Professional Loggers Know BMPs

Are you considering a logger or operator to carry out a forest management activity on your property, but want to know if they have experience with Best Management Practices (BMPs)?

The Texas Forestry Association maintains a searchable online database of individuals who have received BMP training as part of the “Texas Professional Logger” program.

(click on the image below to access the online logger training database)

Why Should I Use a Pro Logger? 

Among other reasons, Pro Loggers have demonstrated consistently higher levels of BMP use. Since 1992, Texas Forest Service has been monitoring the use of voluntary Best Management Practices on forestry operations across East Texas. Each of the 8 rounds of monitoring that have been conducted to date have concluded that proper BMP use is significantly higher for loggers who are familiar with BMPs and/or who have attended formal BMP training. (TFS BMP monitoring reports are available here) 

What Training Do Pro Loggers Have? 

In order to become classified as a Texas Pro Logger, individuals must receive training in all of the following core courses: 

1. Best Management Practices - 8 hours 
2. Silviculture, Wildlife, Wetlands, Endangered Species, Invasives, Special Sites, Aesthetics - 4 hours 
3. Safety Training - 4-6 hours (must re-take every 2 years) 
4. Business Management - 4 hours 

Furthermore, in order to maintain their certification, Pro Loggers must attend a minimum of six (6) hours of continuing education training each year. The Texas Forest Service has developed several courses in BMPs that are available for continuing education training in the program.

For information on when training workshops will be held contact the Texas Forestry Association. 

How Does the Online Database Work? 

You can use the online database to search for the name of a Pro Logger, the company they work for, or where they are located (keep in mind that most contractors work across wide regions and are not necessarily restricted to the town listed as their location). Records for each individual will list their address information, training history, and indicate whether they hold a current Pro Logger Status – look for the Texas Pro Logger seal.

February BMP Q&A

By: Chuck Coup, Water Resources Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:  It has been three years since results for BMP implementation monitoring were published for East Texas. Has the Texas Forest Service updated this report? What is our current implementation rating?

A:  Sure have! Texas Forest Service (TFS) has recently concluded and published the results of Best Management Practices (BMP) monitoring Round 8, conducted between June 28, 2010 and September 9, 2011. The full monitoring report (and previous reports) can be downloaded for free off of the TFS Water Resources Website (http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water). The report documents the findings of forestry BMP implementation across the Piney Woods region.

Round 8 Monitoring Report

Implementation monitoring evaluated seven categories of BMPs on recently managed sites: Permanent Roads, Temporary Roads, Stream Crossings, Streamside Management Zones (SMZs), Site Preparation, Landings, and Wetlands. Each tract received an individual score for all seven categories as well as an overall implementation score.

I am very pleased to report that overall BMP implementation across East Texas was found to be at an all-time high – 94%! That means that for any given tract in East Texas we could expect that nearly all of the necessary and appropriate BMPs for that operation would be correctly implemented. That is terrific news, and each and every one of you should be very proud. It is a direct reflection of all the hard work and consideration you put into protecting the quality of water in our State while conducting you forestry operations. For all of you long-timers, you should also be proud at how far BMP implementation has come over the years. When TFS first started BMP monitoring in 1992 the implementation rate was around 79%. That represents a nearly 20% increase in implementation. Go ahead and brag a little.

Overall scores for the individual categories were as follows: Permanent Roads – 95%, Temporary Roads – 98%, Stream Crossings – 85%, SMZs – 90%, Site Preparation – 98%, Landings – 99%, and Wetlands – 98%.  All categories except Wetlands have maintained or increased their ratings from the previous round of monitoring. Temporary Roads and Stream Crossings demonstrate the greatest improvements since the last monitoring round.  The greatest deficiencies were failing to remove and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads and inadequate SMZ widths along intermittent and perennial streams. So let’s be sure to pull all of our temporary crossings out before we move off a tract and make sure to leave a full 50 feet of buffer width on either side of any intermittent and perennial stream channels.

Implementation scores were also analyzed across 4 ownership types: Family Forest, Corporate, Industry, and Public. While Family Forest Lands have the lowest overall implementation score of the 4 categories (88%), they saw the greatest improvement since the first monitoring round in 1992 (26% increase). Overall implementation scores for the remaining 3 types were as follows: Corporate – 97%, Industry – 98%, and Public – 98%.

While the 8^th Round of BMP monitoring has demonstrated an all-time high BMP implementation rate, the work does not end here. It will take a continued effort to maintain the current score and even more diligence to improve it. But, that is my challenge to you. Let’s keep up the excellent work and show everyone that we are dedicated to conducting our forest operations the right way. Let’s continue to improve the BMP implementation in East Texas!

The Texas Forest Service Water Resources Program is here to help you. If you have a BMP questions or concerns about a particular tract, let us know. We would be happy to schedule a site visit with you and help identify the best method for protecting water quality on your tract. Site-based training is also available to contractors through tailgate sessions, in which Water Resource foresters provide technical assistance during your active forest operation. We will also continue to hold BMP logger training workshops periodically throughout the year. So keep an eye open for those.

To learn more about Texas’s forestry BMPs, please visit the Texas Forest Service website at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or contact the Texas Forest Service Water Resources office in Lufkin (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the February 2012 issue of the Texas Logger 

February BMP Q&A

By: Chuck Coup, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q: I know that the Texas Forest Service periodically monitors and reports on the rate that best management practices are being used during our forestry operations in Texas. What is our current implementation rate and how does that compare to the rest of the United States?

A: Great question! The implementation rate for forestry best management practices (BMP) is a key measure for judging the effectiveness of our efforts to protect water quality during forest operations. For nearly two decades now the Texas Forest Service BMP program has been monitoring the level of BMP implementation on forestry operations across East Texas. Over this time, implementation of Forestry BMPs has risen from 79% in 1992 to its current level of 92%. That means that at any given time 9 out of every 10 forestry operations in East Texas are implementing BMPs properly. Now that is certainly something we should all be proud of! 

So how do we stack up with the rest of the country? Well let’s first look at how our 92% implementation rate compares to the rest of the south. In 2008 the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF), representing 13 southern states (including Texas), published a report comparing BMP monitoring data across the South from 1997 - 2007. The overall implementation rate was 87%, so as you can see, Texas is a leader in the region. 

We can also make this comparison in finer detail. The report breaks down BMP implementation into seven categories: timber harvesting, site preparation, forest roads, stream crossings, SMZs, chemical application, and firebreaks. The implementation rate for each of these categories across the south was at least 85%, except the firebreaks category which only scored 73%. In Texas, results from the most recent round of monitoring (2008) demonstrate higher rates of implementation in each of these categories with the exception of stream crossings and SMZs. However, implementation in these categories was within three percentage points of the average for the Southern Region and has shown significant improvement since the first survey in 1992.

Comparing implementation rates across the country is a little trickier because different BMP guidelines and evaluation systems are used, and because some states do not monitor or report BMP implementation. A recently published report (2010) estimates the national average BMP implementation rate, after adjusting for different harvest levels in each state, to be 89%. The average implementation rate reported by the states with the 10 highest annual harvest removals, which includes Texas, was 91%. However, it should be noted that several of these states have strict regulatory programs for protecting water quality. Texas has achieved a 92% BMP implementation rate through voluntary compliance alone.

The take home message here is that Texas is a leader in implementing forestry BMPs, both at the regional and national level. That of course is the direct result of conscientious loggers and landowners such as you voluntarily taking the initiative to protect water quality during forest operations. Let’s continue to keep the use of BMPs in Texas voluntary by protecting water quality and showing the rest of the country how to operate in an efficient, economical, and environmental manner.

To learn more about Texas’s forestry BMP implementation rate, please visit our website at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or contact the Texas Forest Service water resources office in Lufkin (936) 639-8180 or Longview (903) 297-3910. If you have any questions about BMPs please contact Chuck Coup at the TFS office in Lufkin.

* This article was published in the February 2011 issue of the Texas Logger 

May BMP Q&A

By: Chris Duncan, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:   The Texas Forest Service over the last several years has released several reports documenting how well BMP’s are being used on forestry operations here in East Texas.  I would like to know if the Texas Forest Service will be conducting any more of these surveys in the future and are the past reports available anywhere.

A:   Since 1991 the Texas Forest Service has conducted six rounds of BMP implementation monitoring.  During each round a minimum of 150 randomly chosen tracts are inspected for the implementation of BMP’s with the cooperation of the landowner.  Once all the tracts have been inspected the data that was collected is used to produce a report which shows how well BMP’s are being used. 

In December 2008 the Texas Forest Service released its seventh BMP implementation report.  The overall implementation rate for the sites selected in round seven was 91.5%.  Family forest owners had an implementation rate of 88.7%, forest industry had an implementation rate of 91.1%, public lands (national and state forestlands) had an implementation rate of 100%, and corporate (our newest category of landowners) had an implementation rate of 95.7%. 

During round seven improvements were seen in several areas such as a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality, higher BMP implementation on avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings, and higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands.  Although improvements were seen there were also major deficiencies seen. These deficiencies were failure to restore and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads and leaving inadequate SMZ widths along intermittent and perennial streams. 

Starting in May 2010 the Texas Forest Service will begin its eighth round of BMP implementation monitoring.  Over the next 12-14 months, the Texas Forest Service will randomly select a minimum of 150 tracts and with the cooperation of the landowner evaluate them for the implementation of BMP’s.  In 2011 the eighth report will be released showing the overall findings of these inspections.  Hopefully we will continue to see an increase in the implementation rates and see a decrease in the number of deficiencies.

All previous reports can be found on the Texas Forest Service website at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water.  You can look at each report and see how far we have come over the years in the implementation of BMP’s but also see the areas in which we still need to improve.  If you have any questions about the BMP implementation reports or BMP’s in general please feel free to call me at (903) 297-3910.

The Texas Water Source - January 2010

January Issue of the Texas Water Source Now Available

• Gearing up for Round 8 of Forestry BMP Implementation Monitoring
• Local Forest Landowner Association
• Agency Spotlight: Environmental Protection Agency
• What EPA Does Not Do
• BMP Round 7 Implementation Report
• How to Contact EPA

The Texas Water Source - July 2009

July Issue of the Texas Water Source Now Available

• BMP Effectiveness Monitoring
• The WET Center at SFA
• Agency Spotlight: The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board
• Soil and Water Conservation Districts
• What is a Watershed Protection Plan?
• Your Local Water District

May BMP Q&A

By: Chris Duncan, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q: Two months ago I addressed the areas in which deficiencies were observed in the most recent Texas Forest Service BMP Implementation Monitoring report that was released in December 2008.  This month I would like to address the areas in which improvements were made.

A: In case you missed it the Texas Forest Service completed its seventh round of BMP Implementation Monitoring and released a report in December 2008 detailing the results of the monitoring.  The Texas Forest Service conducts these monitoring rounds approximately every two years in an effort to demonstrate how well BMPs are being implemented on silvicultural operations here in East Texas.  During the Round 7 monitoring, three major improvements were noted: 1) a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality 2) a higher overall rate of BMP implementation on avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings and 3) a higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands.

To begin with, let’s take a look at the first improvement – a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality.  A significant risk to water quality 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 waterbody. Such change may or may not violate water quality standards. Of the 18 significant risks identified, 15 of them were for not properly removing and restoring temporary stream crossings. Significant risks to water quality can be avoided by making sure that roads are properly stabilized, stream crossings are properly removed, restored, and stabilized, and that there is an adequate SMZ along all perennial and intermittent streams.

The second improvement that was identified was a higher overall rate of BMP implementation on avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings. A good job is being done at avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary crossings installed during operations.  This is a major improvement because stream crossings come in direct contact with the stream. By choosing to cross a stream the risk of impacting water quality is increased.  Proper planning and using available resources such as topographic maps, aerial photos, and “on the ground” reconnaissance can help you determine if a stream crossing is necessary; and if so, where they should be located to minimize the number needed.

The third improvement that was identified was a higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands.  Fifty-three sites were evaluated for implementation with site preparation BMPs. The implementation for site preparation was 98% with one significant risk noted. The lowest implementation was for honoring SMZ integrity and respecting sensitive areas (96% for both categories). Seventeen sites had wetland or “wetland like” areas – not necessarily jurisdictional wetlands. These sites had an overall implementation of 100%. No significant risks were noted and all mandatory road BMPs for wetlands were followed.

Overall a good job is being done implementing and adhering to Texas BMP guidelines as shown by the 91.5% BMP implementation rate for Round 7. Hopefully in the future there will be a continued improvement of the BMP implementation rate.

To view the full report titled “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 7” visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water. For more information regarding this report or BMPs please contact me at (903) 297-3910.

* This article was published in the May 2009 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

By: Shane Harrington, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q: Last month I addressed the overall results of the most recent Texas Forest Service BMP Implementation Monitoring report that was released in December 2008.  This month I would like to address the areas in which deficiencies were seen.  Next month I will address the areas in which improvements were made.

A: In case you missed it the Texas Forest Service completed its seventh round of BMP Implementation Monitoring and released a report in December 2008 detailing the results of the monitoring.  The Texas Forest Service conducts these monitoring rounds approximately every two years in an effort to demonstrate how well BMPs are being implemented on silvicultural operations here in East Texas.  During the Round 7 monitoring two major deficiencies were noted: 1) failure to remove and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads (temporary stream crossings) and 2) inadequate Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) widths along intermittent and perennial streams.

Temporary crossings should be removed and restored following use

To begin with, let’s take a look at the first deficiency – failure to remove and stabilize stream crossings on temporary roads.  Historically this deficiency has been commonplace, which is of great concern because stream crossings are an area which can negatively impact water quality if they are not implemented properly.  There was an overall implementation rate of 82% on stream crossings on temporary roads during Round 7; however, for removing and stabilizing these crossings there was an implementation rate of only 62%.  A good job is being done at minimizing the number of temporary crossings, properly locating them, and correctly installing them.  According to the BMP Bluebook, all materials used to construct a temporary crossing should be removed immediately once the crossing is no longer needed and the approaches should be restored and stabilized to prevent or at least reduce the chances of sediment washing into the stream.  Round 7 revealed an increase in the implementation rate for removing and stabilizing temporary crossings compared to Round 6.  During Round 6 there was a 31% implementation rate compared to 62% in Round 7.  However, even though an increase in implementation was noted there is still a need to improve in this area in the future.

The second deficiency that was identified during Round 7 was inadequate SMZ widths along intermittent and perennial streams.  The BMP Bluebook states that an SMZ should be left along all perennial and intermittent streams and should have a minimum width of 50 feet and retain a minimum of 50 square feet of basal area per acre evenly distributed.  During Round 7, SMZs had an overall implementation rate of 82% while SMZ width and thinning guidelines (there are eight criteria evaluated for SMZs) had an implementation rate of 66% and 80% respectively.  While most SMZs evaluated during Round 7 met the guidelines regarding thinning within an SMZ most of the SMZs evaluated did not meet the width requirement especially on intermittent streams.  Streamside management zones are extremely important in slowing down runoff and overland flow reducing the chances of sediment or other contaminants reaching the stream.  Also SMZs are important in preventing thermal changes in the stream and are beneficial in providing travel corridors and habitat for wildlife.  Additionally, provisions in Senate Bill 977 provide property tax incentives for leaving SMZs along streams.  Contact your local Texas Forest Service office for more information.

Improvements were also noted during Round 7 compared to previous rounds and next month I will address the areas in which increased implementation was seen.  To view the full report titled “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 7” visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water.  For more information regarding this report or BMPs please contact me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the March 2009 issue of the Texas Logger

The Texas Water Source - March 2009

March Issue of the Texas Water Source Now Available

• Texas Forest Service BMP Project
• BMP Implementation Report
• Agency Spotlight: The Texas Water Development Board
• TWDB and Regional Water Planning
• What is a Watershed?
• Texas Forest Service Offices

February BMP Q&A

By: Shane Harrington, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:  Several months ago you wrote that the Texas Forest Service was conducting another BMP implementation survey.  I wanted to know if the survey has been completed and if so what were some of the results? 

A:  Yes, the Texas Forest Service recently completed its seventh round of BMP implementation monitoring. Since 1990 the Texas Forest Service has conducted this monitoring with the purpose of determining and showing how well landowners, foresters, and loggers are implementing these voluntary practices.  This month I will give an overview of the latest monitoring results and over the next few months I will go into more detail regarding the results.

Texas Forest Service monitored 152 sites representing 13,742 acres from June 20, 2007 to November 18, 2008.  Sites were chosen randomly throughout East Texas based on the annual harvest of each county and ownership group.  Also all sites chosen had some type of silvicultural activity conducted on them during this time period.  Four ownership groups were targeted, including public, industry, corporate (commercial landowners that do not have wood processing facilities) and private landowners.  Each landowner was contacted and only with landowner permission was the site monitored.

Public ownership had the highest rating (100%) in protecting water quality, followed by corporate (95.7%), industry (91.1%) and private landowners (88.7%).  Overall BMP implementation was 91.5%.  Ratings were significantly higher when:

• A professional forester was involved in the activity or sale
• The logger had attended the BMP training workshop
• he landowner was familiar with BMPs
• BMPs were included in the timber sale contract
• The landowner was a member of the American Tree Farm System
• The timber was delivered to a major SFI^® mill

Landowners and loggers continue to do a good job of implementing BMPs on their operations and, hopefully, in the future we can see a continued improvement of the BMP implementation rate.  The basis for continued success in this project is education.  Significant improvement in BMP implementation has been noted since their development in 1989, largely due to the numerous BMP training workshops, seminars, and demonstration tours that have been conducted throughout the state.  Remember that one way we can continue to improve is to recognize the importance of using BMPs to protect water quality by treating each silvicultural operation as if it will be evaluated. 

Over the next few of months I will discuss areas in which improvements were noted as well as areas in which improvement is needed compared to previous monitoring rounds.  Also I will discuss each landowner category and break down their strengths and weaknesses.  To view a copy of the report titled “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 7” visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water.  For more information regarding this report or BMPs please contact me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the February 2009 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Effectiveness Monitoring 2008

Texas Forest Service BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Study Results Now Available 

Results from the Texas Silvicultural BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Project conducted between 2003 and 2007 are now available in a recently released report titled "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Texas Forestry Best Management Practices." This project was initiated to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from silvicultural activities in Texas. This report documents the findings of this 4 year long monitoring project.

Results from the project indicate that Texas forestry BMPs, when implemented properly, are effective in protecting water quality and aquatic biological communities, and further established that forestry BMPs are the optimum means for minimizing silvicultural nonpoint source pollution.

November BMP Q&A

By: Shane Harrington, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:  I know that the Texas Forest Service conducts a BMP Implementation Survey every couple of years and publishes a report showing the results. I would like to know if there is any information on the South as a region and how the region as a whole is doing at implementing BMPs.  I know that other states do similar surveys and would just like to know if there is anything showing BMP implementation results on a regional basis.

A:  Great question! In 1997, a task force appointed by the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) developed guidance to assist states in conducting BMP implementation monitoring.  This “Framework”, which was revised in 2002, was created to promote a consistent approach across the region, allowing monitoring results to be comparable among the states.  The SGSF could then compile results from conforming states and report BMP implementation across the region.  This “regional report” would identify BMP categories needing improvement that the Water Resources Committee could address through regional training, demonstration, and information exchange.  

In June 2008, the Water Resources committee released this report titled “Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices - A Southern Region Report.”  This publication is the first in the nation to report BMP implementation on a regional level.

The report covers results from 25 statewide BMP implementation monitoring surveys conducted across the Southern region from 1997-2007.   Eleven of the 13 states in the region submitted data collected in conformance with the Framework, and thus were eligible for inclusion in this report.  The two remaining states plan to submit eligible data for the next reporting period.

The Framework calls for the evaluation of seven BMP categories: Harvesting, Site Preparation, Forest Roads, Stream Crossings, Streamside Management Zones, Firebreaks and Chemical Application.  Results from these categories, expressed as a percent, are compiled to determine Overall BMP implementation.

Overall Percent BMP Implementation by Category, Southern Region

Although the regional data identifies several BMP categories in need of improvement, an overall regional implementation rate of 87% is considered notable.  Likewise, “regional progress” has been made in most BMP categories since the Framework was initially published in 1997.  States reporting multiple surveys have shown increases in BMP implementation.  This is largely attributed to the numerous educational, outreach, and training efforts being conducted across the southern region by the states, and to the efforts of the SGSF via the Water Resource Committee.

This report is the first in a planned series to be published every 5 years.  The objective is to provide information at a regional level, for the purpose of continuously improving monitoring methods and BMP implementation, and to promote consistency among states in the southern region for this activity.  To that end, the report identified specific BMP categories (Firebreaks, Stream Crossings, and Forest Roads) the SGSF Water Resources Committee will target for improvement.  To view a copy of this report, visit the Southern Group of State Foresters webpage at www.southernforests.org

For more information on BMPs in Texas please visit http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water. 

* This article was published in the November 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

April BMP Q&A

By: Jake Donellan, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:   In the past couple of articles you have mentioned that the forestry community has achieved a BMP implementation rate of 91.7% in the “last round.” When was the last round completed and when will we know the results of the next round?

A:   The Texas Forest Service BMP Program currently conducts its implementation monitoring study on a three year cycle. The study has been conducted in various intervals since the TFS BMP Program began in 1989, with the most common interval being two years between studies and the longest interval between studies being four years. It is important to know that there have been some modifications to the forms used to evaluate BMP implementation over the years. The method of evaluation remained the same in the first two rounds of monitoring but by the third round, an improved, less subjective form was adopted and put into use. The sites that were evaluated in the third round were actually evaluated using both forms so a basis of comparison could be made to the earlier rounds.

The first report, Round I, was published in October 1992 and included sites evaluated from mid-1990 to mid-1992. The Round I study found that overall BMP implementation rates were about 88% (79% based on the current BMP implementation evaluation form) and it noted major deficiencies in several major categories of evaluation: permanent roads, temporary roads, streamside management zones, site preparation.
The second report was published four years later in March 1996 with this being the longest interval between monitoring cycles. The Round II study found that overall BMP implementation rates actually dropped to 87.4% (76% based on the current form). Since this study concluded in 1996, there has yet to be another drop in implementation rates.

After 1996, a two year monitoring cycle was adopted so that in 1998, 2000, and 2002, three more rounds of monitoring took place and subsequently three additional reports were published: Round III, Round IV, and Round V. During this six year span, the BMP implementation rate increased from 83.7% in 1998 to a 90.8% in 2002. Progress was definitely made during this period of monitoring to increase implementation rates, minimize non-point source pollution, and improve on the major deficiencies noted in Round I of monitoring.

After 2002, a three year monitoring cycle was adopted, primarily for managerial reasons related to the Federal grant that helps fund the BMP program, so that the next report was published in 2005. In this round, Round VI, BMP implementation rates reached 91.7% which is the implementation number that has been referred to most recently in my articles and also in other publications and at presentations. Simple math indicated that the next report is due out some time this year. In fact, the report will be completed by August 31^st and a publication of the results will most likely be available in September or soon thereafter. It is still too early to say if the implementation rate will continue its increase or not but whatever the case, we will have a new number for you soon.

For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book (a.k.a. the “Bluebook”), contact your local Texas Forest Service office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the April 2008 issue of the Texas Logger