# 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 BM P 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 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 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 Sept ember 9, 2011, and are believed to be a representative sample of the forestry activit ies that occurred in East Texas during that time.

Overall BMP implementation on the mon itored 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 (com mercial 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 at tended 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 duri ng the evaluations included:

• 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 included:

• overall BMP implementation across all ownerships

• overall BMP implementation on tem porary roads and skid trails

• overall BMP implementation on stream crossingsTABLE OF CONTENTS

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

Distribution and Selection of Im plementation Moni toring Sites ................................................................. ....... 5
Quality Co ntrol ............................................................................................................... .................................... 8
Monitoring Checklis t .......................................................................................................... ................................ 8
Inspection Contact s ........................................................................................................... ................................. 9

Results ....................................................................................................................... ......................................... 9 Site Char acteris tics ......................................................................................................... ...................... 9 Permanent Roads .............................................................................................................. ................... 11 Skid Trails and Temporary Roads .............................................................................................. ......... 13 Stream Cr ossings ............................................................................................................. .................... 15 Streamside Mana gement Zones .................................................................................................. ........ 17 Site Prep arati on ............................................................................................................. ...................... 19 Landings ..................................................................................................................... ......................... 21 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... ......................... 23
Overall BMP Implementation .................................................................................................... ....................... 24 Implementation by S ite Charact eristics ....................................................................................... ........ 24 Ownership ................................................................................................................... .......... 24 Type of Activity ............................................................................................................ ........ 24 Re gion ...................................................................................................................... ............. 27 Terrain ..................................................................................................................... .............. 27 Erod ibility

................................................................................................................. ............ 27 Distance to Pe rmanent Water ................................................................................................ 27 River Basi n ................................................................................................................. .......... 27 Hydrologic Unit Code (Watershed) ...................................................................................... 27 Proximity to 303 (d) List ed Stream Segments ...................................................................... 28

Statistical Analysis .......................................................................................................... .................................. 31 Statistical Tests ............................................................................................................ ....................... 31 Margin of Error ............................................................................................................. ........ 31 Confidence Interval ......................................................................................................... ...... 31 Statistical Significan ce of BMP Trends ....................................................................................... ....... 32 Forester Involved in Sale or Activity .................................................................................... 33 Logging Contractor Atte nded BMP Work shop .................................................................... 33 Landowner Familiar with BMPs ........................................................................................... 33 BMPs Included in the Ti mber Sale Contract ........................................................................ 33 Property Certified in American Tree Farm System ® ............................................................ 33 Timber Delivered to SFI ® Mill. ............................................................................................ 33 Landowner Has a Forest Management Plan .......................................................................... 33

Discussi on ................................................................................................................... ...................................... 36 Overall Implementation – Rounds 1 through 7 .................................................................................. . 36 Overall Implemen tation – Round 8 ............................................................................................. ........ 36 Area Weighted BMP Implementation ............................................................................................. .... 38

Conclu sion

.................................................................................................................... ..................................... 39

References
Appendix

### 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 (BMP) to reduce nonpoint source (NPS) water po llution. 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) gr ant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Texas State So il and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB), requires that a monitoring program be institu ted 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 implem entation by forest landowners, silvicultural contractors, forestindustry, 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 Se ptember 9, 2011, and represents the eighth round conducted by Texas Forest Service. Pr evious 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 SELECTI ON OF IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING SITES

To obtain a valid estimate of overall impl ementation of forestry Best Management Practices, monitoring sites were distribut ed throughout East Texas and among all forestland ownership categories. Sites were believed to be representative of all silvicultural activities occurring across East Te xas. The distribution of monitoring sites was based on the estimated annual timber ha rvest 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 ow nership 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 recen tly 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 th is survey, using the distribution parameters outlined above. See Figure 1.

5Table 1. Distribution of Implem entation 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

61 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 id entified through aerial detection. All monitoring evaluations were conducted by one or a combination of two trained foresters assigned to the TFS Water Resources Progr am. Using only program employees as inspectors provided greater a ccuracy and quality control. At the beginning of the monitoring project, as well as periodically throughout the survey, inspectors jointly evaluated sites to ensure consistency. A ll monitoring data was collected in accordance with a Quality Assurance Project Pl an, 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. Th is objective, 45-question form follows 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 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. E ach 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 qua lity exists. A significant risk is an existing on-the-ground condition resulting from failure to correctly im plement BMPs that if left unmitigated, has already or will likely result in an adverse cha nge 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 appl icable or known, to determine trends associated with BMP implementation. A co mments section at the end of the form provides additional information related to BMP implementation on the site.

Each site was scored with a value re presenting percent implementation. This score was computed by dividing the number of questions re ceiving 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 databa se for storage and analysis. These data were also imported into a Geographic Informa tion System (GIS) for further analysis and spatial representation.

8

### INSPECTION CONTACTS

Landowners were contacted prior to insp ecting the site so that permission for entry onto the property could be obtained. Du ring this initial contact, the inspector explained the program, recorded informati on regarding the operat ion, and invited the landowner and his/her representative to join hi m 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 fore ster 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 in terpreting the form. A map, including geo-referenced photographs of any significant risk found during the inspection, along with recommendations for re mediation, were also provided when applicable. Follow up site visits were conduc ted 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 site s, totaling 22,625 acres, throughout 29 counties in East Texas. These sites are spat ially represented by ownership category in Figure 2. Tabulated results for each ques tion 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 mon itored after a regeneration harvest, which included 101 clearcuts. One site preparation and 48 thinni ng operations were evaluated. In 69 cases, the site preparation was evalua ted as an element of the preceding timber harvest operation or su cceeding 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 wa s employed by forest i ndustry or corporations, while U.S. Forest Service forest ers were involved on 8 sites.

Terrain classification was observed on th e site and general soil erodibility was determined from the Natural Resources C onservation Service (N RCS) Soil Survey, if available, or estimated by the forester in th e field. Sixty-one site s (41%) were on flat

9Figure 2. Site Locations by Ownership Category.

10terrain. 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 pe rennial (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 manageme nt 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. With in this category, the lowest score (88%) was for roads being well draine d with appropriate structures. The highest scores were for roads respecting sensitive areas and rutting wi thin allowable specifications (100%). See Table 2. Figure 3 breaks down the nu mbers 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

110 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.

12SKID TRAILS AND TEMPORARY ROADS

Skid trails and temporary roads were ev aluated 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,” “la nding,” or “set.” Temporary roads are not designed to carry traffic long-te rm and are usually retired, closed, or reforested after the harvest activity. Th e percent implementation for te mporary roads was 98% (an 11.4% increase over the last survey) w ith no significant risks. Within this category, the lowest implementation scores were for roads being well drained with appr opriate water control structures and rutting within allowable speci fications (96%). The highest score (100%) was for roads meeting grade specific ations. 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

130 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.

14STREAM CROSSINGS

Stream crossings were evaluated on 70 site s. Twenty-three sites had crossings on permanent roads only, 29 had crossings on te mporary 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 ri sks. Within this category, the lowest implementation score for stream crossings on both permanent and temporary roads was stabilization of crossings (80% and 70%, re spectively). 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

150 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

16STREAMSIDE 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 perenni al 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 ri sks. 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% respectiv ely). 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

170 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.

18SITE PREPARATION

Seventy sites were evaluated for implementa tion of site preparation BMPs. A variety of site preparation techniques were evalua ted, including 51 with some combination of herbicide, shearing, piling, subsoiling, beddi ng, and/or burning. Ni neteen sites involved application of herbicide only. The implementa tion for site preparation was 98% with one significant risk. Within this category, several areas were f ound 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

190 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 contou r

Stream free of sediment Figure 7. BMP Implementation on Site Preparation by Ownership Type.

1

20LANDINGS

Landings, sometimes called “decks” or “sets,” are areas where logs are gathered, delimbed, bucked, and loaded onto trucks. Land ings 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

210 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.

22WETLANDS

Thirty-one sites had wetland or “wetland lik e” areas – not necessarily jurisdictional wetlands. These sites had an overall implemen tation 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 IM PLEMENTATION

To illustrate the range of the overall implementation scores, Figures 10 and 11 separate the results into five categorie s: 0-50%, 51-70%, 71-80%, 81-90%, and 91- 100%. Figure 10 spatially illustrates implemen tation 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 ownershi p 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 overa ll 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 pr eparation only, although site preparation was evaluated along with a re generation 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%

24Figure 10: Overall Implementation Scor es Across all Ownerships and Monitoring Criteria.

250 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 SitesImplementation Score

Family Forest Corporate Industry

Public Figure 11. Overall Implementation Scores by Number of Sites and Ownership.

26Region

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 Sabi ne 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 industria l ownership; flatter topography; a nd 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 significan t risks; 94.2% with elev en significant risks on the 74 hilly sites; and 91.2% with five significant risk s 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 significan t risks on 45 medium er odibility sites, and 88.9% with five signifi cant 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 pe rmanent water less than 300 feet away was 92.3% with fourteen signif icant risks. BMP implem entation 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 fo llowing river basins: Cypress, Neches, Red, Sabine, San Jacinto, Sul phur, and Trinity. BMP implem entation was highest in the San Jacinto River Basin (100%, 7 sites) and lowest in the Tr inity 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 wa tershed. See Table 11 and Figure 13.

27Table 10. BMP Implementation by River Basin.

River Basin Number of Sites % Im plementation 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 site s to 303(d) listed (impaired) stream segments was analyzed using GIS. Twenty-thr ee 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.

28Figure 12. Site Location by River Basin.

29Figure 13. 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 we re also performed on certain categories to determine statistical sign ificance. By understandi ng 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 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 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 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 8, the 95% confidence interval for the overall BMP implementation across all sites was (93.3, 96.3).



## 95% CI = Mean ± Margin of Error

31STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF BMP TRENDS

Two different statistical an alyses 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 (W ilcoxon) 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 Dete rmining 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

32Forester Involved in the Sale or Activity

BMP implementation was higher when a pr ofessional forester was involved in the sale or activity. One hundred thirty-five sites were identi fied as having a professional forester involved and had an implementati on rating of 95.7%. Sites in which there was no forester involvement had a BMP implem entation 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 implementa tion 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 implementa tion 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 inclus ion 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 cert ification. Sixteen sites were identified as being Tree Farm certified and had an implementation rating of 96.5%, while implemen tation 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 site s with an implementation rating of 96.2%, compared to an 86.4% rating on the 22 s ites 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 fo rest 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 wa s unknown if a plan existed. See Figure 15.

3395.786.695.982.096.088.775.080.085.090.095.0100.0

Percent ImplementationFigure 14. Overall Implementation by Various Types of Involvement.Forester Involved inSale or ActivityLogger AttendedBMP TrainingLandowner Familiarwith BMPsYes No3496.581.796.587.696.286.496.783.670.075.080.085.090.095.0100.0

Percent ImplementationFigure 15. Overall Implementation by Various Categories.BMPs in ContractProperty Certified inTree FarmTimber Delivered toMajor SFI®MillLandowner Has ForestManagement PlanYes No35

### 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 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 accurate ly 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 re porting methods, results from Rounds 4 - 7
cannot be directly compared to Rounds 1 - 3. However, site eval uations 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 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 i ndustry sites has shown steady improvement over the previous seven rounds. Implementa tion 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 establishe d 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 fr om 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. Implemen tation 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 a ll ownership categories. See Table 13 and Figure 16.

36Table 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 meth odology 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 2011Percent Implementation

Family Forest Industry Corporate
Public
Overall

37BMP implementation on family forest owne rs lagged behind ot her ownerships and accounted for 7 of the 20 significant risks. Family forest 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 site was smaller than the industrial and corporate sites. Therefore, this lower leve l of implementation occu rred across a smaller areas while the higher level of BMP implem entation occurred across a larger area.

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, la rger 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 rean alyzed using the area weighted approach. BMP implementation scores actually increased for all four landowne r 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 Im plementation 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 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 products manufacturers and la rge corporate landowners played a significant role in increasing BMP implementa tion. This occurred primarily from their support of the Texas Forest Service Water Reso urces Program and participation in forest certification programs. Water qua lity protection is obviously a t op 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 Fore st Service are con tinuing to have an effect on BMP implementation. The Texas Re forestation and Cons ervation Act of 1999 encouraged landowners to leav e a streamside management zone when harvesting timber through special property tax reductions . The American Tree Farm System ® requires landowners to implement BMPs on their ope rations in order to maintain their certification. Texas Forestry Association sponsors many workshops and field days each year emphasizing sustainable forest ry 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 de monstrated since monitoring began. BMP implementation on family forest owner si tes 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 behi nd the increases in implementation.

Although BMP implementation is currently at 94.1%, 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 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 focusi ng specifically on streamside management zones is in development to go along with prev iously released works hops targeting stream crossings and forest roads. Site-based tr aining will also be deli vered to contractors through tailgate sessions, in which Water Reso urces 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 effec tive educational programs for family forest owners, providing technical assistance on BMPs to the forestry community, and conducting BMP training for loggers will co ntinue to minimize the potential water quality impacts from silvic ultural operations in Texas.

39References

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. VangerSch aaf. September 2010. Texas forest resource harvest trends 2009. Page 10. [A lso available on internet: http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/uploadedF iles/Sustainable/ec ondev/Publications/Re ports/HarvestTrends2009.pdf ]

Miles, P.D. Mon Dec 05 08:56:59 CST 2011. Forest Inventory EVALIDat or web-application version 1.5.00. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Departme nt 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.tam u.edu/main/article.aspx?id=14544 ]
Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resour ces Committee. June 2007. Silviculture Best Management Practices implementation mon itoring - a framework for state forestry agencies. Pages 23-33 in Water Resources Committee fo r Southern Group of State Foresters. June 2008. Implementation of fo restry Best Management Practices - a southern region report. [A lso available on internet: http://www.southernforests.org/publications ]
Sustainable Forestry Initiative. Web: http://www.sfiprogram.org/

Texas Forest Service. Recommended reforestati on incentive eligibility guidelines and forest zone determination rules related to Texa s Reforestation and Conservation Act of 1999. Circular 400. January 2000. Web: http://txforestservice.ta mu.edu/uploadedFiles/Sustai nable/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:

NA YES NO III. Permanent Roads
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

NA YES NO  IV. Temporary Roads / Skid Trails
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 ActivityNA YES NO 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

NA YES NO VI. Streamside Management Zones

1. Present on per ennial stream
2. Present on intermittent stream 3. SMZ adequately wide by leaving fifty feet on both sides of the stream 4. Thinning within allowable spe cs 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

NA YES NO VII. Site Preparation

1. Respect sensitive areas by preventing site prep intrusion 2. No soil movement on site, es pecially broad scale sheet erosion
3. Firebreak erosion controlle d 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

NA YES NO VIII. Landings

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, spr eading 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 CU BR LW BMPs Present 4. Stream free of sediment

7. Temporary crossings removed

5. Minimize harvesting bank trees

Site preparation method Regeneration methodNA YES NO IX. Wetlands (may or may not be jurisdictional)
1. Avoid altering hydr ology of site by minimizing ruts and soil compaction 2. Road drainage structures installe d properly to maintain flow of water 3. Mandatory road BMPs followed Sig. Risk

NA YES NO X. Overall Compliance

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

Pass Needs Improvement

Follow Up Questions NA YES NO

Was act ivi ty supervised by la ndowner 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 th e 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? OrganizationEvaluation 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 y ear activity appears to have occurred. Date of inspection: mmddyy. Inspector: Name of TFS fore ster doing BMP inspection. Accompanied by: Name of landowner, forest er, logger, etc. who is present during the inspection. Owner Type: Nonindustrial (N), Absentee non industrial (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: Dist ance 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 ne w roads or roads which are substantially reworked. Are roads within 2-10 percent grad e except for short distances? Are roads on contour? 3. Rutting within allowable specs: Is the road fr ee 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 ba rs venting far enough from the stream to prevent sediment from entering the stream channel?6. Roads reshaped and stabilized: If need ed, are roads reworked to minimize soil movement?
BMPs present: Which types of BMPs were us ed? Rolling dips (RD), Wing ditches (WD), Water bars (WB), Revegetate (RE), On c ontour (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 pr one areas if an alte rnative 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 othe r water control structures: Were BMPs installed effectively to re duce erosion from the road? 5. Roads stabilized: If needed, are skid trails and temporary roads reworked to minimize soil movement?

BMPs present: See Section II I above. Logging Slash (LS).

V. Stream Crossings

On Permanent Roads:

1. Crossings avoided or minimized: Was an e ffort made to use as few crossings as possible? 2. Stream crossings correct: Are crossings installed correctly? Are crossing located properly? Are culverts properl y sized? Are bridges used wh ere 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 instal led correctly? Is the crossing located so as to minimize the potential erosion in the stream ch annel? Is the crossi ng 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 appr oaches 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), Br idge (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 bei ng protected from erosion and deposition of sediment? Does the width meet the guidelines recommendations? 4. Thinning within allowable specs: If thinni ng was done, is the basal area remaining at least 50 square feet? Is there minimal so il 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 crossi ngs)? 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 pus hed into the stream channel been removed? 8. Stream free of sediment: Has sedimentat ion reaching the stream channel through the SMZ been minimized?

VII. Site Preparation

Site preparation method: Mechanical, chemical, prescribed burn. Regeneration method: M echanical, Hand, Natural.

1. Respect sensitive areas. Effort to prevent site prep intrusion into sensitive areas? Effort to prevent heavy equipment intrusion into sensi tive areas? Effort to prevent fire intrusion into sensitive areas? 2. No soil movement on site: Is there no so il 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 interm ittent streams free of debris? 5. Windrows on contour / free of soil: Are wi ndrows on contour on hill y lands rather than up and down slopes? Was soil disturba nce minimized? Was soil in windrows minimized? 6. No chemicals off site: Does it appear th at chemicals were used according to label directions? Have they remained on site and out of water bodies? 7. Mechanical site prep and machine planti ng 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 loca ted 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 b ack 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 dete rmined 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 ri sk is an existing on-the-gr ound condition resulting from failure to correctly implement BMPs, that if le ft 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 eros ion 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 construc tion 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 go od effort at BMPs. Poor application procedures perhaps. Lack of BMPs in a par ticular emphasis but with moderateconsequences. (2) No BMPs on a site which requires few BMPs but has some resultant minor problems.

Good: (1) BMPs generally installed correctly. Guidelines ge nerally 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 cont ract? Check Yes, No, or NA Is landowner a member of TFA? Landowner Asso ciation? Other? Check Yes, No, or NA Organization: If yes, li st name of organization. Was timber delivered to SFI mill? Check Yes, No, or NA Does landowner have a forest manage ment plan? Check Yes, No, or NA Is remediation planned by the landown er? 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 8VI. Streamside Management Zones 105 applicable Yes No NA Sig. Ris k 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. Ris k 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. Ris k 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. Ris k 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. Ris k 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