soils & hydrology

Montana’s Forestry Best Management

Practices Program: 20 Years of

Continuous Improvement

Brian D. Sugden, Robert Ethridge, George Mathieus,

Patrick E.W. Heffernan, Gary Frank, and Gordy Sanders

Under the federal Clean Water Act, states have developed nonpoint source control programs for forestry that

range from voluntary to regulatory approaches. Nationally, management of runoff from forest roads is currently

under scrutiny by courts, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and Congress. This article describes Montana’s

“blended” program of voluntary forestry best management practices (BMP) for roads and upland practices, and

a Streamside Management Zone Act, which regulates operations near streams. Biennial audits over the past 20

years have shown continuous improvement, with BMP implementation rates increasing from 78% in 1990 to 97%

in 2010. Observed water quality impacts have declined from an average of eight per harvest site in 1990 to

less than one in 2010. Activities and culture that have promoted an effective program include regular compliance

monitoring, customized landowner and logger education programs, strong buy-in from the forestry community,

and program coordination by a statewide stakeholder group.

Keywords: water quality, best management practices, BMP, nonpoint source, stormwater

I

n the 40 years since passage of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), states

have taken a variety of approaches to

address water quality impacts from forestry

activities (Ice et al. 2010). The amendments

to the CWA in 1987 added Section 319,

which required states to assess what categories of nonpoint sources were most important and develop effective control strategies.

It was left to states to decide if regulatory or

nonregulatory (i.e., voluntary) approaches

would be adopted. Nationally, 16 states

have adopted programs that are regulatory,

22 have nonregulatory approaches, and the

remainder have elements of both, which

could be termed “blended” or “quasi-regulatory” (Schilling et al. 2009).

Currently, forest roads are under scrutiny by courts, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and Congress as

to whether they should be reclassified as

point sources, because some roads have

ditches and other runoff control measures

that discharge pollutants to waters of the

United States. This is in response to a Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Northwest Environmental Defense Center versus

Brown (Ninth Circuit 2011). If the Ninth

Circuit decision stands and there are no statutory or administrative remedies enacted,

landowners and loggers may be required to

obtain stormwater discharge permits for

roads from USEPA or states under Section

402 of the CWA (USEPA 2012). For most

states, movement to a fully regulatory permit-based approach to forest road management would be a significant departure in

how forest roads have been managed for decades under established best management

practice (BMP) programs. Montana has experiences with both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to forest water quality

protection that can inform the current national dialogue over classification and regulation of runoff from forest roads.

During the 1970s and 1980s, there was

significant pressure by environmental interReceived April 11, 2012; accepted June 18, 2012; published online June 28, 2012.

Affiliations: Brian D. Sugden (brian.sugden@plumcreek.com) is forest hydrologist, Plum Creek Timber Company, PO Box 1990, 500 12th Avenue West, Columbia

Falls, MT 59912. Robert Ethridge (rethridge@mt.gov) is chief, Forestry Assistance Bureau, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705

Spurgin Road, Missoula, MT 59804. George Mathieus (gemathieus@mt.gov) is administrator, Planning, Prevention and Assistance Division, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, 1520 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620-0901. Patrick E.W. Heffernan (patrick@pafti.com) is president, PAFTI, Inc, PO Box

190161, Hungry Horse, MT 59919. Gary Frank (gfrank@mt.gov) is resource management supervisor, Forest Management Bureau, Montana Department of

Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula, MT 59804. Gordy Sanders (gsanders@pyramidlumber.com) is resource manager, Pyramid

Mountain Lumber, Inc, 379 Boy Scout Road, Seeley Lake, MT 59868.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank the many individuals in Montana that have helped make the state BMP program a success over the years. This includes those

involved with BMP education, biennial audit team members, state service foresters, landowners, logging professionals, and the members of the state BMP Working

Group. They also thank Dr. George Ice for a helpful review of an early draft of this article.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

328 Journal of Forestry • September 2012

J. For. 110(6):328–336

http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.12-029

Copyright © 2012 Society of American Foresters
est groups to regulate forest practices in

Montana. Over several legislative sessions,

bills were introduced to enact a comprehensive state forest practice act modeled after

other western states. The 1987 amendments

to the CWA requiring nonpoint source

planning added a further impetus. Although

comprehensive forest practices legislation

was never enacted, the 1987 Montana legislature passed House Joint Resolution (HJR)

49, which mandated a study of logging

practices on water quality. The results of

this study (Montana Environmental Quality

Council 1988) led to the adoption of several

targeted laws and voluntary programs to improve implementation of forestry BMPs in

Montana. These included (1) formation of

a multistakeholder BMP Working Group

coordinated by the Montana Department

of Natural Resources and Conservation

(DNRC) in 1988, (2) development of a consistent set of voluntary BMPs for Montana

in 1989, (3) adoption of a state Streamside

Management Zone (SMZ) Act in 1991 that

regulated timber harvest and other activities

in a 50- to 100-ft zone on each side of

streams (Montana Code Annotated [MCA]

77-5-301), (4) adoption of a state law in

1989 requiring landowners to notify DNRC

in advance of conducting forest practices

(MCA 76-13-420), and (5) legislative direction for DNRC to coordinate monitoring

of BMP implementation, with biennial reports to the Environmental Quality Council

(EQC) of the state legislature.

Montana’s blended program of regulatory and nonregulatory approaches has been

largely unaltered since 1991. This article

presents results and lessons learned over 20

years of implementing the program.

Montana Forestry BMP Program

Montana’s forestry BMPs were formally adopted in 1989 and are the consensus

product of a BMP technical committee

formed during the HJR 49 study. The

BMPs comprise over 100 individual practices related to road and timber harvest planning and design; road and skid trail drainage, construction, and maintenance; slash

disposal and site preparation; stream crossings; and more (Montana DNRC 2011).

The 1988 EQC report designated

DNRC as the lead agency to develop educational programs for landowners and loggers,

monitor BMP implementation, and work

with landowners on adapting the BMPs over

time. To enable stakeholder collaboration

on these activities, a working group was created and facilitated by DNRC. The BMP

Working Group today includes approximately 25 participants from state and federal

public land-management agencies, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, industrial forest landowners, conservation organizations, private landowners and

landowner groups, Montana State University (MSU) Extension Forestry Service, the

Montana Wood Products Association, and

the Montana Logging Association (MLA).

The Working Group provides oversight of

audits, approves modifications to the state

BMPs, and makes recommendations on

logger and landowner education programs.

There are no defined terms for participants,

and new organizations and individuals that

have expressed interest in the group have

been welcomed by DNRC and others.

Methods

Audits are conducted every other year

and cover all forested regions of Montana,

including federal and nonfederal lands. To

qualify for the state BMP audit, harvest units

must have been logged in the previous 3

years, undergone at least one spring runoff

cycle, and meet several minimum criteria

(Ziesak 2010). These include a harvest area

of 5 ac or more, the harvest must be conducted within 200 ft of a stream (or contains

an access road that crosses a stream), and

must have a minimum average timber volume removal per acre (currently 3,000 bd

ft/ac in western Montana and 1,500 bd ft/ac

in eastern Montana). The purpose of the

minimum criteria is to focus the audit on

sites that have a greater potential to impact

water quality (USEPA 1997). During the

winter preceding an audit year, public landmanagement agencies and industrial private

landowners provide DNRC a list of all sites

that meet the selection criteria. Qualifying

nonindustrial private harvest sites are identified by DNRC based on site criteria contained in harvest notifications.

Harvest units meeting the minimum

selection criteria are stratified by ownership

category and region. Ownership categories

include federal (US Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management), state, nonindustrial private, and industrial private.

Regions include Northwest, West, and Central–Eastern (Ziesak 2010). Within these

strata, the population is ranked for site attributes, including new road construction or

reconstruction, harvest within an SMZ, and

new stream crossings installations. Sample

sites are distributed across ownerships and

regions in approximate proportion to the

statewide harvest. A systematic sample is

randomly generated, with a higher sample

intensity of sites with more site attributes.

The intent of this is to achieve a good distribution of sample sites across the state in proportion to ownership category and amount

of harvest and maximize the number of

BMPs evaluated at a given site (USEPA

1997). The number of audit sites statewide

has averaged 44 since 1990 and ranged from

39 to 47 in any given audit year. Table 1

shows the distribution of sample sites by

ownership category by year. This sample of

harvest sites represents 1–3% of the statewide total and up to 5% of higher-risk sites.

Management and Policy Implications

States currently have wide latitude in how they address water quality impacts from forestry activities under

the federal CWA. There is intense debate underway about whether runoff from forest roads should be

more tightly regulated. Should this change occur, it is expected to have significant implications on the

forestry sector. This article describes 20-year results of Montana’s program of voluntary BMPs for roads

and upland harvest activities and a regulatory SMZ Act. Montana’s experience shows that a cost-effective

voluntary program, if properly constructed and implemented, can dramatically reduce water quality

impacts and achieve compliance rates that are comparable with states with fully regulatory programs.

Table 1. Number of audit sites by ownership category for each audit year.

Ownership 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

State 55555554566

Federal 16 16 14 12 12 9 5 9 5 8 16

Industrial private 16 16 14 14 18 18 21 19 22 17 15

Nonindustrial private 7 9 13 13 12 10 12 7 12 11 8

Total 44 46 46 44 47 42 43 39 44 42 45

Journal of Forestry • September 2012 329
Three audit teams are organized to conduct harvest site inspections, with each assigned a geographic region. Teams are comprised of experts from seven disciplines:

forestry, engineering, hydrology, soils, fisheries, conservation, and a logger or nonindustrial private landowner. Team members

volunteer from state and federal agencies,

landowners, consulting firms, and nonprofit

organizations. For many positions, an alternate team member is also designated. A

small stipend is available for volunteers

not supported by an employer. Counting alternates, statewide participation on teams is

about 50 people.

Not all of Montana’s BMPs are likely to

affect water quality or are applicable during a

postharvest review. A total of 50 individual

practices contained in the BMPs are audited

by teams in the field. These include practices

rated to road planning, location and design

(8 BMPs), road construction and drainage

(13 BMPs), road maintenance (5 BMPs),

timber harvest design (3 BMPs), harvest skid

trails and landings (5 BMPs), slash treatment and site preparation (5 BMPs), and 11

BMPs related to stream crossing design and

installation. Rated and reported on separately are 13 practices related to the state

SMZ law. In reviewing each site, the team

observes any erosion rills or gullies, sediment

plumes or pathways, and any road cut slope

sloughing. For each individual practice, a

rating is made for both application and effectiveness on a scale of 1 to 5 (Ehinger and

Potts 1990). If a BMP is fully met, an application rating of 4 is given. Operations exceeding the required BMP are given a rating

of 5. Departures from BMP application

range from 3 to 1, depending on severity

(Table 2).

BMP effectiveness is rated based on observed erosion and downslope sediment

movement (Table 3). An effectiveness rating

of 4 indicates the BMP was effective at controlling impacts (e.g., surface erosion, downslope sediment movement, and more). A

rating of 5 indicates improved protection of

soil and water resources over preproject conditions. Effectiveness ratings of 3 and lower

correspond to varying levels of duration and

impact to soil and water resources. Ratings

of 3 or lower are reported as not effective.

This approach is believed to be conservative,

in that a small amount of sediment delivery

is treated the same as a large volume of delivery.

Before each audit cycle, a quality control calibration meeting is held in which all

teams participate (Figure 1). The objectives

of this session are to orient new members to

the process, calibrate the teams to rate practices consistently, discuss important interpretation issues, and visit a field site that can

generate discussion among teams. A postaudit meeting of team members is also held to

discuss any unusual situations or consistency

questions encountered during the audit.

These points are discussed among the teams

and have resulted in adjustments to ratings.

Audits are conducted in July and early

August, and individual teams typically visit

two harvest sites in a day. Audits are attended by the landowner or landowner representative and often by the operation forester and logger. Before coming onto the

site, the team discusses whether the entire

harvest area, SMZ, and road network can be

inspected in the allowable time frame of 2–3

hours. If the area is too large to be visited

entirely, a subsample of the site will be inspected. In these cases the teams identify

higher-risk portions of harvest units and

road systems to inspect based on a map review. The audit team walks (and drives) the

site as a group (Figure 2), inspecting road

drainage and erosion control on new or reconstructed roads, stream crossings, skid

Figure 1. BMP teams inspect road drainage and erosion control on a bridge approach

during a calibration exercise before the 2004 audit. (Photo provided by Brian Sugden.)

Table 2. Definitions for BMP and SMZ

application ratings.

Application

rating Definition

5 Operation exceeds requirements of BMPs

4 Operation meets requirements of BMPs

3 Minor departure from intent of BMPs

2 Major departure from intent of BMPs

1 Gross neglect of BMPs

Table 3. Definitions for BMP and SMZ effectiveness ratings.

Effectiveness rating Definition

5 Improved protection of soil and water resources over preproject condition

4 Adequate protection of soil and water resources

3 Minor and temporary impacts on soil and water resources

2 Major and temporary or minor and prolonged impacts on soil and water resources

1 Major and prolonged impacts on soil and water resources

Adequate, small amounts of material eroded; material does not reach draws, channels, or floodplain.

Minor, some material erodes and is delivered to draws but not to stream.

Major, material erodes and is delivered to stream or annual floodplain.

Temporary, impacts lasting 1 year or less; no more than one runoff season.

Prolonged, impacts lasting 1 year or more.

330 Journal of Forestry • September 2012
trails, landings, SMZs, and more. The intensity of the survey is variable and depends on

the size of the harvest area and allowable

time. Where available, teams typically inspect several miles of access road, three to

five stream crossings, a quarter mile of SMZ,

and several skid trails and landings. During

the site inspection, BMP concerns are discussed by the team along the way. Some limited measurements are made, such as soil

type, average slope, SMZ width, stream

width and classification, number dimensions of any erosion features, and fish passage parameters at culverts. The audit concludes by rating and recording all applicable

BMPs on the audit form in the presence of

the landowner, logger, and any other observers. Audit scores are determined using a

consensus process but will be resolved with

a majority vote if consensus can not be

reached. The landowner being audited is allowed to answer questions of the team but

otherwise reserves comment until the audit

is completed. Other observers are encouraged to attend.

Key metrics generated from the audit

are the percentage of individual rated practices that meet or exceed BMP requirements, the percentage of practices that provide adequate or improved protection of soil

and water resources, and the observed water

quality “impacts” per site, which are defined

as BMP effectiveness ratings of 1, 2, or 3.

Results are reported by ownership category.

Results

Eleven audits have been held in Montana since 1990 (on even-numbered years)

with results published before the biennial

state legislative session. Audit reports have

been prepared by Schultz (1990, 1992),

Frank (1994), Mathieus (1996), Fortunate

et al. (1998), Ethridge and Heffernan

(2000), Ethridge (2002, 2004), Rogers

(2006a), and Ziesak (2008, 2010). The

most recent monitoring report and executive summary is posted on the DNRC website (Ziesak 2010).

Statewide BMP application rates (i.e.,

the percentage of total practices rated statewide that met or exceeded BMP requirements) increased from 78% in 1990 to 97%

in 2010 (Figure 3, blue bars). Most of this

improvement came in the 1990s, and results

have been maintained at a high level over the

past 10 years. Improvement in BMP application rates have been observed across all

ownership categories (Figure 4).

In the vast majority of cases, if BMPs

are applied properly they are also found to be

effective at controlling rill or gully erosion

and sediment delivery to streams (Figure 3,

green bars). As such, the trend in effectiveness rates mirrors that for application, although the effectiveness rating is slightly

higher. In some cases, impacts are not observed even if BMPs have not been fully applied (i.e., rating of a 3 on application and a

4 on effectiveness). An example of this is inadequate application of road draining BMPs

where sediment deposits on the hillslope

below the road and does not enter a nearby

stream. In only rare circumstances in MonFigure 2. West audit team inspecting a SMZ and harvest in 2008. (Photo provided by Brian

Sugden.)

Figure 3. Percentage of rated BMPs that met or exceeded requirements across Montana

(blue bars), and the percentage of rated BMPs determined to provide adequate or improved

protection of soil and water resources (green bars).

Journal of Forestry • September 2012 331
tana is a BMP practice met but found to be

ineffective at preventing impacts (i.e., rating

of 4 on application but a 2 or 3 on effectiveness). When encountered, these become a

continuing improvement discussion item by

audit teams and the BMP Working Group.

We note, however, that our effectiveness observations represent postharvest impacts after one to three runoff seasons, so sites may

not have been subjected to large stressing

storms. Longer-term effectiveness was validated during the 1998 audit and is discussed

later in the article. The average number of

observed impacts per site (BMP effectiveness ratings of 3, 2, or 1) has declined ninefold between 1990 and 2010 (Figure 5).

Rates of SMZ law implementation during the period 2000–2010 (Figure 6) are

about a percentage point higher than the

voluntary BMP application rate during this

period. Seventy percent of SMZ departures

are rated as minor and are usually related to

improper SMZ boundary marking and/or

minor equipment encroachment into the

SMZ.

Discussion

After adoption of forestry BMPs in

1989, DNRC collaborated with the MLA

and MSU Extension Forestry to develop education programs for landowners, loggers,

and foresters. In 1990, classroom BMP sessions for loggers were initiated, with instruction provided by DNRC and MLA staff. In

addition, since 1995, more detailed BMP/

SMZ workshops (with both classroom and

Figure 4. Percentage of rated BMPs that met or exceeded requirements by ownership category.

Figure 5. The average number of observed impacts per audit site.

332 Journal of Forestry • September 2012
field instruction) have been held annually

across Montana (typically five to nine towns

and cities). At about this same time, industrial landowners began requiring foresters

and contractors to attend workshops, and

the MLA developed its Accredited Logging

Professional (ALP) program. To date, BMP/

SMZ training workshops have reached a cumulative audience of approximately 3,500

people. The BMP audit results have proven

helpful in focusing logger education efforts

over time.

MSU Extension Forestry developed a

forest stewardship program targeting nonindustrial private landowners. This program

teaches landowners about forestry and other

natural resources and is completed when a

landowner develops a stewardship plan for

their property. Between 1991 and 2011,

there were 136 forest stewardship workshops held, with 3,189 participants. The

program has yielded 2,054 stewardship plans

encompassing 1.1 million ac (Cindy Bertek,

pers. comm., MSU Extension Forestry,

Mar. 15, 2012). Education has evolved even

further over the past 10 years with the ongoing development of the ALP program and

requirements for logger training and BMP/

SMZ implementation under the Sustainable

Forestry Initiative and other forest certification programs.

Easy to understand education materials

have been developed and are central to all

training workshops. Color booklets containing photographs and other illustrations to

better communicate BMPs to landowners

and loggers were published (Logan and

Clinch 1991, Logan 2001). DNRC also developed color guides to the SMZ law and

rules (Fortunate 1994, Rogers 2006b).

BMP implementation rates today are

uniformly high but vary among ownership

categories (Figure 4). State and industrial

private lands have reached a very high level

of compliance, averaging 98% over the past

five audit cycles dating back to 2002. This is

significantly higher (P  0.05) than federal

and nonindustrial private ownership categories during this time frame. On average, audits on these ownerships observe less than

one BMP departure per site, and these are

typically minor.

BMP application rates on nonindustrial private lands have improved by 36 percentage points since 1990 (averaging 93%

since 2002). This represents the largest increase of any ownership category. This improvement is attributed to several factors.

Montana DNRC provides educational materials to nonindustrial private landowners

on notification of forest practices and makes

DNRC service foresters available for landowner assistance. However, it is challenging

to achieve very high rates of compliance on

nonindustrial private ownerships that may

only harvest timber once every 20 years.

There is also a constant influx of new private

landowners that may have not had any exposure to previous forest management or

training. Finally, nonindustrial private landowners do not necessarily have the technical

resources that agencies and timber companies have. Audit teams must obtain permission from nonindustrial private owners to

come onto their property to perform the review, and there have been instances that permission has not been granted. In many cases

this is simply because an absentee landowner

can not be on site during the audit time

frame. But there is occasionally resistance

to providing access. DNRC has worked

through this by using the log purchaser, consulting forester, or contract logger as a liaison to allay concerns. We estimate that audit

teams have not been able to visit 25% of

selected nonindustrial private sample sites

over the past 20 years. Overall, we believe

this has had a minimal effect on results from

this ownership category, but it is an uncertainty.

BMP application rates on federal lands

have improved by ten percentage points over

the 20-year period (averaging 94% since

2002) but slightly lag application rates observed on state and industrial private ownerships. The reason for this has been extensively discussed by audit team members over

the years. The authors believe there are a

number of contributing factors, including

initial resistance by engineers to lower-standard and lower-impact roads, different people being involved in different phases of the

project (e.g., harvest unit layout, roads, contracting, administration, and reforestation,

to name a few), and a timing disconnect between available funding for road BMP upgrades and timber harvest projects. State and

industrial private harvests are typically the

responsibility of a single person who sees the

project through the entire process, from

conception to implementation. This increases ownership, accountability, and clear

communication on the project.

These results are believed to be reflective of BMP application rates across Montana. The minimum site selection criteria

have been set at levels where at least onethird of the harvest area in Montana is eligible for the audit. The sites that do not meet

the minimum criteria represent a lower risk

to water quality, because there is either no

harvest close to streams or low timber volume per acre removed. Our experience

Figure 6. Percentage of rated SMZ practices that met or exceeded SMZ regulations across

Montana (blue bars), and the percentage of rated SMZ practices determined to provide

adequate protection of soil and water resources (green bars). SMZ effectiveness was not

compiled in audit reports before 2000.

Journal of Forestry • September 2012 333
suggests that BMP application rates on nonqualifying lands are not appreciably different from what has been measured at qualifying sites.

A key factor in the success of Montana’s

audit program has been continuity of audit

team member participation over time. Average tenure for team membership is more

than five audit cycles (10 years), and several

have participated for the entire 20 years. Because of this continued participation and

teams having learned to work together,

group consensus is reached in the vast majority of ratings. Only a few scores each year

come down to a vote. It is also a fairly manageable program for people to commit time

to. Team member involvement is capped at

10 days biennially, and in some cases, this

time is divided with an alternate. There has

been a declining trend in involvement

among conservation/environmental interests in the state BMP program, both at the

working group level and as participants on

audit teams. In the most recent cycle, conservation representative slots were vacant on

two of three teams despite recruiting efforts

by DNRC. The reason for this lack of recent

participation is unknown.

Montana’s observational approach for

evaluating BMP effectiveness does not physically measure water quality or biological

response to timber harvest. However, it is

believed to be a valid way to evaluate environmental success of the program, particularly with regard to impacts such as erosion and sediment delivery to streams. In a

study in northeast Washington State, Corner et al. (1996) were able to detect sediment

delivery from timber harvest operations using observational approaches that was not

measurable with instream sampling. An observational approach was used by Litschert

and MacDonald (2009) in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Mountains of northern

California. They inspected skid trails on 200

recent harvest units and found six instances

of hillslope rills delivering sediment to

streams (several where BMPs were not fully

applied). Rivenbark and Jackson (2004) also

used observational methods to determine

locations where concentrated flow paths

moved across SMZs and delivered to

streams. Advantages of this approach include timely information, cost-effectiveness,

and providing direct feedback on effectiveness of specific practices. A disadvantage is

that erosion features and sediment movement are dependent on the occurrence of

testing storms, and some observations are

transient, such as road surface erosion features that may be masked by recent road

grading. Although we believe the observational approach is powerful, it is important

to complement these with instream monitoring projects to get a full picture of BMP

effectiveness. These research efforts are underway across the United States to validate

instream effectiveness of BMP and streamside practices (Ice and Schilling 2012). This

includes research and monitoring undertaken in Montana in support of fisheries

Habitat Conservation Plans (Plum Creek

2000, Montana DNRC 2012).

The BMP audit program has also created an opportunity for supplemental questions to be asked regarding the BMP program. In 1996, e.g., fisheries biologists

involved with bull trout restoration in Montana asked the BMP Working Group if

BMPs were effective over time (i.e., beyond

our 2-year audit window). This was evaluated during the 1998 audit (Fortunate et al.

1998) by revisiting 11 sites previously assessed during the 1994 or 1996 audit cycles.

These revisits found that BMPs were durable and effective over time when properly

designed and implemented. Another supplemental question implemented in 2000

related to road BMP improvements that

landowners were making in conjunction

with projects. The supplemental question

asked, “Did the project include improvements to the existing road system that reduced overall sediment delivery to streams?”

This question was asked on 244 harvest

units between 2000 and 2010 and was answered “yes” for 161 harvests (66%). The

implication is that there is extensive watershed restoration being undertaken in conjunction with ongoing management. The

percentage of harvests with “yes” to this

question has declined in recent audit cycles

because landowners have already upgraded

much of the older road network to modern

BMP guidelines. More recently, the BMP

Working Group and a fish passage subcommittee developed an approach to evaluate

fish passage at new stream crossing installations. The method needed to be easily incorporated into audits but yield reliable results.

A fish passage “questionnaire” was pilot

tested during the 2004 and 2006 audits. To

allow time for landowner and logger education, it was not formally included in the

BMP audits until the 2010 cycle.

The Montana Legislative Audit Division reviewed the BMP program during the

2006 audits (Montana Legislative Audit Division 2007). The conclusions of the report

were as follows:

1. Partnerships and education have enhanced the implementation of sound forest practices.

2. Onsite inspections of forest practices and

landowner consultations help compliance with BMPs.

3. BMP audits are an essential component

for DNRC to evaluate if forest practices

were conducted responsibly.

4. Voluntary BMPs are used in a high percentage of time near water.

5. Use of BMPs to protect water is part of

forest practices culture.

6. Montana’s current process of regulating

forest practices, via a mostly voluntary

process, appears to be achieving similar

results in protecting water resources as

states using a more regulation-oriented

structure.

The report had one recommendation,

which was to “... expand BMP audit selection criteria prior to the 2008 BMP audit

cycle to audit/monitor a broader spectrum

of timber harvest sites.” The BMP Working

Group had mixed feelings about this. Although it would be good to have a more

complete assessment of BMP implementation across a wider range of sites, limited

audit resources suggest choosing sites with

streamside harvesting and other risk factors.

The BMP Working Group resolved this by

changing the selection process to require

that two-thirds of audit sites are pulled from

a higher-risk selection pool and one-third

be pulled from a lower-risk pool. These

changes were incorporated into the 2010 audit cycle.

The national average BMP implementation rate (weighted by state timber harvest

volume as a percentage of the national total)

is 89% (Ice et al. 2010). Montana’s

“blended” program has achieved an average

voluntary BMP implementation rate of

96% over the past 10 years and an average

regulatory SMZ application rate of 97%

during this period. As reported by Ice et al.

(2010), Montana’s BMP implementation

rate is very similar to compliance rates observed in other western states with comprehensive forest practices acts, including Idaho

(96%), Oregon (96%), and California

(94%). In addition, Montana’s rate is higher

than Washington (80%) and Alaska (89%).

It is noted that caution must be exercised

334 Journal of Forestry • September 2012
when comparing results among states, because monitoring methods differ.

The cost of the biennial monitoring

program for the state of Montana is not substantial. Because of the strongly volunteer

nature of the program, the DNRC role

largely involves logistics and reporting. No

full-time employees have been added to implement this program. It is estimated that

one employee focuses about 4 months of

scattered time over a 2-year period to coordinate the audit and that the cost for team

member stipends and travel during the audits is approximately $6,000.

Montana DNRC has 16 service foresters dedicated to landowner assistance and

forest practices implementation, with a

recent statewide timber harvest of

197,903,000 ft3 (Smith et al. 2009). Much

of this service forester time is spent with

nonindustrial private landowners answering

questions about BMPs, SMZs, and slash fire

hazard abatement and providing technical

assistance to landowners in the management

of their forests. No more than 10% of each

service forester’s time is directly tied to the

BMP program.

MLA and DNRC staff teaching BMP/

SMZ workshops have emphasized the opportunity to embrace BMPs on voluntary

terms, and the commonsense approach the

state has developed has resonated with loggers and landowners. However, cultural

change truly came when BMP implementation became a source of pride among loggers, and there was a “specter of defame”

for noncompliance. With this culture shift

and a strong commitment to environmental

compliance by landowners, Montana’s voluntary BMPs are not really viewed as discretional today.

Montana’s program has served as a

model both nationally and internationally.

Our user-friendly color BMP booklet was

among the first of its type in the country and

was the model used by several other states. A

Spanish language version was developed for

the country of Chile. Our program has also

caught the interest of the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), which is an organization working toward forestland tenure and

policy reforms in developing countries. For

the past 2 years, the RRI has convened a

5-day workshop titled “Rethinking Forest

Regulation” at the University of Montana’s

Lubrecht Experimental Forest. The purpose

of this project is for Montana to share its

experiences in voluntary forestry BMPs, logger training, auditing, forest stewardship,

and more. This workshop has been attended

by individuals from throughout the world.

The experience of Montana’s blended

program of voluntary and regulatory practices designed to protect water quality is particularly pertinent as the courts, USEPA,

and Congress consider the classification of

forest roads as point or nonpoint sources of

pollution under the CWA. This classification could affect program approaches used

to protect water quality. Forest road networks are extensive and may have regular or

only periodic use. Practical approaches, such

as effective BMPs with high implementation

rates, and visual audit methods that provide

affordable assessments of water quality protection, will need to be part of any forest

road pollution control program. Montana’s

success shows the importance of a culture of

BMP implementation and water quality

protection. Evidence of practices going beyond the BMP guidelines and improved

protection of soil and water, especially for

forest roads, shows how maintaining a viable

forest products industry can lead to improved watershed protection under the right

conditions.

Conclusion

The CWA has allowed states to tailor

nonpoint forestry programs to their unique

needs. Montana’s blended approach of voluntary BMPs with regulatory SMZs has

yielded above-average BMP implementation rates nationally (Ice et al. 2010). Education efforts that empower logging professionals and landowners to make harvest

management and road planning and design

decisions and a full commitment to BMPs

by agencies and industrial landowners have

been key elements in improving the protection of soil and water resources in Montana.

Among loggers, the BMP program is viewed

as a commonsense approach, and there is

very strong buy-in. The cooperative attitude

of Montana DNRC leadership and staff has

also been a defining factor in the success of

the program. There has also been tremendous support for the program among the

natural resource professionals and others

who volunteer for audit teams. They are

proud of the changes they have seen over

their time and are tremendous advocates for

the program.

Literature Cited

CORNER, R.A., J.H. BASSMAN, AND B.C. MOORE.

1996. Monitoring timber harvest impacts on

stream sedimentation: In-stream versus upslope methods. West. J. Appl. For. 11(1):25–

32.

EHINGER, W.E., AND D. POTTS. 1990. On-site

assessment of best management practices as an

indicator of cumulative watershed effects in the

Flathead Basin. Flathead Basin Water Quality

and Fisheries Cooperative, Univ. of Montana

School of Forestry, Missoula, MT. 137 p.

ETHRIDGE, R. 2002. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2002 forestry BMP audits report. Montana Dept. of

Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry

Division, Missoula, MT. 64 p.

ETHRIDGE, R. 2004. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2004 forestry BMP audits report. Montana Dept. of

Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry

Division, Missoula, MT. 64 p.

ETHRIDGE, R., AND P. HEFFERNAN. 2000. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2000 forestry BMP audits report.

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and

Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula,

MT. 69 p.

FORTUNATE, N. 1994. Guide to the streamside

management zone law and rules. Montana

Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation,

Missoula, MT. 35 p.

FORTUNATE, N., P. HEFFERNAN, K. SANGER, AND

C. TOOTELL. 1998. Montana best management

practices monitoring 1998 forestry BMP audit

report. Montana Dept. of Natural Resources

and Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 62 p.

FRANK, G. 1994. Montana forestry best management practices implementation monitoring—

The 1994 forestry BMP audits final report.

Montana Dept. of State Lands, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 30 p.

ICE, G.G., E. SCHILLING, AND J. VOWELL. 2010.

Trends in forestry best management practices

implementation. J. For. 108(6):267–273.

ICE, G.G., AND E.B. SCHILLING. 2012. Assessing

the effectiveness of contemporary forestry best

management practices (BMPs): Focus on roads.

Special Rep. 12-01, National Council for Air

and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), Research Triangle Park, NC. 23 p. appendices.

LITSCHERT, S.E., AND L.H. MACDONALD. 2009.

Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to

streams. For. Ecol. Manage. 259:143–150.

LOGAN, R. 2001. Water quality BMPs for Montana forests. Montana State Univ. Ext. For.

Serv., Missoula, MT. 56 p.

LOGAN, R., AND B. CLINCH. 1991. Montana forestry BMPs—Forest stewardship guidelines for

water quality. Montana State Univ. Ext. For.

Serv., Missoula, MT. 34 p.

MATHIEUS, G. 1996. Montana forestry best management practices implementation monitoring—

The 1996 forestry BMP audits final report.

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and

Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula,

MT. 35 p.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND CONSERVATION (DNRC). 2011. Best

management practices for forestry in Montana.

Available online at www.dnrc.mt.gov/forestry/

Journal of Forestry • September 2012 335
assistance/practices/documents/bmp.pdf; last

accessed Feb. 20, 2012.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

AND CONSERVATION (DNRC). 2012. Forested

state trust lands habitat conservation plan. Missoula, MT. Available online at www.dnrc.mt.

gov/hcp/default.asp; last accessed Feb. 20,

2012.

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL.

1988. House Joint Resolution 49—Forest practices and watershed effects. Rep. to the 51st

Montana Legislature. 93 p.

MONTANA LEGISLATIVE AUDIT DIVISION. 2007.

Promoting proper forest practices. Rep. to the

Legislature, Helena, MT. 34 p. Available online at www.leg.mt.gov/content/Publications/

Audit/Report/06P-12.pdf; last accessed Feb.

20, 2012.

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 2011. Ruling

in case of Northwest Environmental Defense

Center v. Brown. Case No. 07-35266. Available online at www.ca9.uscourts.gov/data

store/opinions/2011/05/17/07-35266.pdf; last

accessed June 6, 2012.

PLUM CREEK TIMBER CO. 2000. Native fish habitat conservation plan. Columbia Falls, MT.

Available online at www.fws.gov/montana

fieldoffice/Endangered_Species/Habitat_Con

servation_Plans/Plum_Creek_HCP/Home_

pcfeis.htm; last accessed Feb. 20, 2012.

RIVENBARK, B.L., AND C.R. JACKSON. 2004. Concentrated flow breakthroughs moving through

silvicultural streamside management zones:

Southeastern Piedmont, USA. J. Am. Water

Resour. Assoc. 40(4):1043–1052.

ROGERS, D. 2006a. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2006 forestry

BMP audits report. Montana Dept. of Natural

Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 66 p.

ROGERS, D. 2006b. Guide to the streamside management zone law and rules. Montana Dept. of

Natural Resources and Conservation, Missoula, MT. 37 p.

SCHILLING, E.B., G.G. ICE, T.B. WIGLEY, AND

A.A. LUCIER. 2009. Compendium of forestry best

management practices for controlling nonpoint

source pollution in North America. Tech. Bull.

966, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC.

208 p.

SCHULTZ, B. 1990. Montana forestry best management practices implementation monitoring—

The 1990 forestry BMP audits final report.

Montana Dept. of State Lands, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 32 p.

SCHULTZ, B. 1992. Montana forestry best management practices implementation monitoring—

The 1992 forestry BMP audits final report.

Montana Dept. of State Lands, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 32 p.

SMITH, W.B., P.D. MILES, C.H. PERRY, AND S.A.

PUGH. 2009. Forest resources of the United States

2007: A technical document supporting the Forest Service 2010 RPA Assessment. US For. Serv.

Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-78. Available online at www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo78.

pdf; last accessed Mar. 16, 2012.

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(USEPA). 1997. Techniques for tracking, evaluating, and reporting the implementation of

nonpoint source control measures—Forestry.

EPA 841-B-97-009. 97 p. Available online at

www.water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/forestry/

index.cfm; last accessed June 11, 2012.

US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

(USEPA). 2012. Notice of intent to revise

stormwater regulations to specify that an

NPDES permit is not required for stormwater

discharges from logging roads and to seek

comment on approaches for addressing water

quality impacts from forest road discharges.

Fed. Regist. 77(100):30472–30481. Available

online at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-

05-23/pdf/2012-12524.pdf; last accessed June

7, 2012.

ZIESAK, R. 2008. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2008 forestry

BMP audits report. Montana Dept. of Natural

Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 65 p.

ZIESAK, R. 2010. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring—The 2010 forestry

BMP audits report. Montana Dept. of Natural

Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT. 65 p. Available online at

www.dnrc.mt.gov/Forestry/Assistance/Practices/

Documents/2010BMPLONGRPT.pdf; last accessed Feb. 24, 2012.

336 Journal of Forestry • September 2012