Protecting Water Quality

through State Forestry

Best Management Practices

N AT ION A L A S SOC I AT ION OF S TAT E FOR E S T E R S

F E B R UA R Y 2 0 1 5
3

For more than 35 years,

Florida has been

monitoring forestry

operationsto determine

voluntary BMP

implementation rates.

During the last 15 years of

monitoring, Florida has

exceeded 95 percent

implementation across all

BMP categories,statewide.

In 2004 Florida

landownerswere offered

an option to voluntarily

enrolltheirlands under a

Notice ofIntent,which

providesthem with a

“presumption of

compliance”with the

state’swater quality

standards – ifthey

implement BMPs.

(Continuedtopage4)

Trees and Forestry Positively InfluenceWater Quality

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Assessment Database summarizes

sources of water quality impairment from around the country. These sources of impairment are the

activities, facilities, or conditions that generate pollutants that keep waters from meeting the criteria

adopted by the states or the EPA under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) to protect designated uses.

Of all of the sources listed (physical changes, crop production, animal production, forestry, resource

extraction, municipal/industrial, natural and unspecified/unknown), forestry accounts for significantly

less impairment than any other source. On rivers and streams, for example, forestry practices account

for only 2.9 percent of all impairment. The next lowest category of impact is“all natural sources

combined”, which is responsible for five percent of all impairment. Municipal/industrial activities

account for one quarter of all water quality impairment.

3

Many water supply districts around the country have acknowledged that when properly managed,

forested watersheds effectively reduce the cost of water purification. The cities of New York and

Portland, Oregon are two well-known examples.

Reflecting the water quality benefits associated with forest cover on the landscape and the relatively

low impact of forest management activities to our nation’s water quality, normal silvicultural activities

have been exempt from permitting requirements under the CWA since the 1970s. EPA regulations

provide exemptions for certain silviculture activities under the CWA Section 404, covering the discharge

of dredge or fill material in to waters of the United States, and Section 402, covering the discharge of a

pollutant in to waters of the United States.

More recently, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) codified silvicultural exemptions in the CWA’s

Section 402 and clarified that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not

required for any discharge associated with covered silviculture activities, including those associated

with logging roads.

Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs)

State forestry agencies developed best management practices (BMPs) starting in the 1970s. BMPs are

effective, affordable, and practical measures implemented to protect water quality when undertaking

silvicultural activities. Forestry BMPs have been evaluated, tested, revised, and adapted over time by

each state.

Forestry BMPs are inherently linked to water quality. The CWA recognizes BMPs as the most viable

pathway to address nonpoint source pollution that originates from various land management activities.

Each state implements BMP programs according to the nature of its forest industry, landowner

characteristics, ecological conditions and accepted socio-political approaches.

The overall success of a forestry BMP program depends on having a proactive approach. The aim of

state forestry agencies and our partners is to prevent water quality problems before they arise, rather

than rely solely on correcting problems once they occur. This approach has resulted in high BMP

implementation rates as described below.

2013 BMP Program Survey

This project was conducted by a team of researchers from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University (Virginia Tech). The Department of Forest Resources and Environmental Conservation team

was led by Dr. W. Mike Aust and included Dr. Chad Bolding, Dr. Scott Barrett and graduate student

Richie Cristan.

A comprehensive survey was developed in consultation with NASF and completed by all 50 states. The

original questionnaire and an interactive survey map with research findings will be made available on

the NASF website at www.stateforesters.org.

Overview

In order to provide a national-level evaluation of the effectiveness of best

management practices (BMPs), NASF conducts periodic surveys of all state

programs. This report, which incorporates data collected during 2013, is the

sixth survey of its kind. This report aims to provide justification for increased

investments of public funding and resources in these state-led programs.

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) represents the directors

of all 50 state forestry agencies in the United States, the District of Columbia

and eight territories. These agencies are responsible for directly protecting

and managing, or assisting in the protection and management of, the

nation’s state, local government and privately owned forestland. These

ownerships account for 67 percent of the forestland in the United States,

more than 500 million acres.

1

The lands under state forester jurisdictions produce myriad public

benefits—clean air and water, beauty and recreation, wildlife habitat and

wood products. Significantly, these forests filter over 50 percent of the

nation’s drinking water.

2

Activities for

which BMPs have

been developed

include:

● Harvest Planning

● Skid Trails

● Log Landings

● Log Roads

● WetlandHarvesting

● Site Preparation

● Prescribed Fire

● Reforestation

● Stream Crossings

● Streamside

Management Zones

2 3 USDA Forest Service, National Report on Sustainable Forests – 2010

1 USDA Forest Service, Future of America’s Forest and Rangelands – 2010 RPA Assessment 2 USDA Forest Service, Future of America’s Forest and Rangelands
4 5

Primary survey goals include:

● Identify which silvicultural activities are covered by BMPs

● Catalogue the approaches to BMP implementation adopted by each state and the agencies responsible

● Determine to what extent effectiveness monitoring is being carried out

● Summarize BMP implementation rates; and

● Determine the current level of budget and staffing dedicated to forest-related water quality protection

In addition, there is growing recognition of the positive interactions between levels of forest certification in a

state and the use of BMPs, so the questionnaire attempts to explore this interaction further.

The research team also prepared a comprehensive literature review of the latest research on BMP

effectiveness.

Key Findings

● State forestry agencies play a key leadership role in assuring that silvicultural practices adequately

protect water quality and quantity;

● Even though approaches to BMP implementation differ widely from state to state they are effectively

providing protection. Monitoring shows that implementation rates average 91 percent nationwide.

Acknowledging the appropriateness of diversity in BMP approaches has been one of the keys to

success;

● Forest certification programs such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) have made important

contributions to improved BMP implementation through logger training, landowner outreach, and

water quality requirements;

● BMP monitoring is recognized by agencies, researchers and the public as an important information

source about the interaction between forest management and water quality. This has increased the

demand for robust monitoring and data analysis by states. Unfortunately, the availability of federal

resources to support state BMP programs has not kept pace with the increased demands on these

programs.

State Forestry Agencies Lead in the Application of Forest-related

Water Protection Programs

All 50 states indicated that there is a state BMP manual in which the state forestry agency either led its

development or was heavily involved in its development. Forty-four states indicated that the state agency

is the lead organization for the general development and administration of BMP programs.

Kentucky and Minnesota indicated that other agencies in their states serve as the designated lead for

forestry BMP programs.

Tennessee, Nebraska, Mississippi, and Hawaii indicated that there is no designated lead for BMP programs,

though all four reported having at least some staffing and budget available in this area.

Thirty-nine agencies have conducted BMP monitoring within the last three years, but seven of those

did not report results for this survey. Thirty-three have conducted or fund BMP effectiveness research

and 18 have ongoing studies.

Updating BMP recommendations to reflect the best available science is an important aspect of state

forestry responsibilities. As a result of this ongoing study of effectiveness and the science behind BMPs,

36 states indicated that BMPs had been revised within the last 10 years.

Diverse ProgramsYield Successful Results

Nationwide, BMP implementation rates are good. Thirty-two states reported on implementation surveys

conducted between 2005 and 2013. Thirteen of those reported overall implementation at 95 percent or

better. Eight states had rates that ranged from 90 percent to 94 percent and the remaining 11 were at 80

percent and above.

(Continuedfrom page3)

Over five million acres have

been enrolled since the

inception ofthis new

program.

In 2014, Floridawasthe first

state in the South to

develop specific,forestryrelated BMPsto protect

state imperiledwildlife

species.

Thesewildlife BMPs are

voluntary, and other

government agencies are

legislatively prohibited

from adopting or enforcing

rules orregulationsthat

would impose these

practices on landowners.

BMP implementation is

highly successful

nationwide, due in large

partto states managing

theirforestry BMP

programsin away thatis

tailored to meettheir

needsin protectingwater

resources and supporting

sustainable forestry.

Non-Regulatory

4 http://www.sfiprogram.org/files/pdf/2014-sfi-progress-report-spreads/ 5 Table provided by Richie Cristan, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University graduate student who collected and analyzed the data (Continued to page 6)

Not every state conducts implementation monitoring, but most have at least some anecdotal sense as to

whether forest management activities pose a risk to water quality and an understanding of how that risk

can be mitigated. For example, the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Forestry Division does not have

the authority to conduct logging site inspections; rather it finances a robust logger training and Missouri

Master Logger Certification program in which Certified Master Loggers are subject to field audits for

implementation of BMPs.

Further analysis of the data reveals high implementation rates for such practices as logging roads,

streamside management zones, skid trails and log landings. The mean implementation rates for all of these,

regardless of whether a program was regulatory, quasi-regulatory or voluntary, was more than 87 percent.

An area showing room for improvement is stream crossings where only 14 states had implementation at

greater than 90 percent, nine were from 80 percent to 89 percent in implementation and six ranged from

67 percent to 78 percent, while three had no report on stream crossings.

Eleven additional states indicated ongoing BMP monitoring but they do not produce statistics from these

assessments. Seven other states conduct no forestry BMP monitoring. In most of those instances a relatively

minor amount of forested acres and low levels of silvicultural management might cause a state to focus its

resources on monitoring land management activities with a higher risk to water resource protection.

These implementation results were produced using a variety of approaches. Eleven states have some form

of a forest practices law or silvicultural BMP legislation. Twenty states are strictly voluntary and promote the

use of BMPs through training and education. Nineteen programs are quasi-regulatory, in that state law

specifies a desired outcome (for example, no degradation of water quality), but does not prescribe the

BMPs to be used. When comparing implementation rates among these three different approaches the

differences are not predictable.

In all scenarios, state forestry agencies report that logger training/certification programs have proven to be

a key element in strengthening the acceptance, adoption, and use of forestry BMPs. Much of the logger

training in the last 10 years is directly tied to the increased adoption of independent forest certification

programs, to which many of the large forest products manufacturing companies subscribe. The SFI

Standards in particular require the use of trained logging professionals and require Program Participants to

support logger training programs. In fact, through the end of 2013, more than 150,000 loggers have

completed training programs offered through SFI Implementation Committees.

4 Based on the results of the

SFI annual progress report survey conducted in 2013, data which is third-party audited, over 92 percent of

raw material used by SFI Certified Program Participants was delivered by trained logging professionals.

These tables compare states that are“quasi-regulatory”,“non-regulatory”, and

“regulatory”showing the percent of implementation results generated for some ofthe

most common BMPs.

5 All states that provided data are shown in the table and the states

that were unable to contribute are listed atthe bottom of each subsection:
6 7

The level of forest industry activity, ownership patterns, ecological conditions and the cultural

background that shapes each state’s preferred approaches to governance vary widely across the

country. For example, Oregon’s comprehensive Forest Practices Act requires notification of harvest and

the use of prescribed BMPs, but not the approval of harvest plans which California’s Forest Practice Act

does require. West Virginia’s law requires notification. Tennessee’s does not, but it identifies harvest areas

and has conducted implementation monitoring four times since 1996.

The Link Between Forest Certification and State Programs

The National Association of State Foresters recognizes forest certification as making positive

contributions to sustainable forestry, as noted in a resolution passed by the full membership in 2013.

6

In states with a significant forest industry presence, the interaction between forest certification and the

implementation and continued development of BMPs has been positive. Forest certification requires

BMPs to be followed and businesses be third-party audited to verify their conformance to the standard.

The SFI Fiber Sourcing Program specifically requires a primary producer, such as a sawmill or pulpmill, to

verify that the sawlogs or pulpwood utilized by their facility have been harvested with use of state

adopted BMPs, regardless of whether they come from certified lands, and regardless of whether those

BMPs would otherwise be voluntary in that state. This has been an important driver in the growth of

logger training and landowner outreach efforts that have improved BMP implementation, which

ultimately contributes to improved water quality.

The Interaction Between Federal Lands and State Programs

In 2012 the USDA Forest Service published the technical guide“National Best Management Practices for

Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands.” 7 The Forest Service has a long history of

working with states and other partners to use and monitor BMPs. Local agency practice is to generally adopt

the BMPs for the state in which the National Forest System land is located. However, with the reduction of

timber harvests from National Forests, the greatest risk to water resources is from a lack of funding for

ongoing road or trail closure and maintenance, and risks from effects of uncharacteristically severe wildfires

that expose wide expanses of bare soil which can become hydrophobic and accelerate erosion thereby

negatively impacting water quality.

8

Baseline Funding for State Programs IsNot Keeping Pace with

Needs, Expectations and Opportunities

Many state forestry BMP programs were initiated and continue to be sustained through the use of federal

funds provided by the EPA as authorized under Clean Water Act Section 319. For example, in the 13-state

Southern Region, there are eight states that rely upon the 319 Grant Program to sustain forestry BMP

program delivery.

9 In 2003, Title III of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act authorized a Watershed Forestry

Assistance Program that would have been available to state forestry agencies. Unfortunately the authority

was never funded as a result of redirecting funds to support wildfire control efforts, and the program was

deauthorized in the 2014 Farm Bill.

Beyond the declining availability of 319 Grant funds, and lack of a direct funding pathway from the USDA

Forest Service to support water-related programs, the individual states must bear the costs for delivering

BMP programs. USDA Forest Service funds for landowner assistance are provided under the Forest

Stewardship Program. Assistance can include technical information about BMPs, but usually covers other

forest management activities.

Funding of the Forest Stewardship Program has been reduced by more than 30 percent over the past four

years from $32.5M in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to $22.4M in FY 2014. Likewise, the Urban and Community Forestry

Program could have positive impacts on protecting water quality through the promotion of green

infrastructure in urban and suburban landscapes. That program also struggles to maintain an adequate

federal appropriation.

The availability of state forestry agency personnel devoted to BMP programs is also concerning, as states

continue to be challenged to“do more with less”when it comes to delivering forestry services to

landowners. As an example, in the 13-state Southern Region, the state forestry agencies reported 53 full-time

equivalents (FTEs) devoted exclusively to BMPs or water quality program delivery.

These states also reported that an additional 29 FTEs would be needed to more effectively deliver BMP and

water quality services to customers. Considering that the Southern Region contains more than 200 million

acres of the nation’s forests, a strong case could be made that a higher level of personnel who are engaged

solely with BMP and water resource protection programs would prove beneficial, not only in the Southern

Region, but across the major forested areas of the United States.

As with federal budgets, state budgets have seen consistent recent declines making it difficult for states to

maintain the core elements of water resources programs capable of addressing the interests of stakeholders

across the spectrum. Stakeholders want assurance that BMP programs achieve outcomes that best serve

beneficial uses whether they are:

● Aquatic biological resources;

● Recreational resources; or

● Drinking water quality and quantity

Participants in forest certification programs rely on up-to-date implementation monitoring to validate that

their promotion of BMPs is successful. The EPA continues to grapple with legal questions that need sound

scientific input as well as a clear picture of the extent and efficacy of state forestry water resource programs.

The MissouriDepartment of

Conservation’sDivision of

Forestry began funding

loggertraining through the

Missouri Forest Products

Association in the early

1990’s.

Early on they recognized

that properly trained

loggers can be a key to

implementingwater quality

best management practices

during tree harvest.

(Continued to page 7)

(Continuedfrom page6)

Since thattime nearly

100 five-day

“Professional Timber

Harvester” courses have

trained nearly 1000

loggers. This

commitmentto

professionalism led to

the creation ofthe

Missouri Logging

Council and Master

Logger Certification.

To be certified loggers

agree to random field

auditswhere the

implementation of best

management practices

is verified, giving the

goal ofwater quality

protection an extra set

of eyesin thewoods.

7 USDA Forest Service Publication Number FS-990a, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands.

Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guidance, April 2012. 8 Washington Department of Ecology, Washington State and USDA Forest Service’s Forest Management Agreement, Focus Number 00-10-048, November, 2000 9 Southern Group of State Foresters, Water Resources Committee, Water Quality Staff Funding Survey Report, 2010

Quasi-Regulatory

Regulatory

(Continued from page 5)

6 http://www.stateforesters.org/sites/default/files/publication-documents/2013-2%20NASF%20Resolution%20Forest%20Certification.pdf

National
Credits

Written by theNational

Association of State

Foresters(NASF)in

collaborationwithVirginia

Polytechnic Institute and

StateUniversity

Funded byNASF,theUSDA

Forest Service and the

Sustainable Forestry

Initiative, Inc.’s

Conservation and

Community Partnerships

Grant Program

Photography byNASF

Foundation fellowLeslie

Robertson

Recommendations

There is a clear need and significant justification for increasing federal dollars in support of state

forestry water resources programs.

Key elements of a forest water resources program include:

● A lead watershed specialist;

● Up-to-date BMP implementation monitoring covering the states’comprehensive set of

forest operations and conditions;

● Ongoing BMP effectiveness research;

● Periodic assessments of the health and condition of riparian forests;

● A program component dealing with urban forests and water;

● Functional Institutions for coordination between the various agencies and stakeholder

groups with an interest in forest-related water resource issues;

● Formalized education and training for landowners, loggers and resource managers;

● A process for receiving and responding to complaints and resolving conflicts.

Many states have a BMP program in place that includes most of these elements, and all states need

additional resources to ensure that they adequately address the full range of key elements.

In addition, there is a compelling case for more support of national level cooperative efforts among

the 50 states to work on such needs as:

● More regular implementation of the national BMP survey

● Establishment of principles that can be used in the development of monitoring protocols.

The most logical programs for providing these funds are Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and/or

through a dedicated funding pathway from the State & Private Forestry/Cooperative Forestry

Programs of the USDA Forest Service. However, states must remain vigilant in seeking state-allocated

funds and other non-traditional funding opportunities to support forestry BMP programs,

monitoring, studies, training, and overall program services.

Actions

The National Association of State Foresters calls on partners, stakeholders,

and decision-makers to:

● Recognize the importance of forests to the nation’s supply of clean water and the

critical role of sustainable forest management in ensuring the continued delivery of

all benefits derived from forests;

● Understand that state forestry agency BMP programs are vital to the continued

ability of forests to serve as the nation’s source of clean water, and that these

programs are tailored to meet society’s needs for sustainable sources of fiber, wood

and renewable energy fuels;

● Acknowledge that substantial federal investments are warranted to address the

ongoing interests of stakeholders and water users, and to deliver the best possible

set of protection measures; and

● Help states achieve an adequate federal commitment and investment that will

ensure the quality and quantity of the nation’s water supply now and for all future

8 generations.

SFI-00001