P. 1 

14 STATE OF MAINE 

~ DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 

22 STATE HOUSE STATION 

AUGUSTA, MAINE 

04333-0022 

PAUL R. LEPAGE WILLIAM H. BEARD 

GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER 

19 June L0 12 

Water pocket 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Mailcode: 2822T 

1200 PennsyEvania Avenue, NW jUN 27 ZaIZ 

Washington, 'C 20460 

Attention Docket 1D No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195 

Qear Reader: 

We appreciate the opportunity to comrner,t on your intent to revise stormwater 

reguiations in order tB specify that an NPDES Permit is not required for stormwater 

discharges from iogging roads. We submit this letter to indicate that Maine fully 

supports EPA7 s decision to revise storrrWater reguiations in order to specify that a 

NPdES Permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. 

i•#erein We adso provide further input as EPA considers p©tential approaches fQr 

addressing water qua(ity impacts from forest road discharges in the future. 

As the Notice of intent points out, federai IaW alioWs for EPA to utitize a broad range of 

regulatory aod non-regulatory approaches to address water quality issues related to 

stormWater discharge. For decades now our agency has successful!y achieved this 

objective by Working in cooperation With partners in the forest products industry to 

estabtish the silvicu_iturat and forest road best managemeot practices that are most 

efFective in our state. 

These practices are administered through a voluntary BI1lIP program with foltow up 

effectiveness monitoring and a regulatory safety net. Ir} Maine, forestry BMP 

ef#ectiveness monitoring conducted yearly since 2045 has shown that measurable 

amounts of sedimentation were prevented in 84% of cases observed. Practice 

recommendations are developed under a highly collaborative process intended to 

capture the best avaiiable, most credible science as it pertains to forest practices that 

Wiii effectiveiy protect vvater quaiity. 

Enclosed is our most recent set of BtV1P guideiines. Since many Canadian toggers Work 

in Maine, these guidelines are pubtished in both Engtish and French. These can also be 

accessed on iine at: 

http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/pubs/bmp manual.htm 

, 

MAINE FOREST SERVICE PHONE: (207) 287-2791 OR 1-800-367• 

DOUG DENICO, DIRECTOR FAX: (207) 287. 

We help you make informed decisions about Maine's forests 
p. 2 

Doci:et iD No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195 -Maine Forest Service comments 

EPA has reqoested additionai information that we are pteased to provide belovtr. 

i=taw is the State BMP Prograrn [mplementeci? 

Maine's BP1iP vrater qoa[ity protection progra.m has three compon.ents - training, 

effectiveness monitoring and regulatory. 

Training program: 

The heart of the Maine's BMP program is the training program. This program has 

reached over 5,000 ioggers, foresters and landowners over the last 10 years. This 

training program focuses on the' Maine Forest Bervice (IVIFS) BMP manuai; over 10,000 

copies of this publication have been distributed since 2004. The MFS cooperates closely 

mrith nomerous forest industry partners to defiver BI`vfF trafn'irig. Training includes a 

gerterai training based on principtes of water qua.lity protection. MFS believes that 

logger and forester understanding of these principies (why BMPs vvork and what they 

are trying to accomp[ish) is critica( to se(ectior} of the most appropriate and cost effective 

practices for each situation. MFS strongly suiaports on outcome. based approach that 

maintains ftexibitity for operators in the se(ection of practices to use. 

MFB also coordinates topic-specific BMP trainings to address specific probiem areas 

when they are identified. Areas to focus this training on are identified through the BMP 

monitoring program and by regoiar meetings with industry partners to identify relevant 

education topics. Recent examples of topic-specific training inclode installation of 

permanent stream crossings to permit fish and aqoatic organism passage, temporary 

bridge mat corrstruction and installation field training, hands on water bar instailation 

and a 3-day advanced land management road grading class. 

BMP Effectiveness iV#onitoring: 

The 118th Maine Legislatore directed the MFB to evaluate the progress made by timber 

harvesting operations in impiementing forestry BMPs to protect vlrater qoality (PL 1997, 

Chapter 648). This tegistative directive responded in part to the findings of the Briggs 

study of 1996, a joirst effort by MFS, university researchers, arrd the Forestry Advisory 

Team (FCIPAT). 

F-ORAT served as a broad-based advisory group of stalceholders whose mission 

included advising MFS and the Department of Environmental Protection on vrater quaiity 

issues refated to forest management. 

The Brictgs study Teported on BMP use and e#fectiveness by examining 120 harvest 

sites_ The study -eoncloded that a-ppiica.bfe BM Ps work _well whenn implernented, bot that 

use of individuai BMPs varied from very low to very high. There was broad recognition of 

the need to provide regular, statewide information on trends in BMP use and 

efi:ectiveness. So+ch informatinn vvoold help MFB to focus educationat efforts for 

foresters. Ioggers, and landowners in BMP use. 

_With FQRAT's assistance, MFS developed a rnonitoring protocoi to cor:duct regular, 

statewide monitoring of i:sMP use anr3 effectiveness on timber harvesting operations. 

■ USi:3A Forest Service Northeastern Watershed Team and USEPA supported this 

efi•ort by funding development of a regiona! BMP monitoring prcitocol within the 20 

states in the USFS Northeastern area and Virginia. 

• An extensive test of the protocot began in five northeastern states in June- 2004 to; 1) 

ensore the protocol wan be osed in a varietv of feid settings; 2) ensure scientific 

Page 2 of 5 
p. 3 

t3ocket tD No. EPA-HQ-OW-201 2-0'I 95 - IViaine Forest Service comrnents 

Acredibility; and 3) improve protoco1 guestions to better address Iocal and regional 

BNtP guidetines. 

; ~► Regional BfU1F Monitoring Rrotocol for tirrber harvesting has now been tested in 91 

northeastern states. 

ln Maine, harvest sites v+rere selected randomly in ten districis statewide, based on 

Forest OperatiQns Notifications submitted te MFB. MFB requested landowner 

permissien to cenduct the field work, which did rot assess compliance with state 

statutes, regulations, or Iocai ordinances, but rather eveluated BMP use and 

effectiveness. Monitoring of randomly selected feld harvest sites by MFB Field 

Foresters has been conducted yearly since 2005; over 600 harvests sites have been 

evaluated over that time. Data collection by iti11FS personnei focuses on areas of recent 

harvest activity and the presenc'e of surFace water, thereby captaring worst case 

scenarie results. 

The B(VMP mcrnitorirg Pretocol can be accessed en fine at: 

http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/misc/bmp/46/bmp field g_uide Ir.pdf 

Key Findings of the most recently published BMP mcnitaring report summarizing the 

years 2005-2003 inctude: 

• From 2005-2009 BMPs were efFective in preventing sedimentation is 84°1a of cases. 

• t}ccurrences of sediment entering a waterbody have deereased frrm 'i 7% of cases 

in 2005 to 10% in 2009. 

The full BMP monitoring report can be accessed online at: 

http://www.maine.gov/doclmfs/fpm/water/bmp annual rpts.html 

Regulatory Bafety Net: 

Maine has several state laws rr,rhich prohibit or fimit the amgunt of sediment that can be 

discharged into waters of the state. Timber harvesting is subject to these laws. In 

Maine, (andewners are reguired ta notify the MFS before any commercial timber 

harvesting takes place. The MFS has cooperative agreements with other state 

regulatory agericies to inspect timber harvests for compliance with laws that regulate 

sedimentatiors of the state's waterbodies. !VlFB has a staff of 60 forest rangers statione( 

acress the state vvhe irspect a very large percentage of the 5,0(}4 timber harvests that 

are notifed each year fcr regulatory ccrnpliance. These ;nspectiens show that fewer 

than 5% of inspectiQns for cQmpliance with water quality iaws are ' not approved,'= 

meaning they require fo11Qw up referral to partnering agencies with regutatory 

jurisdiction. Only a sma4l percentage cf these result in regutatory action. foost prablem; 

are fxect cooperatively, thereby 1imiting environmental damage, befQre forrna6 reguiator 

action is required. 

How is Program Accountability Assured? 

See BPJIP monitoring and regulatory cempliance. 

Maine also has near1y 8 mitlien acres of forest land v}rhich is third-party certified by FSC ; 

SFI and/or PEFC, and on which BMPs are mandateru. These lands are subject to 3rd 

party compEiance audits that include BMPs. 

Page3of5 
p. 4 

C3ocket 1D No. EPA-HQ-C3W-2012-0195 - Maine Forest Service comments 

Whhat €s the Cost o# lmplementing the State BMP Program, both in terms of Program 

Administration and Added Costs to l.andovvnerslOperators? 

7#u(1 time Vllater Quality Forester that cQordinates training, BMP Monitoring and 

technical assistanc.e. +10t3+ field staff days per year per year on BMP monitoring and 

training. At the current time this is accomplished entireiy rrvith state resources. The 

estimated total cost to the state is $100,000 per year. 

VVe cannot quantify the added costs to landowners and land managers of BMP 

compliance; hotinrever, anecdotal in#ormation suggests that the costs could be 

substantial in terms o# down time, forgone wood votume, increased in#rastructure costs, 

and so on. For example, a iogging industry representative has suggested that the 

logging season in Maine has been shortened by several weeks over the last decade, 

[argety due to seasona[ constraints on operations (spring rrtud and #a#t rains). This 

necessarily constrains loggers #rom operating anywhere near full capacity. 

What [Vleasures are there of Program Success? 

Be#ore the adoption of the Northeast Regiona# BMP mQnitoring Protocol it was diffcutt to 

examine trends in BIV[P effectiveness over time. T-he use of a consistent protocoC since 

2405 now aflows us to ektatuate trends. 

The most signifcant indicator of BMP ef#ectiveness is a decrease in the #ruenc ~r 

measurable sedimentation events over the time period of the monitoring. 

Soil Movement on Sampte Units With Stream Crosings by `Y'ear 

1 0g_ g% T — — -- 

8g.0% ~ 

6 0.0 Q/0 I ~ R 2005 n=311 

~ ■ 2006 n=380 

~~_~~~ , 

:>~.~y i p2~~07 ~ -3~ ~ 

~ C1 2005 n=345 

20.0~ 6 ~ ~ : 0 2009 n = ~ ~~ ~ 

0-01/`0 ~

soii stable soil m-oves sedirnentation sedimentation 

(does not (trace) qmieasurable~ 

reach water) 

Page4of5 
p• 5 

Deeket tD Ne. EPA-HQ-C)W-2012-0 i915 - Maine r'erest Ser-viee cemmeti-ts 

• ~; 

What are the Lessons Learned from 1mpiementing the Program? 

MFS bel;eves that Maine's experienee ~.ith BMPs hes dem^rStreted that a peluntary , 

BMP pregram with appreprieted fellew up effecti -vdness rrson-itering end underlving stete 

laws requlating sedirnentatien has praven effective €n bath protecting Maine's r►vater 

quality and hetping te keep the ferest products indastry prQduetive. Key to this hes been 

txie willin-gness te aCk-newledge that lendewners, iand menagers end leggers are mostly 

goed et whet they de e: ~ need flexibilitvir ;r„Dlementir;g BMP praetices thet ar ebeth 

apprepriete fer the site eenditienb end the be ~t fit t1heir perticular Yperatien. Prier to 

2004, when MFS re(eesed its rtew BMP manuei, trainings end guidenc¢ wes more 

preseriptive in natere (i.e. if the s6epe is X instell Y number a# weterbars). The cherige ir 

treining fecus and the nevv maneal te, "The geal is tra keep mud out of the breek, here 

are the prineiples ef vveter quelity preteetion yeu need to understand te meke vour BMP 

systerri werk, yeu eItieese from the entire tee! bex of BMP pr ectiees tQ r::ake that 

heppen," has preven very effective as ev ideneed by the deereasing rates ef 

sedimentetien seen in the BMP moniter;ng. 

What Approeches Shc,uld EPA Conaider for the Future? 

Given the flexibility that EPA has in administering atorm weter diseherges we €eet EPA 

shr`,uld uti3iLe the grantin ~ autherit6e~ it e~rreritfy has c ~r~ der Sectien ;1a ~;~ the C1ean 

Water Aet to assist state ferestry agencies in the engeing rievelepment and monitering, 

of silvicultural end ferest reed best menegement preetiees. 

At ene time theae funds -were mueh more wiaeiy aveilable te our egency en ud vvere Usect 

t4 cemplete high1~ ber~ efcial ~~ater quality preteetaer; activities, m ~=sti~ ir~ tt~e fe~rm ef ees 

~hare a~~~~tar~e~ te ~er~~~a~rr~er~ te ~m~ lement ~ra~ees. ~te~r~e e~?~t~ nues to use fur_=ds 

frer ~ the EPA ;tate revelving leen fund tc; effer ineentives threugh Ioan interest rete 

reduefiens fer the purehase ef 1egging equipmerat capable of implementing BNlPs. 

With the exeept3er= ef reve#ving lean fi3nda, in recent years tFieae funtis heve net been 

e=vaila ;4e te eny sigr;ifive ~ ~t extent end felmerat dellers te e'udress #tarest redated water 

que#ity cancerns have afl bat disappeerea. If EPA Seeka te play a greater rele in the 

futu€ e the~ ~ t iere sheuld be esignifieent fe ~,era4 ; ~ ~ uestnent in eur egency es the 

ergenizatic~~ ~ best pesifioned te deal with tViis issue. 

Thenk yQ~ ~ fer the eppQrtut?it; t- previde th4s input. 

Sinrare-ly, 

~aL4

~ 

Do~ 

Deue Deniee 

Directer, Meine Eerest Service 

Enc[esures - state 8MP publicatieris 

Page , ot 9 ~