Results from Round 8 of 

BMP Implementation Monitoring

TEXAS FOREST SERVICE 

A Member of the Texas A&M University System 

December 2011 

Voluntary Implementation 

of Forestry 

Best Management Practices 

in East Texas 
Voluntary Implementation 

of Forestry 

Best Management Practices 

in East Texas 

Results from Round 8 of BMP Implementation Monitoring 

2010-2011 

by 

Hughes Simpson, Program Coordinator 

Chuck Coup, Water Resources Forester 

Chris Duncan, Water Resources Forester 

TEXAS FOREST SERVICE 

Sustainable Forestry 

Water Resources Program

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 in East Texas. A total of 150 randomly 

selected sites on which silvicultural activities occurred were evaluated. These sites were 

monitored between June 28, 2010, and September 9, 2011, 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 monitored sites was 94.1%. In general, 

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

sites had an overall implementation of 98.3%, while industrial sites had a 97.7% 

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

processing facilities) scored 96.7% overall, while family forest owners scored 88.0%. 

Implementation with BMPs was statistically 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 property had certification in the American Tree Farm System® (ATFS®) 

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

• the landowner had a forest management plan 

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 landowner did not have a forest management plan 

• the logger had not attended the BMP workshop 

Major deficiencies noted during the evaluations included: 

• failure to remove and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads 

• inadequate SMZ width along intermittent and perennial streams 

Major improvements from previous rounds included: 

• overall BMP implementation across all ownerships 

• overall BMP implementation on temporary roads and skid trails 

• overall BMP implementation on stream crossings 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

Quality Control ................................................................................................................................................... 8 

Monitoring Checklist .......................................................................................................................................... 8 

Inspection Contacts ............................................................................................................................................ 9 

Results ................................................................................................................................................................ 9 

 Site Characteristics ............................................................................................................................... 9 

 Permanent Roads ................................................................................................................................. 11 

 Skid Trails and Temporary Roads ....................................................................................................... 13 

 Stream Crossings ................................................................................................................................. 15 

 Streamside Management Zones .......................................................................................................... 17 

 Site Preparation ................................................................................................................................... 19 

 Landings .............................................................................................................................................. 21 

 Wetlands .............................................................................................................................................. 23 

Overall BMP Implementation ........................................................................................................................... 24 

 Implementation by Site Characteristics ............................................................................................... 24 

 Ownership ............................................................................................................................. 24 

 Type of Activity .................................................................................................................... 24 

 Region ................................................................................................................................... 27 

 Terrain ................................................................................................................................... 27 

 Erodibility ............................................................................................................................. 27 

 Distance to Permanent Water ................................................................................................ 27 

 River Basin ........................................................................................................................... 27 

 Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed) ...................................................................................... 27 

 Proximity to 303 (d) Listed Stream Segments ...................................................................... 28 

Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 31 

 Statistical Tests ................................................................................................................................... 31 

 Margin of Error ..................................................................................................................... 31 

 Confidence Interval ............................................................................................................... 31 

 Statistical Significance of BMP Trends .............................................................................................. 32 

 Forester Involved in Sale or Activity .................................................................................... 33

 Logging Contractor Attended BMP Workshop .................................................................... 33 

 Landowner Familiar with BMPs ........................................................................................... 33 

 BMPs Included in the Timber Sale Contract ........................................................................ 33 

 Property Certified in American Tree Farm System® ............................................................ 33 

 Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill. ............................................................................................ 33 

 Landowner Has a Forest Management Plan .......................................................................... 33 

 

Discussion ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 

 Overall Implementation – Rounds 1 through 7 ................................................................................... 36 

 Overall Implementation – Round 8 ..................................................................................................... 36 

 Area Weighted BMP Implementation ................................................................................................. 38 

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 39 

References 

Appendix 
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 

(BMP) 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 Prevention Project, funded by 

a Fiscal Year 2008 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 instituted to document the level of voluntary BMP 

implementation and effectiveness of BMPs in reducing NPS pollution from silvicultural 

activities. Objectives of the monitoring program are to: 

1) Measure the degree of BMP implementation 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 BMP implementation monitoring for 150 

sites evaluated between June 28, 2010, and September 9, 2011, and represents the eighth 

round conducted by Texas Forest Service. Previous surveys were published in October 

1992, March 1996, April 1998, September 2000, November 2002, October 2005, and 

December 2008. These reports can be viewed online at 

http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water. 

 

DISTRIBUTION AND SELECTION OF IMPLEMENTATION 

MONITORING SITES 

 To obtain a valid estimate of overall implementation of forestry Best Management 

Practices, monitoring sites were distributed throughout East Texas and among all 

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

silvicultural activities occurring 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 2009, and the 

average annual removals of growing stock by ownership class, as reported in a June 2010 

query of the Forest Inventory EVALIdator web-application version 1.5.00. See Table 1. 

 In order to obtain a sample of recently conducted silvicultural operations for 

implementation monitoring, Digital Aerial Sketchmapping technology was utilized. 

Approximately 1,806 operations were identified across East Texas, from which 150 sites 

were randomly selected to be monitored for this survey, using the distribution parameters 

outlined above. See Figure 1. 

5
Table 1. Distribution of Implementation Monitoring Sites by County. 

County Number of Sites Monitored 

Anderson 5 

Angelina 7 

Bowie 2 

Camp 1 

Cass 7 

Cherokee 8 

Hardin 8 

Harrison 3 

Houston 4 

Jasper 13 

Leon 1 

Liberty 5 

Marion 3 

Montgomery 2 

Nacogdoches 7 

Newton 11 

Panola 6 

Polk 8 

Red River 3 

Rusk 5 

Sabine 5 

San Augustine 10 

San Jacinto 3 

Shelby 4 

Smith 2 

Trinity 4 

Tyler 10 

Upshur 1 

Walker 2 

Total 150 

6 
1

3

9

7

5

2

4

13

8

14

10

12 11

15

6

16

Legend

Flight Lines

Airports

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Figure 1. Aerial Detection Flight Paths.

7
QUALITY CONTROL 

 To eliminate bias, implementation monitoring sites were randomly selected from 

a pool of recent silvicultural operations identified through aerial detection. All 

monitoring evaluations were conducted by one or a combination of two trained foresters 

assigned to the TFS Water Resources Program. Using only program employees as 

inspectors provided greater accuracy and quality control. At the beginning of the 

monitoring project, as well as periodically throughout the survey, inspectors jointly 

evaluated sites to ensure consistency. All monitoring data was collected in accordance 

with a Quality Assurance Project Plan, approved by TSSWCB and EPA. 

MONITORING CHECKLIST 

The monitoring checklist that was used in Round 8 was also used for the previous 

four surveys, a period dating back to 1999. This objective, 45-question form follows 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 is found in the Appendix. 

The monitoring form evaluates BMPs for seven different categories: Permanent 

Roads, Temporary Roads/Skid Trails, Stream Crossings, Streamside Management Zones, 

Site Preparation, Landings, and Wetlands. Each question is worded so that a positive 

response is answered with a “Yes,” while a negative response, indicating a departure 

from BMP recommendations, is answered “No.” Questions that are not applicable to the 

site are answered “NA.” Questions answered “No” are also evaluated to determine if a 

“significant risk” to water quality exists. A significant risk is an existing on-the-ground 

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 water body. Such change may or may not violate water quality standards. 

Follow up questions are answered, when applicable or known, to determine trends 

associated with BMP implementation. A comments section at the end of the form 

provides additional information related to BMP implementation on the site. 

 Each site was scored with a value representing percent implementation. This 

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

total number of applicable questions [Y/(Y+N)]. A qualitative assessment was also 

included in which sites were rated as No Effort, Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent. 

Site evaluations were entered into a database for storage and analysis. These data 

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

spatial representation. 

8
INSPECTION CONTACTS 

 Landowners were contacted prior to inspecting the site so that permission for 

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

explained the program, recorded information regarding the operation, and invited the 

landowner and his/her representative to join him on site during the evaluation. Sites were 

resampled if the landowner denied access. In nearly all cases on industrial, corporate, or 

public forestland, a professional forester accompanied the inspector. 

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

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

letter explaining the Water Resources program and instructions on interpreting the form. 

A map, including geo-referenced photographs of any significant risk found during the 

inspection, along with recommendations for remediation, were also provided when 

applicable. Follow up site visits were conducted to assess BMP remediation efforts and 

provide technical assistance. 

RESULTS 

Between June 28, 2010, and September 9, 2011, TFS Water Resources foresters 

evaluated BMP implementation on 150 sites, totaling 22,625 acres, throughout 29 

counties in East Texas. These sites are spatially represented by ownership category in 

Figure 2. Tabulated results for each question on the BMP implementation monitoring 

checklist are located in the Appendix. 

SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

 Forty-seven of the 150 sites (31%) were on family forest lands. Ninety-three sites 

(62%) were owned by corporate landowners. Two sites (1%) were owned by forest 

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

 The majority of sites (67%) were monitored after a regeneration harvest, which 

included 101 clearcuts. One site preparation and 48 thinning operations were evaluated. 

In 69 cases, the site preparation was evaluated as an element of the preceding timber 

harvest operation or succeeding planting operation. 

 Professional foresters were involved in planning and/or administering the 

silvicultural operation on 135 (90%) of the sites. Private consultants were involved on 40 

of the sites. On 87 sites, the forester was employed by forest industry or corporations, 

while U.S. Forest Service foresters were involved on 8 sites. 

 Terrain classification was observed on the site and general soil erodibility was 

determined from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey, if 

available, or estimated by the forester in the field. Sixty-one sites (41%) were on flat 

9 
Figure 2. Site Locations by Ownership Category. 

10 
terrain. Seventy-four sites (49%) were on hilly terrain and 15 (10%) were on steep 

terrain. Eighty-six sites (57%) were on soils with low erodibility, 45 sites (30%) on 

medium erodibility soils, and 19 (13%) were on high erodibility soils. 

 Of the 150 sites, 103 contained either a perennial (18) or intermittent (50) stream 

or both (35). A permanent water body was found within 1,600 feet of 97 sites (65%) 

PERMANENT ROADS

 Permanent roads were evaluated for BMP implementation 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 140 of the 150 sites. The percent implementation for permanent 

roads was 95% with one significant risk. Within this category, the lowest score (88%) 

was for roads being well drained with appropriate structures. The highest scores were for 

roads respecting sensitive areas and rutting within allowable specifications (100%). See 

Table 2. Figure 3 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 

136 0 14 100 0 - 

Roads meet grade 

specifications 103 1 46 99 0 2.0 

Rutting within 

allowable specs 140 0 10 100 0 - 

Well drained with 

appropriate structures 118 16 16 88 0 5.6 

Ditches do not dump 

into streams 75 6 69 93 1 5.7 

Roads reshaped and 

stabilized 127 12 11 91 0 4.8 

Overall 699 35 166 95 1 1.8 

11 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No 

Yes

No

Yes

6

37

3

21

10

28

44

1

36

41

6

83

3

50

6

83

89

63

88

2

1

2

2

2

2

5

3

5

5

2

5

Number of Sites

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 3. BMP Implementation on Permanent Roads by Ownership Type.

12 
SKID TRAILS AND TEMPORARY ROADS 

 Skid trails and temporary roads were evaluated on 85 of the 150 monitoring sites. 

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

central loading point called a “deck,” “landing,” or “set.” 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 98% (an 11.4% 

increase over the last survey) with no significant risks. Within this category, the lowest 

implementation scores were for roads being well drained with appropriate water control 

structures and rutting within allowable specifications (96%). The highest score (100%) 

was for roads meeting grade specifications. See Table 3 and Figure 4. 

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% 57 0 93 100 0 - 

Respect sensitive 

areas 

82 1 67 99 0 2.2 

Well drained with 

water control 

structures 

70 3 77 96 0 4.6 

Roads stabilized 83 1 66 99 0 2.2 

Rutting within 

allowable 

specifications 

82 3 65 96 0 4.3 

Overall 374 8 368 98 0 1.7 

13 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

3

23

24

1

18

25

19

50

1

50

1

47

1

48

33

1

1

1

1

1

8

8

1

3

8

3

Number of Sites

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

14 
STREAM CROSSINGS 

Stream crossings were evaluated on 70 sites. Twenty-three sites had crossings on 

permanent roads only, 29 had crossings on temporary roads only, and 18 had crossings on 

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

was 85% with a total of 16 significant risks. Within this category, the lowest 

implementation score for stream crossings on both permanent and temporary roads was 

stabilization of crossings (80% and 70%, respectively). However, stabilizing crossings 

on temporary roads increased by 25% over Round 7, and has increased by 125% since 

Round 6. The highest implementation in both categories was for avoiding or minimizing 

the number of crossings. See Table 4 and Figure 5. 

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 64 0 86 100 0 - 

Correct 33 8 109 80 4 12.5 

Stabilized 32 8 110 80 1 12.7 

Stream free of sediment 36 4 110 90 1 9.5 

Permanent Roads Total 165 20 415 89 6 5.1 

Temporary Roads 

Avoided or minimized 67 7 76 91 0 6.7 

Correct 42 5 103 89 0 9.1 

Temporary crossings 

removed 31 10 109 76 4 13.3 

Stabilized 30 13 107 70 5 14 

Stream free of sediment 35 10 105 78 1 12.4 

Temporary Roads Total 205 45 500 81 10 5.3 

Overall 370 65 915 85 16 4.3 

15 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

5

11

7

7

8

7

3

14

5

17

4

7

6

5

3

7

18

5

21

6

20

1

22

2

25

2

46

27

2

25

3

25

44

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

3

1

1

1

1

Number of Sites

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 5. BMP Implementation on Stream Crossings by Ownership Type.

1

16 
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 103 of the 

150 sites. Of these 103 sites, 18 had perennial streams only, 50 had intermittent streams 

only, and 35 had both perennial and intermittent streams. The percent implementation 

for SMZs was 90% with two significant risks. Within this category, the lowest 

implementation was for adequate SMZ width (75%), while the highest was for stream 

free of sediment, SMZs present on permanent streams, and SMZs present on intermittent 

streams (99%, 98%, and 98% respectively). See Table 5 and Figure 6. 

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 48 1 101 98 0 4.0 

Present on 

intermittent stream 83 2 65 98 0 3.0 

SMZ adequately wide 74 25 51 75 0 8.7 

Thinning within 

specifications 81 19 50 81 0 7.9 

Minimize harvesting 

bank trees 93 7 50 93 0 5.1 

SMZ integrity 

honored 99 4 47 96 0 3.9 

Stream clear of debris 92 13 45 88 2 6.3 

Stream free of 

sediment 101 1 48 99 0 2.0 

Overall 671 72 457 90 2 3.4 

17 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

1

32

9

26

33

5

27

15

18

16

17

2

24

1

15

61

3

58

3

59

2

59

3

56

9

50

54

30

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

7

1

6

6

6

6

5

2

Number of Sites

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Present on 

perennial 

stream

Present on 

intermittent 

stream

SMZ 

adequately 

wide

Thinning 

within 

specifications

Minimize 

harvesting 

bank trees

SMZ integrity 

honored

Stream clear 

of debris

Stream free 

of sediment

Figure 6. BMP Implementation on Streamside Management Zones by Ownership Type.

18 
SITE PREPARATION 

 Seventy sites were evaluated for implementation of site preparation BMPs. A variety 

of site preparation techniques were evaluated, including 51 with some combination of 

herbicide, shearing, piling, subsoiling, bedding, and/or burning. Nineteen sites involved 

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

significant risk. Within this category, several areas were found to have fully implemented 

BMPs (100%), including no soil movement on site, windrows on contour/free of soil, and 

mechanical site prep/planting on contour. The lowest implementation score was for 

controlling firebreak erosion (89%). It is important to note that firebreaks were only 

evaluated on 18 sites. See Table 6 and Figure 7. 

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 

68 1 81 99 0 2.4 

No soil movement 

on site 69 0 81 100 0 - 

Firebreak erosion 

controlled 16 2 132 89 1 14.8 

SMZ integrity 

honored 51 2 97 96 0 5.4 

Windrows on 

contour/free of soil 5 0 145 100 0 - 

No chemicals off site 54 1 95 98 0 3.8 

Mechanical site prep 

/planting on contour 44 0 106 100 0 - 

Stream free of 

sediment 53 2 95 96 0 5.3 

Overall 360 8 832 98 1 1.5 

19 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

1

16

9

13

5

2

12

1

2

20

1

17

36

34

1

40

37

1

12

47

49

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

Number of Sites

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 7. BMP Implementation on Site Preparation by Ownership Type.

1

20 
LANDINGS 

Landings, sometimes called “decks” or “sets,” are areas where logs are gathered, 

delimbed, bucked, and loaded onto trucks. Landings were evaluated on 139 sites with an 

overall implementation of 99% with no significant risks. Within this category, several areas 

were found to have fully implemented BMPs (100%), including respecting sensitive areas, 

being on well drained locations, minimizing the size and number, and restoring and 

stabilizing these areas. The lowest implementation score was for landings being free of 

oil/trash (94%). See Table 7 and Figure 8. 

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 131 8 11 94 0 4 

Located outside of 

SMZ 79 1 70 99 0 2.22 

Well drained 

location 103 0 47 100 0 - 

Number and size 

minimized 105 0 45 100 0 - 

Respect sensitive 

areas 

102 0 48 100 0 - 

Restored/stabilized 99 0 51 100 0 - 

Overall 619 9 272 99 0 2.1 

21 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

36

40

41

40

32

6

41

54

53

55

54

1

39

2

81

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

8

8

8

7

8

Number of Sites

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 8. BMP Implementation on Landings by Ownership Type.

22 
WETLANDS 

Thirty-one sites had wetland or “wetland like” areas – not necessarily jurisdictional 

wetlands. These sites had an overall implementation of 98%. No significant risks were 

noted and all mandatory road BMPs for wetlands were followed. See Table 8 and Figure 9. 

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 30 1 119 97 0 6.3 

Road drainage structures 

installed properly 5 0 145 100 0 - 

Mandatory road BMPs followed 6 0 144 100 0 - 

Overall 41 1 408 98 0 6.5 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

2

1

3

4

4

1

27

Number of Sites

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Avoid altering 

hydrology of site

Road drainage 

structures installed 

properly

Figure 9. 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 10 and 11 

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

100%. Figure 10 spatially illustrates implementation across all ownership types. Figure 

11 demonstrates the distribution of sites by implementation score class and ownership 

type. 

IMPLEMENTATION BY SITE CHARACTERISTICS 

Ownership

 BMP implementation varied by ownership type. The public ownership category 

fared best, with an overall implementation of 98.3% and one significant risk on eight 

sites. 

 Forest industry comprised two of the sites and had an overall implementation of 

97.7% with no significant risks. 

 The 93 sites managed by corporate entities had an overall implementation rate of 

96.7% with twelve significant risks. 

 Family forest owners had an implementation rating of 88.0% with seven 

significant risks on 47 sites. This represents the lowest implementation level of the four 

ownership categories. 

Type of Activity

 Three types of silvicultural activities were monitored: regeneration harvests, 

thinning, and site preparation. One site was evaluated for site preparation only, although 

site preparation was evaluated along with a regeneration harvest or planting on 69 sites. 

See Table 9. 

Table 9. Overall BMP Implementation by Type of Operation. 

Type of Operation BMP Implementation 

Regeneration harvest (clearcut) 93.8% 

Thinning 97.5% 

Site preparation (only) 65.5% 

24 
Figure 10: Overall Implementation Scores Across all Ownerships and Monitoring 

Criteria. 

25 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

0-50

51-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

1

3

7

10

26

2

8

83 2 8

Number of Sites

Implementation Score

Family Forest

Corporate

Industry

Public

Figure 11. 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. Ninety-three sites were 

monitored in the southern region and had an implementation rating of 95.8%, while 57 

sites were monitored in the northern region with an implementation rating of 93.2%. 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 61 flat sites was 96.4% with four significant risks; 94.2% with eleven significant risks 

on the 74 hilly sites; and 91.2% with five significant risks on the 15 steep sites. 

Erodibility

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

BMP implementation was 96.5% with seven significant risks on a total of 86 low 

erodibility sites; 94% with eight significant risks on 45 medium erodibility sites, and 

88.9% with five significant risks on 19 high erodibility sites. 

Distance to Permanent Water

 Distance to the nearest permanent waterbody was determined for each monitoring 

site. BMP implementation on 73 sites with permanent water less than 300 feet away was 

92.3% with fourteen significant risks. BMP implementation was 95.4% with two 

significant risks on 12 sites with permanent water 300 to 800 feet away; 97.2% with one 

significant risk on 12 sites with permanent water 800 to 1600 feet away; and 97.5% with 

three significant risks on the 53 sites in which permanent water was greater than 1,600 

feet away. 

River Basin

 Monitoring sites were located 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%, 7 sites) and lowest in the Trinity Basin (88.5%, 14 sites). 

See Table 10 and Figure 12. 

Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed)

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

(HUC). Two HUCs (12040101, 12040103) had an implementation score of 100%. 

Seventeen of the 21 watersheds (81%) scored over 90%. The lowest rated watershed had 

a BMP implementation rating of 69.6% (12030203). It should be noted that only two 

sites were monitored within this watershed. See Table 11 and Figure 13. 

27 
Table 10. BMP Implementation by River Basin. 

River Basin Number of Sites % Implementation Significant Risks 

Cypress 13 90.2 3 

Neches 74 96.1 9 

Red 3 97.7 0 

Sabine 35 94.4 6 

San Jacinto 7 100.0 0 

Sulphur 4 99.2 0 

Trinity 14 88.5 2 

Table 11. BMP Implementation by 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code. 

Hydrologic Unit Code Number of Sites % Implementation Significant Risks 

11140106 3 97.7 0 

11140302 4 99.2 0 

11140304 1 95.0 0 

11140305 2 74.0 2 

11140306 8 94.2 0 

11140307 2 88.3 1 

12010002 9 94.9 2 

12010004 8 86.8 1 

12010005 19 97.2 3 

12020001 9 97.1 1 

12020002 9 95.4 2 

12020003 6 95.6 2 

12020004 10 94.9 1 

12020005 21 95.4 3 

12020006 11 99.5 0 

12020007 7 95.4 0 

12030201 2 91.3 0 

12030202 10 91.7 1 

12030203 2 69.6 1 

12040101 2 100 0 

12040103 5 100 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-three sites were identified to be within one 

mile of a listed stream segment and had an implementation rating of 95.2%. 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. 

28 
Figure 12. Site Location by River Basin. 

29 
Figure 13. 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 trends where lower BMP 

implementation occurred, Texas Forest Service can develop outreach efforts that target 

these areas for improvement. 

 

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 outlined 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 8, the 95% confidence interval for the overall BMP 

implementation across all sites was (93.3, 96.3). 

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 

• Logging Contractor Attended BMP Training 

• Landowner Familiar with BMPs 

• BMPs Included in the Timber Sale Contract 

• Property Certified in American Tree Farm System®

• Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill 

• Landowner Has a Forest Management Plan 

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

conducted because of the large sample size. An arcsin square root transformation was 

performed on these data prior to analysis. Percentage data must be transformed because 

it is 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 95.7 86.6 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Logger Trained 95.9 82.0 < 0.001 0.004 0.05 YES 

Landowner Familiar 96.0 88.7 < 0.001 0.007 0.05 YES 

BMPs in Contract 96.5 81.7 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Tree Farm Certification 96.5 87.6 0.007 0.016 0.05 YES 

SFI® Mill 96.2 86.4 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.05 YES 

Management Plan 96.7 83.6 < 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 thirty-five sites were identified as having a professional 

forester involved and had an implementation rating of 95.7%. Sites in which there was 

no forester involvement had a BMP implementation rating of 86.6%. See Figure 14. 

Logging Contractor Attended BMP Workshop

 Texas Forest Service conducts BMP training workshops for logging contractors. 

One hundred thirty-eight inspections identified the logging contractor as having attended 

the formal BMP training, with an implementation of 95.9%. Sites in which the activities 

were administered by a logger that did not attend the formal BMP training or where the 

logger was unknown had an implementation rating of 82.0%. See Figure 14. 

Landowner Familiar with BMPs

 Sites whose owners were not familiar with BMPs (24) had an overall 

implementation rating of 88.7%, while sites whose owners were familiar with BMPs 

(126) had an implementation rating of 96.0%. See Figure 14. 

BMPs Included in the Timber Sale Contract

 BMPs were included in the timber sale contract on 133 sites. Implementation on 

sites with BMPs in the contract was 96.5%, while implementation on sites without BMPs 

in the contract, or where BMP inclusion was unknown, was 81.7%. See Figure 15. 

Property Certified in American Tree Farm System®

 Members of the American Tree Farm System® are required to implement BMPs 

in order to maintain their certification. Sixteen sites were identified as being Tree Farm 

certified and had an implementation rating of 96.5%, while implementation for eligible 

nonmembers on 37 sites was 87.6%. See Figure 15. 

Timber Delivered to SFI® Mill

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

known to be a SFI® member. This applied to 128 sites with an implementation rating of 

96.2%, compared to an 86.4% rating on the 22 sites in which the timber went to other 

mills or the receiving mill was unknown. See Figure 15. 

Landowner Has a Forest Management Plan

 Landowners who have a forest management plan are more likely to use BMPs. 

On the 128 sites in which landowners had a forest management plan, implementation was 

96.7%, compared to an implementation rating of 83.6% on the 22 sites that did not have a 

forest management plan or where it was unknown if a plan existed. See Figure 15. 

33 
95.7

86.6

95.9

82.0

96.0

8

75.080.085.090.095.0

100.0

Percent Implementation

Figure 14. Overall Implementation by Various Types of Involvement.

Forester Involved in 

Sale or Activity

Logger Attended 

BMP Training

Landowner Fa

with BMP

Yes No
96.5

81.7

96.5

87.6

96.2

86.4

96.7

70.075.080.085.090.095.0

100.0

Percent Implementation

Figure 15. Overall Implementation by Various Categories.

BMPs in Contract Property Certified in 

Tree Farm

Timber Delivered to 

Major SFI® Mill

Landowner 

Managem

Yes No
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 sites were scored as No Effort, 

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

individual site under this older method, passing sites (Fair, Good, or Excellent) scored 

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

The current objective method more accurately scores percent implementation. 

Individual sites 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, site 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 through 7 

Overall BMP implementation on forest operations in East Texas has shown 

tremendous improvement since the first round of monitoring was completed in 1992 

(Figure 16). Implementation on public and industry sites has shown steady improvement 

over the previous seven rounds. Implementation on industry lands dropped slightly in 

Round 7; however, only 8 industry sites were included in that round as compared to an 

average of 50 sites in the previous six rounds. This is reflective of the divestiture of 

industrial forestlands that began prior to 2005, which resulted in a shift in ownership 

type. The corporate category was established in Round 6 in response to these changes 

and has demonstrated a high, steady rate of implementation over the last two rounds. Of 

the four ownership categories, family forest owners have shown the most remarkable 

progress in BMP implementation, improving from 69.8% in Round 1 to nearly 90.0% in 

Round 7. 

OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION – Round 8 

BMP implementation on public land for Round 8 was 98.3% with one significant 

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

was 97.7% with no significant risks, while implementation on corporate land was 96.7% 

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

88.0% with seven significant risks. This resulted in an overall BMP implementation 

rating of 94.1% with a total of 20 significant risks across all ownership categories. See 

Table 13 and Figure 16. 

36
Table 13. Percent Implementation by Ownership and Round. 

Round 1* 

1992 

Round 2* 

1996 

Round 3*

1998 

Round 4 

2000 

Round 5 

2002 

Round 6 

2005 

Round 7 

2008 

Round 8 

2011 

Family Forest 69.8 68.5 74.1 80.1 84.9 88.6 88.4 88.0 

Corporate - - - - - 95.9 95.6 96.7 

Industry 85.2 88.2 93.4 94.2 96.0 95.9 91.0 97.7 

Public 93.1 92.4 93.4 97.7 97.9 98.2 100 98.3 

Overall 79.0 76.0 83.7 88.2 90.8 91.7 91.6 94.1 

*Data from these rounds follow the current methodology used to determine BMP implementation 

Figure 16. Percent Implementation by Ownership and Round. 

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

1992 1996 1998 2000 2002 2005 2008 2011

Percent Implementation

Family Forest

Industry

Corporate

Public

Overall

37 
BMP implementation on family forest owners lagged behind other ownerships and 

accounted for 7 of the 20 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 site was smaller than the industrial and 

corporate sites. Therefore, this lower level of implementation occurred across a smaller 

areas while the higher level of BMP implementation occurred across a larger area. 

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 sites are weighted more heavily than 

smaller sites, primarily because they have a greater opportunity to impact water quality. 

The results of this monitoring round were reanalyzed using the area weighted approach. 

BMP implementation scores actually increased for all four landowner types and overall. 

See Table 14. 

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

 Where AW % = area weighted BMP implementation % 

 A = area (acres) 

 % BMP = individual site % BMP implementation 

 

Table 14. Area Weighted Percent Implementation by Ownership, Round 8. 

Landowner Type Area Weighted % Implementation 

Family Forest Owner 90.4 

Corporate 96.9 

Industry 99.5 

Public 98.9 

Overall 96.4 

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 products manufacturers and large corporate landowners played a 

significant role in increasing BMP implementation. This occurred primarily from their 

support of the Texas Forest Service Water Resources Program and participation in forest 

certification programs. Water quality protection is obviously a top priority for this sector, 

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 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 

through special property tax reductions. 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 and field days each 

year emphasizing sustainable forestry and water resource protection. 

Overall BMP implementation was found to be at an all time high (94.1%). 

Although family forest owners have lower implementation than the other ownership 

types, considerable progress has been demonstrated since monitoring began. BMP 

implementation on family forest owner sites was 88.0%, representing a 26% increase 

since the monitoring program began (1992). This improvement 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 is currently at 94.1%, 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 adequate streamside 

management zone widths along water bodies. While substantial increases were observed 

in these categories over the last survey (2008), Texas Forest Service continues to target 

these areas. A BMP training workshop focusing specifically on streamside management 

zones is in development to go along with previously released workshops targeting stream 

crossings and forest roads. Site-based training will also be delivered to contractors 

through tailgate sessions, in which Water Resources foresters provide technical assistance 

during active forest operations. An online GIS pre-harvest planning application will be 

created to further increase implementation by helping loggers and foresters plan for 

BMPs prior to an operation. Continuing effective educational programs for family forest 

owners, providing technical assistance on BMPs to the forestry community, and 

conducting BMP training for loggers will continue to minimize the potential water 

quality impacts from silvicultural operations in Texas.

39 
References 

American Tree Farm System. November 2009. 2010-2015 standards of sustainability for 

forest certification. Web: http://www.treefarmsystem.org/standards-for-certification 

Li, Yanshu., B. Carraway, and C. VangerSchaaf. September 2010. Texas forest resource 

harvest trends 2009. Page 10. [Also available on internet: 

http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustainable/econdev/Publications/Re

ports/HarvestTrends2009.pdf] 

Miles, P.D. Mon Dec 05 08:56:59 CST 2011. Forest Inventory EVALIDator web-application 

version 1.5.00. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. [Available only on internet: 

http://apps.fs.fed.us/Evalidator/tmattribute.jsp]

Simpson, Hughes. February 2007. A History of forestry BMP implementation monitoring in 

Texas. Page 7. [Also available on internet: 

http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/main/article.aspx?id=14544] 

Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee. June 2007. Silviculture Best 

Management Practices implementation monitoring - a framework for state forestry 

agencies. Pages 23-33 in Water Resources Committee for Southern Group of State 

Foresters. June 2008. Implementation of forestry Best Management Practices - a 

southern region report. [Also available on internet: 

http://www.southernforests.org/publications] 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Web: http://www.sfiprogram.org/ 

Texas Forest Service. Recommended reforestation incentive eligibility guidelines and forest 

zone determination rules related to Texas Reforestation and Conservation Act of 

1999. Circular 400. January 2000. Web: 

http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustainable/tax/brochure.pdf 
Appendix 

Implementation Monitoring Checklist 

Evaluation Criteria 

Summary of Results 
TEXAS BMP 

MONITORING 

CHECKLIST

Site ID

TFS Block and Grid

Name

Timber Buyer Contractor

Acres Affected

Terrain:

I. General Landowner and Tract Information

Latitude Longitude

Name

Address

City

Phone

Zip

Date of Inspection

Accompanied by

II. Site Characteristics

Erodibility hazard:

Type stream present: Perennial Intermittent

Distance to nearest permanent water body:

Predominant soil series/texture:

III. Permanent Roads YES NO NA

1. Respect sensitive areas, such as SMZs, steep slopes, and wet areas

2. Meet grade specifications by having slopes between two and ten percent

3. Rutting within allowable specs of less than six inches deep for not more than fifty feet

4. Well drained with appropriate structures to minimize soil movement

5. Wing ditches, waterbars, and water turnouts do not dump into streams

6. Reshaped and/or stabilized to minimize soil movement

Sig. Risk

State

IV. Temporary Roads / Skid Trails YES NO NA

1. Respect sensitive areas, such as SMZs, steep slopes, and wet areas

2. Slopes less than 15% and laid out on the contour of the land

3. Rutting within allowable specs of less than six inches deep for not more than fifty feet

4. Well drained with appropriate structures to minimize soil movement

5. Stabilized to minimize soil movement 

Sig. Risk

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

RD WD WB RE OC

PL RS CU SD BD

BMPs present

WD WB RE OC

PL RS LS

BMPs present

N A C I P

Owner Type:

Flat Hilly Steep

Low Medium High < 300' 300 - 800' 800 - 1600' 1600' +

Clay Clay Loam Loam Sandy Loam Sand

Landowner:

County

0 0 0

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

Inspector

Estimated Date of Activity

Forester Type

N/A

N/A

Region

Watershed Code

River Basin

Activity
 YES NO NA

V. Stream Crossings

1. Crossings avoided or minimized

2. Stream crossings correct

3. Stream crossing stabilized

8. Stream crossings and approaches stabilized

9. Stream free of sediment

Sig. Risk On Permanent Roads

On Temporary Roads

5. Crossings avoided or minimized

6. Stream crossings correct

VI. Streamside Management Zones YES NO NA

1. Present on perennial stream

2. Present on intermittent stream

3. SMZ adequately wide by leaving fifty feet on both sides of the stream

4. Thinning within allowable specs by leaving 50 square feet of BA

6. SMZ integrity honored by keeping skidders, roads, landings, and firebreaks out

7. Stream clear of debris, such as tops and limbs

Sig. Risk

8. Stream free of sediment

 YES NO NA

VII. Site Preparation

1. Respect sensitive areas by preventing site prep intrusion

2. No soil movement on site, especially broad scale sheet erosion

3. Firebreak erosion controlled to prevent potential erosion

4. SMZ integrity honored by preventing site prep intrusion

5. Windrows on contour / free of soil to minimize soil disturbance

6. No chemicals off site or entering water bodies

Sig. Risk

7. Mechanical site prep, machine planting on contour 

8. Stream free of sediment

VIII. Landings YES NO NA

1. Locations free of oil / trash and properly disposed of

2. Located outside of SMZ to minimize traffic and erosion in the SMZ

3. Well drained location to mimimize puddling, soil degradation, and soil movement

4. Number and size minimized

5. Respect sensitive areas, including steep slopes and wet areas

6. Restored / stabilized by back blading, spreading bark, or seeding to minimize erosion

Sig. Risk

Site ID Texas Forest Service Water Resources Page 2

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

BMPs Present CU BR LW

4. Stream free of sediment

7. Temporary crossings removed

5. Minimize harvesting bank trees

Site preparation method

Regeneration method
IX. Wetlands (may or may not be jurisdictional) YES NO NA

1. Avoid altering hydrology of site by minimizing ruts and soil compaction

2. Road drainage structures installed properly to maintain flow of water

3. Mandatory road BMPs followed

Sig. Risk

X. Overall Compliance YES NO NA

 III. Permanent Roads

 IV. Skid trails/Temporary Roads

 V. Stream Crossings

 VI. Streamside Management Zones

 VII. Site Preparation

VIII. Landings

Sig. Risk

Overall Total

Percent Implementation

 IX. Wetlands

Total Significant Risk

Needs Improvement Pass

Follow Up Questions YES NO NA

Was activity supervised by landowner or representative? 

Was landowner familiar with BMPs?

Has logger attended BMP Workshop?

Were BMPs included in the contract?

Is landowner a member of TFA? Landowner Association? Tree Farm? Other?

Who?

Date

Comments (Explain observed actions in the field check. Make recommendations.)

Site ID Texas Forest Service Water Resources Page 3

Section Total

Percent Implementation 0%

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0

0

 

No Effort Poor Fair Good Excellent

N/A

Is remediation planned by landowner (if needed)?

Does landowner plan to reforest?

Was timber delivered to SFI mill?

Does landowner have a forest management plan?

Organization
 Evaluation Criteria for BMP Monitoring Checklist

I. General Landowner and Site Information 

County: Texas County inspection was located. 

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

Region: TFS Water Resources Region (N or S) 

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. 

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. 

Date of inspection: mmddyy. 

Inspector: Name of TFS forester doing BMP inspection. 

Accompanied by: Name of landowner, 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? 

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. Temporary Roads/ Skid Trails 

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 laid out 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. Logging Slash (LS). 

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? Was a proper stream crossing method used? 

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: Mechanical, chemical, prescribed burn. 

Regeneration method: Mechanical, Hand, Natural. 

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 23 Industry / Corporate 87 Regeneration Harvest

Absentee 24 Private Consultant 40 Clearcut 101

Corporate 93 Public 8 Thin 48

Industry 2 Site Prep only 1

Public (Fed, State) 8

II. Site Characteristics Type stream present

Terrain Erodibility hazard

Perennial 18

Flat 61 Low 86 Intermittent 50

Hilly 74 Medium 45 Both 35

Steep 15 High 19 None 47

Distance to nearest permanent water body Predominant soil series/texture

< 300' 73 Clay 3 Sandy loam 100

300 - 800' 12 Clay loam 12 Sand 14

800 - 1600' 12 Loam 21

1600' + 53

III. Permanent Roads 140 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Respect sensitive areas 136 0 14 0

2. Roads meet grade specs 103 1 46 0

3. Rutting within allowable specs 140 0 10 0

4. Well drained with appropriate structures 118 16 16 0

5. Ditches do not dump into streams 75 6 69 1

6. Roads reshaped and stabilized 127 12 11 0

IV. Skid Trails/Temporary Roads 85 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Slopes less than 15% 57 0 93 0

2. Respect sensitive areas 82 1 67 0

3. Roads well drained with water control structures 70 3 77 0

4. Roads stabilized 83 1 66 0

5. Rutting within allowable specs 82 3 65 0

V. Stream Crossings

On Permanent Roads 41 applicable Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Crossings Avoided or minimized 64 0 86 0

2. Stream crossings correct 33 8 109 4

3. Stream crossings stabilized 32 8 110 1

4. Stream free of sediment 36 4 110 1

On Temporary Roads 74 applicable

5. Crossings avoided or minimized 67 7 76 0

6. Stream crossings correct 42 5 103 0

7. Temporary crossings removed 31 10 109 4

8. Stream crossings and approaches stabilized 30 13 107 5

9. Stream free of sediment 35 10 105 1

Summary of Responses to BMP Implementation Monitoring Checklist Items, All Sites, Round 8
VI. Streamside Management Zones 105 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Present on permanent stream 48 1 101 0

2. Present on intermittent stream 83 2 65 0

3. SMZ adequately wide 74 25 51 0

4. Thinning within allowable specs 81 19 50 0

5. Minimize harvesting bank trees 93 7 50 0

6. SMZ integrity honored 99 4 47 0

7. Stream clear of debris 92 13 45 2

8. Stream free of sediment 101 1 48 0

VII. Site Preparation 69 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Respect sensitive areas 68 1 81 0

2. No soil movement on site 69 0 81 0

3. Firebreak erosion controlled 16 2 132 1

4. SMZ integrity honored 51 2 97 0

5. Windrows on contour/free of soil 5 0 145 0

6. No chemicals off site 54 1 95 0

7. Machine planting on contour 44 0 106 0

8. Stream free of sediment 53 2 95 0

VIII. Landings 139 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Locations free of oil/trash 131 8 11 0

2. Located outside of SMZ 79 1 70 0

3. Well-drained location 103 0 47 0

4. Number and size minimized 105 0 45 0

5. Respect sensitive areas 102 0 48 0

6. Restored/stabilized 99 0 51 0

IX. Wetlands 31 applicable

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

1. Avoid altering hydrology of site 30 1 119 0

2. Road drainage structures installed properly 5 0 145 0

3. Mandatory road BMPs followed 6 0 144 0

X. Overall Compliance

Yes No NA Sig. Risk

III. Permanent Roads - 95% 699 35 166 1

IV. Temporary Roads /Skid Trails- 98% 374 8 368 0

V. Stream Crossings - 85% 370 65 915 16

VI. Streamside Management Zones - 90% 671 72 457 2

VII. Site Preparation - 98% 360 8 832 1

VIII. Landings - 99% 619 9 272 0

IX. Wetlands - 99% 41 1 408 0

Follow-up Questions

Yes No NA

Was activity supervised by a professional forester? 135 15 0

Was landowner familiar with BMPs? 126 24 0

Has logger attended BMP workshop? 138 5 7

Were BMPs included in the contract? 133 10 7

Is landowner a member of TFA, CFLOA, ATFS, etc.? 118 24 8

Was timber delivered to SFI mill? 128 6 16

Does landowner have a forest management plan? 128 20 2

Does landowner plan to reforest? 55 0 95