Colorado Forestry Best Management Practices
Colorado Forestry BestManagement PracticesForest Stewardship Guidelines forWater Quality Protection2012 Field Audit ReportRichard M. Edwards, CF, andGreg SundstromFebruary 2013
Table of ContentsExecutive Summary.1Acknowledgements.1Introduction.22012 Audit Objectives.3Audit Process.3Audit Procedure.4Field Audit Results.6Recommendations.8Summary.9Appendix A - 2012 Field Audit Data and Rating Guide Criteria.10-16Appendix B – Site Information and Ranking Criteria Field Form.17-21
Executive SummaryWater is a valuable commodity in Colorado that mustbe protected from nonpoint source pollution. In aneffort to proactively protect water quality, Colorado hasimplemented Best Management Practices (BMPs) forforestry activities. BMPs are a set of water-quality protectionmeasures and guidelines that provide direction on planning,roads, Streamside Management Zones (SMZs), timberharvesting, pesticides and fertilizers, stream crossings andfire management. Compliance with BMPs is voluntary andadministered within a non-regulatory framework.In September 2012, an interdisciplinary team visitedsix timber-harvest sites in southwest Colorado to assessColorado forestry BMP application and effectiveness. Siteswere selected from a combination of federal, private andstate lands. Each site was evaluated on planning, roads,SMZs, timber harvesting, hazardous substances, streamcrossings and fire management, according to written criteriain the Field Audit Rating Guide.The 2012 audit found that the general application of BMPswere met or exceeded 86 percent of the time. In addition,minor departures from the application of the BMPsoccurred 10 percent of the time and major departuresoccurred 4 percent of the time; no gross neglect of BMPswas found. BMPs also were found to be effective overallin providing adequate or improved resource condition88 percent of the time. In addition, minor and temporaryeffects were observed 12 percent of the time, with no majorand prolonged effects observed on any of the sites.Federal timber sales scored the highest in BMP application,having met or exceeded BMP standards 96 percent of thetime. Only minor departures occurred on federal sites forthe remaining 4 percent of BMP applications. Private andstate sites scored 82 and 68 percent, respectively, meetingor exceeding BMP standards. Most departures from BMPapplication on private (12 percent) and state (25 percent)lands were minor. Similarly, major departures from BMPapplication occurred 6 and 7 percent of the time on theprivate and state ownerships.BMPs on federal forest lands provided adequate protectionor improved conditions 99 percent of the time. Minorand temporary effects accounted for the other 1 percenton federal sites. Private and state sites scored 83 and 71percent, respectively, in adequately protecting or improvingconditions. Minor and temporary effects were observed 17and 29 percent, respectively, on private and state lands forthe remainder of the practices.Based on its findings, the audit team made severalrecommendations to address specific questions or concernsrelated to SMZs, ranking criteria, spatial limits and existinglandings/skid trails.AcknowledgementsAs part of its continuing efforts to protect water qualitythrough the monitoring of Best Management Practices(BMPs) during forestry and silviculture operations,the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) facilitatedcoordination of the 2012 BMP field audit. An ongoingeffort, the Field Audit Program began in 2008 with theinitiation of the first audit. In 2011, a follow-up re-auditreport was written to document the effectiveness of severalBMPs on four of the six original sites.The following individuals served on the 2012 field auditteam: Casey Cooley, Colorado Parks and WildlifeRich Edwards, Colorado State Forest ServiceRandy Frank, Jefferson County Open SpaceKeith Harding, Colorado Timber Industry AssociationMarcella Hutchinson, US Environmental ProtectionAgencyJohn Janowski, Colorado Tree FarmersRandal Ristau, Colorado Department of Public Healthand EnvironmentGreg Sundstrom, Colorado State Forest ServiceAnn-Marie Verde, US Forest ServiceThe CSFS is grateful to all of these individuals and theiragencies/organizations for contributing to the CSFS 2012forestry BMP field audit. The CSFS also values the assistanceand cooperation of the contractors and landowners whoparticipated in the audit. Out of respect for their privacy,confidentiality was maintained throughout this document.Editing assistance was provided by Dr. John D. Stednick,Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado StateUniversity. Photos for this report were provided by RichEdwards and Kent Grant, CSFS; Ann-Marie Verde, USForest Service; and Pam Wilson, Firewise Council ofSouthwest Colorado. Editing and design assistance wasprovided by Katherine Timm and Lisa Mason, CSFSOutreach Division.The BMP field audit was partially funded through a USDAForest Service State and Private Forestry Program Grant.This report details the findings of the 2012 Coloradoforestry BMP audit.1
IntroductionThe forested lands of Colorado produce large quantitiesof high-quality water and include the headwaters ofseveral major rivers. In Colorado, at least 80 percent of thepopulation relies on these surface waters for their domesticwater supply. These waters also provide for irrigation,livestock, recreation and industrial uses, and supportimportant fisheries in the western United States. Therefore,it is essential that landowners and managers take thenecessary measures to maintain surface water quality.Forest timber is harvested from federal, private and statelands in Colorado. The US Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) classifies forestry and silviculture activitiesas potential sources of nonpoint source pollution (NPS)under the Clean Water Act (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/qa.html). The EPA defines nonpoint source pollution asfollows:“Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, unlike pollutionfrom industrial and sewage treatment plants,comes from many diffuse sources. Nonpoint sourcepollution is caused by rainfall or snowmelt movingover and through the ground. As the runoff moves,it picks up and carries away natural and humanmade pollutants, finally depositing them intolakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and even ourunderground sources of drinking water.”Excessive sediment entering waterways, usually fromroads and skid trails, is the most significant NPS pollutionfrom forestry and silviculture activities. Common timberharvesting practices include construction and use of forestroads, skid trails and landings. Such activities removevegetative cover and can result in soil compaction, thusreducing precipitation infiltration rates. If improperlyplanned, located or constructed, these structures canintercept other surface waters, concentrating surface flowand transporting sediment over land and into receivingwaters. However, these potential sources of pollution arepreventable if forestry and timber harvest best managementpractices are implemented.Forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a setof water-quality protection measures and guidelines.BMPs provide direction on planning, roads, StreamsideManagement Zones (SMZs), timber harvesting, hazardoussubstances, stream crossings and fire management.Implementation of BMPs can limit the NPS pollution thatforestry operations produce. Compliance with forestryBMPs is voluntary in Colorado and is administeredwithin a non-regulatory framework. BMP implementation2monitoring serves as an acceptable surrogate for waterquality monitoring, which is a more quantitative, timeconsuming and expensive approach.In 1998, the Colorado Timber Industry Association (CTIA)and the Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) developedColorado Forest Stewardship Guidelines to Protect WaterQuality, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Colorado.The CTIA, CSFS, Colorado NPS Task Force and US EPAprovided funding for this publication, which is now out ofprint.Following the inaugural 2008 BMP field audit, the CSFSreceived funding from the Colorado Water Quality ControlDivision of the Colorado Department of Public Health andEnvironment to update forestry BMPs for Colorado. Theresulting booklet, Forestry Best Management Practices toProtect Water Quality in Colorado 2010, is available in printat all CSFS locations throughout the state and on the CSFSwebsite at www.csfs.colostate.edu.In addition, the Colorado Forestry Best ManagementPractices, Forest Stewardship Guidelines for Water Quality,2008 Field Audit Report is available on the CSFS website atwww.csfs.colostate.edu.The Colorado forestry BMP audit process is designed torepresent BMP compliance across the state. The 2010 CSFS“Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment” identifies24.4 million acres of forest and woodlands, with nearly68 percent in federal ownership. “Approximately 186,000private landowners control 30 percent or 7.1 million acresof the state’s forested landscapes.” Colorado’s NonpointSource Program 2012 Management Plan states that “nearly37 percent of the surface land and water of the state isfederally owned, largely in headwaters areas,” however,much of the timber harvesting takes place on private lands.Consequently, BMP audit sites on timber sales were selectedfrom each major landowner group in the state: federal,private and state.Using the field audit rating guide criteria (Appendix A),each site was evaluated on key components of thetimber sale, including planning, roads, SMZs, timberharvesting, hazardous substances, stream crossings andfire management. BMP compliance was evaluated on thebasis of two criteria for each practice – application andeffectiveness. The application rating indicated the degreeof compliance with suggested BMP methodology, and theeffectiveness rating established whether the practice, asapplied, was sufficient to achieve the intended protection ofwater resources.
The 2012 Colorado forestry BMP audit was the secondcomprehensive BMP audit for the state. The audit wasconducted on a total of six timber harvest sites (twofrom each landowner group) by a team comprised ofprofessionals in the fields of engineering, forestry, geology,hydrology, soil science and wildlife from federal, stateand private sectors. Industry and landowners also wererepresented on the team.2012 Audit ObjectivesThe role of the 2012 audit team was to evaluate thevoluntary compliance to BMP standards detailed in thepublication Forestry Best Management Practices to ProtectWater Quality in Colorado 2010. The overall goal was toproactively monitor the implementation of the state forestryBMPs and evaluate the effectiveness of each. The 2012 auditreport objectives include:1. Monitoring the effects of silviculture activities on waterquality.2. Monitoring the avoidance and protection of wetlandsoil and water resources during harvest and roadconstruction.3. Monitoring road-building effects (temporary/permanentroads/trails) in riparian areas.4. Evaluating the level of timber harvest planning anddesign needed to maintain or improve the hydrographiccharacter of timberlands; protecting soils from erosionand streams from sedimentation during runoff periods.5. Evaluating the protection of SMZs under the BMPs.Audit ProcessSite SelectionThe CSFS selected sites from a pool of timber sales onfederal, private and state forestland. To establish equalrepresentation of each of these landowner groups and tofocus on timber sales with the greatest potential to affectwater quality, baseline criteria were used to select timberFigure 1: Counties that participated in the 2012 Colorado forestry BMPs field audit ( CSFS)3
sales from a list of possible sites. Following are the baselinecriteria:1. Sale has the potential to affect water quality.2. Minimum of 1,000 board feet per acre was harvested.3. Sale was completed within the last 2 years.4. Sale was located in Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos,Costilla, Custer, Dolores, Fremont, La Plata, Mineral,Montezuma, Pueblo, Rio Grande, Saguache or San Juancounties.The minimum requirement of 1,000 board feet harvestedper acre was used to ensure that sales with only marginalpotential to affect water quality were not selected. Inaddition, many of the timber sales in the state occur in areaswhere little or no live water or other sensitive hydrologicresources are present. While many BMPs are applicableto such timber sales, the audits focused on sales with thepotential to affect water quality. This selection methodcreated bias in the results, as audits took place where saleswere likely to result in departures from the BMPs.Audit ProcedureField audits were conducted over 4 days, and the auditteam spent approximately 2-3 hours on each timber sale.Five of the nine audit team members had participated in atleast one other BMP audit and/or federal BMP consistencyreview in one or more states over the last 4 years. Thisallowed significant cross-training of newer team membersand helped improve understanding of rating criteria andapplicability of the guide.Personnel directly associated with each timber sale (eithercompliance forester or sale administrator) briefed the auditteam on details of the harvest at each location. Areas ofparticular importance, such as SMZs, roads and landingareas near the riparian corridor were identified, as weresale administration details. The audit team was given anopportunity to inspect the area. No effort was made toinspect each acre of the harvested area or each mile ofroad; rather, the audit focused on the critical portions ofthe timber sale where proper BMP application was mostimportant.The location criteria consist of counties within three CSFSdistricts (Alamosa, Cañon City and Durango). Previousaudits have been conducted in other areas of the state. Thelong-term intent is to eventually audit all forested areaswithin Colorado that satisfy the first three criteria of siteselection.Overview of Selected SitesFor logistical purposes, and in order to complete the auditwithin one week, the six timber sales selected for the auditwere located on three CSFS districts (Figure 1).Site nominations were solicited from two USDA ForestService supervisor offices, three CSFS district offices, andthe CTIA Executive Committee and local membership list.One state site was eliminated during the audit because it didnot have the potential to affect water quality as originallythought. Another recently harvested site on private land(#3) was selected as a replacement on the final day of theaudit because it satisfied all baseline criteria.Due to privacy issues, ownership and specific locations ofthe selected sites are not identified in this report. A differentlogging company (also not identified) harvested each site,except for private sale #1 and state sale #1, which wereharvested by the same contractor.4The sale administrator briefs the audit team and answersquestions prior to a site visit.After inspecting these areas, the audit team reconvenedto rate the compliance of the timber sale with the BMP,according to their observations and discussions. Afterreaching consensus on applicability, an on-site team leaderrecorded the application and effectiveness rating for each ofthe BMP items. A different member of the audit team actedas team leader at each location. The BMP Field Audit Dataand Rating Guide Criteria are attached (Appendix A).
Is a BMP applicable?NoStopYesWas a BMP applied?YesNoEffective application?Adequately?YesThe audit team inspects skid trails and the StreamsideManagement Zone (SMZ).ApplicationRating 4 or 5NoYesApplicationRating 1 or 2ApplicationRating 2 or 3NoEffectivenessRating 1, 2, or 3EffectivenessRating 4 or 5Figure 2: Colorado BMP Audit Ranking System ( CSFS)The audit team then evaluated the BMP effectiveness, whichdetermined whether the BMP was successful in protectingwater quality, again based on written criteria (Table 2).Table 2: BMP Effectiveness Ratings and CriteriaThe audit team works to reach consensus on BMP applicationand effectiveness ratings.The rating process conducted for each BMP begins withestablishing whether the BMP in question is applicable tothe harvest activities under consideration (Figure 2). Forexample, not all harvest sites require the construction oftemporary roads. In these cases, the BMPs that pertain totemporary roads are not applicable. Once the audit teamestablishes that a given BMP is applicable, the applicationrating for the BMP is determined, based on written criteria(Table 1).Table 1: BMP Application Ratings and CriteriaRating Criteria5Operation exceeds requirements of BMP.4Operation meets the standard requirement ofBMP.3Minor departure from BMP.2Major departure from BMP.1Gross neglect of BMP.Rating Criteria5Improves protection of soil and water resourcesover pre-project conditions.4Adequate protection of soil and water resources.3Minor and temporary impact to soil and waterresources.2Major and temporary or minor and prolongedimpacts to soil and water resources.1Major and prolonged impacts to soil and waterresources.Definition of Effectiveness TermsAdequate:Small amount of material eroded, butdoes not reach draws, channels orfloodplainMinor:Some material erodes and is deliveredto stream or annual floodplainMajor:Material erodes and is delivered tostream or annual floodplainTemporary:Impacts last less than one seasonProlonged:Impacts last more than one year5
As audit sites were visited, the team kept notes about howthe Forestry Best Management Practices to Protect WaterQuality in Colorado 2010 might be improved and howfuture audit processes might be conducted. Those findingsare included in the recommendations portion of this report.Limitations of the Audit Processprolonged effects were not observed on any forestlandduring this audit.In general, BMPs were properly applied and effectivein nearly all cases in 2012. Table 5 illustrates the 2012BMP application and effectiveness rating results for alllandowners, compared to the results of the 2008 audit. Theapplication results remained relatively consistent betweenthe two audits. In comparison, the effectiveness resultsimproved slightly between 2008 and 2012, with more BMPsproviding adequate or improved conditions. Also, minor/temporary, major/temporary or major/prolonged effectswere reduced to zero in 2012.As previously explained, practicality, time and resourcesprohibit evaluation of each timber sale from initiation tocompletion for compliance with BMPs. Instead, the auditprocess is designed to act as a “spot check,” which is limitedto areas of the timber sale that have the greatest potentialto affect water quality. The timing of the auditTable 3: Colorado Forestry BMP 2012 Field Audit Application Results byin the life of the timber sale also is limited, inthat the audits cannot simultaneously monitor LandownershipOwnership ExceededMet BMP MinorMajorGrossTotalthe pre-sale, ongoing and post-sale activitiesBMPStandard D
Quality, Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Colorado. The CTIA, CSFS, Colorado NPS Task Force and US EPA provided funding for this publication, which is now out of print. Following the inaugural 2008 BMP field audit, the CSFS received funding from the Colorado Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Forestry Services Division This publication was developed and published by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Forestry Services Division, as authorized by John Burwell, Director and Terry Peach, Secretary of Agricult
the BMP practices met the guidelines set forth in the BMP Logging and Forestry Best Management Practices Field Guide. The effectiveness rate , which is a qualitative measure of the impact on the water resources from the forestry practices carried out on the site over the history of the Indiana BMP program , has been 91.2% (Figure 2). This
any kind of tractor FEATURES STONE CRUSHER - FORESTRY TILLERS - FORESTRY MULCHER WITH FIXED TOOTH ROTOR. The NEW SFM is the answer to a very demanding market and tough applications. This unit combines the functionality and efficiency of a forestry mulcher, forestry tiller and rock crusher.
Switch and Zoning Best Practices 28-30 2. IP SAN Best Practices 30-32 3. RAID Group Best Practices 32-34 4. HBA Tuning 34-38 5. Hot Sparing Best Practices 38-39 6. Optimizing Cache 39 7. Vault Drive Best Practices 40 8. Virtual Provisioning Best Practices 40-43 9. Drive
COLORADO SECTION OF THE PGA COLORADO GOLF ASSOCIATION COLORADO GOLF HALL OF FAME ROCKY MOUNTAIN GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSOCIATION COBANK COLORADO OPEN CHAMPIONSHIPS. 2 colorado avid golfer.co 720-493-1729 THE MISSION COLORADO AVIDGOLFER’s tagline—“elevating the game”—defines our philosophy. Viewing golf as
colorado section of the pga colorado golf association colorado golf hall of fame rocky mountain golf course superintendents association cobank colorado open championships 2020 digital media kit. 10 colorado avid golfer.co 720-493-1729 digital ad options colorado avidgolfer website
Colorado Wage Withholding Tax 1 Revised December 2021 Every employer making payment of Colorado wages is subject to Colorado wage withholding requirements. In general, Colorado wages are any wages that are either paid to an employee who is a Colorado resident or paid to any nonresident employee for services performed in Colorado.
geomagnetic field Magnetic “Operative” physical property Method Measured parameter. Further reading Keary, P. & Brooks, M. (1991) An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Blackwell Scientific Publications. Mussett, A.E. & Khan, M. (2000) Looking into the Earth – An Introduction to Geological Geophysics. Cambridge University Press. McQuillin, R., Bacon, M. & Barclay, W .