# 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 So il and Water Conservation Board.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A Best Management Practices (BMP) mon itoring program evaluated the level of implementation of voluntary forestry BMPs. A total of 152 sites on which silvicultural activities occurred were eval uated. These sites were m onitored 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 site s 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 (com mercial landowners that do not have wood processing facilities) scored 95.7% overall, while family forest owners scored 88.7%.

Implementation with BMPs was statis tically 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 st ream crossings on temporary roads

• inadequate SMZ width along inte rmittent 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 wetlandsTABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Distribution and Selection of Im plementation Moni toring Sites.................................................................. .......5

Quality Co ntrol................................................................................................................ ....................................6

Monitoring Checklis ts .......................................................................................................... ...............................7

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

Results ........................................................................................................................ .........................................8 Site Char acteris tics.......................................................................................................... ......................8 Permanent Roads............................................................................................................... ..................10 Skid Trails and Temporary Roads............................................................................................... ........10 Stream Cr ossings.............................................................................................................. ...................12 Streamside Mana gement Zones ................................................................................................... .......15 Site Prep aration .............................................................................................................. .....................17 Landings...................................................................................................................... ........................18 Wetlands...................................................................................................................... ........................19

Overall Implementa tion with BMPs............................................................................................... ...................23 Implementation by S ite Charact eristics........................................................................................ .......23 Ownership.................................................................................................................... .........23 Type of Activity............................................................................................................. .......23 Region....................................................................................................................... ............26 Terrain...................................................................................................................... .............26 Erod ibility

.................................................................................................................. ...........26 Distance to Pe rmanent Water................................................................................................26 River Basin .................................................................................................................. .........26 Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed) ......................................................................................26 Proximity to 303 (d) Li sted Stream Segments ......................................................................27

Statistical Analys is ........................................................................................................... .................................30 Statistical Tests ............................................................................................................. ......................30 Margin of Error.............................................................................................................. .......30 Confidence Interval.......................................................................................................... .....30 Statistical Significance...................................................................................................... ..................31 Forester Involved in Sale or Activity....................................................................................32 Logging Contractor A ttended BMP Workshop ....................................................................32 Landowner Famili arity 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

Discu ssion .................................................................................................................... .....................................35 Overall Implementation – Rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.........................................................................3 5 Overall Implemen tation – Round 7.............................................................................................. .......36 Area Weighted BMP Implementation.............................................................................................. ...37

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

Appendix ...................................................................................................................... .....................................395 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Clean Water Act (CWA), as reau thorized 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 effec tiveness,” including a measure of BMP implementation.

The Texas Silvicultural Nonpoint Sour ce Pollution Project, funded by a FY05 CWA Section 319(h) grant from the Envir onmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Texas State Soil and Water Conser vation 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 implementati on of BMP guidelines by forest landowners, silvicultural contractor s, 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 Oc tober 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 impl ementation 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 Fo rest Service publication , Texas Forest Resource Harvest Trends 2005 , and the average annual remova ls of growing stock by owne rship class, as reported in the United States Forest Service publication, East Texas Forests, 2003 (SRS – 137)

. See Table 1.6 Table 1. Distribution of Implem entation 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 aeria l detection and information collected by Texas Forest Service (TFS) personnel. A ll monitoring evaluations were conducted by one or a combination of two trained forester s assigned to the TFS BMP Project. Using only BMP Project employees as inspectors provi ded greater accuracy and quality control.7 At the beginning of the monito ring project, as well as period ically 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, a pproved 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 prom ote 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 recommenda tions, 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 comm ents section at the end of the form provided additional in formation regarding BMP implementation.

Each tract was rated with a number representing percent implementation. This score was computed by dividing the number of questions re ceiving 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 co rrectly 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 water body. Such change may or may not violate water quality standards.

Tract evaluations were entere d into a database for storag e and analysis. This data was also imported into a Geographic Informa tion System (GIS) for further analysis and geographical representation. The form is found in the Appendix.

INSPECTION CONTACTS

Landowners were contacted prior to the in spection 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 landowne r and his/her represen tative 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 forestla nd, an industry or corporate forester accompanied the BMP forester.8 Landowners, logging contractors, and tim ber buyers (where applicable and identifiable) were provided a copy of the co mpleted checklist, along with a cover letter explaining the BMP Project a nd 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 13,7 42 acres, throughout East Texas. These 152 tracts are geographically represented by ow nership 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%) we re on publicly owned lands.

The majority of sites (58%) were m onitored after a regeneration harvest, including 87 clearcuts and one partial harvest (seed tree ha rvest). Forty-five thinning and nineteen site preparation opera tions were evaluated. In 34 cases, the site preparation evaluation was included in elements of th e 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 wa s employed by forest i ndustry or corporations, while U.S. Forest Service foresters were involved on seven sites.

Terrain classification an d soil erodibility were recorded from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Su rvey, if available, or estimated by the forester in the field. Thirty-s ix sites (24%) were on flat te rrain. 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 ro ads in the forestry context are generally graded dirt roads that are used for year-r ound 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 appropria te 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 ev aluated 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 “la nding.” Temporary road s are not designed to carry traffic long-term and are usually retire d, closed, or reforested after the harvest activity. The percent implementation for te mporary roads was 88% with no significant risks noted. The lowest implementation categ ory was for having road s well drained with appropriate water control structures (76%). The area with the highest implementation (99%) was for roads meeting grade speci fications. 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 Pe rmanent 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 s ites. Fourteen sites had crossings on permanent roads only, 53 had crossings on te mporary roads only, and six had crossings on both permanent and temporary roads. The percent implementation for stream crossings was 82% with a tota l of 15 significant risks noted. The lowest implementation category for stream crossings on both permanen t and temporary roads was stabilization of crossings (75% and 56%, respectively). Ho wever, stabilizing crossing on temporary roads was up by (+81%), a tremendous improve ment over round six. It is important to note that the highest implementation in bot h 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 perenni al 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 Streamsi de 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 imple mentation with site preparation BMPs. A variety of site preparat ion techniques were evaluated, including 38 with some combination of shearing, piling, subsoiling, bedding, and/or burning. Fifteen sites involved application of herbic ide 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. Landi ngs were evaluated on 114 sites with an overall implementation of 98%. Several ar eas were found to have fully implemented BMPs (100%), including respecting sensitive areas, being on well dr ained locations, and being located outside of the SMZ. The lo west implementation was for landings being free of oil/trash (90%). There were no signi ficant 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 “we tland 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

N o soil
movement on site

Firebreak erosion controlled

SMZ integrity honored

Windrows on contour/free of soil

N o chemicals off site

Mechanical site
p rep/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

N umber 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
p roperl y Figure 8. BMP Implementation on Wetlands by Ownership Type.

Mandatory road BMPs followed23 

### OVERALL BMP IMPLEMENTATION

To illustrate the range of the overall implementation scores, Figures 9 and 10 separate the results into five categorie s: 0-50%, 51-70%, 71-80%, 81-90%, and 91- 100%. Figure 9 geographically illustrates implementation acr oss 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 ownershi p type. The public ownership category fared best, with 100% for the seven trac ts with no significant risks noted.

The 47 sites owned by corporate landow ners had an overall BMP implementation of 95.7% with only tw o significant risks.

Forest industry owned eight of the s ites and had an overall implementation of 91.1% with only two significant risks.

Family forest owners had an implemen tation 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 si tes 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 Ac ross 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 100Number of Sites



## Implementation Score Family Forest Corporate Industry
Public Figure 10. Overall Implementation Scor es 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 industria l 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 si gnificant risks.

Erodibility

Monitoring sites were identified as having Low
, Medium , or High soil erodibility. BMP implementation on a total of 48 low erodib ility sites was 91.6% wi th six significant risks; on 95 medium erodibility sites, 91.2% w ith 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 pe rmanent 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 si gnificant risks. On four sites with permanent water 800 to 1600 feet away, impl ementation was 90.5% with no significant risks. Of the 62 sites in which permanen t 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 rati ng of 74.1% (1140106). See Table 11 and Figure 12.27 Table 10. BMP Implementation by River Basin.

River Basin Number of Sites % Im plementation 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 Implementa tion 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 site s to 303(d) listed (impaired) stream segments was analyzed using GIS. Twenty-f our 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 Hydr ologic Unit Code (Watershed).30 

### STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical tests were perf ormed 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 Serv ice can develop outreach efforts that encourage the use of these practices.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Margin of Error

The margin of error expresses the ma ximum 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 th e respective percent implementation and total number of applicable questions. The formula used to calc ulate the margin of e rror 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 th at 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. Th e 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 Error31 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BMP TRENDS

Two different statistical an alyses 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 probabil ity of observing a value of the test statistic as contradictory (or more) to the nu ll 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 Determ ining Statistically Si gnificant 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 YES32 Forester Involved in the Sale or Activity

BMP implementation was higher when a pr ofessional 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 implem entation rating of 84.0%. See Figure 13.

Logging Contractor Attended BMP Workshop

Logging contractor familiarity with BMPs influenced implementation. Texas Forest Service BMP Project st aff offers a BMP workshop in which contractors are made more aware of BMPs and water quality. On e hundred twenty-two inspections identified the logging contractor as having attended the formal BMP training, with an implementation of 93.9%. Sites in which th ere was no attendance by the logger at the formal BMP training or if the logger wa s 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 familia r 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 incl uded 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 certifica tion system is primarily open to family forest owners. In order to maintain this certification, memb ers 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 implem entation 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 doc umented on 91 sites with a rating of 95.3%, compared to an 85.9% rating on 61 si tes in which the timber went to other mills or the receiving mill was unknown. See Figure 14.Figure 13. Overall Implementationby Various Types of Involvement.94.984.093.981.795.284.550556065707580859095100 Percent ImplementationForester Involved in Saleor ActivityYesNoLogger Attended BMPTrainingLandowner Familiarwith BMPsFigure 14. Overall Implementation by Various Categories.95.580.695.395.987.585.950556065707580859095100 Percent Implementatio nBMPs in ContractYesNoLandowner Member ofTree FarmTimber Delivered to MajorSFI®Mill35 

### DISCUSSION

As mentioned in the monitoring checklis t section of this report, the current methodology used to monitor BMP implementa tion 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 accurate ly scores percent implementation. Individual tracts are rated on a 0 - 100 percen t scale based on thei r actual level of BMP implementation. Due to the change in re porting 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 Fo rest 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 monito ring, completed in 1992, yielded an overall implementation rate of 88.2%. R ound 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, co mpleted in 2000, documented overall BMP implementation at 88.6%. Round 5, co mpleted in 2002, showed overall BMP implementation at 91.5%, while Round 6 re ported overall BMP implementation at 91.7%.

BMP implementation on industry land ha d 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 (corporat e) 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, implementati on 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 identif ied. Implementation on industr y land during this time period was 91.1% with two significan t risks, while implementati on 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 resu lted in an overall BMP implementation of 91.5% with a total of 18 significant risks across all ownership categor ies. See Table 14.

BMP implementation on family forest ow ners lagged behind other ownerships and accounted for 14 of the 18 sign ificant risks. Family fore st owners are generally less involved in forest management, only infreque ntly 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 impl ementation occurred on smaller tracts while the higher level of BMP implementation occurred on larger tracts of land.

Table 14. Percent Implem entation 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 91.537 AREA WEIGHTED BMP IMPLEMENTATION

Traditionally, monitoring sites have b een weighted equally when determining percent implementation scores. This me thod is good for determining overall BMP implementation across the state or for a part icular landowner category. However, it does not provide this information on a lands cape 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 fo r 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) % BM P = individual tract % BMP implementation

Table 15. Area Weighted Percent Im plementation by Ownership, Round 7.

Landowner Type Area Weighted % Implementation

Family Forest Owner 91.4

Corporate 95.7

Industry 91.6

Public 100

Overall 93.738 

### CONCLUSION

Positive statistical correlations be tween landowner familiarity with BMPs, forester involvement, logging contractor training in BMPs, and BMP implementation were shown. This demonstrates the importan ce for family forest owners to involve a forester and a BMP-trained logging contractor to ensu re BMP implementation.

Forest industry also played a significant role in increasing BMP implementation. This occurred primarily because of its suppor t 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 re quiring all contractors to at tend BMP training workshops, including BMPs in their timber sale contract s, 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 impl ementation. The Texas Reforestation and Conservation Act of 1999 encouraged landowne rs to leave a streamside management zone when harvesting timber by giving them sp ecial property tax incentives for doing so. The American Tree Farm System requires landowners to implement BMPs on their operations in order to maintain their certifi cation. Texas Forestry Association sponsors many workshops each year emphasizing sustainable forestry.

Overall BMP implementation maintained a ve ry high level. Mo st notable is the family forest owner, whose implementation increased by 12.4% since Round 3, which had the lowest rate since the monitoring be gan. This increase demonstrates that the ongoing education and training strategies geared towards loggers, landowners, and foresters were the driving force behi nd the increases in implementation.

Although BMP implementation remains at a very high level, there is still room for improvement. The past round of monitori ng 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 specif ically 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 significan t 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, providi ng technical assistan ce 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 ResultsEvaluation 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 a ppears 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: Di stance 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 road s 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 pl acement (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 temporar y 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 co ntrol structures: Were BMPs installed effectively to reduce erosion from the road? 5. Roads stabilized: If needed, are skid trails and te mporary 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 cr ossings installed correctly? Are crossing located properly? Are culverts properly sized? Are bridges used wher e 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 crossi ngs installed correctly? Is the cr ossing 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 st abilized 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? Cu lverts (CU), Bridge (BR), Low water crossing (LW).

VI. Streamside Management Zones

1. Present on permanent stream: Is there an SMZ present on an y 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 r eaching 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 gu llies 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 preven t 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 chemi cals 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: We re 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 throug h 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 ar e determined by dividing the numb er 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. Gene rally poor quality construction or no effort in certain locations which suffer from erosion, stream sedime ntation, etc. Substantial lack of BMPs in a particular emphasis such as ro ads, 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. Gu idelines 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 As sociation? 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 Moni toring Checklist Items, All Sites, Round 7VI. 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