BMPs, BHGs, and Other Important Stuff

BMPs, BHGs, and Other Important Stuff Carmen Hardin DNR Forest Hydrologist Highlights New Forestry-­‐Related Stream Crossing GPs New Wetland GPs New BHG Soils List New Site Analysis Process for BHG Soil Complexes •  BHG Review Update •  2013 BMP Monitoring Update • 
• 
• 
• 
Forestry-­‐Related Stream Crossing GPs •  ExisPng – Temporary In-­‐Stream Crossing GP for pole fords and PVC pipe bundles •  New GPs for Forestry –  Want to in place by Spring 2013 –  Fees won’t change (set by statute) –  Permit process & applicaPon won’t change –  New standards for forestry-­‐specific GPs to be developed Forestry-­‐Related Stream Crossing GPs •  Possible New Forestry-­‐Related GPs –  Fords on Trout Streams (requires an IP) –  Timber Mats (may qualify for clear-­‐span bridge GP) –  Culverts (try to address sizing concerns) •  Other ideas or concerns about exisPng GPs – Let me know Wetland GPs •  Commercial, ResidenPal, & Industrial wetland GP now available •  Forest roads that do not meet silvicultural exempPon may qualify (non-­‐gas tax roads) •  Examples: –  New fill for exisPng road to install longer wetland culverts –  New fill for new road Wetland GPs •  Permit fee = $500 •  RestoraPon surcharge fee –  $200 for less than 4,356 sq c (0.1 acre) –  $300 for 4,356 to 10,000 sq c (0.23 acres) •  Total fee = $700 or $800 •  Fee may be waived if applicant is a state or federal agency Wetland GPs •  ApplicaPon includes: –  WRAPP form –  NarraPve describing project –  Projects plans and/or drawings –  Maps of project area –  Wetland delineaPon report (if needed) –  E&T species review –  Historical & cultural resources review –  AlternaPves analysis –  Deed or other proof of ownership –  Photographs of site Wetland GPs •  Submit at least 30 days before start of project •  Department response within 30 days of receiving complete applicaPon package Wetland GPs •  AlternaPve Analysis –  Describe purpose and need for project –  Why project must impact wetlands –  How could project be redesigned or avoid or reduce wetland impacts (alternaPves) –  Why the alternaPves described were eliminated (cost, logisPcal, technological consideraPons) –  How your preferred opPon minimizes wetland impacts during projects (BMPs, erosion controls, setbacks) Wetland GPs GP Standards 1.  Project purpose is to build or expand commercial, residenPal, or industrial development with a single and complete project 2.  Project purpose is not to create a buildable lot 3.  Project is not eligible for authorizaPon under a “Superior SAMP” permit reviewed by City of Superior Wetland GPs GP Standards 4.  Applicant is landowner, easement holder, or has legal authority to proceed 6.  Project does not affect more than 10,000 sq c of wetland as part of a single and complete project 7.  Wetland impact is not for any type of stormwater treatment facility, such as pond, infiltraPon basin, or swale Wetland GPs GP Standards 7.  Fill will not occur in: • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Great Lakes ridge and swale Interdunal wetlands Coastal plain marshes Emergent marshes with wild rice Boreal rich fens Calcaerous fens Sphagnum bogs that are south of STH 16 & 21 (west of Lake Winnebago) and USH 51 (east of Lake Winnebago) Wetland GPs GP Standards 8.  Project cannot avoid wetland impacts 9.  Project minimizes wetland impacts to greatest extent pracPcable 10. Fill will cause only minimal adverse environmental impacts 11. Project is constructed to maintain wetland hydrology 12. ConstrucPon minimizes erosion and siltaPon and follows DNR technical standards Wetland GPs GP Standards 13. AcPvity will not jeopardize an endangered or threatened species and will not destroy or adversely modify its habitat 14. AcPvity will not result in significantly adverse impacts to fish spawning habitat or wildlife movement (fish, amphibians, repPles, and mammals) 15. AcPvity will not adversely impact historical or cultural resources 16. If project is for expansion of a solid waste disposal facility, then it must have a valid feasibility determinaPon from DNR Wetland GPs •  RecreaPonal GP sPll under development •  Goal is to have it ready by Spring 2013 •  Plan to have a ½ day session to gather input and suggesPons on GP standards and condiPons from externals •  Interested in parPcipaPng in session? –  Let me know BHGs •  New soils lists –  September 10, 2012 •  Crawford, Jackson, Richland, and Vernon counPes –  July 1, 2012 •  Changes to 24 counPes –  Next update in 2013 •  Likely to affect Clark, LaCrosse, Marineoe, Oconto, and Price counPes BHGs •  New Site Analysis Process for BHG Soil Complexes –  No biomass harvest restricPons = <26% restricted soils –  Minor biomass harvest restricPons = 26-­‐50% restricted soils –  Major biomass harvest restricPons = 51-­‐80% restricted soils –  Not recommended for biomass harvesPng = >80% restricted soils BHGs •  New Site Analysis Process for BHG Soil Complexes –  OpPon 1 – Forego harvest –  OpPon 2 – IdenPfy suitable soils on the ground –  OpPon 3 – Evaluate the site BHGs •  Evaluate the Site: 26-­‐50% Restricted Soils –  Conduct a field visit –  Determine if enPre site or porPons of site are suitable for biomass harvest –  Look for discernible paoerns in vegetaPon or indicators of a richer site –  How much of site is within soil map unit –  Base decision on best professional judgment –  Not as rigorous review as for more restricted soils BHGs •  Evaluate the Site: 51-­‐80% Restricted Soils –  More in depth study of site –  Evaluate site to determine if biomass harvest is appropriate on enPre site or porPons of site –  Look at a number of site characterisPcs that may indicate soil ferPlity, such as: • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
ComposiPon of soil Site index Timber type Habitat type Management objecPves Land type associaPons (LTAs) Glacial landforms –  Review relies on best professional judgment and familiarity with local area, soils, and forests BHGs •  Evaluate the Site: >80% Restricted Soils –  Difficult to jusPfy addiPonal Pme and evaluaPon to try to idenPfy porPons of site that may support a biomass harvest –  May sPll be appropriate to modify guidelines based on specific site condiPons, operaPonal issues, or management objecPves BHGs •  CNNF DNPS Example 1 –  Sayner-­‐Pence-­‐Vilas (60-­‐65%) with aspen, paper birch, & balsam fir –  Vilas-­‐Lindquist (50%) with hardwood, red pine, aspen, paper birch & balsam –  Glacial landforms were Telemark Washed End Moraine and Chequamegon Washed Till and Outwashed –  Site index = 60 to 70 for most spp present –  Field visit found Vilas and Sayner on <25% of treatment area –  Decision to allow biomass harvest on enPre site because impracPcal to separate out DNPS BHGs •  CNNF DNPS Example 2 –  Sayner-­‐Pence-­‐Vilas (60-­‐65%), Vilas-­‐Lindquist (50%), & Sayner-­‐Linquist (60%) –  Field visit found dominantly Pence with 20”+ sandy loam surface –  Acer-­‐Tsuga-­‐Maianthemum (ATM) to Acer-­‐
Tsuga-­‐Dryopteris (ATD) indicaPng dry-­‐mesic to mesic producPve sites –  SelecPon harvest in hardwoods –  Decision to allow biomass harvest because site informaPon indicates a richer site and only removing a porPon of Pmber BHGs •  BHG Review –  Review is focusing on new research, implementaPon experience, & economic consideraPons –  RecommendaPons due to CoF by Fall 2013 –  Following same format as development • 
DNR Technical Team including: – 
– 
– 
– 
– 
• 
Greg Edge, Silviculturist/Ecologist DusPn Bronson, Forest Research Ecologist Tricia Knoot, Forest Research Sociologist Sarah Herrick, ConservaPon Biologist Carmen Hardin, Forest Hydrologist BHG Advisory Commioee with 18 Invitees 2013 BMP Monitoring •  State and County Lands •  Random sample of Pmber sale contracts open in 2012 – probably need 35+ sales •  HarvesPng must be completed •  Sale must be: –  Within 200 feet of a lake, river or stream, –  Have at least 1 acre of wetland harvest, or –  Cross a significant length (at least 50 feet) of wetland –  Cross a stream 2013 BMP Monitoring •  Spring break-­‐up-­‐ish –  Contact to see if sales meet eligibility criteria –  Ask for maps, 2460s, inspecPon forms, … •  Early Summer –  Solicit volunteers for monitoring teams –  Visit sites to confirm eligibility & collect data following USFS BMP monitoring protocol •  Late Summer –  Establish monitoring teams & distribute sales –  Conduct monitoring training (1 to 2 days) 2013 BMP Monitoring •  Fall –  Monitor Pmber sales – great if forester & logger present for monitoring visit –  Teams visit 7 to 10 sales in 3 to 4 days •  Winter – 
– 
– 
– 
Enter datasheets Send data to staPsPcian to analyze data Write report Share results on individual sales with landowner/forester