

4. Identifying associated wetlands along Type F streams; and

5. Identifying and protecting Channel Migration Zones consistent with Forest 

Practices Board Manual Section 2. 

Table 1 shows the distribution by DNR Region, landowner type and year of the FPAs 

selected for field review. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
3 

Table 1. Distribution of FPAs for the 2006-2007 Field Seasons 

Forest Practices Applications by Region and Landowner Classification 

DNR 

Region

2006 field season

 

2007 field season Totals

Small Forest 

Landowners

Industrial 

Landowners Total Small Forest 

Landowners

Industrial 

Landowners Total Grand 

Total

Total 

percent 

of FPAs 

selected 

Pacific 

Cascade 13 36 49 8 26 34 83 48%

Olympic 1 9 10 0 11 12 22 12%

South 

Puget 

Sound 6 5 11 1 9 10 21 12%

Northwest 1 4 5 1 4 5 10 6%

Southeast 2 5 7 0 4 4 11 6%

Northeast 9 6 15 2 11 13 28 16%

Totals 32 65 97 12 65 78 175 100%

Spatial distribution of these FPAs by Small Forest and Industrial Landowners is displayed on 

Figure 1. FPAs submitted from 2001 to 2007 as background. There is usually more than one 

activity associated with each FPA and spatial information on riparian and road rule activities 

are shown in the Results section of this summary report. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
4

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
5 

Introduction

The initial Compliance Monitoring Program Study Design (Study Design) found on the DNR 

website at

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram.aspx was developed, and reviewed by Timber Fish and Wildlife (TFW) stakeholders 

(WAC 222-12-045 (2) (b) (ii))3

Most technical background information is contained in the Study Design and in the 

Specifications and Guidelines, 

in May 2006. The Washington Legislature appropriated 

proviso funds for DNR to conduct Compliance Monitoring in the 2006/2007 Biennium, and 

provided pass-through funding for the WDOE and WDFW so these agencies can participate 

in this effort. Affected tribes provided their own funding to participate. Seventy-three 

participants were trained and field reviews were performed from May to November of 2006. 

In 2007, refinements were incorporated into the Study Design in response to comments on 

the Compliance Monitoring, 2006 Field Season Interim Report (Interim Report) (reference 

location as above). A second round of field reviews commenced in March 2007 

In May 2007, the Forest Practices Board directed the Forest Practices Adaptive Management 

Program Manager to oversee an independent technical review of the Study Design. Details of 

this review were presented to the Forest Practices Board in February 2008. As a 

recommendation of the review, DNR has contracted with a statistician to write the sampling 

and statistical methods for the Study Design and to provide the proper level of statistical 

representation of results presented in this report. Recommendations regarding the Study 

Design have been submitted and DNR intends to work collaboratively with WDOE, WDFW, 

and other stakeholders to further adjust and refine the program in response to the review. 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram.aspx, but the following topics are provided for clarity: 

 

3 Stakeholder groups include the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Washington Department of 

Ecology, the Washington Forest Protection Association, the Washington Farm Forestry Association, United 

States Fish and Wildlife, the Association of Counties, the Conservation Caucus, and the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission, 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
6 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
7 

Program Design Elements

What is an “activity”? 

In the context of Compliance Monitoring, an activity is a forest management option included 

in an FPA and analyzed under the Study Design and field protocols. For 2006/2007, activities 

include riparian harvest options selected on Type F and S streams (fish bearing streams), 

Type Np (non-fish bearing perennial streams), Type Ns (non-fish bearing seasonal streams),

and wetlands. 

Road work needed for harvesting such as construction, abandonment, landings, and all N 

stream crossings are other FP rules that apply, but are evaluated with a more qualitative 

approach. Maintenance activities were no longer included on an FPA after 2006, so 

maintenance questions and forms were not addressed unless the FPA was a renewal of an 

older application. Crossings on all Type F waters are regulated by WDFW and are no 

examined as part of the Forest Practices compliance monitoring. In 2006, we included a few 

subjective questions from the rules such as, “Was sediment delivery minimized?” The field 

teams determined that these questions could not be answered definitively, so we did not 

include these subjective questions in the 2007 field season. 

A mandatory statewide program requires all forest landowners to submit Road Maintenance 

and Abandonment Plans (RMAP) 4

Numerous activities are generally included in a single FPA. Our protocols state that we will 

conduct field reviews on one of every type of riparian activity on an approved FPA. For 

example, if an FPA has three “No Inner Zone Harvest” stream segments and two “Desired 

Future Condition Option 1” stream segments, we will review one of each of these riparian 

activities on the FPA. This is called cluster sampling and we will report the compliance on 

with specific reporting elements to the Regional RMAP 

specialists. However, small forest landowners and large industrial landowners have different 

reporting requirements, work schedules, and annual reporting of accomplishments. The 

Compliance Monitoring Program does not assess the obligations for RMAP reporting 

because this is beyond the scope of the program. 

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) plans do not have specific provisions for conducting road 

activities; therefore, DNR reviews road activities on FPAs with HCPs. The U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service carries out compliance for riparian activities on applications under approved 

HCPs. 

Sampling and field protocols 

 

4 Maintenance activities are addressed only on versions of FPAs used for the 2006 field season. After 2006, all 

forest roads will address maintenance through the RMAP requirements, so compliance for maintenance only 

occurred during the 2006 field season. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
8 

the individual rule activities associated with the FPA. FPA compliance will not be reported.

Road activities described in the FPA are also reviewed.

All Compliance Monitoring decisions are made in the field with all participants. Defined 

protocols are essential to maintaining consistency in gathering field data necessary to assess 

the status of compliance for each activity. After measurements and observations are recorded 

for each activity, field forms containing questions derived directly from WAC 222-30 

Timber Harvest (riparian) and WAC 222-24 Road Construction are completed. Field Forms, 

Field Note Templates, and Standards and Guidelines can be found at 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram.aspx

Compliant or non-compliant decisions

The activities on each FPA are reviewed with no special considerations for landowner type, 

Region, or other circumstances. The answers to the form questions along with the field 

observations and measurements are used to determine if the activity is compliant or noncompliant with the rules within the approved application. 

Activities are classified as compliant or non-compliant in the field. If consensus exists among 

the field review team that a compliant activity meets certain criteria5

The 2006/2007 Compliance Monitoring Program addresses the two rule groups that 

encompass a preponderance of all possible forest practice activities which are WAC 222-24 

Road Construction and Maintenance and WAC 222-30 Timber Harvesting. However, 

activities that occur rarely cannot be included in a random sample set because of the very 

, that activity may be 

determined to ‘Exceed’ the standards established in the approved FPA and associated rules, 

and such determinations are shown on Figure 10 Distribution of Statewide Compliant 

Ratings for Riparian and Road Activities. Exceeds determinations are included in the 

compliant category for reporting purposes. 

Landowner types

Results are given separately for Small Forest Landowners and Industrial Landowners in 

response to stakeholders’ requests, but it is important to note that estimates of statewide 

compliance for these categories are less precise, given the limited sample size. When FPAs 

are selected they are landowner blind. The Program Design will allow data analyses with 

greater certainty as additional information is collected.

Rule groups not reported for this summary report 

 

5 Criteria in Standards and Guidelines include twice as many leave trees in RMZs as required or RMZs that are 

20% greater than required.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
9 

limited conclusions that can be drawn from that data. Some other rules groups such as 

Conversions (WAC 222-16-060), Aerial Sprays (WAC 222-38), and Cultural Resources 

definitions in WAC 222-16, are not covered because these require third party expertise 

and/or defy quantitative measurement requirements for Compliance Monitoring. Other 

activities that may be evaluated in subsequent years include Class II Applications (WAC 

222-16-050 (3)) and Unstable Slopes (WAC 222-16-050 (d) (i)). A Cooperative Monitoring, 

Evaluation, and Research Committee (CMER) study of Unstable Slope Accuracy and Bias is 

currently proposed by the Upland Scientific Advisory Group. That particular CMER study 

may be helpful in answering questions to direct Compliance Monitoring to investigate 

methods for field reviews on unstable slopes in the future. 

Small Forest Landowners have the option of using a “20-Acre Exempt” rule (WAC 222-30-

023), and all landowners can use an “Alternate Plan” (WAC 222-12-0401) but these rules are 

applied in about 1.5 percent of all FPAs. Compliance Monitoring is currently conducting ongoing field reviews for these rules and data will be reported in the 2008/2009 biennium 

report. 

Misuse of compliance monitoring data 

The Compliance Monitoring Program data are unsuitable for use in effectiveness monitoring 

or direct water quality monitoring. However, CMER may use Compliance Monitoring results 

as a starting point for effectiveness monitoring projects if based on the assumption that the 

rules are being implemented as intended. This would only work in areas that have baseline 

data in place. The sample sets are currently too small for stratification by DNR Regions or 

landowner group. DNR may include analysis of regional compliance when data are sufficient 

to allow for this stratification.

Compliance Monitoring is not an enforcement program. Data on non-compliant activities are 

available to DNR Regions because FPFs are part of the review teams. Finally, this project is 

solely a product of DNR and is not a CMER project. 

Stream typing for riparian activities 

Stream type is a fundamental aspect of determining which rules apply to any given FPA 

when riparian protection strategies are employed and cannot be determined without a 

protocol [fish] survey or measurement of stream physical characteristics as defined in WAC 

222-16-031. Physical characteristics rely on bankfull width (BFW) and stream gradient.

Instances exist where stream typing based on physical characteristics is questioned and not 

resolved with all the reviewers on a review team. There are issues of inter-agency and intraagency inconsistency in identification of these measurements. A simple difference of six 

inches on either side of a stream on every measurement to determine stream width can be the 

difference in a determination of a fish or non fish bearing stream when fish were not visually 

observed. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
10 

Stream typing is assumed to have been reviewed by multiple agencies and other interested 

parties before the application is approved. Stream typing on FPAs is indeed a point of high 

interest for interest groups in Compliance Monitoring. DNR has created a separate field form 

to gather data on stream discrepancies with the approved FPA for the 2008/2009 biennium 

field reviews. The “Supplemental Stream Evaluation Form” will allow us to gather 

information on most of the possible scenarios encountered in the field. See Appendix B for 

further information on stream segments that were inconsistent with the FPA. 

The Compliance Monitoring Study Design does not incorporate stream-typing as an element 

of compliance. Four out five of the Technical Review responses to the question “Should 

Compliance Monitoring focus efforts on verifying water types before proceeding to 

prescription compliance surveys?” were “no”. Suggestions from the reviewers pointed to the 

need for determining the magnitude of the stream typing issue. Some reviewers suggested a 

separate but related project be established (by which agency is undetermined) to address this 

issue. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
11 

Results

These results provide a response to the question posed in WAC 222-08-160(4), “Are forest 

practices being conducted in compliance with the rules?” To examine this question, we 

evaluated only approved Forest Practices Applications. Data compiled from Forest Practices 

Application Reviews System (FPARS) shows that 78 percent of FPAs submitted from 2002 

to 2007 included road and /or riparian activities.. (Linda Chiles, personal analysis). Our field 

reviews results estimate that 75 percent of Riparian and 87 percent of Road activities are 

currently in compliance with the rules. 

Table 2 displays the statewide compliance results for riparian and road activities for the 

combined 2006 and 2007 field seasons. Confidence intervals6

 

6 A 95% confidence interval is a range of values that would contain the true population proportion 95% of the 

time, if repeated sampling of the population were performed. A smaller range indicates an estimate that is more 

precise.

 (CI), expressed as lower and 

upper limits (percentages), are displayed for each compliance estimate in Table 2. Methods 

used to estimate confidence intervals are described in Appendix A. (See Appendix B for the 

working definitions for compliant and non-compliant status that were included in the 

Program Design for the 2006-2007 Biennium. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
12 

Table 2. Compliance Results for All Statewide Activities 2006 - 2007 Biennium 

Statewide All Activities 2006/2007 Biennium

Status of 

Compliance Riparian Road Totals

Small 

Forest 

Landowners

Compliant 50 50 100

Non-compliant 17 7 24

Percent 

Compliant 75% 88% 81%

95% CI (63, 86) (77, 100) (72, 89)

Activity Totals 67 57 124

Industrial 

Landowners

Compliant 166 153 319

Non-compliant 56 24 80

Percent 

Compliant 75% 86% 80%

95% CI (68, 81) (80, 93) (75, 85)

Activity Totals 222 177 399

All Landowner 

Types

Compliant 216 203 419

Non-compliant 73 31 104

Percent 

Compliant 75% 87% 80%

95% CI (69, 80) (81, 92) (76, 84)

Grand Totals 289 234 523

Figure 2 (on following page) shows the distribution of all compliance results for both 2006 

and 2007 riparian and road activities statewide. Landowners wanted DNR to at least 

acknowledge that at times the riparian and road activities have been executed beyond the 

requirements of the rules on their FPA. The “star” symbol depicts an “exceeds” designation 

within the compliant group of activities. This shows that the field teams designated these 

activities as exceeding the requirements for their activities. Even though there were no 

definitive criteria for exceeds in 2006, the teams generally agreed. In 2007, we developed 

prescriptive guidelines to arrive at an “exceeds” designation. (See Appendix B) It is 

important to recognize that for reporting purposes, exceeds and compliant are combined. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Compliance-45

Exceeds-10

Compliance-208

Exceeds-27

Compliance-29

Exceeds-1

S o u t h P u g e t S o u n d

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

S o u t h e a s t

O l y m p i c

N o r t h w e s t

N o r t h e a s t

Compliance-39

Exceeds-3

Compliance-31

Exceeds-2

Compliance-67

Exceeds-5

Compliant per FPA

Compliant

One Activity

Two Activities

Three Activities

Four Activities

Five Activities

Six Activities

Seven Activities

Exceeds

One Activity

Two Activities

Three Activities

DG 2/2008

Figure 2. Distribution of Statewide Compliant Ratings 

For Riparian and Road Activities for 2006/2007 Biennium. 

Washington 

13

State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
14 

Results for riparian activities 

The following riparian activities were reviewed for Compliance Monitoring: 

Western Washington Eastern Washington Statewide

No Inner Zone Harvest Ponderosa Pine Habitat Type Wetlands

DFC Option 1-Thinning from Below Mixed Conifer Habitat Type 

DFC Option 2- Leaving Trees High Elevation Habitat Type7

 

7 No ‘High Elevation Habitat Type’ riparian activities were actually field reviewed as none were submitted in 

Eastern Washington. It appears that many of these areas are on lands owned by the U.S. Forest Service or 

covered by HCPs.

Closest to the Water 

Type N Streams Type N Streams

Table 3 shows the statewide compliance status of the riparian activities for Type F (fishbearing streams), Type N (non fish bearing streams, both perennial and seasonal), and 

wetlands. Each activity option has a unique set of harvest requirements and requires use of a 

corresponding set of protocols and questions to determine compliance status. Requirements 

for Type N streams can be different for Eastern and Western Washington, but we do not 

separate these results herein. Wetland rules are consistent across the state. Small Forest 

Landowners and Industrial Landowners requested that DNR show results for their respective 

landowner status. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
15 

Table 3. Compliance Status for 2006 - 2007 Riparian Harvest Activities 

Eastern and Western Washington Riparian Activities 2006/2007 biennium

Landowner 

Type

Status of 

Compliance

Statewide Type F 

Activities

Statewide 

Type N

Statewide

Wetlands

Western WA Eastern WA

No 

Inner 

Zone 

Harvest

DFC 

Option 

1 

DFC 

Option 

2 

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Mixed 

Conifer Type 

Ns

Type 

Np

Totals

Compliant 8 0 2 1 3 21 11 4 50

Small 

Forest 

Landowners

Noncompliant5 1 2 0 1 3 3 2 17

Percent 

Compliant 

62% 0% 50% 100% 75% 88% 79% 67% 75%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval

(32, 86) na (7, 93) n/a (19, 

99)

(68, 

97)

(49, 

95)

(22, 96) (63, 

86)

Activity 

Totals

13 1 4 1 4 24 14 6 67

Industrial 

Landowners

Compliant 29 3 21 3 3 46 54 7 166

Noncompliant13 10 9 0 2 3 17 2 56

Percent 

Compliant 

69% 23% 70% 100% 60% 94% 76% 78% 75%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval

(53, 82) (5, 54) (51, 

85)

n/a (15, 

95)

(83, 

99)

(64, 

85)

(40, 97) (68, 

81)

Activity 

Totals

42 13 30 3 5 49 71 9 222

All 

Landowners

Compliant 37 3 23 4 6 67 65 11 216

Noncompliant18 11 11 0 3 6 20 4 73

Percent 

Compliant 

67.00% 21% 68% 100% 67% 92% 76% 73% 75%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval

(53, 79) (5, 51) (49, 

83)

n/a (30, 

93)

(83, 

97)

(66, 

85)

(45, 92) (69, 

80)

Grand 

Totals

55 14 34 4 9 73 85 15 289

Note: n/a indicates that confidence intervals could not be estimated due to sample size. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
16 

Figure 3 displays compliance percentages for Riparian activities for grouped categories.

Statewide, Small Forest landowner and Industrial Landowners show that the overall 

compliance is fairly consistent for these groups. All Western Washington Type F and S 

Riparian activities were then grouped by the “No Inner Zone Harvest” and “Desired Future 

Condition” activities to show the difference in the compliance as compared to the total “F” or 

fish bearing stream compliance. The error bars displayed in Figure 2 reflect the lower and 

upper limits of a 95 percent confidence interval. Methods for estimating these intervals are 

described in Appendix A-Statistics. 

Figure 3. Percent Compliant for all 2006/2007 Riparian Activities. The yellow bars show the 

lower and upper limits of a 95 percent confidence interval. 

 

Riparian activity questions

Field forms were developed for each riparian activity and contain questions predominantly 

derived from WAC 222-30-021 and 022. Some questions (Tables 5 and 6) pertain to the 

specific requirements of the Desired Future Condition (DFC) worksheet results that 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statewide All

Streams

Small Forest

Landowners

Industrial WWA Type

F

WWA Type

F No Inner

Zone

Harvest

WWA Type

F Desired

Future

Condition

EWA Type F Statewide

Type NP

Statewide

Type NS

Statewide

Wetlands

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
17 

accompany those particular harvest options. Field forms can be reviewed at

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram 

Answers to the form questions along with the field observations and measurements are used 

to determine the status of compliance. All Compliance Monitoring decisions are made in the 

field with all participants. Some questions from 2006 were deleted and are so noted in these 

tables.

A negative response may not indicate non-compliant results. We have found that questions 

such as “Was there a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) not reported on the FPA?” may not 

always indicate a non-compliant result. Conditions on the ground after flooding, or beaver 

activity, or windthrow may alter conditions present when harvesting. 

Tables 4 through 9 include the specific questions from the Field Forms that indicated noncompliant responses questions. Some questions did not elicit a non-compliant determination 

on that activity if it was a stream typing issue. Stream size and Channel Migration Zones may 

or may not have affected the RMZ widths 8

Questions

 

Table 4. Western Washington No Inner Zone Harvest Questions. 

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on noncompliance

Was there a CMZ not reported on FPA? 3

Was the stream size reported on the FPA consistent with the field 

observation? 

5

Was there harvest in the Core Zone? 2

Did stream size change Inner Zone width? 1

Did the stream discrepancy (width) influence the Inner Zone 

buffer width? 

2

Were 20 conifer trees per acre >12" diameter at breast height 

(dbh) or next size available left in the Outer Zone? 

4

Was there harvest in the Inner Zone? 18

 

8 Stream size and stream length for Type F streams can indicate non-compliant activities. Refer to the section 

“Stream Typing for Riparian Activities” on page 14 and Appendix B 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
18 

Table 5. Western Washington DFC Option 1 “Thinning from Below” Questions. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have 

an effect on noncompliance

Was the stream length reported on the FPA’s DFC worksheet 

within 10% of the measured value in the field? 

6

Was there harvest in the Core Zone? 3

Was there harvest in the Inner Zone of any trees larger than the 

thinning strategy allows? 

4

Was there a CMZ not reported on the FPA? 1

Were 20 conifer trees per acre > 12 inches dbh or next size 

available (Outer Zone)? 

6

If conifer wasn't present, are trees clumped around sensitive 

features and at least 8 inches dbh, mixed conifer and/or deciduous, 

and representative of the trees around the sensitive feature? 

3

Table 6. Western Washington DFC Option 2 “Leaving Trees Closest to the Water” 

Questions. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have 

an effect on noncompliance

Was the stream length reported on the FPA’s DFC worksheet 

within 10% of the measured value in the field? 

6

Was the stream size on FPA consistent with field observations? 

And if no see next question

3

Did the discrepancy influence the Inner Zone width? 3

Was there harvest in the Core Zone? (yes) 1

Was there any harvest in the Floor Zone? 4

Were 20 conifer trees per acre > 12 inches dbh or next size 

available in the Outer Zone? 

2

If conifer wasn't present, are trees clumped around sensitive 

features and at least 8 inches dbh, mixed conifer and/or deciduous, 

and representative of the trees around the sensitive feature?

1

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
19 

Table 7. Statewide Wetland questions. 

Questions

Number of times 

the question could 

have an effect on 

non-compliance

Were wetlands typed and sized appropriately on the ground? 1 

When WMZs overlap and RMZ, was the requirement that best 

protects the resource applied? 1 

Table 8. Eastern Washington Mixed Conifer Habitat Type Questions 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have 

an effect on noncompliance

Was there harvest within the 75-foot bull trout overlay 

buffer?” 2 

Was the stream size reported on the FPA consistent with the 

field observation? 1 

Table 9. Statewide Type N Harvest Questions

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have 

an effect on noncompliance

If greater than 10% of soil is exposed (in the ELZ), were 

mitigation conditions employed and completed? 

4

Was all harvest greater than 56 feet from the uppermost extent 

of Np water or the confluence of two Np streams? 

9

Was the reported stream length within 10% of that measured in 

the field? 

8

Was all harvest away from seeps and springs? 4

Was all harvest away from alluvial fans? 1

Was the appropriate length of 50 ft no harvest buffer left on the 

stream? 

10

For no harvest within RMZ, were any trees cut in this area? 6

Is the stream consistent with the type reported on the FPA? 10

* Other reason: Operator skidded downstream channel and left 

slash in channel 

1

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
20 

Spatial distribution of the compliance monitoring results 

for riparian activities 

Figures 4 through 9 show the spatial distributions of the sampled FPAs and compliance status 

for the various riparian activities Representation and clarity of the information are improved 

by grouping the regions in pairs geographically: Olympic and Pacific Cascade, Northwest 

and South Puget Sound, and Northeast and Southeast. The legends are self explanatory; 

however, when there are multiple layered symbols this indicates that there were multiple 

activities on one FPA. Due to scale and complexity, once in a while it may mistakenly appear 

that multiple FPAs are in the same location. 

Note that while DNR Regions are shown in these figures, the sample size is too small to 

make comparisons of Region performance or other geographic stratification. Data does not 

support conclusions regarding differences in compliance among DNR regions due to high 

variance. We may be able to present this data when sample sizes increase per region to be 

able to achieve tighter confidence intervals.

 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
No Inner Zone Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DFC Option 1 Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DFC Option 2 Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Wetland Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 4. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Type F 

and Wetland Riparian Activities

O l y m p i c

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

Compliant-9

Non Compliant-14

Compliant-46

Non Compliant-18

21

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Np Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Ns Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 5. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions Type N

Riparian Activities

O l y m p i c

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

Compliant-8

Non Compliant-0

Compliant-76

Non Compliant-14

22

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
No Inner Zone Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DFC Option 1 Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

DFC Option 2 Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Wetland Harvest

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 6. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Type F and Wetland Riparian Activities

N o r t h w e s t

S o u t h P u g e t S o u n d

Compliant-3

Non Compliant-1

Compliant-12

Non Compliant-9

23

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
DG 2/2008

Figure 7. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Type N Riparian Activities

Np Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Ns Harvest

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

N o r t h w e s t

S o u t h P u g e t S o u n d

Compliant-1

Non Compliant-1

Compliant-15

Non Compliant-2

24

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Ponderosa Pine Harvest

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

Mix Conifer Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Wetland Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 8. Northeast and Southeast Regions Type F and Wetland Riparian Activities.

N o r t h e a s t

Compliant-10

Non Compliant-4

S o u t h e a s t

Compliant-4

Non Compliant-1

25

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Np Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Ns Harvest

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 9. Northeast and Southeast Regions Type N Riparian Activities

N o r t h e a s t

Compliant-20

Non Compliant-6

S o u t h e a s t

Compliant-12

Non Compliant-3

26

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
27 

Professional judgment and non-compliant ratings for 

riparian activities 

It is beyond the scope of this program to quantify resource damage. In a qualitative sense, 

however, not all infractions of the Forest Practices rules have the same effect on public 

resources. For instance, cutting half the trees in the Core Zone of a RMZ usually causes 

significantly more environmental damage than removing one tree from an Outer Zone. The 

field teams were able to generate consensus qualitative non-compliance ratings for a majority 

of all activities in the sample set. It is important to note that these qualitative non-compliance 

ratings have limited statistical application as to the level of analysis that can be performed on 

these qualitative data. These ratings should not be used to excuse Forest Practices activities 

that violate the rules or the terms of the approved application. 

Although the process was qualitative, these ratings suggest that professional judgment calls 

of a “major” non-compliant level are not common. Figure 10 shows the number of riparian 

activities in each of the non-compliant rating categories. There were 73 non-compliant 

riparian activities out of 289 riparian activities reviewed. 

Figure 10. Non-compliant ratings for Riparian Activities Based on Professional Judgment of 

the Field Review Teams

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

No Inner

Zone

Harvest

DFC

Option 1

Harvest

DFC

Option 2

Harvest

Mixed

Conifer 

Type Np Type Ns Wetlands

Number of Non-Compliant Determinations 

73 Total

Low (Trivial) Compare to DNR

regulatory protocol-A phone call to

the landowner (Total = 41)

Medium (Apparent) Compare to

DNR regulatory protocol-Written

documentation such as an Informal

Conference Note (Total = 20)

High (Major) Compare to DNR

regulatory protocol-Refer to the

Region for enforcement (Total = 7)

No Consensus- Field teams could not

come to a common determination

(Total = 5)

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
S o u t h 

P u g e t S o u n d

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

S o u t h e a s t

O l y m p i c

N o r t h w e s t

N o r t h e a s t

Non-Compliant per FPA

Major

Two Activities

One Activity

Apparent

Two Activites

One Activity

Trivial

Two Activities

One Activity

Non Consensus

Two Activities

One Activity

DG 2/2008

Figure 11. Distribution of Statewide Non-Compliant Ratings 

For Riparian Activities 

Washington 

28

State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
29 

Figure 11 (on previous page) shows the statewide distribution of the information in Figure 

10. If an FPA had two non-compliant activities the symbol is red, one would be clear. There 

were no FPAs with more than two non-compliant riparian activities

Results for road activities

Road activities consist of road construction, maintenance, landings, abandonment, and Type 

N stream crossings including fords that are identified on the approved FPA. Maintenance was 

not included on FPAs for the 2007 sample set of FPAs as Road Maintenance and 

Abandonment Plans were required and this activity is now an element of those plans. Each of 

these activities requires a unique set of rules with corresponding sets of protocols to 

determine compliance. The Compliance Monitoring Program reviews crossings on Type N 

streams only. Each activity has a corresponding field form with a unique set of questions 

from WAC 222-24 defining the requirements for these activities. 

Table 10 displays the statewide compliance results for road activities for the combined 2006 

and 2007 field seasons. Confidence intervals9

 

9 A 95% confidence interval is a range of values that would contain the true population proportion 95% of the 

time, if repeated sampling of the population were performed. A smaller range indicates an estimate that is more 

precise.

 (CI), expressed as lower and upper limits 

(percentages), are displayed for each compliance estimate in the table. Methods used to 

estimate confidence intervals are described in Appendix A. (See Appendix B for the working 

definitions for compliant and non-compliant status.) 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
30 

Table 10. Compliance Status for 2006 - 2007 Road Activities 

Statewide Road Activities 2006/2007 Biennium

Status of 

Compliance

Road 

Construction

Road 

Maintenance

Road 

Abandonment Landings

Permanent 

and 

Temporary 

Crossings N 

Waters Fords Totals

 

Small 

Forest 

Landowners

Compliant 12 8 6 22 2 0 50

Non-Compliant 1 2 1 2 0 1 7

Percent 

Compliant 92% 80% 86% 92% 100% 0% 88%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval (64, 100) (44, 97) (42, 100) (73, 99) n/a n/a (77, 100)

Activity Totals 13 10 7 24 2 1 57

Industrial 

Landowners

Compliant 51 9 18 52 23 0 153

Non-Compliant 10 3 1 2 8 0 24

Percent 

Compliant 84% 75% 95% 96% 74% n/a 86%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval (72, 92) (43, 95) (74, 100) (87, 100) (55, 88) n/a (80, 93)

Activity Totals 61 12 19 54 31 0 177

All Landowner 

Types

Compliant 63 17 24 74 25 0 203

Non-Compliant 11 5 2 4 8 1 31

Percent 

Compliant 85% 77% 92% 95% 76% 0% 87%

95% 

Confidence 

Interval (75, 92) (55, 92) (75, 99) (87, 99) (58, 89) n/a (81, 92)

Grand Totals 74 22 26 78 33 1 234

Note: n/a indicates that confidence intervals could not be estimated due to sample size.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
31 

Figure 12 displays compliance percentages for Road activities for grouped activities to see 

the results from a different perspective. The error bars in the figure reflect the lower and 

upper limits of a 95% confidence interval. Methods for determining these intervals are 

described in Appendix A- Statistics. 

Figure 12. Percent Compliant for all 2006 - 2007 Road Activities 

Road activity questions

Situations occur where more than one rule element produced a non-compliant determination 

for a single activity. This is especially the case for road activities. There may be more than 

one ditch-out or culvert location to review for each road. If any of these structures are out of 

compliance, then that road activity is non-compliant. For comparison to riparian activities, if 

any part of a RMZ is non-compliant such as harvest in the Inner Zone, the entire RMZ is 

non-compliant. Over time, we will be able to identify specific rule elements that are 

consistently associated with non-compliant activities. Questions like “Were erodible soils 

disturbed during construction stabilized to prevent sediment delivery to Typed Waters?” are a 

challenge. We do the best we can to determine compliance in these instances. If there is 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statewide Small Forest

Landowners

Industrial Construction &

Maintenance

Abandonments

Landings Crossings

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
32 

evidence that any channeling appears to enter streams, we can discuss among ourselves and 

come up with the best answers based on the evidence observed for this snapshot in time. 

Field forms were developed for each road activity and contain questions derived from WAC 

222-24 Road Construction and maintenance. Field forms can be reviewed at 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/BusinessPermits/Topics/ComplianceandEnforcement/Pages/fp_cm_p

rogram.aspx. All Compliance Monitoring decisions are made in the field with all 

participants. The answers to the form questions along with the field observations and 

measurements are used to determine the status of compliance. Questions in the following 

tables are taken directly from our field forms based on sections in WAC 222-24, Road 

Construction and Maintenance rules. Over time we can evaluate rules that most commonly 

indicate non-compliant activities. 

Note that the first two questions in Table 10 show that even though there was road 

construction in a wetland, this did not constitute a non-compliant determination, when the 

second part of the question was asked. 

Table 11. Statewide Road Construction Questions 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Was there any road construction in a wetland? And answer 

the next question

2

Was the road prism and road length minimized in the 

wetland? (This question showed that the road length was 

minimized in the wetland, so this rule element was in 

compliance with the rule.) 

0

Was water typed correctly on all waters using either 

physical criteria or a water type change?

6

Was all diverted water returned to the basin from which it 

came? 

2

Were structures installed at seeps and springs to route water 

under the road prism to the forest floor? 

1

Does new road construction minimize the number of stream 

crossings? 

1

Do roads run across typed water at a right angle? 2

When crossings were required, were alterations to natural 

features minimized? 

2

Do relief structures efficiently capture and pass ditch-line 

flow? 

3

Was sediment delivery minimized? (Question deleted in 

2007)

5

Were erodible soils disturbed during construction stabilized 

to prevent delivery to Typed waters?

8

If > .5ac of a wetland were filled or drained, was required 

enhancement completed? 

2

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
33 

Were roads out-sloped, in-sloped, crowned, ditched or 

bermed, to prevent sediment delivery? 

1

Were BMPs utilized to prevent sediment delivery? Question 

deleted in 2007

6

Were diversion structures close enough to the stream to 

divert sediment to the forest floor? 

5

Were relief culverts appropriately armored and/or vegetated 

to minimize scour? 

3

Were end haul materials placed in areas to prohibit entry of 

material to100-year flood plain? 

2

Were rock armor headwalls ditchblocks installed on 

erodible soils for roads with a gradient > 6%? 

3

For temporary roads, was the road abandoned by the 

proposed date? 

3

Table 12. Statewide Road Maintenance Questions

Maintenance was only reviewed in 2006 due to RMAP requirement reporting. There were no 

maintenance activities included on FPAs in 2007. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Is the road surface maintained to direct groundwater onto 

stable portions of the forest floor? 4 

Is groundwater in the ditchline diverted onto stable portions 

of the forest floor? 5 

Is road grade maintained to minimize erosion of the surface 

and subgrade? 6 

During and on completion of road activities, has the road 

surface been shaped or water barred? 4 

Were berms removed except those designed for fill 

protection? 2 

Is the road surface maintained to minimize direct sediment 

entry to typed water? 8 

Table 13. Statewide Road Abandonment Questions 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Were ditches left in a suitable condition to reduce erosion? 1

Was the road blocked so that four-wheel highway vehicles 

cannot pass the point of closure? 2 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
34 

Table 14. Statewide Landing Questions. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Was the location of the landing outside of natural drainage 

channels, CMZs, RMZs, (both Core Zone and Inner Zone 

Type A or B WMZs? 

6 

Are there any piles of debris that are perched and pose a risk 

of delivering to typed waters? 3 

Table 15. Statewide Permanent and Temporary Crossing Questions. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Do the culvert, its embankments and fills have erosion 

protection to withstand a 100-year flood? 

2

Was sediment delivery minimized? (Question deleted in 2007) 5

Do the entrances to all culverts have adequate catch basins and 

headwalls to minimize the possibility if erosion or fill failure? 

2

Were erodible soils disturbed during construction stabilized to 

prevent delivery to typed waters? (Question deleted in 2007)

4

Was slash that may be expected to plug the culvert cleared for 

50 feet above the culvert? 

3

Were alterations to the stream bed, bank or bank vegetation 

limited to that necessary for construction of the project? 2 

Is the alignment and slope of the culvert on grade with the 

natural flow of the streambed? 1 

Table 16. Statewide Fords Questions. 

Questions

Number of times the 

question could have an 

effect on non-compliance

Do the ford, its embankments and fills have erosion protection 

to withstand a 100-year flood? 

3

Is the alignment and slope of the ford on grade with the natural 

flow of the streambed? 

1

Was sediment delivery minimized? 3

Were disturbed erodible soils stabilized to prevent the 

potential to deliver to typed waters?

1

Were BMPs implemented for construction, maintenance, or 

use as required by on the approved Application?

3

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
35 

Spatial distribution of the compliance monitoring results 

for road activities 

Figures 13 through 18 show the spatial distributions of the sampled FPAs and compliance 

status for the various road activities. Representation and clarity of the information are 

improved by grouping the regions in pairs geographically: Olympic and Pacific Cascade, 

Northwest and South Puget Sound, and Northeast and Southeast. The legends are self 

explanatory; however, when there are multiple layered symbols this indicates that there were 

multiple activities on one FPA. Due to scale and complexity, once in a while it may 

mistakenly appear that multiple FPAs are in the same location. 

Note that while DNR Regions are shown in these figures, the sample size is too small to 

make comparisons of Region performance or other geographic stratification. Data does not 

support conclusions regarding differences in compliance among DNR regions due to high 

variance. We may be able to present this data when sample sizes increase per region to be 

able to achieve tighter confidence intervals.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Construction

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Maintainance

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

Abandonment

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 13. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions 

Road Construction, Maintenance, and Abandonment Activities

O l y m p i c

Compliant-10

Non Compliant-0

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

Compliant-45

Non Compliant-9

36

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Landings

Industrial Compliant

Industrail Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Crossings

Industrial Compliant

Industrail Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 14. Pacific Cascade and Olympic Regions 

Landings, Type N Crossings

O l y m p i c

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

Compliant-12

Non Compliant-0

Compliant-42

Non Comopliant-6

3

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Construction

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Maintainance

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

Abandonment

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 15. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Road Construction, Maintenance, 

and Abandonment Activities.

N o r t h w e s t

S o u t h P u g e t S o u n d

Compliant-12

Non Compliant-1

Compliant-10

Non Compliant-2



Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Landings

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

Crossings

Industrial Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 16. Northwest and South Puget Sound Regions Landings and Type N Crossings

N o r t h w e s t

S o u t h P u g e t S o u n d

Compliant-15

Non Compliant-0

Complisant-8

Non Compliant-0

39

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Construction

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Maintainance

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Abandonment

Industrial Compliant

SFL Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 17. Northeast and Southeast Regions Road Construction, Mainenance, 

N o r t h e a s t

S o u t h e a s t

Compliant-20

Non Compliant-4

Compliant-7

Non Compliant-2

40

and Abandonment Activities

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
Landings

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

SFL Compliant

SFL Non Compliant

Crossings

Industrial Compliant

Industrial Non Compliant

Fords

SFL Non Compliant

DNR Regions

DG 2/2008

Figure 18. Northeast and Southeast Regions Landings, and Type N Crossings

N o r t h e a s t

S o u t h e a s t

Compliant-16

Non Compliant-4

Compliant-6

Non Compliant-3

41

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
42

Professional judgment and non-compliant ratings for 

road activities 

Figure 19 shows the professional judgment of the field review teams on the level of noncompliant determinations for road activities. There were a total of 31 non-compliant road 

activities out of 234 total road activities. The field teams were able to generate qualitative 

non-compliance ratings for a majority of the road activities. It is important to note that these 

qualitative non-compliance ratings have limited statistical application as to the level of 

analysis that can be performed on these qualitative data. These ratings should not be used to 

excuse Forest Practices activities that violate the rules or the approved application. 

Figure 19. Non-compliant Ratings for Road Activities Based on Professional Judgment of the 

Field Review Teams. Note there were no High-Major ratings for roads. 

Spatial Distribution of the Compliance Monitoring Results for Road Activities 

Figure 20 (following page) shows the statewide distribution of non compliant road activities. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
S o u t h 

P u g e t S o u n d

P a c i f i c C a s c a d e

S o u t h e a s t

O l y m p i c

N o r t h w e s t

N o r t h e a s t

DG 2/2008

Figure 20. Distribution of Statewide Non-Compliant Ratings for Road Activities

Non-Compliant per FPA

Apparent

Three Activities

Two Activities

One Activity

Trivial

Two Activities

One Activity

Non Concensus

Three Activities

One Activity

Washington 

43

State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
44 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
45 

Conclusions

The forest practices rules are complex, and at times the teams found that it was difficult to 

determine compliance. On many occasions, landowners, forest scientists and foresters had 

difficulty understanding the meaning or exact requirements of some rules even after lengthy 

discussions. In many cases, the teams required an entire field day to measure a single riparian 

buffer. 

Statewide compliance during the study period was 87 percent for road activities, and 75 

percent for riparian activities. Average compliance for all activities was 80 percent with a 

lower confidence limit of 75 percent and an upper confidence limit of 86 percent. 

The sampling methods, field procedures, and statistical treatment of the collected data used 

herein are believed to be sound and have gone through an independent Technical Review 

process. The professional judgment determinations of non-compliant ratings are subjective, 

but are based on a consensus of opinions of experienced and trained natural resource

professionals in the field. 

Harvest within the prescribed no harvest Riparian Management Zones and inadequate leavetrees in the Outer Zones for Type F (fish) streams, were the most common causes of noncompliance determinations. Four of the non-compliant fish-stream activities were referred to 

the DNR Regions for enforcement consideration. 

For Type N (non-fish) streams, harvest within the 50-foot no harvest portions of Riparian 

Management Zones and (or) inadequate leave-trees around perennial initiation points and 

stream confluences were the cause of many of the non-compliant determinations. Three of 

the Type N stream infractions were referred to Regions for enforcement consideration. 

Inadequate stabilization of erodible soils or prevention of sediment delivery was the cause of 

non-compliance for road activities. No road activities were referred to Regions for 

enforcement consideration. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
46 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
47 

Opportunities for improving rule 

implementation

An important finding from the 2006/2007 field season is that some rules are in need of 

clarification in order to assist regulators and/or landowners to implement the rules correctly 

the ground. This can be addressed by DNR through continued training or information sharing 

at various forums, such as the Stakeholder or quarterly meetings held in every DNR Region. 

If Compliance Monitoring shows that training and rule clarification aren’t improving 

compliance levels in future years, DNR can propose rule changes to increase compliance.

Opportunities exist for training and clarification on the following topics: 

Bankfull width issues

1. Identifying bankfull width (BFW) is a key factor in several compliance determinations. 

Exact BFW locations can be somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. Our field 

reviews have shown that groups of experienced scientists from multiple agencies working 

with optimum cooperation sometimes have difficulty in achieving consensus of locating 

BFW on difficult sites. There are varying interpretations of the vegetation indicators, and 

locations of bankfull width locations along with intra and inter-agency interpretations that 

are not consistent. 

2. Clarification and training topics: 

a. How to determine BFW in problem sites: heavy brush, blow down, or obscured 

banks that prevent exact BFW measurements.

b. Identification of stream associated wetlands and intermittent side channels. 

c. How to average BFW for streams of varying widths. 

d. Bankfull width can vary tens of feet in short distances in multi-channel, highly 

sinuous, or low-gradient streams. 

Type S or Type F riparian management issues

1. Guidance for implementation of DFC requirements. 

a. How to account for required leave trees in areas of overlapping RMZs. 

b. Type S or F stream junctions with other Type S or F streams. 

c. Type S or F stream junctions with Type Np streams.

d. Overlap due to sharp bends in stream segments. 

e. How to determine stream segments.

1. Multiple, non-connecting streams were entered into the same DFC 

worksheet. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
48 

2. Unclear if required leave trees were on one or both streams.

f. Two sided RMZs entered into same DFC worksheet. 

3. Unclear if required leave trees were on one or both sides of the RMZs.

g. Differing stream lengths and widths affected leave tree requirements and RMZ 

widths. 

h. Stream segment delineation difficult to find in the field due to lack of marking. 

i. Locations of required leave trees difficult to find due to lack of information in 

FPA.

j. Entire DFC printouts not included with FPAs. 

2. Clarification and training topics: 

a. Double counting Outer Zone trees for overlapping RMZs. 

b. What constitutes a stream segment?

c. Importance of accurate stream length and bankfull measurements.

d. Field marking should include ends of stream segments subject to DFC 

calculations where FPA mapping or description is insufficient.

e. Include detailed description and/or mapping of leave trees in FPA when they 

aren’t evenly spaced throughout RMZs. 

f. Include entire DFC printout with FPAs. 

Road maintenance responsibility issues

1. There were numerous questions raised as to landowner responsibility for road 

maintenance on roads with multiple operators, different forest practices activities, and 

adjacent landowners. It is difficult to tie out-of-compliance calls to the FPA being 

reviewed for road maintenance. The review indicates road maintenance compliance 

levels are 77 percent. Road maintenance field reviews were not conducted unless road 

maintenance was explicitly stated on the FPA. Administration of RMAP requirements is 

the responsibility of the regional RMAP specialists. The Compliance Monitoring 

program will not conduct compliance reviews on RMAP work. 

2. Clarification and training topics: 

a. A review of landowner responsibility and road use. 

b. DNR’s responsibilities and enforcement on this issue. 

c. Maintenance associated with an approved FPA that is not part of an RMAP 

scheduled maintenance needs clarification.

Stream typing 

1. Verification:

a. Landowner’s responsibilities to correctly identify their streams. 

b. There are issues of either presence or absence of streams in Eastern and Western 

Washington with the new stream typing maps. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
49 

c. There are varying interpretations of the vegetation indicators, and locations of 

bankfull width locations. 

d. There are stakeholder interpretations that are not consistent. 

2. Clarification and training topics: 

a. Clarification on measuring BFW to establish stream type or submit water type 

modification form.

b. Clarification on when to submit a water type modification form and refer to the 

Regions for verification of stream typing. 

c. DNR: update or correct water type model.

Type N riparian management zones

1. The 50 foot no cut buffer is difficult to assess for compliance in the field. 

a. Difficult to verify percent of system length subject to the 50 foot no cut RMZ 

when only a portion is within FPA area being reviewed. 

b. It is difficult to verify the percent of Type N system length subject to the 50 foot 

no cut RMZ. This is due to variability of RMZ widths on the remainder of the 

system that isn’t subject to a 50 foot no-cut RMZ.

c. Difficult to verify upper most point of perennial flow when it changes from year 

to year or review does not occur during the dry season 

d. Use of the Type N worksheet will help determine required buffer lengths. 

2. Clarification and training topics: 

a. Include in FPA: copies of maps of adjacent units within same Np stream system. 

b. Provide more detail in FPA as to which segments are subject to a 50 foot no cut 

RMZ when there are also portions that have less than 50 foot no cut buffers. 

c. Clarification on how to review situations of a flagged location of the uppermost 

point of perennial flow for one year that changes the next year. 

d. DNR is currently looking at changes to the N rules. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
50 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
51 

Future Intentions

DNR intends to continue Compliance Monitoring in the future in part to attain the data 

necessary to project trends in compliance rates for a number of areas of interest. Some of 

these interests voiced by our stakeholders include: 

1. The Department of Ecology is interested in Regional Compliance in order to gather 

more data for Clean Water Act reporting requirements. We may be able to subsample regions with the objective of increasing sample sizes to better answer the 

compliance questions with more certainty. 

2. There has been some interest in wetland compliance. We have not selected many 

wetland Forest Practice Applications in our random samples. An analysis of the 

Forest Practice Application Review System is needed to assess the percent of 

submitted applications per year with wetland activities. Results indicate that FPAs 

with wetland activities comprise less than 10 percent of the submitted FPAs. A 

statewide special emphasis project for sampling wetlands will be completed in the 

2009 field season. 

3. Class II applications contain “certain forest practices that have been determined to 

have a less than ordinary potential to damage a public resource” WAC 222-16-050 

(4). There are other provisions for this FPA classification; however DNR has been 

approached to create a separate compliance effort to determine if there are any 

resource issues associated with this class of applications. 

4. Washington Department of Ecology has contracted with DNR to develop draft 

protocols for evaluating compliance with forest haul roads. This project is an initial 

phase as of January 2009. New road construction and road abandonment are already a 

part of the compliance monitoring program. Haul roads are not currently assessed as 

part of the compliance monitoring program. The goal of DOE’s project is to develop 

and test a pilot project for haul route that will include implementation protocols. 

There is a potential of adding this element to compliance monitoring in the future. 

5. DNR will solicit other possible additions or deletions to the Program in the near 

future. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
52 

References

Ice, George, 2007. Nationwide Trends in Implementation of Best Management Practices 

(BMPS) for Forestry. American Institute of Hydrology, proceedings of Spring Meeting 2007. 

(Paper available from Leslie.Lingley@dnr.wa.gov) 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
53 

Appendix A 

Statistical Methods

Methods for confidence intervals

There are two types of compliance proportions estimated in this report, simple proportions 

and ratio proportions. Estimation for both types is described below with examples. 

Simple Proportions 

The first type of compliance proportion is a simple proportion. For example, the proportion 

of FPAs with road construction activities that was compliant for these activities. One and 

only one road construction activity is measured on each FPA that has a road construction 

activity. This is a binomial proportion, and 95 percent confidence intervals were estimated 

using the F-distribution as described in Zar (1996; p524): 

*)1( FXnX 2( ), ννα 2,1

X LCL

+−+ = , 

2( ), 2,1

2( ), 2,1

*)1(

*)1(

ππα

ππα

FXXn

FX

UCL

++−

+ = , 

where 

LCL = Lower Confidence Limit

 UCL = Upper Confidence Limit 

X = The number of compliant activities

n = the total number of activities,

F = the F-distribution critical value for the given alpha and degrees of freedom, 

ν Xn +−= )1(21

ν = 22 X

π X += )1(21

π −= Xn )(22 . 

These binomial confidence intervals are not symmetric.

Example 

The proportion of road construction activities that are compliant is an example of a simple 

proportion. For this biennium, there were 74 FPAs containing road construction activities 

that were tested for compliance. 

n = 74 

X = 63

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
54 

63/74 = 0.851 (85% compliant) 

ν = 241

ν = 1262

π =1281

π = 222

%)75(750.0 754.1*)16374(63

63 = +−+

LCL =

%)92(923.0 072.2*)64(6374

072.2*64 = +−

UCL =

Ratio Proportions 

The second type of proportion is actually a ratio of two random variables, with the 

denominator being the total number of activities (within a subcategory) sampled. For 

example, when we look at compliance for all riparian activities, there are often multiple 

riparian activities on a single FPA. Because this number varies across FPAs (i.e., some FPAs 

have 1, some have 2 or more activities in the subcategory), it is a random variable. This is 

true for any displayed subcategory that represents multiple activity types, such as “Western 

Washington Type F Streams” (up to three activity types), as well as for total compliance rates 

(e.g., all riparian activities.) In this case, the estimated proportion of activities that are 

compliant is:

∑

∑

=

= = n

i

i

n

i

i

x

y

p

1

1 ˆ , 

which is the total number of compliant activities divided by the total number of activities that 

were sampled across all FPAs (n is the number of FPAs sampled). 

A 95 percent confidence interval for the proportion compliant is formed as follows: 

ˆ ( ˆ)) )1(,025. ± tp n− ⋅ pSE , 

where n− )1(,025.t is the 97.5th percentile of the student-t distribution with (n-1) degrees of 

freedom, n is the number of sampled FPAs, and 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
55 

∑

∑

=

=

⋅−

−⋅−⋅

= n

i

i

n

i

ii

xn

xpy N

n

n

pSE

1

1

2

)1(

()1( ˆ )

( ˆ) (Cochran, 1977, p32). 

In the above equation, N is the total number of FPAs submitted in the two-year period that 

contain road and riparian activities. This number was not known, but was estimated based on 

the proportions of sampled FPAs containing road and riparian activities for each year. 

These confidence intervals are symmetric.

Example: 

Out of 174 FPAs reviewed, there were 234 road activities tested for compliance. Of these, 

203 activities were in compliance with relevant rules.

%)87(868.0 234

203 ˆ

1

1 ===

∑

∑

=

=

n

i

i

n

i

i

x

y

p

The population size, N is estimated as follows. In 2006, there were 4671 total FPAs 

submitted. Of the FPAs opened, 104/201 (52 percent) had activities in our population. 

Applying the 52 percent to 4671 yields an estimate of 2417 FPAs with road/riparian activities 

in 2006. In 2007, there were 4588 total FPAs, and 60 percent of the 341 FPAs that were 

opened had road and/or riparian activities. This yields an estimate of 2758 FPAs with 

road/riparian activities. Therefore, we estimate a total population size of 5175 FPAs with 

road/riparian activities. Note that this estimate is only being used as a finite population 

correction factor. Since the sampling proportion is fairly small (100/5000), this estimate does 

not have a large affect on the final result. 

N = 5175 

n =174 

The quantity ∑

=

−

n

i

ii xpy

1

2 ( ˆ ) is calculated for each FPA, so cannot be easily displayed. 

However, note that for each FPA, it is simply the number of compliant road activities minus 

0.868 times the total number of road activities. 

028.0

234)1174(

24.44) 5175

174 1(174

( ˆ) = ⋅−

⋅−⋅

pSE =

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
56 

t 173,025. = 974.1

⋅± 028.0974.1868.0

= ±=⋅± 055.0868.0028.0974.1868.0 

Thus, the 95 percent confidence interval is (81, 92 percent).

References

Cochran, William G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Zar, Jerrold H. (1996). Biostatistical Analysis. Third Edition. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle 

River, New Jersey.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
57 

Appendix B 

Compliant and Non-compliant Definitions from the 2006-

2007 Program Design

These definitions were in use during the 2006 and 2007 field seasons. Refinements to these 

definitions may be made as changes to the Compliance Monitoring program occur.

Comments included in this biennium report will be forwarded to the revision process of the 

Program Design. Hence, no changes are included herein in order to present the Program 

language used at the time. There have not been changes to these definitions as these were 

available to all participants throughout the 2006/2007 field seasons. Any revisions 

incorporated into the Program Design for the 2008/2009 biennium will be presented to 

participants.

 

Status of compliance

The categories listed below were used to describe the status of compliance. The criteria 

defining these categories were developed in concert with representatives of the Forest and 

Fish policy group. The descriptors have been modified as the program has developed this 

year. 

• Compliant: Forest practices activities meets protection identified in the FPA and 

rules. 

 . 

• Exceeds Rule: Landowners conducted their Forest Practices activities above the 

minimum requirements of the rule. Examples from the Specifications and Guidelines 

include: 

o Type S or F: Twice as many leave trees as required by the rule or DFC 

worksheet in the Inner and Outer Zones of RMZs. 

o No harvest zones are preserved in areas the applicant originally had planned to 

harvest.

o Type S, F, or Np: 20 percent greater no harvest buffer width than what is 

required by rule. 

o Type Np: 20 percent greater length of no cut buffer on Np stream system.

 This length must be a 50 foot no cut buffer to count as exceeds when it 

is 20 percent longer than what is required. 

o No harvest zones that otherwise could have been harvested under the rules.

o Road improvements beyond those required by rule were employed. 

o Road abandonment that included more than required such as mulching, 

distribution of trees and woody debris along the road prism to deter off road 

vehicle travel.

o Swales, erroneously defined as typed channels that were protected.

• Non-compliant: Non-compliance with the Rules. Examples include:

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
58 

o Harvest in Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) beyond the pre-determined 5

percent measurement uncertainty protocol. See the DNRFPCMP. Document. 

o Leave tree requirements not met.

o Water-crossing structures inadequate for stream protection standards. 

o Stream size or stated length as reported on the Desired Future Condition 

(DFC) worksheet that deviated more than 10 percent of the distance measured 

in the field.

Professional non-compliant ratings 

Does non-compliance findings reflect significant resource damage, or are many FPAs only 

slightly non-compliant and cause little resource damage? How does one address the problem 

of defining the impact from removal of one or two trees at the outer edge of the inner zone? 

The short answer to these inquiries is that, in order to be meaningful and to avoid agendadriven outcomes, compliance determinations must be rigorously objective. The findings are

reported as compliant or non-compliant calls. Making a determination as to whether a single 

tree removed from a no-cut zone is di minimus, or is representative of widespread ‘fudging’ 

on a buffer will require a full blown assessment of the impacts on riparian function for each 

FPA activity. (Creating a methodology to accomplish this task is beyond the scope of 

Compliance Monitoring). Such detailed work is beyond the biennial budget for this project. 

Furthermore, these considerations overlap with effectiveness monitoring, an entire separate 

discipline and one that will be addressed by DNR with assistance of the Cooperative 

Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Committee (CMER). 

These concerns notwithstanding, representatives of several caucuses and the Services have 

asked that we create a process for evaluating the levels of compliance as a result of noncompliance findings. The Program has tested the following approach in 2006/07 to determine 

if any feasible and/or meaningful determinations can be reached. 

“The new Forests and Fish rules in Washington are perhaps the most detailed and extensive 

rules in the United States” (Ice, 2007). This poses an obvious question when one or two trees 

are harvested within the boundary of the Core, Inner or Outer Zone of a riparian area. 

Experienced field professionals have the sensible perception of the constraints of fitting the 

physical environment into a set of standardized rules. We intend that no actual measurement 

of the degree of damage be taken because such measurement would be costly, beyond the 

scope of Compliance Monitoring, and would diminish our productivity. 

Not all infractions of Forest Practices regulations have the same effect on public resources.

For instance, cutting down half the trees in the Core Zone of a RMZ generally has the 

potential to cause significantly more environmental damage than removing one or two trees 

from the Outer Zone. It is beyond the scope of the compliance monitoring program to 

quantify resource damage or assume we are conducting effectiveness monitoring. However, 

DNR wants to have some indication of the relative seriousness of non-compliance activities 

which could help focus the agency's future day-to-day compliance work. The field teams 

comprised of experienced professional hydrologists, foresters, geologists, and biologists 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
59 

demonstrated that the use of professional judgment that is used in our everyday evaluations 

of both the natural variability of nature and how to manage the environment in relation to 

forestry can be useful in putting non-compliant decisions in perspective. We are committed 

to utilizing our professional expertise and judgment to make these evaluations on the relative 

level of non-compliance for each non-compliant determination.

It is important to note that these non-compliant levels do not have statistical validity nor 

should they be used to excuse Forest Practices activities that violate the rules or the approved 

application. Although the process was not rigorous in its entirety in evaluating these noncompliant determinations due to some inconsistencies among field teams, the information for 

year 1suggests that the non-compliant determinations reflect a small number of “major” noncompliant levels. 

There were several suggestions as to how to rate practices that were non-compliant. We 

could have used levels with descriptors of 1, 2, or 3; Low, Medium or High; or any other 

similar labels. We decided to attach the following “categories” for the level of noncompliance. An attempt to set strict definitions to this process becomes an effort that cannot 

be quantified. The following definitions may help in determining a level of non-compliance;

however, the decision is really 3 tiered scale of “Low”, “Medium” or “High”. For example, 

each circumstance is different, and strict definitions just don’t capture the variability of a 500 

foot RMZ segment or a 12,000 foot RMZ segment. 

a. Low or trivial: Minor impacts of short duration over a small area. This 

category could be compared to the first level of DNR regulatory protocol 

which would include a phone call or to the landowner to let him/her know that 

we found a couple of trees harvested in an Inner or Outer Zone. Examples 

include: 

i. Evidence of slight sediment delivery that Does not appear to be 

persistent.

ii. A few trees cut in the Inner or Outer Zone of the RMZ of the same or 

lesser ecological significance as the remaining RMZ trees.

b. Medium or Apparent: Potential impacts to resources, but generally of 

moderate effect. The level of DNR regulatory protocol would consist of a Notice 

to Comply which would indicate to the landowner that there could be some 

mitigation required for this level of non-compliance. Examples include:

i. Required leave trees for the Outer Zone trees not attained.

ii. Culvert sizing is questionable, but potential impact to resources is 

not readily apparent. 

iii. Soil stabilization has not occurred and there may be a potential for 

future impacts.

c. High or Major: 7Damage to public resources is evident or the potential for 

damage is high. (These include situations normally referred to the Region). The 

comparative DNR regulatory protocol would most probably consist of a Stop 

Work Order or perhaps a Civil Penalty. Examples include:

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
60 

i. Harvest in the Core Zone. Harvest in areas not delineated on the 

FPA.

ii. Roads built without an FPA. 

iii. Evidence of direct sediment delivery to typed water that appears to 

have been persistent. 

No consensus: This is used when the participants can’t agree on the compliance level. If this 

is the case, the Forest Practices Forester makes the determination. It is important to note that 

these professional judgment non-compliance levels do not have statistical validity nor should 

they be used to excuse Forest Practices activities that violate the rules or the approved 

application. 

Implementing this system requires the following assumptions:

1. All participants realize that this process relies on professional judgment and agree to 

the rather broad definitions. It is acknowledges that this process is not meant to 

represent any effectiveness determination.

2. There will be no intense statistical analysis beyond the narrow scope intended. These 

decisions are used as a snapshot of the conditions on the ground at the time of field 

review.

3. This is not a surrogate for effectiveness monitoring; only an educated assessment 

based on experience in the field of the level of the non-compliance as it relates to the 

resource. 

4. This process helps to put some perspective to the rules that are intensely prescriptive. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
61 

Appendix C 

Details of Stream Inconsistencies with the FPA

The Compliance Monitoring program has developed Supplemental Stream Evaluation formV

to gather more data on stream inconsistencies with the approved FPA and the field 

observations we gather in the field. DNR is interested in gaining information on the 

magnitude of stream discrepancies. Teams began using the form in 2008. This form was 

LQLWLDWHGIRU use in 2008. During the 20062007 biennium some data were collected on the 

stream segments that did not correspond with the information on the approved FPA. 

Type F Streams

A total of 116 Type F riparian activities were reviewed statewide and 16 stream segments (14

percent) were found that have issues with stream consistency with information provided by 

applicants on their FPA. These 16 segments reflect failure on the part of the applicants to 

recognize any number of characteristics of the channel, which may include Channel 

Migration Zones or erroneous stream size. Activities on six of the segments (4 percent) with 

inconsistent stream characteristics were in compliance with the approved harvest options on 

the FPA and two included Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) wider than required under 

the approved FPA. Ten (9 percent) of these segments were out of compliance for other 

various reasons (See Figure 21). 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
62 

Inconsistent compliant 

streams. These 

activities were in 

compliance with the 

FPA requirements, but 

perhaps had issues with 

CMZs or stream size. 

This group also includes 

RMZs that were larger 

than required. 

5%

Non-compliant with the 

FPA requirements and 

no stream consistency 

issues . 

28%

Compliant with the FPA 

and had no stream 

issues.

58%

Inconsistent noncompliant streams. 

These activities were 

non-compliant, but also 

may include CMZ, 

stream size, or typing 

issues. 

9%

Figure 21. Type F Stream Segments not Consistent with the Approved FPA. 

Table 17 shows the comments details of the field reviews for those stream segments that 

were not consistent with the FPA stream designations. DNR has created a Supplemental 

Stream Evaluation Form in order to gather details on these stream issues in order to 

determine the magnitude of the issue. More data will inform the need for further study or not. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
63 

Table 17. Field Review Comments Relating to the Inconsistencies with Type F Stream 

Segments and the Approved FPA 

FPA Stream Issue Status Rating Field Review Comments

1 Stream Size on 

Type F

Noncompliant M No Inner zone harvest. There was harvest in the core and the Inner Zone

2 Stream Size on 

Type F Compliant NA No Inner Zone Harvest. RMZ harvest buffer 132 feet when it should have been 110 feet

3 Stream Size on 

Type F

Noncompliant A 

Type F streams was not a Type F in the upper reach (approximately 400 

feet). No Inner Zone harvest: two Core Zone trees: cedar ~ 36 in DBH, 3 

Inner Zone trees cut: alder (18"), hemlock (16") and one alder (8") One 

Outer Zone tree cut.

4 Stream Size on 

Type F Compliant NA No Inner Zone harvest. The activities were in compliance with the FPA, however the consistency for CMZ and for stream size was in question.

5 Stream Size on 

Type F Compliant NA No comments

6 Stream Size on 

Type F

Noncompliant T Option 1 harvest: one 8" Western Hemlock cut within 3 feet the Core Zone 

RMZ. 

7 Stream Size on 

Type F

Noncompliant T 

Option 2 harvest. Stream >10' FPA; reported as <10'. However, this would 

have a minimal effect on the Inner Zone floor width. Additionally, excess 

leave trees were found in both the Inner and Outer zones.

8 CMZ in Question Compliant NA

No defined channel in this area. Landowner would have had to submit a 

WTM Form because the F/3 stream shows on the hydro layer (DNR) this 

area is forested wetland and non-merchantable timber. Measurements 

across this leave area? RMZ are greater than 200 feet wide. This area is 

site class V

9 CMZ in Question Compliant NA No Inner zone harvest. The LO left more trees than required.

10 CMZ in Question Noncompliant T 

No Inner Zone harvest. There were 2 stumps found at 105-108 feet along 

a segment of stream where the bank slumped ~ 10 feet towards/into the 

RMZ. 

11 Stream Size Noncompliant T Harvest was good but the stream size was 10.9 BFW feet so it was called 

OC

12 CMZ in Question Noncompliant A 

Three type F streams were reviewed. Option 1 harvest: nine out of 20 

Outer Zone trees were left and the unit was 90% blowdown. No Inner

Zone harvest and the Option 2 harvest were in compliance.

13 CMZ in Question Noncompliant T No Inner Zone harvest. Eleven trees cut in 6450 feet of stream.

14 CMZ in Question Compliant NA No comments

15 Stream Distance Noncompliant M 

Option 1harvest. Stream distance in great error, correct distance fails DFC 

thus only a "No Inner Zone Harvest" option would have been allowed. 

Resource damage resulted. Failed to meet 0Z tree tally even for the ~ 

6,300' stream distance. Option 2 harvest. Four trees cut in floor at station 

2+75 of the northern stream segment. Many areas of the southern stream 

segment exceeded the required 80' no harvest.

16 CMZ in Question Noncompliant T Option 2 harvest. The LO was 4 trees shy of the 82 trees required in the 

Outer Zone. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
64 

Type N Streams

A total of 158 Type Np and Ns (non fish bearing) streams was field reviewed. Fifteen (10%) 

of these segments were possibly mis-typed relative to the approved stream designation on the 

FPAs. Nine (6 percent) segments were in compliance with the approved harvest options. The 

other six stream segments (4 percent) were non-compliant (See Figure 22). Sometimes 

inconsistencies provided either more or inadequate protection. 

Inconsistent NonCompliant Streams. 

These activities were 

non-compliant, and 

were inconsistent with 

the streams as 

approved on the FPA. 

4%

Non Compliant with the 

FPA requirements and 

no stream consistency 

issues. 

13%

These activities were in 

compliance with the 

FPA requirements. 

There were Ns streams 

buffered as Np streams, 

and Np streams that 

had F stream 

characteristics. 

6%

Compliant with the FPA 

and had no stream 

issues.

77%

Figure 22. Type N Stream Segments not Consistent with the Approved FPA. This figure 

shows the relationship between the status of compliance for N streams and the 9 percent of 

streams determined to be inconsistent with the FPAs. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
65 

Table 18. Field Review Comments Relating to the Inconsistencies with Type N Stream 

Segments and the Approved FPA 

FPA Status Rating Comments

1 Compliant NA

Ns stream labeled "C" on attached map was not shown on FPA 

map. Stream was dry during approved period. < or = 10% soil 

exposed, was in compliance. Np shown on FPA map along west 

edge was in full compliance.

2 Compliant NA

Type F by characteristics, follow-up with the landowner confirmed 

that they had conducted a protocol survey that did not get 

submitted with the FPA and no fish were found during the survey.

3 Compliant NA

Ns stream not identified on map. Np segment not identified above 

stream "B" junction. It should have been labeled segment "C" and 

as an Np. No WTM forms that were previously approved were 

included in the FPA packet. Information in FPA does not 

correspond with features on the ground. 

4 Compliant NA Np compliant

5 Compliant NA Np streams called Ns on FPA map but buffered as Nps

6 Compliant NA

Compliant as per FPA, however stream met physicals of Type F. 

Stream was typed by field forester as a 4, but stream 

measurements at time of review were over 3 feet and less than 

16% slope. BFW measurements were moved slightly to minimize 

the influence from cattle. All agreed that any harvest in buffer was 

from wood cutters as al stumps were flush cut.

7 Compliant NA

Typed stream as a Type 5 on FPA. Stream met physical criteria of 

a type F. WDFW stated habitat existed. Unit was harvested and 

would be in compliance with Type F because no activity occurred in 

Inner or Outer Zone

8 Compliant NA Field notes indicate fish seen at station 15+50. Average RMZ width 

was 20% larger than required.

9 Compliant NA

Np streams were not listed In FPA, but they were on the map and 

buffered. BFW was in question in areas due to extreme blowdown 

that influenced the stream with root wads. 

10 Noncompliant A 

Type Np started at PIP. Type Ns was non existent as shown on 

map- No defined channel. Type Np had partial cut harvest for the 

entire length of stream reach in unit.

11 Noncompliant M 

See notes for bankfull width measurements on Np segment. Np 

channel meets physical characteristics of a type F stream. Np 

channel has been modified by neighboring landowner to the north. 

12 Noncompliant M 

Operator used existing skid trail within RMZ of Np for a distance of 

260 ft. out of 950 ft. on one side of the stream. Operator used a 

skid trail on west side of Ns within the 30 ft. Equipment Limitation 

Zone along the entire length of stream.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
66 

FPA Status Rating Comments

13 Noncompliant A 

Ns stream had slash piled over stream, no mitigation done and ~40% 

soil exposed to activities. The Np stream is accessible to Type F 

stream low flow, forming small steps, and stream was greater than 5 

feet BFW. Upper stream gradient was >20%. Fish could use stream 

in winter as refugia habitat. Np compliant, Ns out-of -compliance and 

apparent due to slash piles over Ns. 

14 Noncompliant M 

700 ft at the lower end of the Np stream had a 50 ft buffer. The upper 

500 ft of the Np stream did not have a buffer and should have been 

classified as a forested wetland. A majority of this segment had been 

disturbed from the building the Great Wall of Toutle ( large very 

extensive 10 ft high and long). The Np PIP would be located 

somewhere in the wetland.

15 Noncompliant T 2 trees cut in buffer at 46 and 46.5 feet. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
67 

Appendix D

Comments Regarding FPA Content, Clarity, and 

Information Needs

In addition to assessing regulatory compliance, field crews were asked if the information 

included in the FPA was sufficient to evaluate activities on the ground. While a lack of 

information does not mean that work was not completed according to regulation, this 

information is essential for regulatory agencies to review and approve applications for timber 

harvest. 

During the 2006 and 2007 field reviews, 50 out of 176 FPAs contained a “No” to Question 

#1 on the Post Survey Evaluation Form, “Did information on the FPA provide adequate 

means to evaluate the activities completed on the ground?” The comments were generated by 

the field review team. Comments are provided only as an aid for Landowners, DNR 

Division, and Region staff to identify topics to improve FPA clarity and content. The 

comments are not to be construed as scientific observations, reflections on rule content, or 

criticism of landowners or regulators. This information relates to topics such as: 

 Was all information included on FPARs or was additional documentation required? 

 Were activities accurately described? 

 Were all exchanges, management options and deviations outlined? 

These comments (edited for grammar etc.) are broken into five different categories based on 

similar content. Comments regarding desired information but not required for the FPA have 

been deleted. Comments that did not pertain to the question as “LWD is not considered fish 

blockage” is not pertinent to whether the FPA was adequate to evaluate activities on the 

ground. The number in parentheses is the number of FPA’s that fell into the respective 

category. One FPA can be represented in multiple categories.

1. Mapping inconsistency, (18 of 50) (not mapped, mis-mapped, labels missing,

 illegible from FPARS etc.)

Landings were not shown on activity maps, however we assessed 3 landings.

Map was very confusing and left reviewers to question external boundaries of this FPA 

verses previous FPA nearby.

CMZ was not mapped well enough to identify its location north of Creek 5. 

Little Type N west of Stream A was not identified on the FPA map, but was protected in the 

field with a 50 foot RMZ. Two streams (A&B), identified on the map were not present after 

field review.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
68 

Not all streams or roads within road maintenance segment and harvest area are included on 

FPA map or application.

Legend for road type activity should be included; may have used standard Forest Practice

legend, but no copy included with FPA and we don't have it committed to memory. 

The road location was not accurately depicted. 

Map difficult to read. 

Map was difficult to decipher. Needed to blow it up to determine activities. Not clear in 

labeling. Labeling was inaccurate at the fish habitat change. 

Maps were not accurate and roads did not match what was shown on the map. 

Two streams were not shown on the FPA. 

DFC along this stream was approx. 303'. Map did not clearly show the 303' segment. 

Stream labels were missing and DFC areas were not mapped. 

Np streams were not listed under Question 18 but they were on the map and buffered. 

Clumped outer zone trees were not shown on the map or described in the application. 

Np stream was mis-identified on map. Stream segments A&B confusing as to where one 

started and one stopped. 

The map is inadequate, unable to locate type Ns stream.

Flagging at segment break between #1 and #2 mentioned clumping, but did not show on 

map. No indication of where unit started next to other harvest unit but we made the best 

guess.

The stream designation was clear on (color) map on file, but not on FPARS copy. 

2. Water typing issues, (10 of 50) (Misidentified water classification, no WTMF in 

 FPA, No stream found, etc.) 

Little Type N west of Stream A was not identified on the FPA map, but was protected in the 

field with a 50 foot RMZ. Two streams (A&B), identified on the map were not present after 

field review. Stream C did have a channel. 

All stream typing not included with the FPA. (i.e. stream crossings included in road 

construction).

An Np on the SE side of unit was not identified on FPA.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
69 

No information on seep protection. No information on determination of Ns stream and 

perennial initiation points. 

Labeling was inaccurate at the fish habitat change.

Two streams were not shown on the FPA. Stream "B" is an F/N and needs a protocol survey 

to determine F/N break; meets physical of an F Stream. 

CMZ and wetlands were not identified. 

Stream non-existence was not explained in the application; no water or stream found on site. 

Stream location was poorly explained; unable to locate type Ns stream.

Needed better explanation for Type 3 associated with a wetland. Also discovered a mis-typed 

stream; Np actually a Type F.

3. FPA info does not match conditions on the ground. (20 of 50) 

FPA identified 5,280 feet of maintenance but it is not clear which part of the 20 mile haul 

this is.

General question section indicates no harvest in RMZ. Question 6 in riparian harvest section 

says they will harvest in the Outer Zone. Stream chart was not filled out. On the ground only 

about 100 linear feet was thinned in Outer Zone. 

Road distances states 8,550 feet, but the map measured out approximately 5,100 feet 

We had difficulties finding the southern boundary of the harvest area. There was also a road 

that was not on the FPA that appears to be used for hauled (although whether it was on this 

harvest is unclear). 

The road location was not accurately depicted. Road table indicated no road activity, but 

there was information on culvert/water crossings indicated in #14 of FPA. Approximately 

800 feet of temporary road construction (see abandonment). There was an Np on the SE side 

of unit not identified on FPA. The FPA indicated no cutting within the total RMZ, however, 

the site review revealed that at least 18 trees were cut and removed from the RMZ.

Confusion on construction, abandonment dates as abandoned roads were definitely older that 

the life of this application. Alders in abandoned roadway were 6 to 8 inches dbh. 

Only the Option 2 DFC printout was included with the FPA. There was no cruise info so 

couldn't determine what the landowner checked for stand composition or stream length. 

There appears to be an error on the Type 4 RMZ worksheet which creates some confusion. 

The leave tree strategy needs to be described a bit better. 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
70 

Couldn't determine where Inner Zone or Outer Zone leave trees were supposed to be for 

segments 1 and 2, because these 2 stream numbers were combined into one DFC printout, 

but the streams are a ridge apart. Also difficult to determine where segments begin and end 

on the ground because of stream junctions and overlapping RMZs. 

Np streams were not listed under Question 18 but they were on the map and buffered. 

Clumped outer zone trees were not shown on the map or described in the application 

There was a violation from previous right-of-way harvest within stream 1B. No road 

mentioned for this FPA. 

Outer Zone harvest code incorrect; the landowner didn't cover all Outer Zone options. 

Unsure if buffer on stream was for Np or F stream. 

Np segment not identified above stream "B" junction. It should have been labeled segment 

"C" and as an Np. No revised forest practices activities were submitted to record actual 

activities. Information in FPA does not correspond with features on the ground. 

Type Ns stream #5 headwaters originates from a Type B wetland at 1/4 acre +. No wetlands 

stated on FPA. 

Stream non-existence was not explained in the application. No water or stream found on site. 

No flagging at segment break between #1 and #2. Clumping was mentioned but did not show 

on the map. No indication where unit started next to other harvest unit.. 

Stream adjacent parallel road existed for approx. 200 ft. inside an equipment limitation zone.

Application classified as "new construction" because we don't have "reconstruction" in rules. 

Aerial photos from 2000 revealed an existing road. Vegetation on fill slopes supported this. 

Activities were not accurately described as there was no harvest identified in the RMZ on the 

FPA.

FPA was very confusing about Type Np RMZ width. 

4. Inaccurate RMZ Buffers (14 of 50) 

Breaks between DFC Options should have been shown on the application. Option 2 should 

have been split into 2 runs for separate sides of the creek.

General question section indicates no harvest in RMZ. Question 6 in riparian harvest section 

says they will harvest in the Outer Zone. Stream chart was not filled out. On the ground only 

about 100 linear feet was thinned in Outer Zone.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring
71 

Creek 4 did not identify which harvest option was used. Timber cutting was conducted 

within the RMZ of Lake Creek. The FPA indicated no cutting within the total RMZ. On site 

review revealed that at least 18 trees were cut and removed from the RMZ.

There was no cruise info so couldn't determine what the landowner checked for stand 

composition or stream length. 

There appears to be an error on the Type 4 RMZ worksheet which creates some confusion. 

The leave tree strategy needs to be described a bit better.

There was also no DFC input; so stream lengths etc. were hard to determine.

Couldn't determine where Inner Zone or Outer Zone leave trees were supposed to be for 

segment 1 and 2 especially because these 2 stream numbers were combined into one DFC 

printout, but the streams area ridge apart. 

It isn't apparent that entire unit was covered with trees. It looked like part was agriculture, as 

part of ground was disked. 

Activities along segment S-1, Option 2 was unclear. 

Stream labels were missing and DFC areas were not mapped. DFC distances for streams #3 

and #5 were in error. 

Outer Zone harvest code incorrect, they didn't cover all Outer Zone options. 

Unsure if buffer on stream was for Np or F stream. 

Stream typing was not correct. The landowner identified Np that did not exist. Type F stream 

not a Type F in upper reach (approximately 400 ft) 

Activities were not accurately described as there was no harvest identified in the RMZ on the 

FPA.

5. FPA lacking other information (1 of 50) 

Landowner information was complete; however, not all info was scanned to FPARs because 

application was a renewal. Main file was consulted to complete review.

Washington State Department of Natural Resources Biennium 2006-2007 Compliance Monitoring