ncasi technical bulletin · ncasi technical bulletin national council of the paper industry for air...

ncasi technical bulletin

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT, INC.

P.O. BOX 13318, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709-3318

NORTH CENTRAL STATES

NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM REVIEW

TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 710

FEBRUARY 1996

ncasiNATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE PAPER INDUSTRY FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT, INC.P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318Phone (919) 558-1999 Fax (919) 558-1998

February 23, 1996

Ronald A. Yeske, Ph.D.President

(919)558-1995

Technical Bulletin No. 710

NORTH CENTRAL STATES NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM REVIEW

This is the third in a series of four regional reviews of stateprograms for controlling nonpoint sources of water pollutionassociated with forest management operations. This report coversthirteen North Central states. Previous reports in the series areTechnical Bulletin No. 706 (covering Western states) and TechnicalBulletin No. 686 (covering southern states) .

The review was prepared by Professor Paul Ellefson and AnthonyCheng at the University of Minnesota. They found that forestry isamong the more modest sources of nonpoint pollution in the region.Nevertheless, all states in the region have programs to controlforestry nonpoint sources. Seven states have developed well-documented Best Management Practices (BMPs) for silviculture. Asmight be expected, states with well-documented BMPs are generallythose with the greatest levels of forestry activity. States inwhich forestry is a relatively minor land use generally have verymodest programs for addressing forestry nonpoint sources. None ofthe states in the region have regulatory programs specificallytargeted at forestry practices.

There have been only a few attempts to monitor theimplementation and effectiveness of forestry BMPs in the NorthCentral States. Surveys in Minnesota have found BMP implementationrates of about 80 percent. Most of the research supporting theeffectiveness of BMPs has been conducted in other regions.

The project manager for this report was Dr. George Ice at theNCASI West Coast Regional Center. Questions or comments should bedirected to Dr. Ice at (541) 752-8801.

Very truly yours,

Ronald A. Yeske

Attachment

StreetAddress:79 T.W. AlexanderDrive, Building 4401, Suite 205

@NationalCouncilofthePaperIndusrty for AirandStreamImprovement,Inc.1996

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT i

I

II

III

IV

v

PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTSA. Forestry as Pollutant SourceB. Program Operational Statusc. Compliance with StandardsD. Effectiveness of StandardsE. State Enforcement AuthorityF. Extension-Education ProgramsG. Information Sources

REGIONAL LAND USE PATTERNS 5

6688

101112

141515

181818181920202020

20202121222222222223

24242424242424

25252525252626

2626262728292929

30303031313232323232

3333333334363638383839

4040414141

42424243

4343434444444444

4545454546464646

46464747485050505051

515152525253535353

5454545455565757

XVIII PROGRAM CONTACT PERSONS 57


TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 710FEBRUARY 1996

This report reviews state nonpoint source (NPS) controlprograms in the thirteen North Central states.Agricultural land uses cover 69 percent of this region,with forests covering another 20 percent. Stateassessments show that forest practices are among themore modest sources of nonpoint source pollution.Every state in the region has some type of NPS controlprogram, and seven of the thirteen states havedeveloped Best Management Practices (BMPs) specificallyfor silviculture. There have been few attempts tomonitor rates of BMP implementation in this region.

KEYWORDS: Nonpoint source, Best Management Practices, Forest

(3)

(4)

-i-


I PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS

A. Forestry as a Nonpoint Source

States in the North Central Region have a notable mixture ofeconomic sectors, all of which are potential nonpoint sources ofwater pollutants. Documents prepared by state governments inresponse to requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1987 clearlyindicate that forestry practices are among the more modestsources of nonpoint pollution in the region. Nonpoint sourcesassociated with agriculture and urban areas have far moresignificant effects on water quality.

Where forestry practices are identified as serious sourcesof water pollutants, concern is often with the construction andmaintenance of roads in and near bodies of water. Even wheresuch impacts are considered locally severe, state assessmentsoften conclude that such activities have a minimal impact onwater quality within broader regional basins of a state.

B. Proqram Operational Status

State governments in the North Central Region have assumed amodest but sincere posture toward forestry nonpoint sources ofwater pollutants. Frequently implemented by a variety ofagencies, all the region’s states have some form of program(however modest) which is designed to address nonpoint sourceforestry sources of pollutants. States with very modest programsare generally those in which a state’s responsible environmentalor pollution control agency has determined that forestrypractices are a very minor source of water pollutants (e.g.,Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska).

The nonpoint forestry source programs in the North CentralRegion are most often implemented by a state’s lead forestryagency (e.g., Division of Forestry, Bureau of Forestry,Department of Forestry) . The latter typically coordinatesprogram development and implementation with other responsibleagencies (e.g., wildlife, water resources, pollution control) .

In some states, the lead forestry agency’s authority isoverlapped by authority of an agency having more generalizedauthority for pollution control (e.g., pollution control agency) .

States in the North Central Region rely on the existence ofvoluntary best management practices and associated educationaland technical assistance programs as the primary programmaticmeans for addressing nonpoint forest sources of water pollutants.Of the region’s 13 states, 7 have developed well-documented andattractively published sets of best management practices. States

-2-

lacking such documents are either inset of best management practices, ormanagement practices into the modest

the process of defining athey incorporate bestnumber of forest Plans

prepared for landowners seeking special forestry cost-share ortax incentive payments.

Although best management practices established by states inthe North Central region were promoted as a result of concernover water quality emanating from forested watersheds, the scopeof topics addressed by best management practices has broadenedconsiderably, often including endangered species, scenic beauty,biological diversity, and wildlife generally.

The region does not have a state with a comprehensiveregulatory program focused on the forestry practices of privatelandowners. Some states have, however, state agencies thatregulate stream crossings and forestry practices in speciallydesignated forest areas (state wild and scenic river systems).Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota are actively debating themerits of a comprehensive state forest practices law.

c. Compliance with Standards

Landowner and operator implementation of forestry practicesconsidered necessary for the protection of water quality is anobvious necessity for successful accomplishment of stateinterests in water resources. A major concern to stategovernments is the selection of an appropriate program (or mixthereof) that will ensure such implementation.

State agencies have generally not monitored (in acomprehensive fashion) the rate at which forestry practices (bestmanagement practices) have been adopted by public land-owningagencies and owners of private forest. The exception isMinnesota (Michigan has a monitoring effort currently underway).In the Minnesota case, compliance rates among all landowners, andfor most practices, is very high (often 80 percent or more) .Noncompliance cases involved inappropriate activities in filterstrips and improper drainage of skid trails and landings.Whether the existence of well publicized documents containingdescriptions of best management practices is the cause of thegenerally high rates of compliance is unknown. Compliance ratesprior to the distribution of manuals describing best managementpractices are not available for comparison purposes.

D. Effectiveness of Standards

Compliance with best management practices is no guaranteethat state interest in water resources impacted by forestrypractices will be met. The forestry practices implemented are,in essence, a means for accomplishing water quality goals thatare of interest to state governments (e.g., reduced sediment, —

reduced trace elements, reduced water temperatures) . To actuallydetermine the usefulness of these forestry practices to

-3-

accomplish such goals, scientific monitoring is required.Programs to scientifically and comprehensively monitor the impactof forestry practices on water quality in North Central stateshave not been implemented.

Administrators of state forestry programs in the NorthCentral Region are generally of the opinion that educational andtechnical assistance programs are the most effective means ofinfluencing the forestry practices of private landowners, andconsequently of achieving desired water quality standards. Asfor regulatory programs, most of these administrators are of theopinion that such programs are an ineffective means of achievinga variety of forestry objectives (e.g., reforestation, waterquality) -- except for prevention and suppression of wildfire.Conversely, a significant number of these well-positionedadministrators are distrustful of the ability of voluntary bestmanagement practices to effectively control nonpoint forestrysources of water pollutants.

E. State Enforcement Authority

State governments in the North Central Region have generalauthority to address water pollutants originating from forestrypractices. Such authority originates either from water qualitylaws generally (usually implemented by a state’s water quality orpollution control agency) or from state authority specificallyfocused on forestry activities generally (usually implemented bya state’s lead forestry agency) .

States also have considerable authority to implementtechnical assistance, cost-share, and educational programsfocused on forestry in general. None of the states in the regionhave used this authority to develop programs that specificallyaddress water quality problems that may emanate from the forestrypractices of private landowners.

States in the region do not have regulatory programs of acomprehensive nature that focus on forestry practices. Whetherthey should depends on the severity of water quality problemsemanating from forestry practices within a state, and the state’sinclination toward government intrusion into activitiestraditionally considered to be private in nature. At least threestates in the region are actively considering the possibility ofdeveloping forest practice regulatory laws.

F. Extension-Education Proqrams

Extension-education programs used as a means of informinglandowners about best management practices in general, or aboutlegally-mandated forestry practice standards specifically, arefor the most part poorly organized in their focus on waterquality issues in most North Central states. Such is not to denythe existence of programs that are being effectively implemented

-4- --

by a state's lead forestry agency or Extension Service. Needed,however, is a careful review of the status of such programsgenerally and the development of strategic options that willenable them to more directly focus on water quality matters.

G. Information Sources

American Forest Council. 1991. State Forest Practice Regulationsthroughout the United States: Forest Laws, Practice Acts, andBest Management Practices. Draft July 1991. Washington, DC.

-5-

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Managing NonpointSource Pollution. Final Report to Congress on Section 319 ofthe Clean Water Act (1989); Including-Appendices.Washington, D.C.

II REGIONAL WD USE PATTERNS

Of the region’s more than 516 million acres, 69 percent isdevoted to agricultural land uses (Table 1). This includescropland, pastureland, and rangeland. States with land use mostheavily oriented toward agriculture are Illinois, Indiana, Ohioand states located in the Great Plains (Table 2). Croplandoccupies nearly half of the region’s land use, while urbandevelopment accounts for approximately five percent, namely 26million acres.

Forests occupy over 100 million acres of land in thenations’s 13 north central states -- 20 percent of the region’s

al., 1993) . If sparsely forested great plains states areexcluded (North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, andIowa), forests cover 36 percent of states remaining in theregion. Approximately 94 percent (94 million acres) of theregion’s forest area is classified as timberland (unreservedforest areas capable of producing in excess of 20 cubic feet peracre per year of industrial wood in natural stands) .

TABLE 1 LAND USE INTHE NORTH CENTRAL REGION,BY TYPE OF USE - 1987

-6-

TABLE 2 RURAL LAND USE, NORTH CENTRAL REGION,BY STATE AND TYPE OF USE - 1987

III FOREST RESOURCES

A. Forest Type Groups

Forests of the region are diverse in character in that theyare composed of vast areas of central hardwoods, northernhardwoods, and boreal conifers (Table 3). The oak-hickoy,maple-beech-birch, and aspen-birch dominate the region’s forestedlandscape. Combined, these forest types occupy 68 percent of theland use devoted to forests within the region. Land form andclimatic conditions make clear boundaries between forest typesdifficult to identify. In general, however, conifers appear

across the Northern portion of the region’s Lake States, with anarray of mixed hardwoods occurring as one proceeds toward theregion’s southern boundaries. Some formerly dominate species nowexist in isolated pockets (e.g., hemlock, white pine).

Oak-hickory forests (26 million acres) stretch in a bandalong the southern portion of the region, extending through Ohio,Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, southern Michigan,

central Wisconsin, and central Minnesota. Tree species typicallyfound in oak-hickory forests are white oak, black oak, northernred oak, and bur oak. Hickory forests are a small component ofthe region’s oak-hickory type, occupying only the southernportions of the region. Oak-pine forests are found in portionsof Kentucky where the northern range of southern pines extends.

-7-

Maple-beech-birch forests are the second most extensiveforest type in the North Central region -- accounting for 16percent of the region’s unreserved forested area. Pioneerforests in transition provide the necessary conditions for theshade-tolerant species which comprise this group, namely sugarmaple, yellow birch, and basswood.

Aspen-birch, a fast-growing pioneer forest type, occupieslarge tracts of land in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, andMichigan -- nearly 13 million acres. Previously regarded as anoncommercial species, waferboard and oriented-strand boardtechnologies have opened up large new markets for utilization ofaspen. Through root-sprouting, aspen forests regenerate quicklyand, once established, are very fast growers.

TABLE 3 UNRESERVED FOREST LAND, NORTH CENTRAL REGION,FOREST TYPE GROUP, 1992

The North Central region is home to two major conifer foresttypes. Prominent in the northern portions of Michigan andMinnesota are Spruce-fir forests, commonly composed of blackspruce and balsam fir. Also significant in the region is thewhite-red-jack pine forest type. The latter is commonly composedof jack pine (fire species most often found on sandy and dryforest sites), and red and white pine. The latter two speciesare frequently intensively managed as small pure stands.

---8-

Elm-ash-cottonwood is also common in the North Centralregion (nearly 9 million acres) . Especially prominent in theplains states, these species are typically found on the lowerterraces and flood plains of the Mississippi, Minnesota,Missouri, Platte, Kansas, and Ohio rivers.

B. Forest Ownership

Timberland ownership in the Region is largely private,namely 75 percent (Table 4). Over 9 of 10 acres of the latter iscontrolled by a diversity of owners commonly identified asnonindustrial private owners (e.g., farmers, absentee owners,recreational interests) . Industrial holdings are concentrated inMichigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.

TABLE4 TIMBERLAND OWNERSHIP,NORTHCENTRALREGION,BY OWNERSHIP,1992 ,

composed primarily of centralon the east by the AppalachianShield, south by the interior

---

by sedimentary parent material and is especially characterized byits gentle to moderate slopes. Exceptions to the latter occur inthe Wisconsin Driftless area and in areas that are adjacent tothe Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers. Dominating the

-9-

Plains region are soils with subsurface horizons of clay that areusually moist for at least 90 consecutive days during the growingseason (Alfisol soils). Also present in the Central LowlandPlains are nearly black, organically rich soils (Mollisol soils)that support the intensive production of various agriculturalproducts (Foth 1990, Thornbury 1965).

—

8

FIGURE 1 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF NORTH AMERICA

The North Central Region also includes a portion of theCanadian Shield (northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, upperpeninsula of Michigan) which is composed of ancient rocks thathave been subject to extensive geologic processes. The Southernportion of the Shield contains soils of modest depth (18 to 24inches) which become progressively shallower to the north. TheShield includes areas that have modest to notable gradients,especially in northeastern Minnesota, the Upper Peninsula ofMichigan and portions of northern Wisconsin.

Although modestly forested, the Interior Plains region(Mollisol soils) is also a part of the North Central Region(notably encompassing North Dakota and South Dakota). TheInterior Plains region was formed from erosion and subsequentsedimentation along the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains;

soils are usually dry. Within the Interior Plains region,forests cover a significant portion of South Dakota's Blackills,which are characterized by soils that are usually dry (seldommoist for more than 90 days) (Aridisol soils), with steep slopesand numerous rock outcrops.

D. Erosion Sources

Erosion and sedimentation from forested lands in the NorthCentral Region are generally associated with activities thatinvolve road construction and harvesting near bodies of water(including stream crossings). However,-relativein the region, sediment from forest land is very

to other sourceslow (Table 5).

—

-11-

Forest land in the North Central Region is a source of1.1 tons of sediment per acre per year. This is less thanhalf the average 2.9 tons of sediment per acre per year thatoriginates from rural land generally, and substantially belowthe 4.2 tons that occurs from an acre of cropland each year.In 1987, agricultural sources in the region were adverselyaffecting 39,960 miles of river (forestry affected 288 miles)and 213,627 acres of lake area (forestry affected 66 acres).This disparity between agricultural and forestry sources ofwater pollutants becomes even more significant given the 239million acres of cropland in the region (versus 100 millionacres of forest land).

Product-wise, the region is a major source of sawlogs(over 3.8 million MBF), pulpwood (nearly 10 million cords),and veneer (over 126 thousand MBF). Kentucky, Michigan andMissouri are major contributors to the region’s sawlogproduction (over half), while Wisconsin, Michigan andMinnesota are leaders in pulpwood production (over 80 percentof total). Veneer production is most significant in thestates of Michigan and Wisconsin.

Employees in the region’s lumber and wood products, andthe paper and allied products manufacturing groups, totaledover 300,000 in 1987. Of the latter, 57 percent wereemployed in some facet of logging and lumber manufacture,while the remainder were employed in pulp, paper andparticleboard industries. The employees were located on oneof the region’s 8,300 manufacturing establishments which, intotal, produced wood products having a 1987 value added of$18.5 billion. Over 71 percent of this value added wascontributed by the paper and allied products group. Thewood-based industry of the region also has a significant woodfurniture and fixtures component, especially in Michigan,Ohio and Indiana.

E. Timber Products Economy

Removals from the region’s timber growing stock aresignificant -- more than 1.6 billion cubic feet annually(Table 6). Of this total, approximately 79 percent isproduced by five states, namely Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Michigan, Minnesota, andWisconsin contribute per state an annual average of 344million cubic feet to the region’s annual growing stockremovals.

-12-

--

-13-

Foth, H. D. 1990. Fundamentals of Soil Science. John WileyPublishers. New York, NY.

Gray, G., P.V. Ellefson and D.C. Lothner. 1986. Production andConsumption of Major Wood Products in the Lake States:Perspectives and Trends. Report NC-108. North Central ForestExperiment Station. USDA Forest SeHice. St. Paul, MN.

Hacket, R.L. 1992. Pulpwood Production in the North CentralRegion, 1990. Resource Bulletin NC-140. North CentralForest Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. St. Paul,m.

Hahn, J.T. 1987. Illinois Forest Statistics, 1985. ResourceBulletin NC-103. North Central Forest Experiment Station.USDA Forest Service. St. Paul, MN.

Haynes, R.W. 1989. An Analysis of the Timber Situation in theUnited States: 1989-2040. A Technical Document Supportingthe 1989 RPA Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Washington,DC.

Iowa Cooperative Extension Service. 1986. Directory of Wood-Using Industries of Iowa. Cooperative Extension Service.Iowa State University. Ames, IA.

Powell, D.S., J. L. Faulkner, D. R. Darr, Z. Zhu, and D.W.MacCleery. 1993. Forest Resources of the United States:1992. General Technical Report RM-234. Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station. USDA-Forest Service. FortCollins, CO.

Raile, G.K. 1986. Nebraska’s Second Forest Inventory. ResourceBulletin NC-96. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service NorthCentral Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, MN.

Smith, W.B. and R. Dahlman. 1991. Minnesota Timber Industry --An Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use. ResourceBulletin NC-127. North Central Forest Experiment Station.USDA Forest Service. St. Paul, MN.

Smith, W.B. and S. Jones. 1990. Missouri Timber Industry -- AnAssessment of Timber Product Output and Use. ResourceBulletin NC-120. North Central Forest Experiment Station.USDA Forest Service. St. Paul, MN.

Smith, W.B. and J.W. Whipple. 1990. Wisconsin Timber Industry -An Assessment of Timber Product Output and Use, 1988.Resource Bulletin NC-124. North Central Forest ExperimentStation. USDA Forest Service. St. Paul, MN.

-14-

Smith, W.B., A.K. Weatherspoon, and J. Pilon. 1990. MichiganTimber Industry -- An Assessment of Timber Product Outputand Use, 1988. Resource Bulletin NC-121. North CentralForest Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. St. Paul,MN.

Spencer Jr., J.S., N.P. Kingsley, and R.V. Mayer. 1990.Indiana’s Timber Resource, 1986: An Analysis. ResourceBulletin NC-113. North Central Forest Experiment Station.USDA Forest Senice.

Spencer Jr., J.S., J.K. Strickler, and W.J. Mayer. 1984. KansasForest Inventory, 1981. Resource Bulletin NC-83. NorthCentral Forest Experiment Station. USDA-Forest Service. St.Paul, MN.

Thornbury, W. D. 1965. Regional Geomorphology of the UnitedStates. John Wiley Publisher. New York, NY.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. An Analysis of the Land BaseSituation in the United States: 1989-2040. GeneralTechnical Report RM-181. Rocky Mountain Forest and RangeExperiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Waddle, K.L., D.D. Oswald, and D.S. Powell. 1989. Forest—.

Statistics of the United States, 1987. Resource BulletinB-168. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range ExperimentStation. USDA Forest Service.

Wharton, E.H., S.C. Kayse, and R.L. Nevel, Jr. 1992. The TimberIndustries of Kentucky, 1986. Resource Bulletin NE-120.Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. USDA Forest ServiceRadnor, PA.

\

Widmann, R.H. 1992. Pulpwood Production in the Northeast --1990. Resource Bulletin NE-123. Northeastern ForestExperiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Radnor, PA.

IV STATE NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAMS - REGIONAL SUMMARY

State governments can initiate a wide variety of programs toinfluence forestry practices that impact the range of benefitsthat are produced by private forests. Regulatory programs areone obvious example. Other approaches include educationextension programs, technical assistance programs, voluntaryguidelines, tax incentives and cost-share programs. From a stateagency’s perspective, interest often focuses on the relativemerits of such programs and the program mixture that will mosteffectively accomplish desired objectives.

-15-

A. Program Trees

For the most part, regional physical conditions, importanceof forestry in state economies, and past traditions of stateinvolvement in the forestry activities of private landowners areprimary variables affecting the type of programs each state usesto influence such activities. In 1992, key administrators ofstate forestry programs in North Central states were asked toidentify the type of programs used to encourage owners of privateforestland to:

● protect water quality (e.g., streamside bufferstrips, road and skid trail layout, stream crossingstructures) .

stocking levels, site preparation, seed trees) .● use appropriate timber harvesting procedures (e.g.,clearcut size, logging systems and equipment) .

● protect forest from fire, insects and diseases (e.g.,slash treatment, smoke management, removal of infectedtrees ).

● protect wildlife and rare plant species (e.g.,limiting public access, wildlife habitat management,discouraging plant and animal removal).

● enhance recreation and aesthetic values (e.g.,vegetative buffers along roadways, limits on size oftimber harvests).

Educational and technical assistance programs were the mostcommon types of programs used to influence the forestryactivities of private landowners in North Central Region Table 7.Second most common were programs that provided financial supportto private landowners, especially for activities involvingprotection of water quality, reforestation after timber harvest,and wildlife management and protection. Relatively few statesimplemented tax incentive or voluntary guideline programs for anyof the purposes identified. Regulatory programs were the leastused means of influencing the forestry practices of privatelandowners in the North Central Region. Combining technicalassistance and voluntary guidelines, water quality protection wasthe most common focus for state programs.

B. Program Effectiveness

The ability of various public forestry programs to influenceforestry practices applied on private forestland is often a majorfocus of debate among program administrators, owners of privateforestland and interested citizens. The experiences of programmanagers who are (or have been) actively involved in theadministration of a forestry program (or combination of programs)can provide a very useful perspective on the ability of differenttypes of programs to accomplish agreed-to objectives. Future

-16-

program directions and emphases generally can be influenced bysuch experiences (Cheng and Ellefson, 1993).

-17-

assistance and fiscal incentives as ways of influencing forestrypractices that affect water quality, reforestation after harvest,and timber harvesting methods Table 8. Educational programs,technical assistance, voluntary guidelines, and legal regulationsare not considered by a majority of administrators to be mosteffective for any of the three purposes identified here (theexception is educational programs to influence timberharvesting). Especially noteworthy is the intensity of leasteffective rankings given to voluntary guidelines and legalregulations. Given the focus of water quality protection in thisreport, administrators appear most enamored with technicalassistance and fiscal incentives.

TABLE 8 PROGRAMADMINISTRATOR’S RANKING OF PROGRAMABILITY TO INFLUENCESELECTED PRIVATE FORESTRYACTIVITIES IN THE

NORTH CENTRALREGION -- BY ACTIVITY AND PROGRAMTYPE. 1992

What follows is a state-by-state review of forest practiceregulatory programs that are currently being implemented by state

-18- —

governments in the North Central Region. Special focus is onpractices that are undertaken to mitigate the adverse impacts ofnonpoint forest sources of water pollutants. Programs in thefollowing states are reviewed: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,Kansas,Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, NorthDakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

v ILLINOIS

B. Nonpoint Assessment Report.

The Division of Water Pollution Control assessed the impactof nonpoint sources of pollutants on water resources in Illinois.Of the nearly 184,000 lake acres assessed, silviculture wasjudged to have a moderate or minor impact on 258 lake acres; inno case were silvicultural sources judged to have a major impacton lake waters. Agricultural practices were a source of waterpollutants for nearly 160,000 acres of lake. Of 14,000 miles ofstreams assessed by the Division, none were judged to beadversely impacted by silvicultural practices. Agriculturaladversely impacted over 7,700 miles of the state’s streams.

c. Nonpoint Management Plan

Detailed prescriptions for addressing nonpoint silviculturalsources of pollution have not been specified by the Division ofWater Pollution Control (forestry is not among the Division’snine statewide initiatives) . The Division does, however,identify Division of Forestry programs that are available foraddressing such pollutant sources (if such is deemed necessary) .Among the programs identified are forestry technical assistance,nursery plant material production, forestry development, andvarious federal programs administered cooperatively with stateagencies (Conservation Reserve Programs, Forestry IncentivesProgram, Conservation Reserve Program).

-19-

D. Best Management Practices

The Division of Forestry has developed best managementpractices (BMPs) which are to be voluntarily applied by forestlandowners and timber harvesters. The stated objective of theBMPs is to "help ensure that waters within or flowing out ofIllinois’ forests are of the highest quality consistent withnatural processes and the need to prudently utilize Illinois’forest resources.” Major categories are: forest managementplanning, road systems, drainage systems, logging systems,streamside management zones, site disturbance, pesticide use,fertilizer use, fire prevention and control, livestock use offorests, maintaining forested lands, and use of off-roadrecreational vehicles.

The Division of Forestry places special emphasis on longrange planning of private forestland use and management, whichhas important consequences for the management of nonpoint forestsources of water pollutants. Planning solidifies landownermanagement objectives, identifies management activities necessaryto accomplish such objectives, and anticipates and avoidspractices that could adversely impact water quality. Specificcategories of forestry practices that are addressed during thedevelopment of a long range plan include road systems, drainagesystems, and timber harvesting activities. Examples of bestmanagement practices for road building are:

● Logging roads should be located to avoid, to theextent feasible, high hazard areas, especially thoseknown to contain a potential for landslides, highlyerodible soils, unstable stream channels, and wetareas.

● Where feasible, logging roads should be located onbenches and ridges to minimize erosion and thepotential for sediment reaching streams. Loggingroads should be located to avoid paralleling streamchannels in close proximity, to minimize the numberof channel crossings, to avoid excessive excavation,to avoid adverse drainage patterns, and to minimizesoil movement into streams.

● Road gradients should be kept low (generally under 10percent) except where short, steeper, sections areneeded to take advantage of favorable topography andto avoid excessive cut or fill.

● Permit requirements for Section 404 of PL-92-500 mustbe complied with whenever any stream modification isundertaken.

-20-

E.

Illinois does not have rules pertaining to the application ofwater-quality impacting forestry practices that might be applied byprivate landowners or timber harvesters. However, administratorsof state forestry programs indicate that forest practice regulationhas been suggested and discussed in the immediate past.

F. Special Rules

Illinois does not have any special rules addressing forestrypractices of private landowners. The state does, however, havelaws governing the purchasing and transporting of timber (TimberBuyers License Act; Forest Products Transportation Act).

G. Compliance and Effectiveness

The Division of Forestry has not monitored compliance withforestry best management practices.

H. Information Sources

Department of Conservation. 1992. Best management practices forIllinois. Division of Forest Resources. Springfield, IL.

Division of Water Pollution Control. 1988. Assessment ofNonpoint Source Impacts on Illinois Water Resources.Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, IL.

Division of Water Pollution Control. 1989. Illinois NonpointSource Management Program Report. Illinois Environmentalprotection Agency. Springfield, IL.

Little, R.R. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Section Head.Division of Forestry. Department of Conservation.Springfield, IL.

State of Illinois. 1990. Rules: Pollution Control Board, WaterPollution, Environmental Protection. Title 35, Subtitle C,Chapter I. Springfield, IL.

State of Illinois. 1991. Environmental Protection Act. Illinois

VI INDIANA

A. Statutes, Relations, and Proarams—

The Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources,is responsible for administering programs directed at private

-21-

forest management in Indiana. Such programs are focusedprimarily on technical assistance and education trainingprograms. The state does have a flood control law which makes itunlawful to obstruct the capacity of a floodway, includingleaving logging debris in stream channels. Responsibility foradministering water quality programs in general within the staterests with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

B. Nonpoint Assessment Report

The Department of Environmental Management assessed variousnonpoint sources of water pollutants, determining that forestryactivities have a very modest adverse impact on the quality ofwater flowing from forested areas, and that such impacts can becontrolled with relative ease. When erosion does occur duringharvest, it is typically confined to a site-specific location andis very short lived. The Department acknowledged that suchjudgments are based on limited information and that additionalresearch is needed to firmly determine the exact role thatforestry practices play as a nonpoint polluter of waters.

C. Nonpoint Management Plan

The Department of Environmental Management makes a number ofspecific recommendations within three broad forestry subjectareas, namely:

Forestry Activities: via an interdisciplinary process,develop (or refine) forest practices that can abatewater pollutants originating from forestry activities;develop (and target to key audiences) educationalprograms that stress water quality managementpractices; secure funding for water quality programsthat will provide technical assistance to landowners,timber harvesters, and professionals; and developdemonstration projects that focus on forestry andtimber harvesting practices that curtail the incidenceof water pollutants.

Forestry Research: determine the extent of nonpointforestry sources of water pollutants; and utilizedemonstration projects as sources of information on thewater quality impacts of alternative forestrypractices.

Forestry Education: enhance communication andcoordination between agencies responsible for managingnonpoint forest sources of water pollutants; developand publicize information programs that demonstrate tothe public the appropriateness of certain forestrypractices as means of curbing water pollution; andcoordinate among appropriate agencies the developmentof demonstration projects.

-22-


Indiana has not developed a detailed comprehensive set ofbest management practices for forestry. Responsible officialsindicate that a voluntary program suggesting best managementpractices is being developed. Such should be completed within 18months. However, the nonpoint source management plan prepared bythe Department of Environmental Management identifies, in verygeneral terms, three major groups of best management practicesfocused on timber harvesting activities. They are: planning andconstruction (design and location of timber access system,drainage and slope stabilization, stream crossings, filter andbuffer strips); use and maintenance (modifications for weatherconditions, maintenance of structures, maintenance of roads) ; andclose-out (revegetation measures, water control) .

E. Forest Practice Rules

Indiana does not have rules pertaining to the application ofwater quality impacting forestry practices that might be appliedby private landowners or timber harvesters. The state does,however, have a flood control law that prohibits the obstructionof the capacity of any floodway. Such prohibits the leaving oflogging debris in stream channels or areas immediately accessibleto such channels. The state also has a law requiring all timberbuyers to be licensed and bonded.

F. Program or Rule Changes (Since 1980)

Voluntary forestry best management practices are beingdeveloped by the state’s Division of Forestry.


The state Division of Forestry does not monitor compliancesince there are no best management practices or directlyapplicable forest practice rules.

H. Special Issues

Conducting forest management activities in wetlands areashas gained prominence in Indiana. In 1991, a bill was introducedin the state Senate to regulate land management activities inwetlands areas. The bill would have defined regulated wetlandsand subsequently required permits for activities conducted therein.Permits would have been issued by the state’s soil conservationboard. Practices to be included with the proposed law’sjurisdiction are: “growing trees ... and other such practicesassociated with the production of ... forest products.” The billwas defeated by a legislative committee. Despite failure at thestate level, local ordinances regulating wetlands activities maygrow in number. The issue of regulating forestry practices inwetlands areas is very likely to resurface in the future.

-23-

Also introduced to the 1991 Indiana legislature was a billto limit the nature of forestry activities on state administeredforests. Special focus would be on forest land located withindesignated forest preserves -- areas of at least 1,000 acresdesignated for purposes of protecting larger tracts of forest.Within such areas, "riparian protection areas” would be givenspecial treatment. Such areas are zones that extend at leastone-qarter mile from the edge of a major stream, river, or lake;are maintained in undisturbed condition; and are designed toprotect water quality and aquatic habitats. All timberharvesting and road construction would be:

● prohibited within 150 feet of a permanent stream,115 feet of an intermittent stream, 50 feet of anephemeral stream, and 115 feet of a seep or spring.

feet of a designated intermittent stream, and 115feet of an ephemeral stream.

1. Information Sources

Division of Forestry. n.d. Classified Forests: Explanation ofClassified Forest Act of 1921. Department of NaturalResources. Indianapolis, IN.

Ernst, D. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Regional Forester.Division of Forestry. Indiana Department of NaturalResources. September 26. Indianapolis, IN.

Department of Environmental Management. 1989. Nonpoint SourceWater Pollution Management Plan. State Nonpoint Source TaskForce, Indianapolis, IN.

Division of Forestry. n.d. Model Wetlands Ordinance for IndianCommunities. Department of Natural Resources. Indianapolis,IN.

State of Indiana. 1988. Timber Licensing Law. Public Law 190(as amended). Indianapolis, IN.

State Nonpoint SourceTask Force. 1989. Nonpoint Source WaterPollution Management Program: Indiana. June. Department ofEnvironmental Management. Indianapolis, IN.

State Senate. 1991. Proposed Law to Regulate Practices inWetlands. Senate Bill 568. March 6. Indiana StateLegislature. Indianapolis, IN.

State Senate. 1991. Proposed Law to Regulate Practices on StateForests. Senate Bill 569. Indiana State Legislature.Indianapolis, IN.

-24-

VII IOWA

A.

The Division of Forests and Forestry, Iowa Department ofNatural Resources, administers a variety of programs directed atwater quality protection on private forestlands, includingeducation and training, technical assistance, voluntaryguidelines, tax incentives, and fiscal incentives programs.Responsibility for administering water quality programs generallywithin the state rests with the Division of EnvironmentalProtection of the Department of Natural Resources.

B. NonPoint Assessment Report

The Environmental Protection Division of the stateDepartment of Natural Resources assessed 8,235 miles ofdesignated streams for nonpoint pollution impacts. The Divisionconcluded that none of the streams were adversely impacted byforestry and silvicultural activities. In addition, of 48,549acres of lake (236 lakes) , none were found to be adverselyimpacted by forestry activities.

C. NonPoint Management Plan

Iowa’s Nonpoint Source Management Plan does not specificallysuggest forestry programs to control nonpoint source ofpollutants. Overall, the state suggests a wide array ofeducation and training, demonstration projects, technicalassistance, cost share incentives, monitoring, and special grantprograms to manage nonpoint sources of pollutants as they occur.


Iowa does not have an established set of forestry bestmanagement practices nor does the state have special rulesconcerning forestry activities that may adversely impact waterquality.

E. Compliance and Effectiveness

Since forestry best management practices have not beendefined and set forth in Iowa, monitoring for compliance has nottaken place.

F. Information Sources

Department of Natural Resources. 1992. State Nonpoint SourceManagement Report: Iowa. Des Moines, IA. .

-25-

Environmental Protection Division. 1988. State Nonpoint SourceAssessment Report: Iowa 1988. Department of NaturalResources. Des Moines, IA.

Environmental Protection Division. 1989. State Nonpoint SourceManagement Report: Iowa. Department of Natural Resources.Des Moines, IA.

VIII KANSAS

A. Statutes, Relations, and Programs

State forestry programs directed at private forestlandowners in Kansas are administered by the CooperativeExtension Service (Department of Forestry), Kansas StateUniversity. Programs administered by the Service includetechnical assistance, cost share fiscal incentives, education andtraining. The State Department of Health and Environmentadministers general rules focused on water pollutants; none arespecific to forestry practices.


The Division of the Environment assessed nonpoint sources ofpollutants in Kansas. Of the 12 major river basins assessed bythe Division, none were found to be adversely impacted byspecifically identified silviculture or timber harvestingactivities (harvesting, reforestation, residue management, forestmanagement, road construction and maintenance) . Agriculturalpractices were determined to contribute 99 percent of the totalsuspended pollutant load in the waters of Kansas.


The Division of the Environment identified certain forestryactivities (silvicultural practices) as a means of reducing theincidence of water pollutants caused by agricultural practicesoccurring on certain highly erodible lands. Encouraged isreforestation and enhancement of riparian corridors. To beundertaken: identify prime lands for reforestation; encouragegreater institutionalization of forestry within agriculturalagencies; and develop reforestation plans in certain specifiedwaters.


Kansas does not administer forestry best managementpractices in any form (voluntary or regulatory). Furthermore,the state does not have any special rules to curb forestrypractices that could potentially impact the quality of water

flowing from privatethree percent of the

- 26

forest land.state’s land

Private forestsarea; 96 percent

occupy onlyof

forests are privately owned.

E. Compliance and Effectiveness

Since Kansas has not established best management

these

practices,there has been not monitoring for compliance.

F. Information Sources

Division of Environment. 1989. Nonpoint Source Pollution:Assessment Report. Department of Health and Environment.Topeka, KA.

Division of Environment. 1989. Nonpoint SourceManagement Plan. Department of Health and

Pollution:Environment.

Topeka,KA.

Pinkerton, L. R. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Program Wader,Forest Management. September 30. Cooperative ExtensionService. Kansas State University. Manhattan, KA.

IX KENTUCKY

A. Statutes, Regulations. and Programs

The Division of Forestry, Departmenthas major responsibility for a variety of

of Natural Resources,programs which address

nonpoint forestry sources of water pollutants. These programsinvolve fiscal incentives (especially, Stewardship IncentivesProgram) , technical assistance, broad educational efforts, andvoluntary guideline programs. The Division does not have anyspecific unique legal authority or mandate to address nonpointforest sources of water pollutants. Informed Divisionadministrators are of the opinion that Kentucky is unlikely toever enact a comprehensive law that regulates private forestpractices. The most significant deterrent to such a law ispotential infringement on private property rights.Responsibility for administering water quality programs generallywithin the state rests with the Division of Water Quality of theKentucky Department of Environmental Protection.


The most recent assessment of Kentucky’s water qualityconditions was undertaken in 1990 and 1991. Of the 55,300 milesof streams, approximately 10,671 miles (19 percent) wereassessed. Of the assessed streams, 21 percent were found to beimpaired, or not supporting stated water uses (e.g., domestic

-27-

water supply, recreation, aquatic life) . An additional 10percent were found to only partially support usage. The mostprominent nonpoint sources of pollutants in streams wereagriculture (46 percent of all sources) , resource extraction suchas surface mining (37 percent), and urban/storm runoff (11percent). The remaining six percent of nonpoint pollutants wereattributed to hydro-habitat modification and disposal systems.

The Kentucky assessment also surveyed 90 percent of thepublicly-owned lake acreage. Of 102 lakes, nine percent did notsupport designated uses. Again, agriculture (29 percent),municipal runoff (21 percent), and surface mining (16 percent)were the dominant nonpoint sources of lake pollutants. Septicsystems contributed an additional 10 percent and naturalsedimentation processes accounted for 21 percent of the causes ofpollutants.

Silvicultural and related forestry activities have had onlymoderate to minor affect on water quality in Kentucky. Of the831 miles of streams impacted moderately, or in a minor way, bynonpoint sources, 34.3 miles (0.3 percent of all assessed streammileage) were impacted by silviculture and related forestrysources.

C.. Nonpoint Management Plan

Statewide programs to deal with nonpoint sources of waterpollution generally involve significant attention to theavocation of education, technical assistance, voluntary bestmanagement practices and cooperative local action. The only twononpoint pollutant sources addressed by regulatory programsinvolve resource extraction (e.g., surface mining) and landdisposal activities.

Programs recommended for control of nonpoint sourcepollution from forestry activities focus primarily on educationand technical assistance to private landowners. The stateDivision of Forestry is charged with implementing such programs.A common Division approach to doing so involves assisting privatelandowners with the development of timber management plans. In1988, the Division assisted in the development of plans thatcovered 82,000 acres of forest, resulting in over 8,000 acres ofimproved watershed.

Future plans for program actions focused on nonpoint forestsources of water pollutants include: intensification ofeducational programs aimed at private landowners and industrygroups; updating best management practice (BMP) manuals;developing a comprehensive survey of BMP implementation;developing water quality monitoring stations for waters not fullysupporting designated uses because of silvicultural activities;and providing reports on BMP effectiveness. These planned

-28-

activities were jointly developed by the Division of Forestry andthe Kentucky Forest Industry Association.


Best management practices established for Kentucky focus onnonpoint pollutants from five different sources, namelysediments, nutrients, pesticides, organic debris, and watertemperature. The best management practices suggested to controlsuch pollutants are set forth in the following categories.Example practices are identified:

Access roads: Roads should be constructed so as to providesufficient outsloping; culverts (no drainage dips) should beinstalled to handle live running water. Distance betweenculverts or drainage dips varies according to road grade, roadgrade 2-5 percent every 300 to 500 feet, ... 16-20 percentevery 100 feet. All road surfaces, road banks, and potentialerosion sources should be revegetated upon completion of forestryactivity.

Vegetative establishment of disturbed areas: Establish avegetative cover to stabilize soil and reduce damage fromsediment and runoff to downstream areas; grade area to bevegetated; scarify or otherwise roughen area before seeding;

—.

apply grass seed at rates specified (tall fescue -- 45 pounds peracre) during specified period (February 15 -- April 15).

Fire land construction: Avoid fire control lanes located atright angles to land contour, except during control activity onwildlife. Do not locate fire lanes so drainage occurs directlyinto streams; turn land 15 to 20 feet from stream so laneparallels stream; establish permanent vegetation on fire lanes.

Tree plantinq: Species selection and site applicability issuggested. A first year survival rate of 70 percent isconsidered satisfactory.

Site Preparation: Specification of acceptable preparationtechniques for various types of forest (e.g., bottomland hardwoodsite preparation for plantations, converting poor growth hardwoodsites to pine) . Water quality should be considered whenundertaking practices involving pesticides and scarification ofland surfaces; leave filter strips along streams.

Pesticides: Pesticides must not be applied when danger ofdrift exists or when contamination of water is possible.Equipment must not be cleaned near ponds, streams or wells.

Filter strip: Filter strips should be established forpurposes of trapping sediment from water runoff and maintainingwater temperature. Silvicultural activities need not be

-29-

eliminated in filter strips, although the following areconsidered unacceptable: wheel or crawler vehicles, roads exceptat designated crossings, log landings and concentration yards,mechanical site preparation, and prescribed burning. Width offilter strip varies with slope of land: zero slope -- 25 feet;10 percent slope -- 45 feet; ... 70 percent slope -- 165 feet.

Debris: Fell trees away from drainage along perennialstreams. Remove logging debris (e.g., tops, limbs) fromperennial streams, lakes or ponds to a distance to insure debriswill not return to stream.

Other activities: Consideration must be given toappropriate water pollutants prevention practices that involvelivestock, prescribed burning, and woodland improvementactivities.

E. Forest Practice or Special Rules

Kentucky does not have any special rules pertaining to theapplication of water quality impacting forestry activities thatmight be undertaken by private landowners or timber operators.

F. Compliance and Effectiveness

Compliance with voluntary best management practices has notbeen comprehensively monitored in Kentucky. However, research iscurrently underway (University of Kentucky) to determine theimpact of clearcut harvesting on stream water quality, with andwithout the application of voluntary best management practices.The parameters of interest include physical characteristics(e.g., suspended sediment, bedload, temperature), chemical (e.g.,dissolved oxygen), bacterial (e.g., coliform), and biological(e.g., fish, macro-invertebrates).


Coltharp, G. B. 1984. Watershed Evaluations of Silvicultural BMPsin Kentucky. Pg. 39-41. In: Research and Regulatory ProgramsRelated to Southern Forestry Management Practices and WaterQuality Protection. NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 417.National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and StreamImprovement, Inc. New York, NY.

Division of Forestry. 1990. Forest Protection Laws of Kentucky.Department of Natural Resources. Frankfort, KY.

Division of Water Quality. 1980. Kentucky Forest PracticeGuidelines for Water Quality Management. Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Protection. Frankfort,KY.

-30-

Division of Water. 1989. Kentucky Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram. Natural Resources and Environmental ProtectionCabinet. Frankfort, KY.

Division of Water. 1992. 1992 Kentucky Report to Congress onwater quality. Natural Resources and EnvironmentalProtection Cabinet. Frankfort, KY.

Harem. Donald. A. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Director.Division of Forestry. Department of Natural Resources.September 24, 1991. Frankfort, KY.

State of Kentucky. 1990. Kentucky Revised Statutes. Section149.010 through 149.991. Frankfort, KY.

x MICHIGAN

A. Statutes, Regulations, and Programs

Nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities isaddressed through a variety of programs administered by theDivision of Forest Management, Department of Natural Resources.The programs managed by the Division include education and

—

training, technical assistance, voluntary guidelines, and fiscalincentives.

Michigan’s regulatory programs focused on nonpoint pollutantsources are not forestry specific. They may, however, impact themanner in which forest practices are applied. For example, theSoil Erosion and Sedimentation Act requires permits for all earthmoving activities within 500 feet of a lake or stream, or whichdisturb an area of one acre or more. County agencies have thelead role in administering the law. The Sedimentation ControlUnit, Division of Land and Water Management, is responsible foradministering provisions of the act for the state Department ofNatural Resources.


The status of nonpoint sources of water pollutants wasassessed by the Division of Surface Water Quality, Department ofNatural Resources. Based on the perceptions of 20 types ofnatural resource, environmental and agricultural agencies, 69percent of the state’s 297 identified watersheds were beingimpacted by forest land erosion. The major pollutants resultingfrom forestry activities were sediments and, in a smaller part,pesticides, nutrients, fertilizers, and increased streamtemperatures due to canopy removal. Silvicultural activitieswere acknowledged as sources of pollutants that could adversely

affect wetlands. However, theestimate of the extent of such

The four leading nonpoint

31 -

Division was unable to provide animpacts.

sources of water pollutionidentified by the Division were septic systems (81 percent ofwatersheds) , stream-bank erosion (80 percent) , agriculturalerosion (75 percent), and construction site erosion (74 percent) .


Strategies suggested as means for addressing nonpoint forestsources of pollutants are:

● support and expand existing education and technicalassistance programs for forestland owners and users.

● support and expand existing stream bank erosioncontrol programs (Soil Erosion and Sediment ControlAct ).

The plan sets forth directions for monitoring theapplication of best management practices. The Division of ForestManagement is designated as the lead agency for implementingnonpoint forest source programs.

In 1991 and 1992, Michigan initiated statewide BMP trainingprograms for purposes of complying with Section 319 of the CleanWater Act. As part of such an effort, a draft BMP manual hasbeen prepared.


Best management practices have been developed by theMichigan Society of American Foresters in cooperation with theMichigan Chapter of The Wildlife Society. The guidelines addressa variety of subjects, including development of forest plans,description of various silvicultural systems, forest protection,and recreational and visual resources. The following areexamples from the wildlife and road construction sections.

Wildlife habitat: Retain several snags and den trees forwildlife purposes as well as some trees that are capable ofproducing seeds, acorns, and nuts; retain mature stands ofnorthern white cedar and hemlock for purposes of winter cover fordeer; provide for and maintain permanent forest openings forwildlife habitat; pile logging slash to provide cover for smallmammals.

Road construction and maintenance: Carefully plan road andtrail locations prior to construction. Roads over wet soilsshould be limited to or designed to be used only when frozen.Road slopes and ditches should be carefully located to prevent

-32-

sedimentation. Main access roads should be graveled under mostconditions. Secondary roads should be reseeded in order toprevent erosion and to provide food for wildlife.

E. Forest Practices Rules

Michigan does not have a comprehensive statewide set ofspecific rules that apply to water quality impacting forestrypractices that might be applied by private landowners and timberoperators. However, certain permits are required by the state’sSoil Erosion and Sedimentation Act. Furthermore, new regulations(Reg. 636, 637), promulgated under authority of the StatePesticide Control Act (Act 171, P.A., 1976), outline specificpractices for minimizing nonpoint source pollution frompesticides used on forestlands.

F. Proqram or Rule Chanqes (Since 1980)

Forestry best management practices were formulated by theMichigan Society of American Foresters in 1987. Generally, therehas been little significant change in programs or best managementpractices directed at forestry since the development of thoseBMPs .


Compliance with voluntary best management practices focusedon water quality is currently being assessed in Michigan.

H. Special Issues

According to informed state forestry program administrators,there is increasing interest within the state legislature toenact a state forest practices act. Although recentintroductions have failed, future proposals are most likely to beintroduced.


Department of Natural Resources. 1985. Assessment for SmallWatersheds (draft). Lansing, MI.

Division of Surface Water Quality. 1988. Michigan’s 1988 NonpointPollution assessment Report. Department of NaturalResources. Lansing, MI.

Division of Surface Water Quality. 1988. Michigan’s NonpointSource Pollution Control Management Plan. Department ofNatural Resources. Lansing, MI.

-33-

Governor’s Cabinet Council on Environmental Protection andMichigan Department of Natural Resources. 1986. MichiganClean Water Incentives Program: Executive Summary. Lansing,MI.

Michigan Society of American Foresters. 1987. Voluntary ForestManagement Guidelines for Michigan. Lansing, MI.

Michigan Society of American Foresters. 1991. Forest PracticesAct: Position Statement. Lansing, MI.

XI MINNESOTA

A. Statutes, Regulations, and Proqrams

Various state agencies have responsibility for implementingprograms that affect the forestry practices of private landownersand operators in Minnesota. For example, the Division ofForestry, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, implementsseveral programs that are focused in some manner on the waterquality impacts of forestry activities, including education andtraining programs, technical assistance programs, voluntaryguidelines, and cost share incentive programs. Also important isthe Department’s Division of Waters, which administers generalrules and standards with respect to shoreland areas anddesignated waterways in the state. Although forestry activitiesare not the primary focus of such regulations, forestry practicesare impacted. At one time, the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency required stormwater discharge permits for timberharvesting activities. Forestry has been given an exemption fromsuch permitting procedures.


The Division of Waters of the state Pollution Control Agencyassessed 42 percent of the state’s 3.4 million acres of lakes andfive percent of the state's 92,000 miles of streams and rivers(completed in 1988; 305(b) update currently in process). Of themany potential nonpoint sources of pollutants, silviculture andforestry related activities were judged to be inconsequentialcontributors. Agricultural activities (cited 56 percent of thetime as a nonpoint pollution source), urban runoff (13 percent),land disposal activities (11 percent), and hydromodification (10percent) were the most frequently cited nonpoint sources of waterpollution in the state.


The state’s approach to the management of nonpoint sourcesof water pollution involves two major strategies, namely:

-34-

The Clean Water Partnership Program is focused on specificbodies of water and the polluting sources associated with them.The program involves the cooperative planning efforts of stateand local governments. Based on the results of such efforts,funding is made available to address water quality problemsassociated with specific bodies of water.

The statewide best management practice strategy is supportedby a structure that includes: ongoing monitoring and research toprovide continuous information on water quality trends;information and education efforts which integrate all landmanagement units; local water planning cooperatives; technicalassistance and local program delivery systems; and state levelplanning, coordination, and evaluation of best managementpractices and the programs used to deliver them. Numerous state,local, and federal agencies are directly responsible for theimplementation of this structure.

State programs focusing specifically on forestry andsilvicultural activities include: the Minnesota ForestryIncentives Program; the USDA Agricultural Conservation Program;and Department of Natural Resources administered programregulating works in stream beds of public waters (includes forestroads) via a permitting process. The state Division of Forestryof the Department of Natural Resources also administers,monitors, and evaluates voluntary best management practices forforestry.


The cooperative efforts of a variety of public and privateorganizations in Minnesota have resulted in the development of aset of best management practices that have been published andmade available to owners of forestland and persons involved inthe harvest of timber from such land. The manual describing thepractices contains a number of definitions, including:

——

-35-

● filter strip -- area of land adjacent to a water bodywhich acts to trap and filter suspended sediments(and chemicals) before they enter surface water.Harvesting is permitted in filter strips as long asthe integrity of the strips is maintained and mineralsoil exposure is kept to a minimum.

The specific practices suggested to landowners and operatorsall have an orientation toward preventing pollution from nonpointsources of water pollutants. They are grouped into the followingmajor categories with examples of specific practices.

● General practices: Locate fueling areas at locations awayfrom water where a potential spill can be contained andproperly treated with minimum opportunity for watercontamination. Identify filter strips for purposes ofdecreasing pollutants from forestry activities. Filterstrip specifications vary according to slope of landadjacent to stream or water body, namely, 2 to 10 percentslope -- 30 to 50 foot filter strip ... 21 to 40 percentslope -- 70 to 110 foot filter strip. Forest managementactivities carried out in filter strips should beaccomplished so as to produce minimal exposure of residualsoil and maintain an acceptable amount of residualvegetation.

-36-

Establish filter strips adjacent to lakes, ponds,perennial streams, and intermittent streams. Avoid fellingtimber into non-forested wetlands. Vegetation adjacent todesignated trout streams should be managed to minimizeincreases in stream temperature.

● Mechanical site Preparation: Use site preparationtechniques that will minimize disturbance to site andadjacent water areas. Avoid concentrating residues fromshearing and raking operations in wetland areas. Locatewindrows outside filter strips. Use patch and rowscarification as the preferred mechanical site preparationmethod for artificial regeneration.


Minnesota does not have comprehensive rules that govern theapplication of water quality impacting forestry practices thatmight be applied by private owners of forestland or timberharvesters.

F. Special Rules

Minnesota has a number of statutes, rules and polices thatlimit the manner in which forestry practices are applied toprivate forestland. For example, statewide rules establishstandards for forest management in shoreland areas (ShorelandManagement Act), namely:

● timber harvesting and associated reforestation mustbe conducted consistent with provisions of MinnesotaNonpoint Source Pollution Assessment (Forestry) andwith provisions for water quality specified inbest management practices in Minnesota.

- 37-

approved by the local soildistrict prior to issuancepermit.

and water conservationof a conditional use

● use of fertilizers or pesticides must be done in sucha way as to minimize impact on shore impact zones andpublic waters.

Alterations of shoreland vegetation are generally limited inmanners such as: intense vegetation clearing on shore impactzones and on steep slopes is not allowed; limited clearing oftrees in shoreland areas is allowed under special circumstances;and use of fertilizers and pesticides is to be accomplished withminimal impacts on public waters.

Cutting vegetation within areas designated as state wild,scenic, and recreational rivers is also restricted by state law.For example, within specified distances of the high water mark ofa Particular type of designated river (100 to 200 feet, dependingon designation category) , clearcutting is prohibited, andselective cutting of trees over four inches in diameter ispermitted only under certain conditions. Clearcutting anywherein watersheds within a designated wild, scenic, or recreationalriver is subject to legal standards, including:

● clearcutting is prohibited where soil, slope orwatershed conditions are fragile;

● clearcuts must be shaped and blended with naturallandscapes;

● where feasible, clearcuts must be conducted betweenSeptember 15 and May 15.

The Department of Natural Resources also has establishedpolicy statements which prohibit or severely limit timberharvesting activities in scientific and natural areas and inwildlife management areas.

A county government in Minnesota (Winona) has established atimber harvesting ordinance that requires licensing and bondingof persons intent on harvesting timber. When evaluating aperson’s application to harvest timber, the county administratorsrequire: (a) restoration of all cuts, access roads, and strippedslopes to a useable condition; (b) proper disposal of all slashand logging debris; (c) taking actions to prevent and suppresswildfires; (d) application of timber stand improvement practicesto the harvested area; and (e) cutting operations to be carriedout consistent with standards established by the state Departmentof Natural Resources.

G.

were

-38-

Program or Rule Changes (Since 1980)

Forestry best management practices to protect water qualityexpanded in 1991 pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act of

1987.

H. Compliance and Effectiveness

In 1991, 1992, and 1993, the Division of Forestry conductedstatewide audits of the application of best management practices.The audits assessed the rates of adoption of best managementpractices and the factors influencing the adoption of suchpractices. Results from the 1992 audit are presented in Table 9.

TABLE9 ADOPTION(PERCENT)OF BESTMANAGEMENTPRACTICESIN MINNESOTA,BY LANDOWNERCATEGORY- 1992

BestManagement

Practice

96914873

10010096

923636

100

90

Resources. University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN.

1. Special Issues

Minnesota has several major issues confronting forestry inthe state. Among the most compelling are proposals forestablishing a state forest practices law. A bill proposingadoption of such a law was introduced in the 1991-1992 session ofthe state legislature. Similar bills were introduced in the1992-1993 session for purposes of registering and certifyingtimber harvesters.

-39-

J. Information Sources

Department of Natural Resources. 1979. Scientific and NaturalAreas: Policy. MS 86A. Rules and Regulations NR 300-3. St.Paul, MN.

Department of Natural Resources. 1982. Wildlife Management Areas:Policy. Operational Order 1961. St. Paul, MN.

Department of Natural Resources. 1985. Forest-Wildlife Guidelinesfor Habitat Management: Forest, Transition, Prairie. St.Paul, MN.

Division of Forestry. 1979. Minnesota Forest Management NonpointSource Pollution Assessment (Project 208). Department ofNatural Resources. St. Paul, MN.

Division of Forestry. 1991. Minnesota Forest Practices Act:Summary of Provisions. Department of Natural Resources. St.Paul, MN.

Division of Forestry, et al. n.d. Water Quality in ForestManagement: Best Management Practices in Minnesota.Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, MN.

Division of Waters. 1989. Statewide Standards for Management ofShoreland Areas. Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul,MN.

Division of Water Quality. 1988. Minnesota Nonpoint SourcePollution Assessment Report. Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency. St. Paul, MN.

Division of Water Quality. 1988. Minnesota Nonpoint SourcePollution Management Program. Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency. St. Paul, MN.

Ellefson, P. V., and F. W. Cubbage. 1980. State Forest PracticeLaws and Regulations: A Review and Case Study for Minnesota.Bulletin 536-1980. Agricultural Experiment Station.University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN.

Ellefson, P. V. 1992. Private Forestry Practices Regulated byPublic Programs: Experiences with State Forest PracticeLaws . Staff Paper Series No. 84. Department of ForestResources. University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN.

Gathman, J., N. Troelstrup, M. Phillips and J. Perry. 1992. ASurvey to Assess Adoption of Best Management Practices inMinnesota Forestry. Department of Forest Resources.University of Minnesota. St. Paul, MN.

-40-

Heiskary, S. A., and C. B. Wilson. 1988. Minnesota Lake WaterQuality Assessment Report. Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency. St. Paul, MN.

Helland, J., 1992. Forest Practice Legislation in the UnitedStates. Information Brief. House Research. MN StateLegislature. St. Paul, MN.

Minnesota Extension Service. 1987. Forest Spraying: PesticideApplicator/s Training Manual. University of Minnesota. St.Paul, MN.

Phillips, M. J., R. Rossman, and R. Dahlman. l994. BestManagement Practices for Water Quality: Evaluating BMPCompliance on Forest Lands in Minnesota -- A Three-YearStudy . Division of Forestry. MN Department of NaturalResources. St. Paul, MN.

Rathke, D. M., and M. J. Baughman. 1992. Minnesotans NaturalResource Conservation Programs. NR-FO-5946-S. MinnesotaExtension Service. St. Paul, MN.

Rose, G. A., 1991. Personal Correspondence. Director. Divisionof Forestry. Department of Natural Resources. September 14,1991. St. Paul, MN.

Rossman, R., and M. J. Phillips. 1992. Forestry Best ManagementPractices Implementation Monitoring: 1991 Forestry FieldAudit. Report to MN Pollution Control Agency. September.Division of Forestry. MN Department of Natural Resources.St. Paul, MN.

State of Minnesota. n.d. Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers.Minnesota Statutes. Chapter 6105 (6105.0010 - 6105.1700).St. Paul, MN.

Winona Country. n.d. Winona County Timber Harvesting Ordinance:Commercial Timber Harvesting Permit Procedures,Requirements, and Performance Standards. County Courthouse.Winona, MN.

XII


—

The Division of Forestry of the Department of Conservationplays a prominent role in addressing nonpoint forestry sources ofwater pollution. The Division administers programs of thefollowing nature: education and training, technical assistance,financial assistance, and voluntary best management practices.

-41-

The state’s Department of Natural Resources also hasstatutory authority to implement programs that address nonpointsources of pollutants. Most such programs are not forestryspecific. For example, the state’s Soil and Water ConservationProgram provides low interest loans to landowners for purposes ofreducing or preventing soil erosion; cost share to landowners forpurposes of soil conservation practices; and grants to Soil andWater Conservation Districts for technical assistance anddemonstration projects. The Department’s Water Pollution ControlProgram funds surface and groundwater quality monitoringprojects.


The Division of Water Quality, Department of NaturalResources, assessment of nonpoint forest sources of waterpollutants concluded that pollution from silvicultural sources isnot a major concern within the state. Timber harvests, the mostcommon silvicultural activity, occur infrequently on a specifictract and annually amount to about only two percent of Missouri'scommercial forestland area. In relation to agriculturalpractices, the Division concluded that silvicultural practicesare small scale in terms of the amount of soil lost, frequency ofsoil disturbance, amount of chemicals used, and acreage treated.


Because pollution from forest management activities is notsignificant, no regulatory compliance program is considerednecessary. Land management agencies and the logging companiesare judged to have already voluntarily initiated watershedprotection practices to maintain high water quality from forests.Technical and general assistance will be provided landowners andoperators by state agencies as necessary.


The Division of Forestry, Department of Conservation, hasprepared guidelines for managing nonpoint sources of pollutantsin forested areas. Some examples of the subjects addressed bythe guidelines and specific practices suggested therein follow.

Streamside zones: Streamside zones should be establishedadjacent to perennial and intermittent streams, springs andlakes. Such zones are of two parts: a primary filter strip 25feet wide from a stream; a secondary filter strip, beyond theprimary strip, that varies in width according to slope (twice theslope percentage of surrounding land). For fish and wildlifehabitat purposes, a streamside zone of 100 feet is recommended.Within the primary zone, harvesting should be limited toapproximately one-quarter of the forest (basal area of 20 to 30

- 42

square feet) . Wheeled or trackedwithin 25 feet of a stream bank.

Streamside crossinqs: Roads

tractors should not be used

should be planned so as tominimize the need for stream crossings. Fords should be locatedat right angles to stream channels and, where permanent, shouldbe protected with coarse rock or large stones.

Road construction and maintenance: Roads should be planned,located, and constructed so as to provide for adequate drainage.They should generally be constructed at grades of less than eightpercent, and when heavy equipment is to be used, surfaced withgravel for adequate support. Broadbased dips should be used atproper intervals (specified for every 500 feet where road gradeis one percent, to every 180 feet where grade is five percent).Likewise, water bars should be installed when retiring temporaryroads and main skid roads (intervals specified). Temporary roadsshould be reshaped, seeded and mulched as appropriate (grassspecies, seed application, rates and dates for application arespecified) .

Timber harvesting: Locate log landings on stable welldrained soils. Equipment should not be serviced in closeproximity to streams; petroleum products should be properlydisposed of; logging debris should be removed from streams.

Site preparation and reforestation: Avoid mechanical sitepreparation which bares soil on steep slopes. Install filterstrips to prevent erosion.

Chemical treatments: Avoid use of chemicals in streamsidezones.

E. Forest Practice and Special Rules

Missouri does not have rules specifically focused on waterquality impacting forestry practices that might be applied byprivate landowners or timber operators.

F. Proqram or Rule Chanqes (Since 1980)

Informal cooperative agreements between land managementagencies and logging industry have resulted in the developmentand implementation of voluntary forest practice guidelines aimedat watershed protection.


Compliance with voluntary best management practices has notbeen monitored in Missouri.

--

-43-


Brunk, Eugene L. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Assistant StateForester. Division of Forestry. Department ofConservation. Jefferson City, MO.

Division of Environmental Quality. 1989. Nonpoint SourceManagement Plan. Water Quality Control Program. Departmentof Natural Resources. Jefferson City, MO.

Department of Conservation. 1990. Missouri Watershed ProtectionPractices: Management Guidelines for Maintaining ForestedWatersheds to Protect Streams. Division of Forestry.Jefferson City, MO.

XIII NEBRASKA

A. gulations,

The Nebraska Forest Service, affiliated with the Universityof Nebraska (Lincoln), is responsible for programs focused onnonpoint forestry sources of water pollutants. The agency doesnot administer regulatory programs focused directly on forestryactivities. The state does, however, have laws which prohibitdepositing of certain material (e.g., logging debris) intostreams. The Forest Service administers a variety of non-regulatory programs directed at protecting water quality onprivate forestlands. Specifically, the Service administerseducation and training, technical assistance, tax incentives, andfinancial cost share programs. Such programs are consistent withthe modest amount of forestland that exits in Nebraska.

B. Nonnoint Assessment Report

The Division of Water Quality of the Department ofEnvironmental Control assessed 1,361 watersheds within the Stateof Nebraska. Seven percent of the watersheds had no adversewater quality impacts or beneficial use impairments; 36.4 percenthad adverse water quality impacts as well as suspected beneficialuse impairments. The remaining watersheds had unknown impacts orno known impacts. Since the state’s land base is less than fourpercent forested, silvicultural and forestry related activitieswere found to have minimal impacts on the quality of the state’swaters. The majority of the state’s water quality problemsoriginated from agricultural practices. Thirty-eight percent ofthe "high concern" nonpoint pollutant sources were agricultural;33.3 percent were hydromodification activities; and 16.7 percentof high concern nonpoint sources were from land disposalactivities. Silvicultural activities were rated as “low" concernor “not an existing concern."

-44-


Among the areas for focus of the state’s nonpoint source(NPS) program implementation activities, the Division of Wateridentified the following:

● NPS Surface Water Quality Monitoring System:objectives are to: identify watersheds where waterquality or beneficial uses are imminently impaired;identify contributing pollutants in impairedwatersheds; determine quantitative level of waterquality and beneficial use impairment; and identifycritical areas within target watersheds forapplication of best management practices (BMPs).

● Information and Education: publishing articles andmanuals regarding control of nonpoint sourcepollution from various land disturbing activities;and display appropriate water quality exhibits atregional agricultural and environmental conferences.

The plan does not identify programs targeted specifically atforestry practices.


Nebraska does not have formally developed documents thatdescribe best management practices for forestry. However,property-specific best management practices are recommended inforest management plans developed for private landowners by thestate Forest Service.


Nebraska does not have rules pertaining specifically towater quality impacting forestry practices that might be appliedby private landowners or timber operators.


Compliance with bestForest Service has not be


management practices suggested by theformally assessed.

Adams, D. M. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Nebraska ForestService. University of Nebraska Lincoln. Lincoln, NE.

Division of Water Quality. Nebraska Nonpoint Source ManagementProgram: 1991 Annual NPS Report. Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Control. Lincoln, NE.

-45-

Nebraska Nonpoint Source Task Force. 1990. The Nebraskanonpoint source management program. Nebraska Department ofEnvironmental Control. Lincoln, NE.

Seyfer, J. and D. Ehrman. 1988. Nebraska nonpoint sourcemanagement (Section 319) report. NB Department ofEnvironmental Control, Water Quality Division. Lincoln, NE.

Zaroban, D.W. and T. O’Connor. Nebraska Nonpoint Source (319)Assessment Report. Nebraska Department of EnvironmentalControl, Division of Water Quality. Lincoln, NE.

XIV NORTH DAKOTA


Programs directed at nonpoint forestry sources of waterpollution are administered by the North Dakota Forest Service.The latter administers programs of the following nature as theyrelate to forestry activities: education and training, technicalassistance, tax incentives, and financial cost share incentives.Such programs are consistent with the modest amount of forestthat exists in North Dakota.


The Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control of theState Department of Health and Consolidated Laboratories assessedthe state’s waters in 1988. Approximately 30 percent of the9,851 stream miles and most of the lakes assessed were classifiedas impaired due to nonpoint source pollution. For purposes ofthe assessment, the state was divided into four major riverbasins: Red River, Souris River, James River, and MissouriRiver. In turn, the basins were further subdivided into sub-basins. Of all the sub-basin assessments, agriculture andhydromodification accounted for an average of 90 percent of thenonpoint sources identified. Silviculture was not identified asa source of water pollutants.


The state-wide strategy for addressing nonpoint source waterpollution in general is through the administration of bestmanagement practices. Statutes and regulations exist forconstruction, land disposal, and resource extraction. There isparticular emphasis on coordinating technical assistance and costsharing mechanisms between local, state and federal programs.None are specifically directed at forestry. Among such programsare the Resource Conservation and Development Fund, WatershedProtection Project, Rural Clean Water Program, Water BankProgram, and No Net Loss Wetlands Program.

-46-


North Dakota does not have voluntary guidelines forforestry.


North Dakota does not have rules pertaining to water qualityimpacting forestry practices that might be applied by privatelandowners or timber harvesters.


Compliance with best management practices is not monitoredin North Dakota.


Kotchman, L. A. 1991. Personal Correspondence. State Forester.North Dakota State Forest Service. Bottineau, ND.

Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. 1988. NorthDakota Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. Prepared toFulfill the Requirements of Section 319 of the Clean WaterAct . North Dakota Department of Health and ConsolidatedLaboratories. Bismarck, ND.

Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control. 1992. NorthDakota Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program.Prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 319 of theClean Water Act. North Dakota Department of Health andConsolidated Laboratories. Bismarck, ND.

XV OHIO


State forestry programs to control nonpoint silviculturalsources of pollution in Ohio are administered by the Division ofForestry, Department of Natural Resources. The programs involveeducation and training, technical assistance, voluntaryguidelines, and tax incentives -- none are designed exclusivelyfor protection of water quality. There are, however,agricultural sediment pollution abatement rules (AdministrativeCode Rules 1501:15-3-01 to 1501:15-3-09) that establish statestandards for management practices involving farming andsilvicultural activities that can accelerate erosion or degradewater quality. The rules are promulgated and implemented by theDivision of Soil and Water Conservation, Department of NaturalResources.

-47-


The Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment of theState Environmental Protection Agency carried out an assessmentof Ohio’s water quality in 1990. For purposes of the assessment,the state was divided into five major drainage basins -- LakeErie East, Lake Erie West, Ohio River Central, Ohio River East,and Ohio River West. In turn, these drainages were subdividedinto 93 hydrologic groups. Of the 43,917 miles of streamssurveyed in the assessment, 32 percent (12,463 miles) were foundto be impaired by nonpoint sources of pollutants. An additional53 percent were found to be impacted and 15 percent were judgedas threatened.

Agricultural activities were found to be the most prevalentcategory of nonpoint source pollution, affecting over 70 percentof the impaired stream miles. Other major categories of pollutantsidentified were land disposal (affecting 25.5 percent of thestream miles) , resource extraction and surface mining (25percent), hydromodification (25 percent), urban sources (17percent), and natural processes (6.5 percent). Silviculture wascited as impacting only five percent of the state’s total streammiles. Of the 12,463 miles of stream identified as impaired bynonpoint sources, approximately 350 miles (2.9 percent) werejudged to be impaired by silvicultural activities. Forty-sixpercent of the state's publicly owned lakes that were surveyed inthe assessment were associated with nonpoint source affected streams.


Responsibility for Ohio’s nonpoint source management programis shared by the State’s Department of Natural Resources and theOhio Environmental Protection Agency. The updated managementprogram (October 1992) outlines six programmatic objectives:

● Develop a nonpoint source education program foragency staff, affected organizations, landowners, andthe general public.

institutions to provide technical assistance forplanning and implementing remedial and preventivenonpoint source projects.

● Establish a state wide monitoring program to trackeffects of nonpoint source pollution and determineeffectiveness of implemented projects.

● Obtain state funding for nonpoint source research,education, planning, technical assistance,monitoring, and enforcement in targeted priorityareas.

●

●

-48-

Coordinate administrative efforts to insure efficientmanagement of nonpoint source issues.

Set a legislative agenda for nonpoint sourcepollution to provide additional funding and for thedevelopment of new regulations considered necessary.

The Division of Forestry plays a major role in the plan’simplemental ion. In part, thus involves the implementation of anumber of existing programs that facilitate management ofnonpoint forest sources of water pollutants, including ruralforestry assistance and service forestry programs, forestproducts utilization programs, Stewardship Incentives Program(federal), the Agricultural Conservation Program (federal), andthe Forestry Incentives Program (federal). The Division alsofostered the development of forestry best management practicesvia participation in the state’s Silvicultural Nonpoint SourcePollution Technical Advisory Committee (composed of, amongothers, the Division and the Ohio Forestry Association). TheCommittee has published best management practice (BMP) manualsand has assisted in training programs (e.g., timber operators)regarding their appropriate application.


The Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources,has (with the assistance of the Silvicultural Nonpoint SourcePollution Control Technical Advisory Committee) established bestmanagement practices that are suggested to landowners andoperators for voluntary consideration and compliance. Among thedefinitions contained in the suggested best management practicesare:

● Filter strip -- protective strip of undisturbedforest soil between areas of mineral soil and a watercourse.

● Shade strip -- a no cut or light cut 25 foot strip oneach side of a stream bank that preserves adequateshading of permanently flowing streams and maintainssatisfactory stream water temperatures.

-- undisturbed area of vegetation usedfor screening roads or other sensitive areas.

● Critical areas -- areas subject to erosion due tosoil type or slope.

● Water bars -- water diversion structures.

Examples of suggested best management practices and thecategories within which they are placed are as follows.

-49-

Planning harvesting operations: Pre-harvest planning shouldinvolve preparation of a detailed plan identifying streams anddrainage, critical areas, road and trail locations, buffer zones,and log landing sites. Special consideration should be given towet areas, to timing of harvest, and to equipment to be used.

Haul roads: Haul roads should be designed for efficienttransportation while effectively protecting forest productivityand water quality. Before permanent erosion control practicescan be installed (bridges, culverts) , temporary erosion controlmeasures may be necessary (hay or straw bales, silt fences) .Haul road entrances should be graveled up to 200 feet from publichighways to keep mud off highways. In wet areas, wooden mats,planking or other appropriate material should be used to preventrutting. If possible, trees should be removed along roadsides toallow sunlight to enter and dry road surfaces.

Skid roads: Skid roads should be kept on grades less than20 percent. Avoid stream channels, rocky places, and adversegrades. Cross as near to right angles to streams as possible.Keep skid trails out of filter strips and shade strips.

Maintenance: Periodically check for obstructions (correctproblems) in all ditches, culverts, energy dissipators, rollingand broad-based dips, water turnouts, and silt fences.

Stream crossings: Ford streams at right angles and wherestream bottoms and banks are rock. Apply gravel to skid roadapproaches to streams.

Filter and shade strips: Filter strips along permanentlyflowing streams should only be selectively harvested. All treescasting shade on a stream should be left uncut. Width of filterstrip is to be determined by slope of land adjacent to stream.For common logging areas, 10 percent slope requires a 45 footfilter strip ... 50 percent slope requires 125 foot strip. Forlogging in critical or municipal areas, 10 percent slope requiresa 90 foot strip ... 50 percent slope requires a 250 foot strip.

Landinqs: Landings should be located on dry sites and havea slight slope for proper drainage. Landings should berevegetated as soon as possible after harvesting.

Sale closinqs: Sale closure should occur as soon aspossible after a timber harvest area is complete. Closure shouldinclude installation of water bars and revegetation of landingsand roads. Water bars should be spaced according to slope. Forexample, two percent slope -- every 250 feet; 20 percent slope,every 45 feet. Specifications given for type of seeding andapplication rate for seed, fertilizers, and lime.

-50- .


The Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources,does not administer rules that directly limit the manner in whichwater quality impacting forestry practices are applied onprivately owned forestland. The Division’s efforts to do so areinitiated through a voluntary program.

F. Special Rules

The Division of Soil and Water Conservation, Department ofAgriculture, is responsible for general implementation ofagricultural sediment pollution abatement rules (AdministrativeCode Rules 1501:15-3-01 to 1501:15-3-09) which address forestrypractices that may accelerate erosion or degrade water quality,and is authorized by the state’s Agricultural Pollution AbatementAct (Ohio Revised Code chapter 1511). Local Soil and WaterConservation Districts are responsible for monitoring andenforcing standards. Specific rules include:

operations such that the soil loss from water andwind erosion does not exceed certain maximumsspecified by the universal soil loss equation andstandards established in technical manuals.

● Landowners or operators carrying out silviculturaloperations must properly design and construct waterflow channels and must use appropriate practices thatwill prevent pollution by sediment in gullies,drainage ways, grassed waterways, ditches and streams.

● Landowners or operators responsible for silviculturaloperations must not use earth distributing practicesadjacent to a ditch, stream or lake such thatdistributed soil is placed in a ditch, stream, orlake.

G. Proqram or Rule Changes (Since 1980)

Proposals to amend the Agricultural Pollution Abatement lawwere introduced during the 1991-1992 session of the OhioLegislature. Rules adopted pursuant to the proposed amendmentswere established in 1989.

H. Compliance and Effectiveness

Landowner and operator compliance with best managementpractices has not been systematically and formally measuredOhio.

in

-51-


Abraham, R. G. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Chief. Divisionof Forestry. Department of Natural Resources. September26, 1991. Columbus, OH.

Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Ohio Nonpoint SourceManagement Program. Draft. Ohio Department of NaturalResources. Columbus, OH.

Division of Forestry. n.d. BMP’s for Erosion Control on LoggingJobs. Department of Natural Resources. Columbus, OH.

Division of Soil and Water Conservation. 1989. AgriculturalSediment Pollution Abatement Rules. Department of NaturalResources. Columbus, OH.

Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment. 1990. State

Ohio

Ohio

A.

of Ohio Nonpoint Source Assessment. Volume 1: StateOverview. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, NonpointSource Program Management Section. Columbus, OH.

Forestry Association. 1986. Logger’s Guide to RecommendedLogging Practices. Timber Industry Council. Columbus, OH.

State Senate. 1991-1992. Proposed Amendment to AgriculturalPollution Abatement Act. Bill No. 88. Columbus, OH.

XVI SOUTH DAKOTA

Statutes, Regulations, and Proqrams

The Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture isresponsible for state programs in South Dakota that addressnonpoint forestry sources of water pollutants. Although theState Department of Environment and Natural Resources isresponsible for implementing projects and plans related tononpoint source control plans generally, the Division of Forestryis given administrative authority to develop and administervoluntary forestry best management practices.

The programs administered by the Division of Forestry focuson education and training, technical assistance, and fiscal costshare incentives. In the opinion of Division administrators,water quality problems resulting from forestry activities areminimal within the state. Hence, state programs directed atprotection of water quality flowing from forestlands are non-regulatory in nature. The Division does, however, implementregulations concerning the disposal of slash from timberharvesting operations.

-52-


The Office of Water Resources,Natural Resources, assessed nonpointin 1988. Of the 3,751 miles of rivetotal of 9,937 miles), silviculturalhave no impact on any portions of thSimilarly, of the nearly 1.6 millionstate, silvicultural practices wereon 162 lake acres and a moderate orMajor causes of nonpoint water pollupractices and land disposal.

Department of Water ansources of water poll

r assessed (out of a sactivities were found

e assessed rivers.acres of lake within

dutantstateto

theimpactres.1

foundminortants

to have a majorimpact on 463 acwere agricultural


Significant water quality impacts from forestry relatedactivities result from forest wildfires in South Dakota. Betweenthe USDA Forest Senice, the USDI National Park Service, the U.S.Geological Survey, and state land management agencies, researchhas been conducted to determine effects of burns on water yieldsand water quality. Specific projects directed at studyingsilvicultural impacts on water yield and water quality have beenorganized by state and federal land management agencies.


Best management practicesa are based in part on sta

fond

r forestry operations inards set forth in the USD(FSH 2509.22) concerningThe standards are very

andards are as follows:

sAs

outh

oilDakotForest Service Regional Handbooka1nd Water Conservengthy; example c

ationPrategori

actices.es of st

Vegetative manipulation

operating seedingns

dcad

andforexcl

isturtionuring

land preparationtractor operatiuded from wetlabed areasand monitoringand after slas

Inequonnds a

h win

ipmentslope limitatiotractor operationrevegetation ofpesticide applisoil protection

nd bogs

drowing

-

timber sale planningoperational period for harvestingprotection of unstable areasriparian area designationlog landing location and designerosion prevention and control measurrevegetation of disturbed areasstream course protectionreforestation requirements

es—

-53-

Roads and trails

● transportation planning● erosion control plan

● stream crossing on temporary roads

● stream bank protection● maintenance of roads

E. Forest Practice and Special Rules

The state government of South Dakota does not administercomprehensive rules pertaining specifically to water qualityimpacting forestry practices that might be applied on privateforestland. The state does, however, administer a slash disposaland burning permit law which requires proper treatment anddisposal of logging slash and debris. Violations aremisdemeanors subject to fines.


State administered efforts to determine compliance with bestmanagement practices focused on nonpoint forestry sources ofwater pollutants have not been carried out.

G. Special Issues

Forest wildfires have apparently had detrimental effects onseveral streams in the Black Hills area of South Dakota. Stateand federal cooperative efforts at studying effects and reducingimpacts of burns on water quality are being given significantattention.


Davis, F. 1991. Personal Correspondence. Director. Division ofForestry. Department of Agriculture. Pierre, SD.

Forest Service. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation PracticesHandbook (FSH 2509.22). U.S. Department of Agriculture.Denver, CO.

Office of Water Resources Management. 1988. South Dakota (Section319) Nonpoint Source Assessment Report. Department of Waterand Natural Resources. Pierre, SD.

Office of Water Management. 1991. South Dakota (Section 319)Nonpoint Source Management Plan Update. Department ofEnvironment and Natural Resources. Pierre, SD.

-54-

State of South Dakota. 1990. Public Law Regulating Disposal ofLogging Slash. Pierre, SD.

XVII WISCONSIN

A. Statutes, Regulations, and Programs

The Bureau of Forestry Department of

— —

Natural Resources, has.major responsibility for a variety of state programs focused onthe forestry activities of private landowners and operators inWisconsin. Among Bureau administered programs are thoseinvolving education, technical assistance, tax incentives,financial incentives, and voluntary guidelines. The onlyregulatory program administered by the agency involved fireprevention and suppression activities.

The Department of Natural Resources and local zoningauthorities (counties) may require permits for constructing,crossing over or through, certain designated streams orwaterways.


The State Department of Natural Resources assessed (in 1992)the quality of water occurring in approximately 11,336 of thestate’s 30,539 river and stream miles. Of the assessed miles,5.1 percent were found as not supporting designated uses (e.g.,domestic water supply, recreation, aquatic life), 11.7 percentwere partially supporting designated uses, and 0.9 percent of therivers and streams were threatened by nonpoint sources ofpollutants. Agricultural activities were determined to beimpacting 6,088 of the stream and river miles assessed (53.7percent of total stream and river miles assessed);hydromodification was adversely impacting a significantproportion of the remainder. Road construction and maintenanceassociated with forestry activities were considered as causingmoderate impairment of 19.8 miles of streams and rivers in thestate.


The Wisconsin nonpoint source pollution abatement program ispromulgated in Chapter NR 120 of Wisconsin Statutes (revised1989). The statute provides for the necessary administrative andfinancial framework to fully implement the objectives of theprogram. Emphasis is placed on education and technicalassistance administered jointly by the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources, Department of Agriculture, Trade and ConsumerProtection, the University of Wisconsin Extension, the USDA SoilConservation Service, the USDA Agricultural Stabilization and

-55-

Conservation Service, and the USDA Farmers Home Association. Inaddition to implementing the program via technical assistance,the statute mandates that the Department of Natural Resourcesdevelop and administer voluntary best management practices (BMPs)for all major categories of nonpoint source pollutants. Inaddition to encouraging the application of BMPs statewide, thestate’s management program also addresses priority nonpointsource problems at the project level. Forestry and silviculturalactivities are not explicitly addressed by the state managementprogram.


Best management practices guiding forestry activities havebeen developed for use by forest landowners and operators inWisconsin. The practices are presented as voluntary guidelinesto be used on privately owned forestland. The state is in theprocess of revising the best management practices (availableDecember 1993). Responsibility for doing so rests with fourcommittees (composed of persons representing forest industry,nonindustrial private landowners, state forestry agencies,environmental groups, general public) that are focusing on BMPdefinition, incentives and financing, education and training, andmonitoring and evaluation.—

Current best management practice guidelines contain manydefinitions, among which are the following:

● forest practice -- an activity relating to thegrowing, harvesting, or processing of forest treespecies on forestland, including related managementactivities conducted for purposes of wildlife,recreation and aesthetics;

● nonpoint sources -- land management activity whichcontributes to runoff, seepage or percolation whichadversely effects or threatens water quality;

● streamside management zone -- an uncut, or partiallycut , strip of timber along waterways retained toprevent erosion.

The best management practices are organized around thedevelopment of a forest management plan and its subse~entimplementation. Examples of practices suggested to be part of aplan’s implementation are:

Silvicultural svstems: Two basic silvicultural systems,namely even and uneven-aged approaches, are described. Even-agedregeneration methods include: clearcutting, seed-tree, andshelterwood. Uneven-aged systems imply the selection method ofharvesting as the appropriate regeneration method. There is a

-56-

presentation of circumstances warrant ing the use of a specificsystem.

Forest accessways: Roadadvance and designed to have aStream crossings should be kep

conmint to

struction shouimal impact ona minimum. S

ld be plwater r

urface

anned inesources ●

▼

disturbance should beskid trails, and landpercent in most soil

keptings.condi

to-a minimum when cRoads should be no

tions; five percent

obstructinggreater thain erodible

roads,.neighsoil

cond iti.ons Fording of streams should-be avoided unless streambeds and banks are sutrails, landings, and

fficientunused

ly stablroads is

e. Revegetaencouraged.

tion of skid

Timber harvesting: findings should be located so as tominimize impact on natural drainage patterns. After yarding iscompleted, landing should be seeded where erosion of landingsurface may occur. Felling of trees into streams or lakes shoube avoided. An uncut, or partially cut, strip of timber shouldbe left along major waterways to prevent erosion and foraesthetic purposes. When skidding, temporary stream crossings(e.g., culverts, logs or portable bridges) should be used and,when operation is complete, promptly removed. Skidding throughstreamside management zones should be minimized.

ld

Reforestation: Theresite preparation techniques,prescribed burning, and thenmethods should be undertaken

is a general descincluding mechan

chemicalapplication.with due regard

ription of maical methods,The use of

for water qua

j or

suchlity.

Pest management:should be undertaken tdiseases, and unwanted

Ao miveg

variety of.nimize the‘etation.

forest management techneffects of insects,

i

Other values: For wildlife purposes, snag and den treesshould be retained; depending on the wildlife species, edgesshould be created (some wildlife species do best in larger standsof the same type) ; openings in’forest should be encouraged (plantto grass and legumes); pile logging slash for use by smallmammals; and consider closing logging roads to public in areaswith timber wolves and black bear. For recreation and visualpurposes, clearcuts should be harmonized with the general forestlandscape; buffer strips along roads should be considered asmeans of reducing the visual impact of harvesting; opportunitiesto create scenic vistas should be capitalized on; and forestcover in unique areas (rocky bluffs, unusual land forms, waterfalls) should be retained.


Exceptcertain stre

forams

permitand wa

s requirterways,

edw

for ciscons

onstrucin does

tingnot

crossingshavefically on

over

watercomprehens ive rules and regulations focused speci

-57-

quality impacting forestry practices that might be applied byprivate landowners or timber harvesters.


The Bureau of Forestry has not monitored compliance withforestry best management practices.


Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Wisconsin NonpointSource Assessment Report. August 1, 1988. Madison, WI.

Department of Natural Resources. 1988. Wisconsin NonpointSource Management Report. August 1, 1988. Madison, WI.

Department of Natural Resources. 1992. Wisconsin Water QualityAssessment: Report to Congress. Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources. Madison, WI.

State of Wisconsin. 1989. Nonpoint Source Abatement Program. RuleChapter NR 120. Register No. 407. November. Department ofNatural Resources. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Paper Council and Bureau of Forestry. 1990. ForestPractice Guidelines for Wisconsin. Department of NaturalResources. Madison, WI.

Widmann, R.H. and M. Long. 1992. Ohio Timber Product Output --1989. Resource Bulletin NE-121. Northeastern ForestExperiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Radnor, PA.

XVIII PROGRAM CONTACT PERSONS

Richard Little, Section ManagerDivision of Forest ResourcesDepartment of ConservationLincoln Tower Plaza524 South 2nd StreetSpringfield, IL 62701-1787(217) 782-2361

Richard J. MollahanDivision of Water Pollution ControlEnvironmental Protection AgencyBOX 192762200 Churchill RoadSpringfield, lL 62794-9276(217) 782-3362

-58-

Burnell C. Fischer, State ForesterDivision of ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources402 West Washington Street, Room 296Indianapolis, IN 46204(317) 232-4105(317) 243-5092 FAX

Sharon Jarzen, CoordinatorNonpoint Source Projects/StandardsOffice of WaterDepartment of Environmental ManagementP.O. BOX 6015105 South Meridian StreetIndianapolis, IN 46206-6015(317) 243-5145

IOWA

William Farris, State ForesterDivision of ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources900 East GrandDes Moines, IA 50319(505) 281-8656

Ubbo Agena, ManagerWater Quality PlanningDepartment of Natural Resources900 East GrandDes Moines, IA 50319(515) 281-6402

Lester R. Pinkerton, Program LeaderForest Management SectionState and Extension ForestryKansas State University2610 Claflin RoadManhattan, KA 66502-2798(913) 537-7050(913) 539-9584 FAX

Donald SnethenNonpoint Source SectionBureau of Environmental QualityDepartment of Health and Environment740 Forbes Field BuildingTopeka, KA 66620-0001(913) 296-5567(913) 296-6247 FAX

-59-

Donald A. Harem, DirectorDivision of ForestryDepartment for Natural Resources627 Comanche TrailFrankfort, KY 40601(502) 564-4496

Corrine L. Wells, Field Team LeaderNonpoint Source ProgramDivision of WaterDepartment for Environmental ProtectionFrankfort Office Park18 Reilly RoadFrankfort, KY 40601(502) 564-3410

Gordon Terry, Section LeaderPrivate Forest DevelopmentDivision of Forest ManagementDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 30028Lansing, MI 48909(517) 335-3335

Rhonda Phillips-ScalesSurface Water Quality DivisionDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. BOX 30028Lansing, MI 48909(517) 373-2039

MINNESOTA

Gerald A. Rose, DirectorDivision of ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155-4044(612) 296-4484

Michael J. Phillips, Management SpecialistDivision of ForestryDepartment of Natural Resources500 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155-4044(612) 297-4924

-60-

Dorothy StainbrookDivision of Water QualityPollution Control Agency520 Lafayette RoadSt. Paul, MN 55155(612) 297-8218

Gerald E. Ross, State ForesterDepartment of ConservationP.O. BOX 180Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180(314) 751-4115

Betty Gagnon, NPS CoordinatorWater Pollution Control ProgramDivision of Environmental QualityDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. BOX 176Jefferson City, MO 65102(314) 751-7144

—.

Dennis M. Adams, Program CoordinatorRural Forestry AssistanceNebraska Forest ServiceSoutheast Research and Extension Center102 Mussehl HallUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincoln, NB 68583-0814(402) 472-3645

David Jensen, Unit SupervisorSurface Water SectionDivision of Water QualityDepartment of Environmental ControlP.O. BOX 98922301 Centennial Mall SouthLincoln, NB 68509-8922(402) 471-2186

NORTH DAKOTA

Richard Gilmore, Staff ForesterNorth Dakota Forest ServiceFirst and BranderBottineau, ND 58318(701) 228-2277 --

-61-

Gregory SandnessDivision of Water QualityDepartment of Health and Consolidated LaboratoriesP.O. Box 55201200 Missouri AvenueBismarck, ND 58502-5520(701) 221-5232

OHIO

Ronald G. Abraham, ChiefDivision of ForestryDepartment of Natural ResourcesFountain SquareColumbus, OH 43224(614) 265-6690

Lawrence AntoschDivision of Water Quality Planning and AssessmentEnvironmental Protection AgencyP.O. Box 10491800 WaterMark DriveColumbus, OH 43266-0149(614) 644-2877

Jerry L. Wagner, AdministratorPollution Abatement and Land TreatmentDivision of Soil and Water ConservationDepartment of Natural ResourcesFountain Sqare, Building E-2Columbus, OH 43224(614) 265-6619

SOUTH DAKOTA

Frank Davis, DirectorDivision of ForestryDepartment of Agriculture445 East Capitol AvenuePierre, SD 57501-3188(605) 773-3623

Duane MurpheyDivision of Water Resource ManagementDepartment of Environment and Natural ResourcesJoe Foss Building523 East CapitolPierre, SD 57501-3181(605) 773-4216

-62-

WISCONSIN

Donald Thompson, ChiefPrivate Lands and Information SectionBureau of ForestryDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 7921101 South Webster StreetMadison, WI 53707-7921(608) 267-0279(608) 266-8576 FAX

Paul E. Strom, Program and Planning AnalystNonpoint Source SectionBureau of Water Resources ManagementDivision for Environmental QualityDepartment of Natural ResourcesP.O. Box 7921101 South Webster StreetMadison, WI 53707-7921(608) 266-9273(608) 267-2800 Fax

Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times