Results of Georgia's 2011 silvicultural best management practices implementation and compliance survey / Georgia Forestry Commission

Results of Georgia's 2011 Silvicultural Best Management Practices
Implementation and Compliance Survey
Prepared by the Georgia Forestry Commission
in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Division
of the Department of Natural Resources,
State of Georgia April 12, 2012
The preparation of this report was financed in part through a grant from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Provisions of Section 319(h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
By designation from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) is the lead agency for statewide development, education, implementation and monitoring of forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs). Beginning in March of 2011, the GFC began the eighth Statewide Forestry BMP Implementation and Compliance Survey.
The objectives of the 2011 Statewide Forestry BMP Survey were to determine the: rates of BMP implementation; acres in BMP compliance; effectiveness of BMPs for any needed modifications; actual miles of streams that may have forestry water quality impairments; and ownerships and regions to target for future training.
The protocol and scoring methodology for this eighth survey was consistent with the revised recommendations developed and adopted by the Southern Group of State Foresters' (SGSF) BMP Monitoring Task Force in June 2002, titled Silvicultural Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring, a Framework for State Forestry Agencies (http://nafoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/Regional-BMP-Report-2008.pdf ). The SGSF Task Force is composed of hydrologists and water specialists from state forestry agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, forest industry and the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), in consultation with EPA Region IV nonpoint source specialists.
The 2011 Statewide Forestry BMP Survey evaluated 187 sites that were selected in a stratified random sample. These sites had to have been silviculturally treated within the past two years, preferably within the previous six months. By ownership, 110 sites occurred on non-industrial private forest land (NIPF), 21 sites on forest industry land, 46 sites on corporate (TIMO) land and 10 sites on public land. By Region, 18 sites were in the Mountains, 51 sites in the Piedmont, 35 sites in the Upper Coastal Plain and 83 sites in the Lower Coastal Plain.
BMP implementation was determined by dividing the total number of individual BMPs that were applicable and fully implemented on the sites by the total number of applicable BMPs and summarized for each practice or category, overall site, region and statewide. Of the 5711 individual BMPs evaluated, the statewide percentage of correct implementation was 95.3 percent. This is a 1.2 percent increase in BMP implementation from the 2009 survey. By ownership, the percentage of BMP implementation statewide was 96.9 percent on forest industry lands, 96.3 percent on corporate (TIMO) lands, 98.2 percent on public lands and 94.1 percent on NIPF lands. Of particular interest, the number of observed Water Quality Risks remained low at 26, which shows no statistical difference from the 2009 survey. The number of Water Quality Risks for this survey is calculated at .13 risks per site. A more detailed discussion of Water Quality Risks can be found later in this report.
Additionally, a per unit of measure BMP compliance scoring methodology was assessed on all sites evaluated for this survey. It should be noted that this per unit BMP compliance scoring methodology goes beyond the SGSF recommendations for BMP monitoring and is specific to Georgia. BMP compliance was determined by dividing the units of measure specific to the forestry practice (# acres, # miles of road) that were in compliance with BMPs by the total number of units measured for that particular practice. On the 187 sites, 21,977 acres of separate forestry operations were evaluated. Approximately 99.8 percent of those acres were in compliance with BMPs. This rate is statistically the same as was recorded in the 2009 survey. Of the 66.32 miles of stream evaluated, 62.09 miles, or 93.6 percent, were observed to have no impacts or impairment from the forestry practices. This figure is statistically the same as the 2009 survey. By practice or category, statewide percentage of BMP implementation and compliance were as follows:
2

Practice or Category: Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) Stream Crossings Main Haul Roads Timber Harvesting Mechanical Site Preparation Chemical Site Preparation Control Burning Artificial Regeneration Equipment Servicing Special Management Areas Stream Miles Overall

% BMP Implementation 95.0 92.9 93.7 98.1 95.0 100 100 100 97.9 95.7 NA 95.3

% BMP Compliance 99.1 (acres) NA 95.0 (miles) 99.8 (acres) 99.9 (acres) 100 (acres) 100 (acres) 100 (acres) NA NA 93.6 (miles) 99.8 (acres)

With public attention focusing on water and the protection of riparian areas or streamside management zones, there should be much interest in the fact that the forestry community's BMP implementation rate for streamside management zones (SMZ's) is 95.0 percent, with 99.1 percent of SMZ acres in full compliance with BMPs. Forest operators continue to do an excellent job of protecting these sensitive areas. In addition, with basically a 95 percent overall statewide BMP implementation rate, and with 99.8 percent of those acres in compliance with BMPs, forest operators as a whole are doing a very good job of implementing forestry BMPs.

There was also notable improvement in stream crossing BMP implementation. However, there continues to be some room for improvement in this area, particularly on private lands in north Georgia. There were 143 stream crossings evaluated on 68 sites with an overall implementation rate of 92.9 percent, which represents a three percent improvement over the 2009 survey. The upward trend in stream crossing BMP implementation continues, meaning that for the evaluated stream crossings, there continue to be fewer deficiencies recorded. An increased effort to avoid stream crossings in carrying out forest operations is being maintained.

Most noted stream crossing problems were associated with skidder fords or debris type crossings - 11 of 143 total crossings, or 7.7 percent. These automatically count as non-compliant, since BMPs do not recommend their use. Simply eliminating these type crossings offers the greatest potential to increase implementation.

Landowners with potential water quality problems were advised about recommendations for remediation in a letter

INTRODUCTION

Georgia has an abundant amount of forest and water resources that provide a variety of benefits for the people of the state and region. The 24.7 million acres (2011 forest inventory and analysis data) of commercial forestland (two-thirds of the state) provide for forest products, clean water, clean air, soil conservation, wildlife habitat, recreation, aesthetics, education and research. Many of the state's 44,056 miles of perennial streams, 23,906 miles of intermittent streams and 603 miles of ditches and canals begin or flow through forestlands. Therefore, it is important for forest landowners to practice responsible forestry in order to protect these water resources

3

As a result of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD) has been responsible for managing and protecting the state's waters from point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Since 1977, the GAEPD has designated the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) as the lead agency to develop, educate, implement and monitor the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for forestry operations to minimize or prevent our nonpoint source pollution contributions (primarily erosion and sedimentation). Upon passage of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments of 1987, the EPA issued guidance on the relationship of nonpoint source controls and water quality standards as part of the Water Quality Standards Handbook. The guidance states: "It is recognized that Best Management Practices, designed in accordance with a state approved process, are the primary mechanism to enable the achievement of water quality standards." It goes on to explain: "It is intended that proper installation of state approved BMPs will achieve water quality standards and will normally constitute compliance with the CWA."
BMPs for forestry were first developed and published in Georgia in 1981. A Wetlands BMP manual was developed in 1990 and revised in 1993. In January 1999, these manuals were revised and combined into one document with input from environmental groups, soil and water experts, fish and wildlife biologists, attorneys, private forest landowners, independent timber buyers and loggers, academia and state and federal water quality personnel. Since then, guidance for the treatment of canals and ditches was adopted in March 2000, and for floodplain features in riverine systems in July 2003. Guidance for headwater areas, i.e. ephemeral areas and gullies, was adopted in October 2005. This new guidance was incorporated into an updated BMP manual released in summer 2009. Since 1981, over 90,000 BMP manuals and brochures have been distributed.
The main role of the GFC is to educate and inform the forestry community of these common sense recommendations, known as BMPs, through workshops and field demonstrations. Since publication of the first BMP manual, the GFC has given 2,592 BMP talks to over 84,073 persons and participated in 474 field demonstrations of BMPs (through December 2011). The education process is ongoing, with workshops routinely provided for foresters, timber buyers and loggers through the American Forest and Paper Association's (AF&PA) Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program in Georgia. GFC foresters have also provided BMP advice in over 77,000 cases covering almost 5.2 million acres.
Implementation of BMPs is determined through monitoring surveys and during complaint resolution procedures. Of statistical importance are the monitoring surveys. The GFC conducted BMP Implementation and Compliance Surveys in 1991, 1992, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2007, and 2009. This statewide survey completes over 20 years of BMP monitoring in Georgia. The statewide percentage of acres in compliance averaged 86 percent in 1991, 92 percent in 1992, 98 percent in 1998, 99.1 percent in 2002, 99.4 percent in 2004, 99.7 percent in 2007 and 99.8 percent in 2009.
The purpose of this report is to present the results of the 2011 BMP Implementation and Compliance Survey.
SURVEY PROCEDURE
Methodology for Sampling Intensity and Site Selection The number of evaluation sites in each of Georgia's 159 counties was based on the amount of timber harvested in each county, as determined by the U.S. Forest Service's "Forest Statistics for Georgia, 2004" report Average Annual Removals of Growing Stock on Timberland by County and Species Group. This method resulted in 187 sites being targeted to survey. The next step was to target the sample to reflect ownership where the practices occurred. Ownership classes are categorized into non-industrial private forest (NIPF) land, forest industry (FI), Timber Investment Management Organizations (TIMOs) or corporate lands, and public lands,
4

which includes federal, state, county or city ownership. The timber harvest drain for each county was used to target the number of sites to inspect per ownership class in each county. For the 2011 BMP survey, 110 sites (58.8 percent) were inspected on NIPF lands, 21 sites (11.2 percent) on forest industry lands, 46 sites (24.6 percent) on TIMO or corporate lands, and 10 sites (5.3 percent) on public lands were inspected. Of interest in this discussion is the divestiture of almost 2.1 million acres of formerly forest industry lands. These lands are now held by TIMO/corporate landowners or by NIPF landowners, resulting in potential changes in the level of forest management.
In order to randomize the stratified sample, GFC personnel went to county government offices and researched timber harvests using the PT 283-T "Report of Timber Harvest" notification forms in the county tax assessor's office or the county's "Notification of Timber Harvesting Activity" records. Only harvest information from the past two years and preferably during the previous six months was used to compile a list of potential random selection sites. The forms were separated by ownership category and the appropriate number of sites was drawn randomly. Figure 1 in the appendix shows the distribution of survey sites by county.
Site Evaluation
For this eighth survey, and as noted in the Executive Summary, the protocol and scoring methodology was consistent with the Southern Group of State Foresters Protocol titled Silvicultural Best Management Practices Implementation Monitoring, a Framework for State Forestry Agencies (http://nafoalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/Regional-BMP-Report-2008.pdf). After sites had been selected and verified in the field by County Foresters or Chief Rangers, attempts to contact all landowners were made to obtain permission to conduct site evaluation. All evaluations were conducted by trained forest water Specialists or by district water quality foresters to provide accuracy, consistency and quality control using the BMP Compliance Survey Form. See Exhibit 1 in Appendix.
Once a site was selected, the specialist or district water quality forester completed the survey form. Each site was identified by county, district, physiographic region, ownership, river basin and sub-basin, forest types before treatment, terrain class, soil erodibility class, hydric soil limitation class, type water bodies within the practice area and miles of stream evaluated within the practice area. Soils and stream data were determined using NRCS county soil survey maps where available or USGS topographical maps. Data could be extracted by each of these fields of information.
BMP Implementation
Each site was then evaluated for BMP implementation by observing as much of the treated area as possible and answering the 136 specific, YES/NO questions directly related to BMP implementation. Scoring occurred at three levels on each site: (1) individual BMP; (2) category of practice; and (3) overall site implementation.
For a level 1 individual BMP, implementation was recorded as either a NOT APPLICABLE, YES or NO. For simplification, each question was worded so that a positive answer was recorded as a YES while a negative answer, indicating a significant departure from BMP recommendations, was answered with a NO. If an individual BMP that was applicable and needed was not fully implemented over the entire area, it received a NO. The "all or none principle," as recommended by the SGSF framework, applied.
For level 2 - categories of practice and level 3 - overall site implementation, scores were expressed as a percent of all applicable BMPs implemented against all applicable BMPs in the category of practice and overall site.
5

Therefore, each category of practice and overall site could score between 0 and 100 percent. The categories of practices evaluated were as follows:
Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) Stream Crossings Main Haul Roads Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs Control Burning Outside SMZs Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs Equipment Servicing Outside SMZs Special Management Areas Stream Miles
Firebreak construction BMPs have been excluded from this survey, due to the lack of a statistically viable sample. Firebreak BMPs will be evaluated in a separate survey in 2012 and the results will be available in a separate report. Forest fertilization has also been excluded, due to a lack of verifiable sites.
Significant Water Quality Risk
Each BMP was further evaluated in terms of "significant water quality risk." A risk is defined by the SGSF framework for monitoring as "an existing on-the-ground condition resulting from failure to correctly implement BMPs, that if left unmitigated will likely result in an adverse change in the chemical, physical or biological condition of a waterbody. Such change may or may not violate water quality standards." Documenting the occurrence of risks serves a number of useful and practical purposes. First, risk assessment lends much credibility and integrity to the BMP monitoring process by evaluating the effectiveness of an individual or group of BMPs and allows opportunities to analyze ineffective BMPs for possible revisions. Second, it recognizes that high-risk conditions can occur and that prevention and/or restoration is a high priority for state forestry agencies. Third, routine documentation of risks will determine whether such instances are the exception rather than the rule. Fourth, finally providing forest landowners with an objective risk assessment is a valuable public service that not only protects the environment, but can also protect the landowner and/or operator from what might otherwise result in enforcement proceedings or other personal liability.
BMP Compliance
BMP Compliance was also determined for each category of practice and overall site where the units of measure were the same. This scoring methodology goes beyond the SGSF BMP monitoring protocol and is specific to Georgia, however, this scoring methodology allowed for comparison with previous surveys in determining trends. Streamside Management Zones (SMZs), harvesting, mechanical site preparation, chemical applications, control burning and artificial regeneration were all measured in acres. Main haul roads, firebreaks, and streams were measured in miles. Scores were expressed as a percent of units of measure in BMP compliance against the total units of measure evaluated. Documenting compliance with the units of measure is important in that it allows forest managers, landowners and regulators to see the holistic picture of forestry operations and our effects on the landscape. As with the implementation evaluation, the lack of BMP implementation may not necessarily equate to large-scale areas being out of compliance. For those areas out of compliance, it provides a better picture of locations to be prioritized for improvements.
6

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The 2011 Statewide Forestry BMP Survey evaluated 187 sites comprising 21,977 acres. One hundred fortythree stream crossings, 187.2 miles of main haul roads and 66.3 stream miles were evaluated. Table 1, pages 1720, shows the distribution of survey sites by county. Figure 1, page 45, shows the spatial location of the 187 survey sites. Figure 2, page 46, is a map of the state showing the different physiographic regions for reference. The Statewide BMP Compliance Survey Report in the Appendix provides a summary of the distribution of the sites evaluated by region, ownership, specific questions regarding timber sales on NIPF lands and specific site information and the BMP implementation and compliance results for each practice and BMP evaluated.

Statistical Analysis

The 187 sites evaluated during this survey represent only a sample of all operations that met the criteria for selection. Data compiled from county tax assessors' offices indicates that the number of timber harvesting operations conducted annually range from 7,000 to 10,000. Therefore, one could assume the sample reflects a 1.9 percent or 2.7 percent sample at best. In order to result in a statistically valid monitoring report, Georgia has decided to adopt the guidance, Statistical Guidebook for BMP Implementation Monitoring. This guidance was developed by the Water Resources Committee of the Southern Group of State Foresters to be used as a model for achieving statistically valid BMP monitoring.

The guidebook should be used to determine the number of sites needed to conduct a statistically reliable survey, to calculate the margin of error for each BMP category or individual BMP and to analyze statistical trends in implementation.

Formula for Determining the Sample Size, or Number of Sites to Evaluate

n = 4p(100 p) m

Where

n = the number of sites to evaluate p = the estimated overall percent implementation in the state m = the margin of error (5%)

p must be estimated because it is unknown (% implementation from the most
recent survey may be used). The closer the estimated value of p is to 100, the lower the value of n will be. n is highest when p is estimated to be 50 percent. m is the margin of error associated with the estimate of P. That is, there is 0.95
probability that the sample taken will produce an estimate which differs from p
by a value of m. A margin of error at five percent was recommended by the SGSF framework.

Use of the formula gives a needed sample size of 89 sites in order achieve a five percent margin of error. We have evaluated more than twice the needed number of sites, so, using the formula, this level of survey should yield a margin of error of 3.4% for this survey. The reason the additional sites were assessed is so that the subsets of data in the survey, i.e., landowner groups, physiographic regions, river basins, etc., would be more statistically valid when used separately from statewide data.

7

OVERALL BMP IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCE RESULTS BY CATEGORY OF PRACTICE
Streamside Management Zones (SMZs)
Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) are designated areas of varying widths adjacent to the banks of perennial (continuous flowing) or intermittent (normally flows only during winter months) streams and other bodies of water. USGS topographical maps and Natural Resource Conservation Service county soil survey maps were used to identify these type streams. In these zones, forest management practices are modified in order to minimize potential impacts so as to protect water quality, fish or other aquatic resources. According to the 2009 BMP manual, zones along intermittent streams vary in width from 20 to 50 feet on most streams, depending on slope, and 100 feet along trout streams. Zones along perennial streams vary from 40 to 100 feet, depending on slope. Clear cutting is not recommended in the SMZs, except during the control of southern pine beetles or salvage operations from natural disasters.
Table 2, page 21-22, provides a summary of the results by ownership, region and state totals. Notable findings include:
Statewide implementation for SMZs is 95.0 percent. Statewide BMP compliance for SMZs is 99.1 percent. Five WQRs were identified. Implementation for SMZs in the mountain region declined by 5.2 percent across all ownership
categories from 2009.
Stream Crossings
Stream crossings are often necessary for access to forestlands. From a water quality standpoint, stream crossings are the most critical aspect of the road system. Failure of a stream crossing due to improper planning or construction can result in erosion and introduction of sediment into a stream, which does affect water quality. Types of acceptable crossings include main haul road fords, culvert crossings or bridges. Debris and dirt type crossings or skidder fords are not acceptable crossing types. Permanent crossings were considered to be those still in place at the time of inspection. Temporary crossings were noted where crossing approaches were still evident, but the actual crossing facility (i.e. temporary bridge, culvert and fill, etc.) had been removed.
Table 3 (page 22-23) provides a summary of the results by ownership, region and state totals. A total of 143 crossings were evaluated on 68 sites statewide.
Significant findings include:
Statewide implementation for stream crossings is 92.9 percent. This is a three percent improvement over 2009, in spite of an 11.8 percent decline in the mountains.
The largest increases in implementation occurred on TIMO and public holdings. One of the largest problem areas in the past has been the use of skidder fords and debris crossings. This
number declined from 18.7 percent of the total crossings assessed in 2009 to 7.7 per cent of crossings assessed in 2011.
8

Areas for improvement in stream crossing design continue to be culvert sizing with respect to storm flow, culvert placement with respect to migration of aquatic species, and stream crossing approach design.
Fifteen WQRs were associated with stream crossings.
Forest Roads
Permanent or temporary access roads are an essential part of any forest management operation and provide access for other activities. With proper planning, location, construction and maintenance, access roads allow for productive operations and minimally impact soil and water quality. However, poorly located, poorly constructed or poorly maintained roads can result in sediment reaching streams, which may lead to changing stream flow patterns, degrading fish and aquatic organism habitat, and adversely affected aesthetics.
Table 4 (page 23-24) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. Approximately 187.2 miles of road were evaluated on 183 sites.
Significant findings include: Forest roads BMP implementation across all ownerships is 93.7 percent. Forest roads compliance is 95.0 percent. There were four WQRs associated with forest roads. Challenges for forest roads BMP implementation continue to be the proper installation of water diversions and the stabilizing and reshaping of forest roads after activities are complete.
A notable finding about forest roads BMP implementation was an increase of nearly six percent over the 2009 survey for NIPF.
Special Management Areas
This category applies to canals and ditches, riverine floodplain features and headwater areas that could possibly transport sediments and other pollutants into other waterbodies. These areas should be provided some measure of protection, but normally do not need to be treated as streams.
Table 5 (page 25-26) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. Statewide, there were 142 sites with canals, ditches, ephemeral areas, gullies and wetland features.
Other significant findings include: Special management area BMP implementation across all ownerships was 95.7 percent. There was one WQR associated with special management areas. A notable finding is that Special Management Area BMP implementation increased by more than 10 percent in the mountain region.
Timber Harvesting Outside of SMZs
Outside of SMZs, timber harvesting poses little threat to water quality in Georgia. Potential impacts can be avoided or minimized if seasonal weather conditions, soil type, soil moisture, topography, and matching the type of equipment to be used with the particular harvesting site are considered. The location, construction and maintenance of log decks and skid trails are the primary concerns.
9

Table 6 (page 26-27) provides a summary of the results by ownership, region and state total. Approximately 17,030 acres were evaluated on 185 sites.
A total of 619 log decks were evaluated, of which 99.5 percent were in compliance. A total of 1,170 main skid trails were evaluated, of which 98.5 percent were in compliance.
Other significant findings include: Timber harvesting outside SMZs' BMP implementation across all ownerships is 98.1 percent. BMP compliance is 99.8 percent. All BMP categories for Timber Harvesting scored 95 percent or better for BMP implementation, except for stabilization of skid trails with water diversions or slash dispersal. There was one WQR associated with Timber Harvesting.
Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs
Site preparation methods groom harvested and non-forested areas for the natural and artificial regeneration of desired tree species and stocking. Methods include shearing, raking, sub-soiling, chopping, windrowing, piling, bedding, and other physical methods to cut, break apart or move logging debris, or improve soil conditions prior to planting. The purpose is to reduce logging impacts and debris, control competing vegetation and enhance seedling survival. The technique or method(s) used depends on soil type, topography, erodibility, condition of the site and any wetland limitations.
Table 7 (page 27-28) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. Statewide, approximately 669 acres were evaluated on 10 sites.
Significant findings include: Mechanical Site Prep BMP implementation is 95.0 percent BMP compliance for Mechanical site prep is 99.9 percent. Mechanical Site Prep for pine regeneration in wetlands identified in EPA/Corps of Engineers memo did not occur on any applicable sites surveyed. The one challenge observed for Mechanical Site Prep is bedding directing water into roadways and ditches. There were no WQRs associated with Mechanical Site Prep.
Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs
Herbicides are valuable tools used in forest management to control competing vegetation and enhance tree survival and growth. On many highly erodible sites, the use of herbicides is actually better than exposing too much surface area by mechanical site preparation methods. By following EPA approved labels that govern storage, transportation, handling and application, herbicide application should not pose any threat to water quality.
Table 8 (page 28-29) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. Statewide, approximately 1,455 acres were evaluated on 14 sites.
10

Significant findings include: BMP implementation and compliance for Chemical Site Prep is 100 percent. No challenges were observed for Chemical Site Prep.
Control Burning Outside SMZs
Controlled fire is often used alone or in conjunction with chemical or mechanical site preparation to prepare sites for regeneration. It may also be used during timber stand management to control or reduce hazardous accumulations of forest fuels, manage competing vegetation, improve wildlife habitat, and perpetuate certain endangered plant and animal ecosystems.
Approximately 593 acres were evaluated on seven sites. BMP implementation and compliance was 100 percent. No challenges were observed. No water quality risks were identified.
Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs
Reforestation can be accomplished artificially or naturally. Natural regeneration and hand planting generally pose less of a threat to water quality than mechanical methods.
Table 9 (page 30-31) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. Approximately 1,539.8 acres were evaluated on 15 sites. Overall, the percentage of acres in BMP compliance was 100 percent. A total of 23 BMPs were evaluated and overall BMP implementation was 100 percent. No water quality risks were identified.
Significant findings include:
Machine planting on slopes of five to 20 percent generally followed the contour on 100 percent of sites. No water quality risks were identified.
On slopes > 21 percent, hand planting was conducted on 100 percent of sites. Pine establishment was avoided on specified wetlands identified in the EPA/COE memo.
Equipment Washing and Servicing
Improper equipment washing and servicing can introduce hazardous or toxic materials to the site, which can affect water quality. Oils, lubricants, their containers and other trash and waste should be disposed of properly. According to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (GA EPD) Emergency Response Program, fuel and oil spills into soils or waterways which produce a visible sheen should be immediately contained and removed. In addition, chemical spills of 25 gallons or more should be reported to GA EPD.
Table 10 (page 31-32) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals. A total of 613 landings were evaluated on 180 sites.
Significant findings include: BMP implementation for Equipment Servicing was 97.9. All BMPs assessed for Equipment Servicing were implemented at or above 95 percent.
11

Stream Assessments
Perhaps the most important observation in assessing the effectiveness of BMPs was the visual assessment of the water bodies on each site. A total of 66.3 miles of streams on 93 sites were evaluated for visual signs of impairment. Those signs include obvious soil erosion entering the stream, logging debris left in the channel, improper stream crossings resulting in blocked flow, removal of excess canopy trees within the SMZs exposing the stream to elevated temperatures, or impaired stream bank or channel integrity due to forestry practices.
Table 11 (page 32-33) provides a summary of the results by region, ownership and state totals by stream type.
A total of 31.4 miles of perennial streams were assessed on these sites. Of these, 91.8 percent are in compliance.
A total of 35.0 miles of intermittent streams were assessed on these sites. Of these 95.3 percent are in compliance.
Significant findings include: Overall stream BMP compliance is 93.6 percent. 26 water quality risks were identified statewide. There were 15 WQRs (58 percent of the total) involving stream crossings. Eight of these were associated with steam crossing approaches. Forest roads accounted for four water quality risks (approximately 15 percent of the total). The lack of properly installed water diversions at SMZs accounted for two of the four risks for forest roads. The failure to adequately reshape and stabilize critical road segments also resulted in 2 WQRs. Within SMZs, there were five WQRs (19 percent of the state total). Three of the WQRs were associated with lack of water diversions in roads and skid trails near streams. One WQR was associated with Special Management Areas. One WQR was associated with Timber Harvesting outside of SMZs.
The overall 93.6 percent stream compliance figure in Georgia supports assessments by the US Environmental Protection Agency that silvicultural operations contribute less than 10% of the nonpoint pollution to streams in the United States.
Overall Statewide Results
Table 12 (page 34-35) provides the statewide compliance and implementation results of the total number of sites, the acres evaluated, the number of BMPs evaluated, and the number of water quality risks determined by region and ownership. Statewide, the overall BMP implementation for all practices, all landownership classes, and all regions, is approximately 95.3 percent. This is a 1.2 percent increase from the 2009 survey. While this score is not statistically different from the 2009 survey, it does continue an upward trend in BMP compliance and implementation. Overall, statewide acres in BMP compliance have remained unchanged at 99.8 percent for another survey cycle, indicating a plateau.
12

Education Opportunities
Charts 1 through 7 (pages 37-42, and page 45) are perhaps the most important tools in this document for determining BMP implementation trends. These charts provide an overall summary and comparison of BMP implementation and compliance by practice and ownership and provide impetus for continued training and improvement.
BMP education targeting deficiencies found in the last few survey cycles continues to pay off. BMP compliance and implementation on roads, in SMZs, and even at stream crossings, has noticeably improved. Stream crossing BMP implementation has improved, but more training is needed statewide across all landownership classes. BMP implementation for stream crossings on the 2011 survey shows that for each crossing that was attempted, fewer BMP problems were found.
Finally, Chart 7 (page 45) shows the dramatic decline in Water Quality Risks observed in BMP implementation surveys between the 1998 survey and the present.
BMP Implementation available by River Basin and ecoregion
Similar statistics can be extracted for each of the 14 major river basins (page 16), 52 sub-basins and 12-digit HUCs for use by Regional Water Councils in accordance to the Georgia Comprehensive State-wide Water Management Plan. The survey statistics can also be extracted by each of Georgia's 29 Ecoregions (page 16).
CONCLUSION
Since the 1991 survey, the percentage of acres in BMP compliance has increased from 86 percent to 99.8 percent. The percentage of BMP implementation has increased from 64.9 percent to 95.3 percent. The percentage of stream miles in compliance has increased to around 93.6 percent. Since the 1998 survey, the number of water quality risks has decreased dramatically and seems to have bottomed out. Chart 7 (page 45) shows the decrease in Water Quality Risks since the 1998 survey.
The 2011 implementation survey shows continued increases in BMP implementation in categories where there is room for improvement and continued high rates of implementation in the remaining categories. Although the survey shows high overall rates of BMP implementation, it does reveal areas for BMP implementation improvement within certain landownership categories and across certain regions of the state. This information will be used to target BMP training at Master Timber Harvester, forester and landowner workshops.
GFC will continue to use available means to resolve forestry BMP complaints. The GFC, the Georgia Forestry Association, the University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, participating companies who subscribe to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the Southeastern Wood Producers Association support this concept. The Georgia SFI committee will continue to monitor and address "violators" as reported to their Inconsistent Practices sub-committee. Non-compliance cases will be referred to state or federal regulatory agencies.
13

Portable Logging Bridge 14

Stabilized Logging Deck and Access Road 15

Georgia's 29 Ecoregions
Source: US Environmental Protection Agency
Georgia's 14 Major River Basins
Source: Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
16

Table 1 - Targeted Sites by County and Ownership

Forest TIMO

County

Federal State/Local Industry Corporate NIPF

Appling

1

2

Atkinson

1

1

Bacon

1

1

Baker

1

Banks

1

Bartow

1

1

Ben Hill

1

Berrien

1

Bleckley

1

1

Brantley

1

1

Brooks

1

Bryan

1

1

Bulloch

3

Burke

1

Butts

1

Calhoun

1

Camden

1

1

Candler

1

Carroll

1

Charlton

1

1

Chattahoochee

1

1

Chattooga

1

1

Clay

1

Clinch

2

1

Coffee

1

1

Colquitt

1

Columbia

1

Cook

1

Coweta

1

1

Crawford

1

1

Crisp

1

Dade

1

Dawson

1

Decatur

1

17

County Dodge Dooly Early Echols Elbert Emanuel Evans Fannin Franklin Gilmer Glascock Glynn Gordon Grady Greene Hancock Haralson Harris Hart Heard Houston Irwin Jackson Jasper Jeff Davis Jefferson Jenkins Johnson Jones Lamar Lanier Laurens

Federal

State/Local

Forest Industry
1
1
1

TIMO Corporate
1 1
1 2 1 1 1 1
1

NIPF 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
2 2 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

18

County Lee Liberty Lincoln Long Lowndes Lumpkin Macon Madison Marion McDuffie McIntosh Meriwether Miller Mitchell Monroe Montgomery Morgan Murray Oconee Oglethorpe Paulding Peach Pickens Pierce Pike Polk Pulaski Putnam Quitman Randolph Schley Screven Seminole Stephens Stewart Sumter

Federal 1 2
1

State/Local 1

Forest Industry
2 1
1

TIMO Corporate
1
1 1 2 1
1 1
1

NIPF 1
2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

19

County Talbot Taliaferro Tattnall Taylor Telfair Terrell Thomas Tift Toombs Treutlen Turner Twiggs Union Upson Walker Ware Warren Washington Wayne Webster Wheeler White Wilcox Wilkes Wilkinson Worth
Totals

Federal

State/Local

Forest Industry

TIMO Corporate
2 1

1

1 1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1
1

2

8

2

21

46

NIPF
1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 2 2 1
2 Total Sites
110 187

20

Tables 2 a e: Distribution of Sites with Streamside Management Zones Evaluated By Region Ownership, Acres Evaluated, %Compliance, BMP Assessed, and %BMPs Implemented, and # Water Quality Risks

Table 2a

Streamside Management Zones - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

4

21.2

99.53%

Piedmont

17 127.56

98.75%

Upper Coastal Plain 10 44.29

98.26%

Lower Coastal Plain 18 82.57

99.75%

Total

49 275.62

99.03%

BMPs Assessed
34 157 83 162 436

% BMPs Implemented
91.18% 90.45% 91.57% 95.68% 92.66%

WQR
0 1 0 0 1

Table 2b

Streamside Management Zones - Public

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

1

10.62

100.00%

Piedmont

3

32.02

96.78%

Upper Coastal Plain 1

3.55

100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 2

50.03

100.00%

Total

7

96.22

98.93%

BMPs Assessed
11 31 9 17 68

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 96.77% 100.00% 100.00% 98.53%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 2c

Streamside Management Zones - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

3

4

99.99%

Piedmont

7

63.64

99.84%

Upper Coastal Plain 9

86.23

99.99%

Lower Coastal Plain 8

24.24

99.99%

Total

27 178.11

99.94%

BMPs Assessed
20 64 84 69 237

% BMPs Implemented
95.00% 96.88% 98.81% 98.55% 97.89%

WQR
1 1 0 0 2

Table 2d

Streamside Management Zones - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

1

2.4

99.58%

Piedmont

2

84.52

100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Lower Coastal Plain 7

81.29

96.92%

Total

10 168.21

98.51%

BMPs Assessed
12 19 0 62 93

% BMPs Implemented
91.67% 100.00%
NA 95.16% 95.70%

WQR
1 0 0 1 2

21

Table 2e

Streamside Management Zones - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

9

38.22

99.71%

Piedmont

29 307.74

99.11%

Upper Coastal Plain 20 134.07

99.43%

Lower Coastal Plain 35 238.13

98.86%

Total

93 718.16

99.12%

BMPs Assessed
77 271 176 310 834

% BMPs Implemented
93.51% 93.36% 95.45% 96.45% 94.96%

WQR
2 2 0 1 5

Tables 3 a e: Distribution of Sites with Stream Crossings Evaluated by Region, Ownership, and # Crossings Assessed,% Compliance, # BMPs Assessed, % BMPs Implemented and Water Quality Risks

Table 3a

Stream and Wetland Crossings - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Crossings

Mountains

3

5

Piedmont

11

15

Upper Coastal Plain 4

5

Lower Coastal Plain 13

23

Total

31

48

BMPs Assessed
29 124 45 206 404

% BMPs Implemented
68.97% 86.29% 82.22% 94.66% 88.86%

WQR
0 6 0 0 6

Table 3b

Stream and Wetland Crossings - Public

Region

No. Sites

Crossings

Mountains

1

4

Piedmont

2

4

Upper Coastal Plain 1

3

Lower Coastal Plain 1

3

Total

5

14

BMPs Assessed
19 33 12 19 83

% BMPs Implemented
84.21% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 96.39%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 3c

Stream and Wetland Crossings - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Crossings

Mountains

1

2

Piedmont

6

10

Upper Coastal Plain 5

12

Lower Coastal Plain 10

24

Total

22

48

BMPs Assessed
9 78 58 159 304

% BMPs Implemented
77.78% 91.03% 100.00% 99.37% 96.71%

WQR
2 5 0 0 7

22

Table 3d

Stream and Wetland Crossings - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Crossings

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

0

Piedmont

0

0

0

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

0

Lower Coastal Plain 10

33

156

Total

10

33

156

Table 3e

Stream and Wetland Crossings All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Crossings

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

5

11

57

Piedmont

19

29

235

Upper Coastal Plain 10

20

115

Lower Coastal Plain 34

83

540

Total

68

143

947

% BMPs Implemented
NA NA NA 94.23% 94.23%

WQR
0 0 0 2 2

% BMPs Implemented
75.44% 89.79% 93.04% 96.11% 92.93%

WQR
2 11 0 2 15

Tables 4 a e: Distribution of Forest Road Sites Evaluated By Region, Ownership, Miles Assessed, % Compliance, # BMP Assessed, % BMPs Implemented, and Water Quality Risks

Table 4a

Forest Road Sites - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

6

Piedmont

33

Upper Coastal Plain 21

Lower Coastal Plain 47

Total

107

Miles
1.73 16.61 16.32 32.68 67.34

% Miles Compliance
88.44% 82.12% 95.22% 97.71% 93.02%

BMPs Assessed
43 249 158 345 795

% BMPs Implemented
93.02% 85.14% 93.04% 97.10% 92.33%

WQR
0 2 0 0 2

Table 4b

Forest Road Sites - Public

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

3

Piedmont

3

Upper Coastal Plain 1

Lower Coastal Plain 2

Total

9

Miles
4.26 8.69 4.23 2.24 19.42

% Miles Compliance
100.00% 98.04% 100.00% 100.00% 99.12%

BMPs Assessed
26 30 9 17 82

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 93.33% 100.00% 100.00% 97.56%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

23

Table 4c

Forest Road Sites - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

6

Piedmont

11

Upper Coastal Plain 12

Lower Coastal Plain 17

Total

46

Miles
5.26 12.88 16.48 21.68 56.3

% Miles Compliance
86.69% 94.80% 83.13% 99.12% 92.29%

BMPs Assessed
37 84 101 113 335

% BMPs Implemented
94.59% 92.86% 89.11% 98.23% 93.73%

WQR
0 2 0 0 2

Table 4d

Forest Road Sites - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Miles

Mountains

3

2.8

Piedmont

3 3.87

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

Lower Coastal Plain 15 37.46

Total

21 44.13

% Miles Compliance
96.43% 100.00%
NA 99.73% 99.55%

BMPs Assessed
17 28 0 108 153

% BMPs Implemented
94.12% 100.00%
NA 99.07% 98.69%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 4e

Forest Road Sites - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Miles

Mountains

18 14.05

Piedmont

50 42.05

Upper Coastal Plain 34 37.03

Lower Coastal Plain 81 94.06

Total

183 187.19

% Miles Compliance
92.88% 90.94% 90.39% 98.89% 94.97%

BMPs Assessed
123 391 268 583 1365

% BMPs Implemented
95.12% 88.49% 91.79% 97.77% 93.70%

WQR
0 4 0 0 4

Table 5 a e: Overall Distribution of Special Management Areas Evaluated By Region, Ownership, BMPs Assessed, % BMPs Implemented, and Water Quality Risks

Table 5a Special Management Areas - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

4

Piedmont

28

Upper Coastal Plain

16

Lower Coastal Plain

29

Total

77

BMPs Assessed
14 139 66 94 313

% BMPs Implemented
78.57% 95.68% 96.97% 95.74% 95.21%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

24

Table 5b Special Management Areas - Public

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

2

Piedmont

3

Upper Coastal Plain

1

Lower Coastal Plain

3

Total

9

BMPs Assessed
5 26 3 12 46

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 91.67% 97.83%

Table 5c Special Management Areas - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

5

Piedmont

10

Upper Coastal Plain

12

Lower Coastal Plain

11

Total

38

BMPs Assessed
11 54 60 42 167

% BMPs Implemented
90.91% 98.15% 93.33% 97.62% 95.81%

Table 5d

Special Management Areas - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

1

8

Piedmont

3

21

Upper Coastal Plain

0

0

Lower Coastal Plain

14

54

Total

18

83

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00%
NA 94.44% 96.39%

WQR 0 0 0 0 0
WQR 1 0 0 0 1
WQR 0 0 0 0 0

Table 5e

Special Management Areas - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

12

38

Piedmont

44

240

Upper Coastal Plain

29

129

Lower Coastal Plain

57

202

Total

142

609

% BMPs Implemented
89.47% 97.08% 95.35% 95.54% 95.73%

WQR
1 0 0 0 1

25

Table 6 a e: Distribution of Harvesting Operations Evaluated By Region, Ownership, Acres Assessed, % Compliance, # BMP Assessed, % Implemented, and Water Quality Risks

Table 6a

Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

6 356.68 99.94%

Piedmont

33 1833.11 98.89%

Upper Coastal Plain 22 1401.41 99.17%

Lower Coastal Plain 48 4077.76 99.95%

Total

109 7668.96 99.55%

BMPs Assessed
47 232 145 315 739

% BMPs Implemented
93.62% 96.98% 99.31% 99.05% 98.11%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 6b

Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs - Public

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

3

274

100.00%

Piedmont

3 331.81 100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 1

151

100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 3 676.41 100.00%

Total

10 1433.22 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
23 21 8 20 72

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 6c

Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

6

588.7

99.96%

Piedmont

11 1284.17 99.97%

Upper Coastal Plain 12 2120.06 99.99%

Lower Coastal Plain 16 1498.91 100.00%

Total

45 5491.84 99.99%

BMPs Assessed
46 83 85 111 325

% BMPs Implemented
95.65% 97.59% 94.12% 100.00% 97.23%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 6d

Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

3

174

100.00%

Piedmont

3 524.35 99.99%

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Lower Coastal Plain 15 1737.82 100.00%

Total

21 2436.17 99.99%

BMPs Assessed
23 23 0 99 145

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 95.65%
NA 100.00% 99.31%

WQR
0 1 0 0 1

26

Table 6e

Timber Harvesting Outside SMZs - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

18 1393.38 99.97%

Piedmont

50 3973.44 99.48%

Upper Coastal Plain 35 3672.47 99.68%

Lower Coastal Plain 82 7990.9 99.97%

Total

185 17030.19 99.80%

BMPs Assessed
139 359 238 545 1281

% BMPs Implemented
96.40% 97.21% 97.48% 99.45% 98.13%

WQR
0 1 0 0 1

Table 7 a e: Distribution of Mechanical Site Preparation Operations Evaluated By Region, Ownership, and Acres Assessed, %Compliance,# BMPs Assessed, % BMP Implementation, and Water Quality Risks

Table 7a

Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

2

20

100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Lower Coastal Plain 2 176.83 99.58%

Total

4 196.83 99.62%

BMPs Assessed
0 2 0 7 9

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00%
NA 85.71% 88.89%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 7b

Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - Public

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

% BMPs Implemented

WQR

There were no Public sites surveyed containing mechanical site preparation.

Table 7c

Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

0

0

NA

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Lower Coastal Plain 4 345.01 100.00%

Total

4 345.01 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
0 0 0 7 7

% BMPs Implemented
NA NA NA 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

27

Table 7d

Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

NA

0

Piedmont

0

0

NA

0

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 2 126.82 100.00%

4

Total

2 126.82 100.00%

4

% BMPs Implemented
NA NA NA 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 7e

Mechanical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

NA

0

Piedmont

2

20

100.00%

2

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 8 648.66 99.89%

18

Total

10 668.66 99.89%

20

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00%
NA 94.44% 95.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 8 a e: Distribution of Chemical Site Preparation Operations Evaluated By Region, Ownership, and Acres Assessed, % Compliance, BMPs Assessed, % BMP Implementation, and Water Quality Risks

Table 8a

Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

3 242.2 100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 2 165.63 100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 4

174

100.00%

Total

9 581.83 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
0 6 4 8 18

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 8b

Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - Public

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

% BMPs Implemented

WQR

There were no Public sites surveyed containing chemical site preparation.

28

Table 8c

Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

1 85.49 100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 1 162.5 100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 1

120

100.00%

Total

3 367.99 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
0 2 2 2 6

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 8d

Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

NA

0

Piedmont

1 310.05 100.00%

2

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 1 195.07 100.00%

2

Total

2 505.12 100.00%

4

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00%
NA 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 8e

Chemical Site Preparation Outside SMZs - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

NA

0

Piedmont

5 637.74 100.00%

10

Upper Coastal Plain 3 328.13 100.00%

6

Lower Coastal Plain 6 489.07 100.00%

12

Total

14 1454.94 100.00%

28

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 9 a e: Distribution of Artificial Regeneration Operations Evaluated By Region, Ownership, Acres Assessed, % Compliance, BMPs Assessed, % BMP Implementation, and Water Quality Risks

Table 9a

Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

5 282.2 100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 1 123.98 100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 4 149.03 100.00%

Total

10 555.21 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
0 10 1 6 17

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

29

Table 9b

Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs - Public

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

1

141

100.00%

Piedmont

0

0

NA

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Lower Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

Total

1

141

100.00%

BMPs Assessed
2 0 0 0 2

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% NA NA NA
100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 9c

Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

Mountains

0

0

NA

Piedmont

0

0

NA

Upper Coastal Plain 1 162.5 100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 1

27

100.00%

Total

2 189.5 100.00%

BMPs Assessed
0 0 3 1 4

% BMPs Implemented
NA NA 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 9d

Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

0

0

NA

0

Piedmont

1 310.05 100.00%

1

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 2 316.82 100.00%

4

Total

3 626.87 100.00%

5

% BMPs Implemented
NA 100.00%
NA 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 9e

Artificial Regeneration Outside SMZs - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

% Acres Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

1

141

100.00%

2

Piedmont

6 592.25 100.00%

11

Upper Coastal Plain 2 286.48 100.00%

4

Lower Coastal Plain 7 492.85 100.00%

11

Total

16 1512.58 100.00%

28

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

30

Table 10 a e: Distribution of Equipment Servicing Operations Evaluated By Region, Ownership, No. of Landings Assessed, BMPs Assessed, % BMP Implementation, and Water Quality Risks

Table 10a

Equipment Servicing and Trash Clean-up - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Landings

% Landings Compliance

Mountains

6

10

99.99%

Piedmont

33

72

98.61%

Upper Coastal Plain 22

45

99.99%

Lower Coastal Plain 46

144

97.92%

Total

107 271

98.52%

BMPs Assessed
18 99 65 137 319

% BMPs Implemented
88.89% 98.99% 98.46% 97.81% 97.81%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 10b

Equipment Servicing and Trash Clean-up - Public

Region

No. Sites

Landings

% Landings Compliance

Mountains

3

9

100.00%

Piedmont

3

22

100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 1

5

100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 3

29

100.00%

Total

10

65

100.00%

BMPs Assessed
8 8 3 9 28

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 10c

Equipment Servicing and Trash Clean-up - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Landings

% Landings Compliance

Mountains

6

20

100.00%

Piedmont

11

38

100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 12

50

98.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 15

58

100.00%

Total

44

166

99.40%

BMPs Assessed
18 33 36 43 130

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00% 88.89% 100.00% 96.92%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 10d

Equipment Servicing and Trash Clean-up - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Landings

% Landings Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

2

4

100.00%

6

Piedmont

3

10

100.00%

9

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 14

97

100.00%

42

Total

19

111

100.00%

57

% BMPs Implemented
100.00% 100.00%
NA 100.00% 100.00%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

31

Table 10e

Equipment Servicing and Trash Clean-up - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Landings

% Landings Compliance

BMPs Assessed

Mountains

17

43

99.99%

50

Piedmont

50

142

99.30%

149

Upper Coastal Plain 35

100

99.00%

104

Lower Coastal Plain 78

328

99.09%

231

Total

180 613

99.18%

534

% BMPs Implemented
96.00% 99.33% 95.19% 98.70% 97.94%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 11 a e: Distribution of Stream Types, Miles Assessed, and % Compliance By Region, and Ownership

Table 11a

Stream Assessment - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Intermittent Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Perennial Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Total % Miles
Compliance

Mountains

4

2.19

100.00%

3.55

97.18%

98.26%

Piedmont

17

5.18

95.56%

5.32

98.50%

97.05%

Upper Coastal Plain 10

1.61

74.53%

3.75

87.47%

83.58%

Lower Coastal Plain 18

5.97

99.66%

3.52

99.15%

99.47%

Total

49

14.95

95.59%

16.14

95.79%

95.69%

Table 11b

Stream Assessment - Public

Region

No. Sites

Intermittent Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Perennial Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Total % Miles
Compliance

Mountains

1

0.06

100.00%

0.66

100.00% 100.00%

Piedmont

3

0

NA

3.05

93.44%

93.44%

Upper Coastal Plain 1

0.68

100.00%

0.16

100.00% 100.00%

Lower Coastal Plain 2

3.43

100.00%

0

NA

100.00%

Total

7

4.17

100.00%

3.87

94.83%

97.51%

32

Table 11c

Stream Assessment - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Intermittent Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Perennial Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Total % Miles
Compliance

Mountains

3

0.76

100.00%

0.41

100.00% 100.00%

Piedmont

7

3.59

97.21%

4.12

100.00% 98.70%

Upper Coastal Plain 9

4.34

100.00%

3.47

85.30%

93.47%

Lower Coastal Plain 8

2.11

100.00%

0.77

100.00% 100.00%

Total

27

10.8

99.07%

8.77

94.18%

96.88%

Table 11d

Stream Assessment - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Intermittent Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Perennial Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Total % Miles
Compliance

Mountains

1

0

NA

0.49

97.96%

97.96%

Piedmont

2

1.63

100.00%

0.55

100.00% 100.00%

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

NA

0

NA

0

Lower Coastal Plain 7

3.41

73.61%

1.54

24.03%

58.18%

Total

10

5.04

82.14%

2.58

54.26%

72.70%

Table 11e

Stream Assessment - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Intermittent Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Perennial Miles
Assessed

% Miles Compliance

Total % Miles
Compliance

Mountains

9

3.01

100.00%

5.11

97.85%

98.65%

Piedmont

29

10.4

96.83%

13.04

97.85%

97.40%

Upper Coastal Plain 20

6.63

93.82%

7.38

86.72%

90.08%

Lower Coastal Plain 35

14.92

93.83%

5.83

79.42%

89.78%

Total

93

34.96

95.25%

31.36

91.80%

93.62%

33

Table 12 a e: Overall Distribution of Sites Evaluated By Region, Ownership, Acres Evaluated, % Compliance, BMPs Assessed, % BMPs Implemented, and Water Quality Risks

Table 12a

Overall Distribution - NIPF

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

6

Piedmont

34

Upper Coastal Plain 22

Lower Coastal Plain 48

Total

110

Acres
377.88 2682.27 1870.89 4940.36 9871.4

% Acres Compliance
99.92% 99.18% 99.34% 99.94% 99.62%

BMPs

% BMPs

Assessed Implemented

185

87.57%

1034

91.68%

583

94.17%

1303

97.01%

3105

94.14%

WQR
0 9 0 0 9

Table 12b

Overall Distribution - Public

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

3

Piedmont

3

Upper Coastal Plain 1

Lower Coastal Plain 3

Total

10

Acres
425.62 363.83 154.55 726.44 1670.44

% Acres Compliance
99.99% 99.72% 100.00% 99.99% 99.94%

BMPs

% BMPs

Assessed Implemented

94

96.81%

149

97.99%

44

100.00%

94

98.94%

381

98.16%

WQR
0 0 0 0 0

Table 12c

Overall Distribution - TIMO

Region

No. Sites

Mountains

6

Piedmont

11

Upper Coastal Plain 12

Lower Coastal Plain 17

Total

46

Acres
592.7 1433.3 2531.29 2015.16 6572.45

% Acres Compliance
99.96% 99.97% 99.99% 99.99% 99.99%

BMPs

% BMPs

Assessed Implemented

141

94.33%

398

95.48%

429

94.17%

551

99.09%

1519

96.31%

WQR
4 8 0 0 12

Table 12d

Overall Distribution - Forest Industry

Region

No. Sites

Acres

Mountains

3

176.4

Piedmont

3

1228.97

Upper Coastal Plain 0

0

Lower Coastal Plain 15 2457.82

Total

21 3863.19

% Acres Compliance
99.99% 99.99%
NA 99.90% 99.93%

BMPs

% BMPs

Assessed Implemented

72

93.06%

103

99.03%

0

NA

531

96.99%

706

96.88%

WQR
1 1 0 3 5

34

Table 12e

Overall Distribution - All Ownership

Region

No. Sites

Acres

Mountains

18

1572.6

Piedmont

51 5708.37

Upper Coastal Plain 35 4556.73

Lower Coastal Plain 83 10139.78

Total

187 21977.48

% Acres Compliance
99.97% 99.59% 99.73% 99.95% 99.81%

BMPs

% BMPs

Assessed Implemented

492

92.07%

1684

93.59%

1056

94.41%

2479

97.54%

5711

95.32%

WQR
5 18 0 3 26

35

36

Percent

Chart 1: Statewide Trends in BMP Implementation

BMP Implementation Trends

100

90

80
1991

70

1992

60

1998

2002
50
2004

40

2007

2009
30
2011
20

10

0

37

Chart 2: Statewide Trends in BMP Implementation on NIPF Sites
Statewide BMP Implementation Trends - NIPF

100

90

80

70

2002

2004
60 2007

50

2009

40

2011

30

20

10

0

Percent

38

Chart 3: Statewide Trends in BMP Implementation on Forest Industry Sites

Statewide BMP Implementation Trends - Forest Industry 100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0

2002 2004 2007 2009 2011

Percent

39

Chart 4: Statewide Trends in BMP Implementation on Corporate (TIMO) Sites

Statewide BMP Implementation Trends - TIMO

100

90

80

70

60

50

2007

2009 40
2011

30

20

10

0

Percent

40

Chart 5: Statewide Trends in BMP Implementation on Public Sites

Statewide BMP Implementation Trends - Public 100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0

2002 2004 2007 2009 2011

Percent

41

Percent

Chart 6: Statewide Trends in BMP Compliance
Statewide BMP Compliance Trends 100
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
42

1991 1992 1998 2002 2004 2007 2009 2011

43

Figure 2 44

Chart 7: Statewide Trends in Reduction of Water Quality Risks from 1998 through 2011 Surveys

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100
50 0 Water Quality Risks - Statewide

1998 (448) 2002 (286) 2004 (213) 2007 (154) 2009 (22) 2011 (26)

45