Voluntary Implementation 

of Forestry 

Best Management Practices 

in East Texas 

Results from Round 7 of 

BMP Implementation Monitoring

TEXAS FOREST SERVICE 

A Member of the Texas A&M University System 

December 2008 
Voluntary Implementation 

of Forestry 

Best Management Practices 

in East Texas 

Results from Round 7 of BMP Implementation Monitoring 

2007-2008 

by 

Hughes Simpson, BMP Project Leader 

Jacob Donellan, BMP Project Forester 

Chris Duncan, BMP Project Forester 

Shane Harrington, BMP Project Forester 

TEXAS FOREST SERVICE 

Sustainable Forestry 

Best Management Practices Project

Prepared in Cooperation With the 

Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board 

and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

This report was financed in part (60%) by a 319(h) grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency through the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 A Best Management Practices (BMP) monitoring program evaluated the level of 

implementation of voluntary forestry BMPs. A total of 152 sites on which silvicultural 

activities occurred were evaluated. These sites were monitored between June 20, 2007, 

and November 18, 2008, and are believed to be a representative sample of the forestry 

activities that occurred in East Texas during that time. 

 Overall BMP implementation on the sites monitored was 91.5%. In general, 

implementation was highest on sites under public ownership. These national forestland 

sites had an overall implementation of 100%, while industrial sites had a 91.1% 

implementation rating. Corporate lands (commercial landowners that do not have wood 

processing facilities) scored 95.7% overall, while family forest owners scored 88.7%. 

Implementation with BMPs was statistically significantly higher when: 

• the landowner was familiar with BMPs 

• the logging contractor had attended formal BMP training 

• a forester was involved in the sale or activity 

• BMPs were included in the timber sale contract 

• the landowner was a member of the American Tree Farm System 

• the timber was delivered to a Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) mill 

Implementation was generally lowest on sites when: 

• owned by family forest owners 

• a forester was not involved in the sale or activity 

• BMPs were not included in the timber sale contract 

• the logger had not attended the BMP workshop 

Major deficiencies noted during the evaluations were: 

• failure to remove and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads 

• inadequate SMZ width along intermittent and perennial streams 

Major improvements from previous rounds were: 

• a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality 

• avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings 

• higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Background and Objectives.................................................................................................................................5 

Distribution and Selection of Implementation Monitoring Sites.........................................................................5 

Quality Control....................................................................................................................................................6 

Monitoring Checklists .........................................................................................................................................7 

Inspection Contacts .............................................................................................................................................7 

Results .................................................................................................................................................................8 

 Site Characteristics................................................................................................................................8 

 Permanent Roads.................................................................................................................................10 

 Skid Trails and Temporary Roads.......................................................................................................10 

 Stream Crossings.................................................................................................................................12 

 Streamside Management Zones ..........................................................................................................15 

 Site Preparation ...................................................................................................................................17 

 Landings..............................................................................................................................................18 

 Wetlands..............................................................................................................................................19 

Overall Implementation with BMPs..................................................................................................................23 

 Implementation by Site Characteristics...............................................................................................23 

 Ownership.............................................................................................................................23 

 Type of Activity....................................................................................................................23 

 Region...................................................................................................................................26 

 Terrain...................................................................................................................................26 

 Erodibility .............................................................................................................................26 

 Distance to Permanent Water................................................................................................26 

 River Basin ...........................................................................................................................26 

 Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed) ......................................................................................26 

 Proximity to 303 (d) Listed Stream Segments ......................................................................27 

Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................................................30 

 Statistical Tests ...................................................................................................................................30 

 Margin of Error.....................................................................................................................30 

 Confidence Interval...............................................................................................................30 

 Statistical Significance........................................................................................................................31 

 Forester Involved in Sale or Activity....................................................................................32 

 Logging Contractor Attended BMP Workshop ....................................................................32 

 Landowner Familiarity with BMPs.......................................................................................32 

 BMPs included in the Timber Sale Contract.........................................................................32 

 Landowner Member of American Tree Farm System ..........................................................32 

 Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill.............................................................................................32 

 

Discussion .........................................................................................................................................................35 

 Overall Implementation – Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.........................................................................35 

 Overall Implementation – Round 7.....................................................................................................36 

 Area Weighted BMP Implementation.................................................................................................37 

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................................38 

Appendix ...........................................................................................................................................................39 
5

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 

 The Clean Water Act (CWA), as reauthorized in 1987, called for states to 

establish a program for development and implementation of Best Management Practices 

to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution. The Act also required states to develop 

methods for determining “BMP effectiveness,” including a measure of BMP 

implementation. 

 The Texas Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Project, funded by a FY05 

CWA Section 319(h) grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through 

the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB), requires that a 

monitoring program be conducted to document the level of voluntary implementation of 

BMPs and effectiveness of BMPs in reducing NPS pollution from silvicultural activities. 

Objectives of the monitoring program are to: 

1) Measure the degree of implementation of BMP guidelines by forest 

landowners, silvicultural contractors, forest industry, and government 

agencies. 

2) Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs as applied in the field and identify any 

weaknesses in the BMP guidelines. 

This report documents the findings of the BMP implementation monitoring for 

152 sites evaluated between June 20, 2007, and November 18, 2008. This data represents 

Round 7 of BMP implementation monitoring conducted by Texas Forest Service. 

Previous surveys were published in October 1992, March 1996, April 1998, September 

2000, November 2002, and October 2005. These reports can be viewed online at 

http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/sustainable/bmp. 

 

DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING 

SITES 

 To obtain a valid estimate of overall implementation of forestry best management 

practices, monitoring sites were distributed regionally within East Texas and among all 

forestland ownership categories. Sites were believed to be representative of the 

distribution of all silvicultural activities across East Texas. The distribution of 

monitoring sites was based on the estimated annual timber harvest for each county as 

reported in the Texas Forest Service publication, Texas Forest Resource Harvest Trends 

2005, and the average annual removals of growing stock by ownership class, as reported 

in the United States Forest Service publication, East Texas Forests, 2003 (SRS – 137). 

See Table 1. 
6

Table 1. Distribution of Implementation Monitoring Sites by County. 

County Number of Sites Monitored 

Anderson 3 

Angelina 8 

Bowie 3 

Cass 9 

Cherokee 5 

Gregg 1 

Grimes 1 

Hardin 8 

Harrison 6 

Houston 5 

Jasper 12 

Liberty 6 

Marion 3 

Morris 1 

Nacogdoches 8 

Newton 7 

Orange 1 

Panola 6 

Polk 12 

Red River 3 

Rusk 5 

Sabine 4 

San Augustine 4 

San Jacinto 4 

Shelby 4 

Smith 2 

Titus 1 

Trinity 4 

Tyler 7 

Upshur 4 

Walker 4 

Wood 1 

Total 152 

QUALITY CONTROL 

 To eliminate bias, implementation monitoring sites were selected in a random 

manner using several methods, including aerial detection and information collected by 

Texas Forest Service (TFS) personnel. All monitoring evaluations were conducted by 

one or a combination of two trained foresters assigned to the TFS BMP Project. Using 

only BMP Project employees as inspectors provided greater accuracy and quality control. 
7

At the beginning of the monitoring project, as well as periodically throughout the project, 

BMP Project foresters jointly evaluated tracts to maintain and improve consistency and 

fairness. The TFS BMP Project collected monitoring data in accordance with a Quality 

Assurance Project Plan, approved by TSSWCB and EPA. 

MONITORING CHECKLIST 

The monitoring checklist that was used in Round 7 was also used for the previous 

three surveys, a period dating back to 1999. This objective, 42-question form followed 

the BMP Implementation Monitoring Framework, a guidance document approved by the 

Southern Group of State Foresters to promote consistency among the southern states 

when conducting BMP implementation monitoring. 

The form evaluated BMPs for seven different categories: Permanent Roads, 

Temporary (secondary) Roads / Skid Trails, Stream Crossings, Streamside Management 

Zones, Site Preparation, Landings, and Wetlands. Each question was worded so that a 

positive answer was recorded with a “Yes,” while a negative answer, indicating a 

departure from BMP recommendations, was answered “No.” Questions that were not 

applicable to the tract were answered “NA.” This format allowed readers to quickly 

determine any problem areas identified during an inspection. A comments section at the 

end of the form provided additional information regarding BMP implementation. 

 Each tract was rated with a number representing percent implementation. This 

score was computed by dividing the number of questions receiving a yes answer by the 

total applicable questions [Y/(Y+N)]. Tracts were also evaluated to determine if 

“significant risks” to water quality existed. A significant risk is an existing on-theground condition resulting from failure to correctly implement BMPs, that if left 

unmitigated, has already or 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. 

Tract evaluations were entered into a database for storage and analysis. This data 

was also imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS) for further analysis and 

geographical representation. The form is found in the Appendix. 

INSPECTION CONTACTS 

 Landowners were contacted prior to the inspection of the site so that permission 

for entry onto the property could be obtained. During this initial contact, the forester 

explained the program and invited the landowner and his/her representative to join the 

BMP forester on site during the evaluation. Sites were not inspected if the landowner 

denied access. In nearly all cases on commercial forestland, an industry or corporate 

forester accompanied the BMP forester. 
8

Landowners, logging contractors, and timber buyers (where applicable and 

identifiable) were provided a copy of the completed checklist, along with a cover letter 

explaining the BMP Project and instructions on interpreting the form. Recommendations 

for remediation, if applicable, were made. 

RESULTS 

Between June 20, 2007, and November 18, 2008, TFS BMP foresters evaluated 

BMP implementation on 152 sites, totaling 13,742 acres, throughout East Texas. These 

152 tracts are geographically represented by ownership category in Figure 1. Tabulated 

results by question on the BMP implementation monitoring checklist are located in the 

Appendix. 

SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

 Ninety of the 152 sites (59%) were on family forest lands. Forty-seven sites 

(31%) were owned by corporate landowners. Eight sites (5%) were owned by forest 

industry. Seven sites (5%) were on publicly owned lands. 

 The majority of sites (58%) were monitored after a regeneration harvest, 

including 87 clearcuts and one partial harvest (seed tree harvest). Forty-five thinning and 

nineteen site preparation operations were evaluated. In 34 cases, the site preparation 

evaluation was included in elements of the preceding timber harvest operation or 

succeeding planting operation. 

 Professional foresters were involved in planning and/or implementing the 

silvicultural operation on 103 (68%) of the sites. Private consultants were involved on 49 

of the sites. On 47 sites, the forester was employed by forest industry or corporations, 

while U.S. Forest Service foresters were involved on seven sites. 

 Terrain classification and soil erodibility were recorded from the Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, if available, or estimated by the 

forester in the field. Thirty-six sites (24%) were on flat terrain. One hundred fifteen sites 

(75%) were on hilly terrain and one (1%) was on steep terrain. Forty-eight sites (32%) 

were on soils with low erodibility, 95 sites (64%) on medium erodibility soils, and nine 

(1%) were on high erodibility soils. 

 Of the 152 sites, 112 had either a perennial (12) or intermittent (68) stream or 

both perennial and intermittent (32). A permanent water body was found within 1,600 

feet of 87 sites (57%).
 

Figure 1. Site Locations by Ownership Category. 
 10 

PERMANENT ROADS

 Permanent roads were evaluated for implementation of BMPs when they were 

used in the forestry operation. Permanent roads in the forestry context are generally 

graded dirt roads that are used for year-round access. County roads were not included in 

the monitoring, as they are not under the management control of the landowner. 

Permanent roads were applicable on 119 of the 152 sites. The percent implementation 

for permanent roads was 94% with one significant risk was noted. The lowest average 

category score (81%) was for having roads well drained with appropriate structures. The 

area with the highest level of implementation was for roads meeting grade specifications 

(100%). See Table 2. Figure 2 breaks down the numbers of sites into ownership type. 

Table 2. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Permanent Roads. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin of

Error 

Respect sensitive 

areas 

117 1 34 99 0 1.8 

Roads meet grade 

specifications 119 0 33 100 0 - 

Rutting within 

allowable specs 118 1 33 99 0 1.8 

Well drained with 

appropriate structures 93 22 37 81 1 7.3 

Ditches do not dump 

into streams 101 2 49 98 0 2.8 

Roads reshaped and 

stabilized 100 19 33 84 0 6.7 

 

SKID TRAILS AND TEMPORARY ROADS 

 Skid trails and temporary roads were evaluated on 95 of the 152 monitoring sites. 

Skid trails are routes through the logging area in which logs are skidded or dragged to a 

central loading point called a “set” or “landing.” Temporary roads are not designed to 

carry traffic long-term and are usually retired, closed, or reforested after the harvest 

activity. The percent implementation for temporary roads was 88% with no significant 

risks noted. The lowest implementation category was for having roads well drained with 

appropriate water control structures (76%). The area with the highest implementation 

(99%) was for roads meeting grade specifications. See Table 3 and Figure 3. 
 

11 4 4

53 39 4 4

1 1

48 42 7 4

15 2 5

45 41 3 4

1

63 43 8 4

64 43 8 4

1

62 43 8 4

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Respect 

sensitive areas

Roads meet 

grade specs

Rutting within 

allowable specs

Well drained 

with 

appropriate 

structures

Ditches do not 

dump into 

streams

Roads reshaped 

and stabilized

Figure 2. BMP Implementation on Permanent Roads by Ownership Type.
 12 

Table 3. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Skid Trails and Temporary Roads. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin 

of Error 

Slopes less than 15% 94 1 57 99 0 2.0 

Respect sensitive 

areas 

91 3 58 97 0 3.5 

Roads well drained 

with appropriate 

structures 

67 21 64 76 0 9.1 

Roads stabilized 76 18 58 81 0 8.1 

Rutting within 

allowable 

specifications 

84 11 57 88 0 6.7 

STREAM CROSSINGS 

Stream crossings were evaluated on 73 sites. Fourteen sites had crossings on 

permanent roads only, 53 had crossings on temporary roads only, and six had crossings 

on both permanent and temporary roads. The percent implementation for stream 

crossings was 82% with a total of 15 significant risks noted. The lowest implementation 

category for stream crossings on both permanent and temporary roads was stabilization of 

crossings (75% and 56%, respectively). However, stabilizing crossing on temporary 

roads was up by (+81%), a tremendous improvement over round six. It is important to 

note that the highest implementation in both categories was for avoiding or minimizing 

the number of crossings. See Figure 4 and Table 4. 
 

6 5

50 23 4 7

12 5 1

42 24 3 7

17 4

32 24 4 7

2 1

53 27 4 7

1

55 28 4 7

0 20 40 60 80 100

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Slopes less 

than 15%

Respect 

sensitive areas

Well drained 

with water 

control 

structures

Roads 

stabilized

Rutting within 

allowable 

specs

Figure 3. BMP Implementation on Skid Trails/Temporary Roads by Ownership Type.
 

10 2 1

32 17

22 3

1

18 14

17 2

24 15 1

3 1

38 16 1

4 1

44 25 1 5

1

10 8 2 1

311

8 5 11

1

11 5 2 1

12 14 7 1

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Avoided or 

minimized

Correct

Stabilized

Stream free of 

sediment

Avoided or 

minimized

Correct

Temporary 

crossings 

removed

Stabilized

Stream free 

of sediment

On Permanent Roads

On Temporary Roads

Figure 4. BMP Implementation on Stream Crossings by Ownership Type.
 15 

Table 4. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Stream Crossings. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin 

of Error 

Permanent Roads 

Avoided or minimized 34 0 118 100 0 - 

Stream crossings 

correct 19 1 132 95 0 9.7 

Stream crossings 

stabilized 15 5 132 75 2 19.4 

Stream free of 

sediment 21 1 130 96 1 8.4 

Temporary Roads 

Avoided or minimized 75 5 72 94 0 5.3 

Stream crossings 

correct 55 4 91 93 0 6.6 

Temporary crossings 

removed 40 19 93 68 5 12.1 

Stream crossings 

stabilized 32 25 95 56 6 13.1 

Stream free of 

sediment 49 13 90 79 1 10.3 

STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONES 

 Streamside management zones (SMZs) are recommended on all perennial and 

intermittent streams. All sites with either a perennial or intermittent stream were 

evaluated for the presence and adequacy of SMZs. Streams were present on 112 of the 

152 sites. Of these 112 sites, 12 had perennial streams only, 68 had intermittent streams 

only, and 32 had both perennial and intermittent streams. Overall implementation of 

SMZs was 88%. One significant risk was noted, a major improvement from the previous 

round which had seven significant risks. The lowest implementation was for inadequate 

SMZ width (67%), while the highest was for stream free of sediment and SMZs present 

on permanent streams (99% and 98% respectively). See Figure 5 and Table 5. 
 

1

61 35 8 7

11

48 38 8 7

5 1

52 37 8 7

9

50 38 8 7

12 7 2

42 30 6 7

26 7 4

33 30 4 7

7 1

47 34 8 3

1

16 19 2 6

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Present on 

permanent stream

Present on 

intermittent 

stream

SMZ adequately 

wide

Thinning within 

allowable specs

Minimize 

harvesting bank 

trees

SMZ integrity 

honored

Stream clear 

of debris

Stream free 

of sediment

Figure 5. BMP Implementation on Streamside Management Zones by Ownership Type.
 17 

Table 5. Implementation of BMPs Relating to SMZs. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin 

of Error 

Present on perennial 

stream 43 1 108 98 0 4.2 

Present on 

intermittent stream 92 8 52 92 0 5.4 

Adequately wide 74 37 41 67 0 8.9 

Thinning within 

allowable specs 85 21 46 80 0 7.8 

Minimize harvesting 

bank trees 103 9 40 92 0 5.1 

Integrity honored 104 6 42 95 0 4.2 

Stream clear of debris 101 11 40 90 1 5.7 

Stream free of 

sediment 111 1 40 99 0 1.9 

SITE PREPARATION 

 Fifty-three sites were evaluated for implementation with site preparation BMPs. 

A variety of site preparation techniques were evaluated, including 38 with some 

combination of shearing, piling, subsoiling, bedding, and/or burning. Fifteen sites 

involved application of herbicide only. The implementation for site preparation was 98% 

with one significant risk noted. The lowest implementation was for honoring SMZ 

integrity and respecting sensitive areas (96% for both categories). See Table 6 and 

Figure 6. 
 18 

Table 6. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Site Preparation. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin 

of Error

Respect sensitive 

areas 

51 2 99 96 1 5.4 

No soil movement 

on site 56 0 96 100 0 - 

Firebreak erosion 

controlled 20 0 132 100 0 - 

SMZ integrity 

honored 43 2 107 96 0 5.8 

Windrows on 

contour/free of soil 9 0 143 100 0 - 

No chemicals off site 32 0 120 100 0 - 

Mechanical site prep 

/ machine planting 

on contour 

31 1 120 97 0 6.0 

Stream free of 

sediment 43 1 108 98 0 4.2 

LANDINGS 

Landings, sometimes called sets, are areas where logs are gathered, delimbed, 

bucked, and loaded onto log trucks. Landings were evaluated on 114 sites with an 

overall implementation of 98%. Several areas were found to have fully implemented 

BMPs (100%), including respecting sensitive areas, being on well drained locations, and 

being located outside of the SMZ. The lowest implementation was for landings being 

free of oil/trash (90%). There were no significant risks noted on landings. See Table 7 

and Figure 7. 
 19 

Table 7. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Landings. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin of 

Error 

Location free of 

oil/trash 103 11 38 90 0 5.6 

Located outside of 

SMZ 92 0 60 100 0 - 

Well drained 

location 114 0 38 100 0 - 

Number and size 

minimized 113 1 38 99 0 1.9 

Respect sensitive 

areas 

114 0 38 100 0 - 

Restored/stabilized 112 1 39 99 0 1.9 

WETLANDS 

Seventeen sites had wetland or “wetland like” areas – not necessarily 

jurisdictional wetlands. These sites had an overall implementation of 100%. No 

significant risks were noted and all mandatory road BMPs for wetlands were followed. 

See Table 8 and Figure 8. 

Table 8. Implementation of BMPs Relating to Wetlands. 

BMP Yes No N/A % 

Implementation 

Number of 

Significant 

Risks 

Margin 

of Error 

Avoid altering hydrology of 

site 17 0 135 100 0 - 

Road drainage structures 

installed properly 14 0 138 100 0 - 

Mandatory road BMPs 

followed 11 0 141 100 0 - 
 

1

16 21 6

1

14 14 3

11 15 6

9

2

14 23 6

11 9

27 23 6

1 1

21 24 6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Respect 

sensitive areas

No soil 

movement on 

site

Firebreak 

erosion 

controlled

SMZ integrity 

honored

Windrows on 

contour/free 

of soil

No chemicals 

off site

Mechanical site 

prep/planting 

on contour

Stream free

of sediment

Figure 6. BMP Implementation on Site Preparation by Ownership Type.
 

1

71 30 4 7

73 30 4 7

1

72 30 4 7

73 30 4 7

56 25 4 7

11

62 30 4 7

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Locations free 

of oil/trash

Located outside 

of SMZ

Well drained 

location

Number and 

size minimized

Respect 

sensitive areas

Restored/ 

stabilized

Figure 7. BMP Implementation on Landings by Ownership Type.
 

3 8

3 11

6 11

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Number of Sites

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Avoid altering 

hydrology of 

site

Road drainage 

structures 

installed 

properly

Figure 8. BMP Implementation on Wetlands by Ownership Type.

Mandatory road 

BMPs followed
 23 

OVERALL BMP IMPLEMENTATION 

To illustrate the range of the overall implementation scores, Figures 9 and 10 

separate the results into five categories: 0-50%, 51-70%, 71-80%, 81-90%, and 91-

100%. Figure 9 geographically illustrates implementation across all ownership types. 

Figure 10 provides the number of tracts across all ownership types receiving the 

respective level of implementation. 

IMPLEMENTATION BY SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

Ownership

 BMP implementation varied by ownership type. The public ownership category 

fared best, with 100% for the seven tracts with no significant risks noted. 

 The 47 sites owned by corporate landowners had an overall BMP implementation 

of 95.7% with only two significant risks. 

 Forest industry owned eight of the sites and had an overall implementation of 

91.1% with only two significant risks. 

 Family forest owners had an implementation rating of 88.7% with 14 significant 

risks on 90 sites. This represents the lowest level of the four ownership types. 

Type of Activity

 Four types of silvicultural activities were monitored: regeneration harvests, partial 

regeneration cuts, thinning, and site preparation. Nineteen sites were evaluated for site 

preparation only, although site preparation was evaluated along with a regeneration 

harvest or planting 34 times. See Table 9. 

Table 9. Overall BMP Implementation by Type of Operation. 

Type of Operation BMP Implementation 

Regeneration harvest (clearcut) 89.3% 

Regeneration harvest (partial cut) 89.4% 

Thinning 96.8% 

Site preparation (only) 88.8% 
 

Figure 9: Overall Implementation Scores Across all Ownerships and Monitoring Criteria. 
 

0-50

51-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

2 10

2

9

4

6

20

7

4

39

49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Number of Sites

Implementation Score

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Figure 10. Overall Implementation Scores by Number of Sites and Ownership.
 26 

Region

 East Texas was divided into two regions, North and South, for easy comparison of 

BMP implementation rates. The line was drawn along the northern boundary of Leon, 

Houston, Angelina, San Augustine, and Sabine Counties. Eighty-seven sites were 

monitored in the southern region and had an implementation rating of 94.6%, while 65 

sites were monitored in the northern region with an implementation rating of 87.4%. The 

higher BMP implementation in Southeast Texas is expected due to the high concentration 

of corporate, public, and industrial ownership, flatter topography, and less erodible soils. 

Terrain

 Monitoring sites were classified as Flat, Hilly, or Steep. BMP implementation on 

the 36 flat sites was 93.6% with four significant risks; on the 115 hilly sites, 90.9% with 

14 significant risks; and on the one steep site, 92.9% with no significant risks. 

Erodibility

 Monitoring sites were identified as having Low, Medium, or High soil erodibility. 

BMP implementation on a total of 48 low erodibility sites was 91.6% with six significant 

risks; on 95 medium erodibility sites, 91.2% with 11 significant risks; and on nine high 

erodibility sites, 90.9% with nine significant risks. 

Distance to Permanent Water

 Distance to the nearest permanent waterbody was determined for each monitoring 

site. BMP implementation on 81 sites with permanent water less than 300 feet away was 

91.6% with 14 significant risks. On five sites with permanent water 300 to 800 feet 

away, implementation was 84.5% with three significant risks. On four sites with 

permanent water 800 to 1600 feet away, implementation was 90.5% with no significant 

risks. Of the 62 sites in which permanent water was greater than 1,600 feet away, BMP 

implementation was 92.1% with one significant risk. 

River Basin

 Monitoring sites were identified to be in the following river basins: Cypress, 

Neches, Red, Sabine, San Jacinto, Sulphur, and Trinity. BMP implementation was 

highest in the San Jacinto River Basin (100%) on 4 sites and lowest in the Red River 

Basin (74.1%) on two sites. See Table 10 and Figure 11. 

Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed)

 Monitoring sites were also tracked by their eight digit hydrologic unit code 

(HUC). Three HUCs (12030203, 12040101, 12040103) had an implementation score of 

100%. Thirteen of the 22 watersheds (59%) scored over 90%. The lowest rated 

watershed had a BMP implementation rating of 74.1% (1140106). See Table 11 and 

Figure 12. 
 27 

Table 10. BMP Implementation by River Basin. 

River Basin Number of Sites % Implementation Significant Risks 

Cypress 20 89.7 2 

Neches 72 91.7 8 

Red 2 74.1 1 

Sabine 29 90.4 2 

San Jacinto 4 100.0 0 

Sulphur 7 90.8 2 

Trinity 18 94.0 3 

 Table 11. BMP Implementation by Hydrologic Unit Code. 

Hydrologic Unit Code Number of Sites % Implementation Significant Risks 

11140106 2 74.1 1 

11140302 6 91.1 2 

11140303 1 88.9 0 

11140304 3 88.5 0 

11140305 2 94.4 0 

11140306 11 90.5 0 

11140307 4 85.7 2 

12010002 10 85.2 1 

12010004 9 91.4 1 

12010005 9 95.9 0 

12020001 6 87.8 1 

12020002 17 93.4 3 

12020003 10 91.6 1 

12020004 8 86.4 1 

12020005 13 87.4 2 

12020006 12 96.1 0 

12020007 6 98.1 0 

12030201 1 88.1 1 

12030202 15 93.5 2 

12030203 3 100 0 

12040101 1 100 0 

12040103 3 100 0 

Proximity to 303 (d) Listed Stream Segments

 The proximity of BMP monitoring sites to 303(d) listed (impaired) stream 

segments was analyzed using GIS. Twenty-four sites were identified to be within one 

mile of a listed stream segment and had an implementation rating of 92.7%. It should be 

noted that BMP implementation was higher near these listed waters than the overall BMP 

implementation for all monitored sites. Forest operations provided greater water quality 

protection near these sensitive areas. 
 

Figure 11. Site Location by River Basin. 
 

Figure 12. Site Location by Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed). 
 30 

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 

 Statistical tests were performed to provide further information about the accuracy 

of the data collected. BMP trend analyses were also performed on certain categories to 

determine statistical significance. By understanding these trends where higher BMP 

implementation occurred, Texas Forest Service can develop outreach efforts that 

encourage the use of these practices. 

 

STATISTICAL TESTS 

Margin of Error

 The margin of error expresses the maximum likely difference observed between 

the sample mean and the true population mean with 95% probability. It is an important 

statistical calculation that was performed on all individual BMPs (i.e. SMZs present on 

perennial streams) using the respective percent implementation and total number of 

applicable questions. The formula used to calculate the margin of error is listed below. 

See Tables 2 – 8. 

 

Where m = margin of error for a single BMP 

 P = the percent implementation for a single BMP 

 n = the number of sites on which the BMP was evaluated 

Confidence Interval 

 The 95% confidence interval is a tool that statisticians use to demonstrate their 

confidence in the measured mean of a sample. It provides a range for which they are 

95% confident (i.e. 19 times out of 20) that the actual mean will be found. To calculate 

the confidence interval, the mean, variance, standard deviation, standard error, and 

margin of error must also be calculated. The formula used to calculate the confidence 

interval is listed below. For Round 7, the 95% confidence interval for the overall BMP 

implementation across all sites was (89.7, 93.4). 

95% CI = Mean ± Margin of Error 
 31 

STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BMP TRENDS 

Two different statistical analyses were performed on the following categories: 

• Forester Involved in Sale or Activity 

• Logger Attended BMP Training 

• Landowner Familiar with BMPs 

• BMPs Included in the Timber Sale Contract 

• Landowner Member of Tree Farm 

• Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill 

The first statistical analysis was a parametric two sample t-test, which was 

included because of the large sample size. This percentage data had to undergo an arcsin 

square root transformation prior to analysis. Percentage data must be transformed 

because they are not normally distributed, which invalidates the normality assumption of 

the parametric test. A non-parametric test (Wilcoxon) was also performed to add greater 

statistical validity. To determine statistical significance, the resulting P value was 

compared to the level of significance. The P value is the probability of observing a value 

of the test statistic as contradictory (or more) to the null hypothesis as the computed value 

of the test statistic. In these tests, a 0.05 (5%) level of significance was used. For the two 

implementation ratings to be significantly different, the P value must be lower than the 

level of significance. The implementation ratings for the “yes” and the “no” answers 

were calculated to be significantly different in all of these categories. See Table 12. 

Table 12. Results of Statistical Tests Determining Statistically Significant Differences. 

 % 

Implementation

 Yes No 

Parametric 

P value 

Non 

Parametric 

P value 

Level of 

Significance 

Statistically 

Different? 

Forester Involved 94.9 84.0 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Logger Attended 

BMP Training 93.9 81.7 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Landowner Familiar 

with BMPs 95.2 84.5 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

BMPs in Contract 95.5 80.6 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Landowner Member 

of Tree Farm 95.9 87.5 0.009 0.016 0.05 YES 

Timber Delivered to 

SFI® Mill 95.3 85.9 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 
 32 

Forester Involved in the Sale or Activity

 BMP implementation was higher when a professional forester was involved in the 

sale or activity. One hundred three sites were identified as having a professional forester 

involved and had an implementation rating of 94.9%. Sites in which there was no 

forester involvement had a BMP implementation rating of 84.0%. See Figure 13. 

Logging Contractor Attended BMP Workshop

 Logging contractor familiarity with BMPs influenced implementation. Texas 

Forest Service BMP Project staff offers a BMP workshop in which contractors are made 

more aware of BMPs and water quality. One hundred twenty-two inspections identified 

the logging contractor as having attended the formal BMP training, with an 

implementation of 93.9%. Sites in which there was no attendance by the logger at the 

formal BMP training or if the logger was unknown had an implementation rating of 

81.7%. See Figure 13. 

Landowner Familiarity with BMPs

 Landowner familiarity with BMPs also influenced BMP implementation. Sites 

whose owners were not familiar with BMPs (52) had an overall implementation rating of 

84.5%, while sites whose owners were familiar with BMPs (100) had an implementation 

rating of 95.2%. See Figure 13. 

BMPs Were Included in the Timber Sale Contract

 BMPs were included in the timber sale contract, if applicable, on 111 sites. 

Implementation on sites with BMPs included in the contract was 95.5%, while 

implementation on tracts without BMPs in the contract was 80.6%. See Figure 14. 

Landowner Member of American Tree Farm System

 Membership in the American Tree Farm System can have an impact on 

implementation. This certification system is primarily open to family forest owners. In 

order to maintain this certification, members must implement BMPs on their forest 

operations. Landowners were identified as Tree Farmers on 13 sites and had an 

implementation rating of 95.9%, while implementation for nonmembers on 77 sites was 

87.5%. See Figure 14. 

Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill

 BMP implementation was higher on sites in which the receiving mill was 

known to be a SFI® member. This occurrence was documented on 91 sites with a rating 

of 95.3%, compared to an 85.9% rating on 61 sites in which the timber went to other 

mills or the receiving mill was unknown. See Figure 14. 
Figure 13. Overall Implementation by Various Types of Involvement.

94.9

84.0

93.9

81.7

95.2

84.5

50556065707580859095

100

Percent Implementation

Forester Involved in Sale 

or Activity

Yes No

Logger Attended BMP 

Training

Landowner Famil

 with BMPs
Figure 14. Overall Implementation by Various Categories.

95.5

80.6

95.3

95.9

87.5

85.9

50556065707580859095

100

Percent Implementation

BMPs in Contract

Yes No

Landowner Member of 

Tree Farm

Timber Delivered to M

SFI® Mill
 35 

DISCUSSION 

As mentioned in the monitoring checklist section of this report, the current 

methodology used to monitor BMP implementation has been in place since 1999. Prior 

to that, a more subjective approach was used in which tracts were scored as No Effort, 

Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent. In order to determine percent implementation for an 

individual tract under this older method, passing tracts (Fair, Good, or Excellent) scored 

100%, while failing tracts (No Effort, Poor) scored 0%. 

The current, objective method more accurately scores percent implementation. 

Individual tracts are rated on a 0 - 100 percent scale based on their actual level of BMP 

implementation. Due to the change in reporting methods, results from rounds 4 - 7 

cannot be directly compared to Rounds 1 - 3. However, tract evaluations conducted in 

Rounds 1 - 3 were scored using the current method in the Texas Forest Service report, A 

History of BMP Implementation Monitoring in Texas, 2007, to facilitate this comparison. 

A brief discussion of the previous rounds of monitoring is provided to give a 

historical perspective on BMP monitoring in Texas. 

OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION – Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 

Round 1 of BMP implementation monitoring, completed in 1992, yielded an 

overall implementation rate of 88.2%. Round 2, which was completed in 1996, showed 

an overall implementation rate of 87.4%. Round 3, completed in 1998, reported overall 

BMP implementation at 87.3%. Round 4, completed in 2000, documented overall BMP 

implementation at 88.6%. Round 5, completed in 2002, showed overall BMP 

implementation at 91.5%, while Round 6 reported overall BMP implementation at 

91.7%. 

 BMP implementation on industry land had steadily increased from 89.6% in 

Round 1 to 95.1% in Round 2 to 98.4 % in Round 3. Implementation on industrial lands 

scored 94.2% in Round 4, 96.1% in Round 5, and 95.7% in Round 6. A new landowner 

category was developed in Round 6 (corporate) in response to the changes in land 

ownership from the divestiture of industrial forestlands. Overall BMP implementation 

for corporate landowners in Round 6 was 96.0%. These consistently high scores 

document the diligence of forest industry in using voluntary BMPs on their operations. 

 BMP implementation on publicly owned land has increased from 93.3% in Round 

1 to 100% in Round 2, and maintained its 100% implementation through Round 3. 

Implementation on public lands scored 97.9% in Round 4, 98.4% in Round 5, and 98.3% 

in Round 6. 

 In Round 1 of monitoring, implementation on family forest owners was 86.3%. 

During Round 2, implementation was 82.9% and decreased to 76.3% in Round 3. 

However, in Round 4, implementation made an upward shift to 81.2%, increased to 

86.4% in Round 5, and reached an all time high of 88.7% in Round 6. 
 36 

OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION – Round 7 

BMP implementation on public land for Round 7 was 100% with no significant 

risks to water quality identified. Implementation on industry land during this time period 

was 91.1% with two significant risks, while implementation on corporate land was 95.7% 

with two significant risks. Family forest owners received an implementation rating of 

88.7% with 14 significant risks. This resulted in an overall BMP implementation of 

91.5% with a total of 18 significant risks across all ownership categories. See Table 14. 

BMP implementation on family forest owners lagged behind other ownerships 

and accounted for 14 of the 18 significant risks. Family forest owners are generally less 

involved in forest management, only infrequently sell timber, may be absentee, and may 

lack technical knowledge necessary to implement BMPs. It is important to note that the 

average size of the harvested family forest owner tract was smaller than the industrial and 

corporate tracts. This lower level of implementation occurred on smaller tracts while the 

higher level of BMP implementation occurred on larger tracts of land. 

 

 Table 14. Percent Implementation by Ownership and Round. 

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 

Family 

Forest Owner 86.3 82.9 76.3 81.2 86.4 88.7 88.7 

Corporate - - - - - 96.0 95.7 

Industry 89.6 95.1 98.4 94.2 96.1 95.7 91.1 

Public 93.3 100 100 97.9 98.4 98.3 100 

Overall 88.2 87.4 87.3 88.6 91.5 91.7 91.5 
 37 

AREA WEIGHTED BMP IMPLEMENTATION 

Traditionally, monitoring sites have been weighted equally when determining 

percent implementation scores. This method is good for determining overall BMP 

implementation across the state or for a particular landowner category. However, it does 

not provide this information on a landscape scale like the area weighted BMP 

implementation method. Using this approach, larger tracts are weighted more heavily 

than smaller tracts, primarily because they have a greater opportunity to impact water 

quality. The results were reanalyzed using the above-mentioned approach. BMP 

implementation scores actually increased for the family forest owner, industry, and 

overall. See Table 15. 

AW % = Σ (((Tract A/Total A) *100)) * % BMP))) 

 Where AW % = area weighted BMP implementation % 

 A = area (acres) 

 % BMP = individual tract % BMP implementation 

 

Table 15. Area Weighted Percent Implementation by Ownership, Round 7. 

Landowner Type Area Weighted % Implementation 

Family Forest Owner 91.4 

Corporate 95.7 

Industry 91.6 

Public 100 

Overall 93.7 
 38 

CONCLUSION 

 Positive statistical correlations between landowner familiarity with BMPs, 

forester involvement, logging contractor training in BMPs, and BMP implementation 

were shown. This demonstrates the importance for family forest owners to involve a 

forester and a BMP-trained logging contractor to ensure BMP implementation. 

Forest industry also played a significant role in increasing BMP implementation. 

This occurred primarily because of its support of the Texas Forest Service BMP Program 

and participation in SFI®. Water quality protection is obviously a top priority for the 

forest industry, as evident by requiring all contractors to attend BMP training workshops, 

including BMPs in their timber sale contracts, and procuring wood for their mills from 

landowners that implement BMPs. 

Special programs and incentives advocated by Texas Forest Service are 

continuing to have an effect on BMP implementation. The Texas Reforestation and 

Conservation Act of 1999 encouraged landowners to leave a streamside management 

zone when harvesting timber by giving them special property tax incentives for doing so. 

The American Tree Farm System requires landowners to implement BMPs on their 

operations in order to maintain their certification. Texas Forestry Association sponsors 

many workshops each year emphasizing sustainable forestry. 

Overall BMP implementation maintained a very high level. Most notable is the 

family forest owner, whose implementation increased by 12.4% since Round 3, which 

had the lowest rate since the monitoring began. This increase demonstrates that the 

ongoing education and training strategies geared towards loggers, landowners, and 

foresters were the driving force behind the increases in implementation. 

Although BMP implementation remains at a very high level, there is still room for 

improvement. The past round of monitoring noted a deficiency in removing and 

stabilizing stream crossings on temporary roads and leaving inadequate streamside 

management zone widths along waterbodies. Texas Forest Service has already begun to 

address this issue. A BMP training workshop focusing specifically on stream crossings 

has been developed. Early response to this course has been excellent. Future courses 

will be developed on streamside management zones and forest roads. Improvement was 

also made in reducing the number of significant risks to water quality from the previous 

round; however, there still is work to do in this area. Continuing effective educational 

programs for family forest owners, providing technical assistance to the forestry 

community on BMPs, and conducting BMP training for loggers can minimize the 

potential water quality impacts from silvicultural operations.
 

 

Appendix 

Implementation Monitoring Checklist 

Evaluation Criteria 

Summary of Results 
 
 
 
 

Evaluation Criteria for BMP Monitoring Checklist 

Texas Forest Service BMP Project 

I. General Landowner and Tract Information 

County: Texas County inspection was located. 

TFS Block and Grid: Enter only entry point if multiple blocks or grids. 

Latitude and Longitude: coordinates in decimal degree (D.d) format. 

Forester Type: Professional, i.e. consultant, industry, etc. 

Forester Name: First and last name. 

Timber Buyer: First and last name or Corporation name. 

Logging Contractor: First and last name or business name. 

Activity: Type activity occurring, e.g. harvesting, site preparation, etc. 

Acres Affected: Acres affected by activity. 

Estimated Date of Activity: Quarter and year activity appears to have occurred. Use first entry if multiple 

entries. 

Date of inspection: mmddyy. 

Inspector: Name of TFS forester doing BMP inspection. 

Accompanied by: Name of landowner, industry or consulting forester, logger, etc. who is present during 

the inspection. 

Owner Type: Nonindustrial (N), Absentee nonindustrial (A), Corporate (C) Industry (I), Public (P). 

Name, Address, City, Zip, and Phone: Contacts for the landowner. 

II. Site Characteristics 

Terrain: Check only one; Flat, Hilly, or Steep. 

Erodibility hazard: Check only one; Low, Medium, or High. 

Type stream present: Perennial or Intermittent. 

Watershed Code: 8 digit hydrologic unit code where site is located. 

River Basin: River basin where site is located. 

Distance to nearest permanent water body: Distance to nearest blue line stream or lake. 

Predominant soil series: Series name from Soil Survey data (if available). 

Predominant soil texture: Check only one; Clay, Clay Loam, Loam, Sandy Loam, or Sand. 

III. Permanent Roads 

1. Respect sensitive areas: Do roads avoid wet areas, SMZs, steep slopes if an alternative exist, erosion 

prone areas if an alternative exists, etc.? 

2. Roads meet grade specs: Pertains to new roads or roads which are substantially reworked. Are roads 

within 2-10 percent grade except for short distances? Are roads on contour? Are ridge tops avoided? 

3. Rutting within allowable specs: Is the road free of ruts in excess of 6 inches deep for more than 50 

feet? 

4. Well drained with appropriate structures: Are roads constructed so that water will quickly drain from 

them to minimize soil movement? 

5. Ditches do not dump into streams: Are water turn outs and water bars venting far enough from the 

stream to prevent sediment from entering the stream channel? 

6. Roads reshaped and stabilized: If needed, are roads reworked to minimize soil movement? 

BMPs present: Which types of BMPs were used? Rolling dips (RD), Wing ditches (WD), Water bars 

(WB), Revegetate (RE), On contour (OC), Proper placement (PL), Reshaping (RS), Culverts (CU), Side 

Ditch (SD), Broad based dip (BD). 
 

IV. Skid Trails/Temporary Roads 

1. Respect sensitive areas: Do skid trails and temporary roads avoid wet areas, SMZs, steep slopes if an 

alternative exist, erosion prone areas if an alternative exists, etc.? 

2. Slopes less than 15 %: Are skid trails run on or near contour, rather than up and down steep slopes? 

3. Rutting within allowable specs: Are skid trails and temporary roads free of ruts in excess of 6 inches 

deep for more than 50 feet? 

4. Roads well drained with water bars or other water control structures: Were BMPs installed effectively 

to reduce erosion from the road? 

5. Roads stabilized: If needed, are skid trails and temporary roads reworked to minimize soil movement? 

BMPs present: See Section III above. 

V. Stream Crossings 

On Permanent Roads: 

1. Crossings avoided or minimized: Was an effort made to use as few crossings as possible? 

2. Stream crossings correct: Are crossings installed correctly? Are crossing located properly? Are 

culverts properly sized? Are bridges used where necessary? Are crossings at right angles? 

3. Stream crossings stabilized? Are stream banks and approaches stabilized? Are washouts evident? 

4. Stream free of sediment: Has sedimentation from the road into the stream channel been minimized? 

On Temporary Roads 

5. Crossings avoided or minimized: Was an effort made to use as few crossings as possible? 

6. Stream crossings correct: Are crossings installed correctly? Is the crossing located so as to minimize 

the potential erosion in the stream channel? Is the crossing at a right angle to the stream channel? 

7. Temporary crossings removed: Have the temporary crossings been removed? Excess fill removed 

from the stream channel 

8. Stream crossings stabilized: Banks and approaches stabilized against erosion? Are washouts evident? 

9. Stream free of sediment: Has sedimentation from the road into the stream channel been minimized? 

BMPs present: Which types of BMPs were used? Culverts (CU), Bridge (BR), Low water crossing (LW). 

VI. Streamside Management Zones 

1. Present on permanent stream: Is there an SMZ present on any permanent stream? 

2. Present on intermittent stream: Is there an SMZ present on any intermittent stream? 

3. SMZ adequately wide: Is the stream being protected from erosion and deposition of sediment? Does 

the width meet the guidelines recommendations? 

4. Thinning within allowable specs: If thinning was done, is the basal area remaining at least 50 square 

feet? Is there minimal soil disturbance from felling and skidding? 

5. Minimize harvesting bank trees: Was an effort made to minimize harvesting bank trees? Were trees 

felled across the stream? 

6. SMZ integrity honored: Was an effort made to stay out of the SMZ with skidders, landings, roads, etc. 

(except for designated stream crossings)? Is the SMZ free of firebreaks? 

7. Stream clear of debris: Are tops and limbs removed from permanent and intermittent stream channels? 

Has any brush or debris pushed into the stream channel been removed? 

8. Stream free of sediment: Has sedimentation reaching the stream channel through the SMZ been 

minimized? 

VII. Site Preparation 

Site preparation method: Shear/pile/burn, Sheer only, Drum chop, Hot fire, Chemical, Disk/bed, Sub-soil, 

Disk/burn, Disking only. 
 

Regeneration method: Mechanical, Hand, Natural, None. 

1. Respect sensitive areas. Effort to prevent site prep intrusion into sensitive areas? Effort to prevent 

heavy equipment intrusion into sensitive areas? Effort to prevent fire intrusion into sensitive areas? 

2. No soil movement on site: Is there no soil movement on site? Are rills or gullies prevented? Is there 

no problem with broad scale sheet erosion? 

3. Firebreak erosion controlled: If present, has potential erosion from firebreaks been minimized as per 

guideline recommendations? 

4. SMZ integrity honored: Effort to prevent site prep intrusion into the SMZ? Effort to prevent heavy 

equipment intrusion into the SMZ? Effort to prevent fire intrusion into the SMZ? Are perennial or 

intermittent streams free of debris? 

5. Windrows on contour / free of soil: Are windrows on contour on hilly lands rather than up and down 

slopes? Was soil disturbance minimized? Was soil in windrows minimized? 

6. No chemicals off site: Does it appear that chemicals were used according to label directions? Have 

they remained on site and out of water bodies? 

7. Mechanical site prep and machine planting on contour: Are rows on contour on hilly lands rather than 

up and down slopes? 

8. Stream free of sediment: Has sedimentation reaching the stream channel because of site prep activities 

been minimized? 

VIII. Landings 

1. Locations free of oil / trash: Any sign of deliberate oil spills on soil? Is trash picked up and properly 

disposed of? 

2. Located outside of SMZ: Was the landing located 50 feet outside SMZ so as to minimize traffic and 

erosion in the SMZ? 

3. Well drained location: Were the landings located so as to minimize puddling, soil degradation and soil 

movement? 

4. Number and size minimized: Were the number and size of landings kept to a minimum? 

5. Respect sensitive areas: Were landings kept out of wet areas, steep slopes, and other erosion prone 

areas if an alternative exist? 

6. Restored / stabilized: Has the landing been back bladed or otherwise restored as per guideline 

recommendations? Has erosion been minimized through spreading bark, etc., seeding, water bars, or 

other recommended BMP practices? 

IX. Wetlands (may or may not be jurisdictional) 

1. Avoid altering hydrology of site: Were ruts and soil compaction kept to a minimum? 

2. Road drainage structures installed properly: Were BMPs installed effectively to maintain the flow of 

water and keep erosion to a minimum in the wetland? 

3. Mandatory road BMPs followed: Were the 15 federal mandatory BMPs followed? 

X. Overall Implementation 

Section implementation percentages are determined by dividing the number of questions receiving a yes 

answer by the total applicable questions in each section. Y/(Y+N) 

Overall implementation is determined in a similar manner using the totals from all sections combined. 

Y/(Y+N) 

Significant Risk. A significant risk is 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. 
 

Subjective Score. 

No Effort: Substantial erosion as a result of operations. Sedimentation in streams. Temporary stream 

crossings not removed. No SMZ when needed, etc. Poor attitude evident about the job. 

Poor: Some effort at installing BMPs. Generally poor quality construction or no effort in certain 

locations which suffer from erosion, stream sedimentation, etc. Substantial lack of BMPs in a 

particular emphasis such as roads, skid trails or SMZ. 

Fair: (1) Generally a pretty good effort at BMPs. Poor application procedures perhaps. Lack of BMPs 

in a particular emphasis but with moderate consequences. (2) No BMPs on a site which requires 

few BMPs but has some resultant minor problems. 

Good: (1) BMPs generally installed correctly. Guidelines generally followed. Allows for some failures 

of BMP devices or failure to observe guidelines but with light consequences. (2) Good quality 

job which required no BMPs and has few problems. 

Excellent: (1) BMPs installed correctly. Guidelines followed. (2) Some BMPs implemented even when 

they might not have been required. Few if any problems exist. 

Follow up Questions 

Was activity supervised by a professional forester or representative? Check Yes, No, or NA 

 Who? If yes, list name of individual. 

Was landowner familiar with BMPs? Check Yes, No, or NA. 

Has logger attended BMP workshop? Check Yes, No, or NA 

Were BMPs included in the contract? Check Yes, No, or NA 

Is landowner a member of TFA? Landowner Association? Other? Check Yes, No, or NA 

 Organization: If yes, list name of organization. 

Was timber delivered to SFI mill? Check Yes, No, or NA 

Does landowner have a forest management plan? Check Yes, No, or NA 

Is remediation planned by the landowner? Check Yes, No, or NA. 

 Date: If yes, include date of planned remediation. 
 

I. General Landowner and Tract Information

Owner type Forester type Activity

Family Forest Owner 45 Industry / Corporate 47 Regeneration Harvest

Absentee 45 Private Consultant 49 Clearcut 87

Corporate 52 Public 7 Partial 1

Industry 3 Thin 45

Public (Fed, State) 7 Site Prep only 19

II. Site Characteristics

Terrain Erodibility hazard Type stream present

Flat 36 Low 48 Perennial 12

Hilly 115 Medium 95 Intermittent 68

Steep 1 High 9 Both 32

None 40

Distance to nearest permanent water body

Predominant soil series/texture

< 300' 81

300 - 800' 5 Clay 1 Sandy loam 103

800 - 1600' 4 Clay loam 15 Sand 10

1600' + 62 Loam 23

III. Permanent Roads 119 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Respect sensitive areas 117 1 34 0

2. Roads meet grade specs 119 0 33 0

3. Rutting within allowable specs 118 1 33 0

4. Well drained with appropriate structures 93 22 37 1

5. Ditches do not dump into streams 101 2 49 0

6. Roads reshaped and stabilized 100 19 33 0

IV. Skid Trails/Temporary (secondary) Roads 95 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Slopes less than 15% 94 1 57 0

2. Respect sensitive areas 91 3 58 0

3. Roads well drained with water bars or other 67 21 64 0

 water control structures

4. Roads stabilized 76 18 58 0

5. Rutting within allowable specs 84 11 57 0

V. Stream Crossings

On Permanent Roads 34 applicable Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Crossings Avoided or minimized 34 0 118 0

2. Stream crossings correct 19 1 132 0

3. Stream crossings stabilized 15 5 132 2

4. Stream free of sediment 21 1 130 1

On Temporary Roads 80 applicable

5. Crossings avoided or minimized 75 5 72 0

6. Stream crossings correct 55 4 91 0

7. Temporary crossings removed 40 19 93 5

8. Stream crossings and approaches stabilized 32 25 95 6

9. Stream free of sediment 49 13 90 1

Summary of Responses to BMP Compliance Monitoring Checklist Items, All Sites, Round 7
 

VI. Streamside Management Zones 112 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Present on permanent stream 43 1 108 0

2. Present on intermittent stream 92 8 52 0

3. SMZ adequately wide 74 37 41 0

4. Thinning within allowable specs 85 21 46 0

5. Minimize harvesting bank trees 103 9 40 0

6. SMZ integrity honored 104 6 42 0

7. Stream clear of debris 101 11 40 1

8. Stream free of sediment 111 1 40 0

VII. Site Preparation 56 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Respect sensitive areas 51 2 99 1

2. No soil movement on site 56 0 96 0

3. Firebreak erosion controlled 20 0 132 0

4. SMZ integrity honored 43 2 107 0

5. Windrows on contour/free of soil 9 0 143 0

6. No chemicals off site 32 0 120 0

7. Machine planting on contour 31 1 120 0

8. Stream free of sediment 43 1 108 0

VIII. Landings 114 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Locations free of oil/trash 103 11 38 0

2. Located outside of SMZ 92 0 60 0

3. Well-drained location 114 0 38 0

4. Number and size minimized 113 1 38 0

5. Respect sensitive areas 114 0 38 0

6. Restored/stabilized 112 1 39 0

IX. Wetlands 17 applicable

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

1. Avoid altering hydrology of site 17 0 135 0

2. Road drainage structures installed properly 14 0 138 0

3. Mandatory road BMPs followed 11 0 141 0

X. Overall Compliance

Yes No NA/NN Sig. Risk

III. Permanent Roads - 94% 648 45 219 1

IV. Skid Trails/Temporary Roads - 88% 412 54 294 0

V. Stream Crossings - 82% 340 73 953 15

VI. Streamside Management Zones - 88% 713 94 409 1

VII. Site Preparation - 98% 285 6 925 1

VIII. Landings - 98% 648 13 251 0

IX. Wetlands - 100% 42 0 414 0

Follow-up Questions

Yes No NA/NN

Was activity supervised by a professional forester? 103 49 0

Was landowner familiar with BMPs? 100 52 0

Has logger attended BMP workshop? 122 8 22

Were BMPs included in the contract? 111 34 7

Is landowner a member of TFA, CFLOA, ATFS, etc.? 81 58 13

Was timber delivered to SFI mill? 91 31 30

Does landowner have a forest management plan? 108 44 0

Does landowner plan to reforest? 98 3 51