bmp compliance monitoring programs in the eastern united states

BMP COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAMS IN THE EASTERNUNITED STATES

MICHAEL A. KILGORE 1∗, PAUL V. ELLEFSON 1 and MICHAEL J. PHILLIPS 2

1Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota,115 Green Hall, 1530 North Cleveland Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108-6112, U.S.A.;

2Division of Forestry, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected]; phone: 612 624 6298;

fax: 612 625 5212)

Abstract. An important aspect of a best management practices (BMP) program is providing credibleinformation on the extent to which BMPs are being applied within the state. This paper, summarizingthe responses of a survey to states about their BMP monitoring program, indicates nearly three of fourstates in the eastern U.S. have monitoring programs to determine if voluntary or mandatory forestpractices are being applied. BMP compliance monitoring programs vary extensively among states insuch areas as: the agency(s) responsible for undertaking the monitoring, the types of practices mon-itored, reasons for establishing the monitoring program, and the frequency and costs of compliancemonitoring implementation. The survey found that information from compliance monitoring is usedto modify forest practice rules or guidelines, redirect education and training programs, and informpolicy makers and the general public of forest practice application rates. Major issues associated withimplementing compliance monitoring programs as indicated by the survey include: specifying thetypes of information to be gathered, selecting harvest sites, accessing private property, determiningmonitoring responsibility, and reporting and using the information collected.

Keywords: forestry, best management practices, monitoring, timber harvesting, guidelines

1. Introduction

States have invested significantly in the development of programs that encouragemore widespread application of preferred forest management practices. Many suchpractices have as a primary focus the nation’s nonindustrial private forests, com-prising 353 million acres owned by more than nine million landowners (NationalResearch Council, 1998). These practices are often identified as best managementpractices (BMPs), acceptable management practices, forest practice guidelines, orforest practice rules. Developed primarily since the mid-1970s and designed forvoluntary or mandatory use primarily by private landowners and timber harvesters,47 states in 1996 reported having a program that advances the application of bestmanagement practices (National Association of State Foresters, 1996). These pro-grams were often a response to federal laws (for example, the Clean Water Actof 1987 and the Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1990) which re-

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 4: 119–130, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

120 M. A. KILGORE ET AL.

quired the development of state plans to control nonpoint source water pollutionand which encouraged proactive approaches to plan implementation.

Blinn and Kilgore (2001) reported that 49 states have developed BMPs to pro-mote sustainable timber harvesting and forest management activities. Six in tenstates implement such practices within an overall voluntary framework, whereasthe remaining 40 percent are administered under the rubric of a regulatory frame-work. In contrast, nearly seven in ten states in the eastern U.S. implement BMPsthrough a voluntary framework. From a national perspective, water-related aspectsof forest systems are the most common components of state BMPs. BMPs thataddress water quality concerns are present in every state, while those that ad-dress riparian and wetland resources are found in 98 and 93 percent, respectively.Within the eastern U.S., all states have some form of BMPs for riparian manage-ment, and all but two have BMPs to guide the management of forested wetlands.While not as prevalent, guidelines for addressing visual, cultural, soil and wildlife-related aspects of forest resources are becoming more frequent components of stateBMP manuals. Today, over half of all state BMPs address one or more of theseresource areas (Kilgore and Blinn, 2003). Forest certification efforts (e.g., Sustain-able Forestry Initiative) and pressure from state forestry interest groups have beenimportant influences on the expansion of state BMPs to include additional subjectareas.

2. Methods

In 1997, a survey questionnaire was sent to all state forestry agencies in the U.S.The survey requested information related to each state’s involvement in conductingBMP compliance monitoring activities. Specifically, the survey included questionsabout the extent to which BMP monitoring is conducted in their state, how BMPmonitoring programs are structured and administered, what use is made of the datacollected, what are the major issues facing the development and implementation ofcompliance monitoring programs, and perceptions about the strengths and weak-nesses of their programs. The survey contained questions that requested specificinformation from agency administrators about their program(s) as well as thoseeliciting open-ended responses intended to obtain insight on their experience withBMP compliance monitoring. All 50 states responded to a written questionnairein the year the survey was mailed. The authors summarized the data on a nationaland regional basis, the latter of which formed the basis for the assessment of theeastern U.S. of which there are 33 states.

Forest practice monitoring can take many forms and serve many purposes. Ourfocus was on BMP compliance monitoring, namely the systematic gathering ofinformation to determine whether forest practice guidelines or rules are actuallybeing applied by landowners and timber harvesters. While the majority of stateshave BMP guidelines directed at water quality protection and the major of mon-

BMP COMPLIANCE MONITORING IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES 121

itoring is geared toward BMPs, compliance monitoring addresses questions suchas: is stream habitat being enhanced, are riparian attributes being managed, andare reforestation levels being accomplished? BMP compliance monitoring also isreferred to in some states and provinces as implementation monitoring, silvicultureaudits, monitoring surveys, site-level audits, and forest practice inspections.

3. Results

3.1. NUMBER OF STATES INVOLVED WITH COMPLIANCE MONITORING

Based on results of our 1997 survey, the number of states implementing BMPcompliance monitoring programs (monitoring programs) has risen steadily sincethe mid-1980s. In 1997, 24 of the 33 eastern states (73 percent) had developeda monitoring program, while the remaining 27 percent indicated their state doesnot have a formal monitoring program (Table I). This compares favorably to pastsurveys by the National Association of State Foresters that found only 18 of the33 eastern states had monitoring programs in 1983. While 27 percent the states donot have systematic monitoring programs, many of these do monitor for forestryactivities such as: when inspections are carried out in conjunction with cost-sharepractices or when Tree Farms are re-inspected. In other states, pre- and post-harvestinspections required by forest practice regulatory laws are considered to be com-pliance monitoring (a harvest and associated practices are considered incompleteuntil approved by an inspector). In still other states, compliance inspections occurin response to citizen complaints or other sources alleging inappropriate applica-tion of BMPs (e.g., Alabama, Georgia, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, WestVirginia).

3.2. PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING BMP COMPLIANCE MONITORING

The 1997 survey indicated a number of reasons for establishing monitoringprograms. The primary reasons include:

• Determine statewide compliance with silvicultural BMPs.• Target future education efforts and technical assistance.• Determine major factors which affect BMP compliance for timber harvesting.• Determine landowner and timber harvester awareness of forestry BMP re-

quirements and their attitudes toward them.• Provide baseline information on extent of current BMP implementation,

identify BMP specifications requiring technical modification; identify im-provements needed in future monitoring efforts.

• Educate participating landowners about the importance and use of BMPswhen conducting timber harvesting activities.


TAB

LE

I

Cha

ract

eris

tics

offo

rest

BM

Pco

mpl

ianc

em

onit

orin

gpr

ogra

msa

inth

eea

ster

nU

nite

dS

tate

s,in

1997

Num

ber

Com

plia

nce

Com

plia

nce

mon

itor

ing

cond

ucte

dT

rain

ing

Ince

ntiv

eIn

divi

dual

ofst

ates

mon

itor

ing

All

site

sS

ampl

eof

Cer

tain

requ

ired

topr

ovid

edpr

ivat

ela

ndow

ner

inth

epr

ogra

mha

rves

ted

harv

este

dsi

tes

part

icip

ate

land

owne

rto

com

plia

nce

east

ern

Yes

No

site

sm

ore

inac

cess

prop

erty

info

rmat

ion

U.S

.in

tens

ely

mon

itor

ing

mad

epu

blic

3324

93

216

212

12

aD

ata

repr

esen

tsth

enu

mbe

rof

stat

es.B

MP

com

plia

nce

mon

itor

ing

may

befo

cuse

don

fore

stpr

acti

cegu

idel

ine

prog

ram

sth

atar

evo

lunt

aril

yco

mpl

ied

wit

h,m

anda

tori

lyre

quir

edof

land

owne

rsan

dha

rves

ters

,orb

oth.

Nat

iona

lly,

12ea

ster

nst

ates

have

com

plia

nce

mon

itor

ing

prog

ram

spa

rtof

avo

lunt

ary

prac

tice

prog

ram

,fo

uras

part

ofa

man

dato

rypr

ogra

m,

and

8in

volv

ebo

thvo

lunt

ary

and

man

dato

rypr

ogra

ms

east

ern

U.S

.isde

fine

das

:AL

,AR

,CT,

DL

,FL

,GA

,IA

,IL

,IN

,KY

,LA

,M

A,M

D,M

E,M

I,M

N,M

O,M

S,N

C,N

H,N

J,N

Y,O

H,O

K,P

A,R

I,S

C,T

N,T

X,V

A,V

T,W

V,W

I.


Considering these and other statements provided by program administratorssuggests that monitoring programs are undertaken primarily for purposes of se-curing reliable estimates of forest practice application, refining recommended orrequired forest practices where necessary, and targeting educational and technicalassistance programs to landowners and harvesters whose compliance with specifiedforest practices is considered unacceptable.

3.3. ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED WITH BMP COMPLIANCE MONITORING

State forestry agencies are not is not always the sole public entity responsible formonitoring forest practice compliance. Often times, multiple agencies are involvedin implementing compliance monitoring programs. Of the 34 principal organiza-tions involved in compliance monitoring in the 24 eastern states with compliancemonitoring programs, 22 (65 percent) are state forestry agencies. The remaining 12organizations (35 percent) are entities other than the state’s lead forestry agency,typically the state’s environmental or pollution control agency. In Maryland andMassachusetts, state forestry agencies are not principally involved in conductingcompliance monitoring of forestry activities. Additionally, state agencies part-ner with a variety of different public and private organizations in implementingforestry compliance monitoring programs. In order of frequency, these include stateand local governments, forestry businesses, university extension services, federalagencies, conservation and environmental groups, and landowner organizations(National Association of State Foresters, 1996).

3.4. STATE APPROACHES TO BMP COMPLIANCE MONITORING

IMPLEMENTATION

Analysis of the survey results indicates that the forest practices a state monitors,how it proceeds to monitor them, and the level of investments made in doing so aredependent on the complexity of forest practices to be applied, extent and type offorests occurring within a state, financial and professional resources available formonitoring activities, and the pressure exerted by various interests.

3.4.1. Conditions monitoredIn the eastern U.S., 12 states have monitoring programs as part of a voluntary forestpractice program, four as part of a forest practice regulatory program, and eightfocus compliance monitoring on both voluntary and mandatory forest practicesprograms. State monitoring programs evaluate forest practices across a variety ofresource conditions and activities. These include the influence of forest practices onwater quality (24 states), riparian areas (21 states), and forested wetlands (17 states)(Table II). Seven states monitor forest practice impacts on aesthetics, while sixstates evaluate soil productivity effects. Least frequently mentioned as a focus ofmonitoring are practices affecting recreational opportunities and cultural-historicalresources (two states each). Other monitored conditions that were identified include


TABLE II

Subject areas monitored in the eastern UnitedStates in 1997

Subject area Total number

of states

Water quality 24

Riparian 21

Wetland 17

Soil productivity 6

Wildfire, insects and diseases 4

Aesthetics 7

Wildlife habitat 3

Reforestation 4

Cultural-historic resources 2

Recreation 2

Other 4

the size and arrangement of clearcuts (Maine), disposal of chemical containers(Arkansas), and site preparation (North Carolina).

3.4.2. Site selection and intensityEastern states employ a variety of procedures to select sites from which to carryout monitoring activities. Only three of the 24 eastern states with monitoring pro-grams monitor all harvested sites (Table I). The remaining 21 monitoring programsevaluate a sample of all sites harvested. The sample of sites selected are typicallystratified by land ownership (state, industry, nonindustrial private, and, in somecases federal) and characteristics such as soil type and forest type. The selectionwill often focus on monitoring practices occurring near water, on steep slopes,or involving highly erodible soils. Six of the 24 eastern states with monitoringprograms monitor certain sites more intensely. The more sites sampled, the morelikely that different people monitor different sites. The number of sites visited ina state during any one monitoring cycle in the early 1990s ranged from less thanforty to several thousand (Brown et al., 1993).

Examples of site selection procedures used in the east include submission of po-tential sites from consultants, county foresters, and state private forest managementspecialists as is done in Michigan. A random sample of these sites is drawn that isroughly proportional to the average amount of timber removed during a specifiedperiod (e.g., eight to 10-year period) in a region of the state. Sites must be five ormore acres in size, within one mile of a road, and a portion must be within 200 feet


of a stream or other water body. Florida’s sites are selected by Division of Forestrypersonnel from a fixed-wing aircraft flying randomly-selected township or rangelines until a statewide goal of approximately 200 sites are selected. Sample sitesmust have been harvested within the past two years and some part of the site mustoccur within 300 feet of a stream, lake or wetland. West Virginia, which has anotification regulatory system, selects every fifth harvest notification.

3.4.3. Participants in site visitsThe credentials of persons conducting compliance monitoring activities in a fieldsetting vary enormously among eastern states. However, in most cases state forestryagency personnel make the required field measurements. Most states recognizethe importance of having knowledgeable persons performing on-site monitoringactivities, and the importance of consistency in making field measurements anddiscretionary judgments about the appropriateness of certain practices. One meansof accomplishing this is through some form of special education or training forthose participating in monitoring activities. Twenty-one eastern states indicatedthat compliance monitoring personnel are required to participate in some form offormal training, which are often referred to as ‘calibration workshops’ (Table I).

3.4.4. Access to private propertyMeasurement of forest practice applications on harvested sites often requires accessto private property. Most eastern states with voluntary forest practice guideline pro-grams implement a policy of accessing private property only with the permission ofthe landowner (e.g., Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota,Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin). Two responding states provide private landown-ers with incentives to allow access to their land. Such can take the form of freeforestry advice and educational materials (Indiana) or material rewards such as freepictures of forest scenes and free baseball caps personalized with forestry logos(Michigan). Landowners freely grant access to private property in some states, suchas South Carolina, where individual site information is kept anonymous, whilein other states good agency relations with landowners limit refusals for access(Florida). Landowner participation in compliance monitoring evaluations (Indiana)facilitates private land access.

Access to private property for compliance survey purposes is authorized by statelaw in some eastern states, and is typically under the rubric of a regulatory program(Ellefson et al., 1995). Respondents to this survey indicated the following on legalauthority to access to private property:

• ‘Entry authorized if conducting official duties’ (Delaware).• ‘Right of entry is specified in statutes’ (Maine).• ‘Entry as a condition of Sediment Control Plan approval’ (Maryland).• ‘Entry when in performance of official duties’ (New Hampshire).• ‘Entry when looking for water pollution problems’ (Kentucky).


• ‘Agency trespass immunity when dealing with noncompliance’ (North Caro-lina).

• ‘Entry to private property authorized’ (Virginia).• ‘Enter private property for the purpose of ensuring compliance with its

logging sediment control act’ (West Virginia).

On-site monitoring can lead to discovery of resource or environmental activitiesthat are in direct violation of safety, public health or pollution control laws bey-ond laws involving forests or closely related natural resources. Of the 22 easternstates that responded to the question of how their monitoring program addressesviolations of laws or regulations discovered during compliance monitoring inspec-tions, eight refer violations detected while conducting compliance monitoring tothe state or federal agency having jurisdiction over the matter. An equal numberof states do not report violations to other regulatory agencies. Two states indicatedthat violations may be referred, depending on the nature of the violation. In foureastern states, agency personnel contact the private landowner to inform them ofthe problem and recommend corrective action.

3.4.5. Survey intervals and reportsThe time interval between monitoring program surveys is highly variable, oftendriven by the availability of financial and professional resources or by a regulatoryprogram requirement for inspection after each or most operations. In some cases,the interval is shortened by pressure from interest groups suggesting that bestmanagement practices are not being applied at acceptable rates. States that haveconducted compliance surveys on a frequent and regular interval include Florida(eight surveys since 1981), Georgia (two surveys since 1991), Minnesota (fivesurveys since 1991), North Carolina (three surveys since 1992), and Texas (twosurveys since 1992). The other 19 eastern states with a compliance monitoringprogram have conducted at least one survey.

States typically publish reports presenting aggregate information describing theresults of their monitoring program efforts, although the detail presented in statereports differed markedly from very detailed to very cursory (National Associationof State Foresters, 1996). In some states, compliance information for individualsites and landowners is made public. Of the 24 eastern states with responding toour survey, one-half make individual landowner monitoring results available to thepublic, whereas the remaining 12 states do not (Table I).

3.4.6. Uses of BMP compliance monitoring data collectedInformation gained from compliance monitoring activities is used in a variety ofways. However, obtaining reliable information on whether forest practices are be-ing used is of paramount importance to nearly all states responding to our survey.When asked to specifically identify the use(s) of information obtained from monit-oring program activities, the response among states was far ranging. Within theseextremes, however, some distinct patterns emerge. Several states indicated they


use compliance information to refocus and in many cases intensify educationalprograms (usually in workshops or seminars). Specific activities include tailoringworkshops about the appropriateness of a specific forest practice and applicationof that practice to the field. Audiences targeted most frequently for educationalprograms are loggers, landowners, consultants and environmental organizations.Modifying forest practice rules or guidelines is also a common use of compli-ance monitoring data (reported by ten states). Such occurs when practices arefound to be technically inappropriate, impractical to apply, or confusing in theirpresentation.

Eastern states also use compliance information to modify technical assistanceprograms, which usually involve one-on-one consultations with landowners andtimber harvesters. On-site monitoring results can be used to focus technical assist-ance toward individuals that do not understand how to correctly apply a forestpractice. Eastern states also reported using compliance information to evaluateand plan programs, including the preparation of budget requests and the designof new programs such as cost share programs. Five states reported that com-pliance information was useful for informing broader communities about forestpractices via distribution of reports to community organizations and briefing thepublic and media at various forums. Four states reported using compliance inform-ation to intensify enforcement activities where compliance levels were found tobe unacceptable, while two states indicated it was used to better understand theeffectiveness of specific guidelines or rules. Other reported uses of complianceinformation included to meet legal requirements and to provide evidence needed toavoid regulatory programs.

3.4.7. Cost of monitoringMonitoring program costs (direct and in kind services) for voluntary forest prac-tice guideline programs in the eastern U.S. ranged from $20,000 to $125,000per state in 1997, averaging $54,000 per state program. States with regulatoryprograms invested $50,000 to $500,000 per state in compliance checks. Staffingallocated for monitoring compliance with voluntary programs was typically twoto three full-time equivalent (FTE) employees per state. This figure often expan-ded significantly, up to 40 to 50 FTEs, when teams were used to conduct siteinspections.

3.4.8. BMP compliance monitoring program strengths and weaknessesOur study queried administrators of monitoring programs to specify the strengthsand weaknesses of their programs. Strengths include process, focus and con-sistency of their monitoring efforts, cost effectiveness, integration with otherprograms, and a positive working relationship between agencies and landownersand harvesters. Conversely, site selection (random and representative of conditionsand owners) and location (remoteness of some harvest sites), access to private prop-erty (securing landowner permission), and consistency among persons performing


site reviews (enabling comparability of monitoring results) were cited as weak-nesses. Frustration at monitoring responsibility being assigned to many agencies,ambiguous forest practice rules and guidelines, and limited funding and staffingalso exists. Monitoring programs are viewed as a divisive rather than a cooperativeexercise in some states.

4. BMP Compliance Monitoring – What Makes for a Good Program?

Based on the results of our study and review of the literature (Tanz and Camp-bell, 1994; Koehn and Grizzel, 1995; Henson, 1996; Johnson and Ernst, 1996;Minnesota Forest Resources Council, 1997; Fortunate et al., 1998), a number ofconditions that would foster a successful state monitoring program are apparent.These include:

• Focus agency responsibility for monitoring. Assign compliance monitoringto a single agency, department, or administrative unit. Responsibility shouldinclude compliance monitoring of a comprehensive set of forest practices(e.g., timber practices, wildlife practices, recreation practices, aesthetic man-agement practices) and their consequences (e.g., impacts on timber, wildlife,recreation, aesthetics, and water).

• Invest sufficient resources. Invest financial and professional resources to en-sure an effective monitoring program. Investment levels should be sustainedand commensurate with the value of the information provided.

• Establish credible processes. Create a logical and defensible process for mon-itoring, with particular attention to site selection procedures. Initiate a processthat is understandable by interested parties and apply it consistently. Monitorsensitive resources more intensively.

• Respect private property. When required, seek advance permission to ac-cess private property. Inform landowners about the purposes of compliancemonitoring and how their participation will further these intentions.

• Engage knowledgeable people. Involve inspectors or compliance team mem-bers who are well informed about the state’s forest practice rules or guidelines,familiar with timber harvest planning, and can interpret vague or unclear rulesor guidelines with uniformity.

• Provide accurate analysis and reporting. Analyze the results of BMP com-pliance monitoring in a reliable manner and use the information to improvecompliance rates. Provide continuity between monitoring cycles to identifytrends.

• Make monitoring results timely and useful. To facilitate changes in recommen-ded practices, link compliance monitoring to rule or BMP implementationprograms. Adjust programs (e.g., education, technical assistance, fiscal in-centives) used to deliver the rules or guidelines. Perform compliance reviews


on a regular basis, preferable every two to three years for voluntary guidelines.Prepare reports that are understandable to interested parties.

• Create a favorable sentiment toward monitoring. Promote a climate of co-operation and problem solving (not just problem identification) between theagencies responsible for monitoring and landowners, timber harvesters, andother interested parties. Establish clear, consistent, practical, and understand-able forest practice rules and guidelines. Encourage landowners and loggersto be present for the review of their sites.

• Foster good relationships with private forest landowners. Develop a collabor-ative relationship between the agency responsible for conducting compliancemonitoring activities and the state’s private forest landowners. Seek inputfrom state forest landowner groups and individuals on the design and im-plementation of a compliance monitoring program. Additionally, maintainon-going communication regarding the results of compliance monitoringefforts and future program direction.

The latter two attributes are particularly noteworthy. With the nation’s nonin-dustrial private forests increasingly looked to for the production of economic andamenity goods and services, information on the management and use of theselands needs to be an important part of any state compliance monitoring program.Consequently, states need to build understanding of and support for the use ofguidelines and monitoring programs among their private landowners. Doing sorequires careful attention to their needs and concerns in such areas as: increas-ing landowner awareness of state forest management guidelines and compliancemonitoring programs; providing sufficient technical resources to assist them in con-ducting forest management activities that are consistent with forest managementguidelines; and providing incentives to encourage their participation in compliancemonitoring programs.

Acknowledgements

Funding for this research was provided by the University of Minnesota’s Depart-ment of Forest Resources, the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, and theMinnesota Forest Resources Council.

References

Blinn, C. R. and Kilgore, M. A.: 2001, ‘Riparian management practices: A summary of stateguidelines’, Journal of Forestry 99 (8), 11–17.

Brown, T. C., Brown, D. and Binkley D.: 1993, ‘Laws and programs for controlling nonpoint sourcepollution in forested areas’, Water Resources Bulletin 29 (1): 1–13.


Ellefson, P. V., Cheng, A. S. and Moulton, R. J.: 1995, Regulation of Private Forestry Practices byState Governments, Station Bulletin 605–1995, MN, Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul,MN, 225 pp.

Fortunate, N., Heffernan, P., Sanger, K. and Tootell, C.: 1998, Montana Forestry Best Manage-ment Practices Monitoring: 1998 Forestry BMP Audits Report, Montana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation, Forestry Division, Missoula, MT, 40 pp.

Henson, M.: 1996, Best Management Practices: Implementation and Effectiveness Survey on TimberOperations in North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and NaturalResources, Division of Forest Resources, Raleigh, NC, 20 pp.

Kilgore, M. A. and Blinn, C. R.: 2003, ‘Policy tools to encourage the application of timber harvestingguidelines in the United States and Canada’, Forest Policy and Economics (in press).

MN Forest Resources Council: 1997, Options for Forest Practice Implementation Monitoring inMinnesota: Background Report, MFRC-B-2, St. Paul, MN, 36 pp.

National Association of State Foresters: 1996, State Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Programsfor Silviculture: 1996 Progress Report, Washington, D.C., 23 pp.

National Research Council: 1998, Forested Landscapes in Perspective: Prospects and Opportun-ities for Sustainable Management of America’s Nonfederal Forests, National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 249 pp.

Johnson, J. and Ernst, D.: 1996, Indiana’s Forestry Best Management Practices: 1996 BMP Im-plementation Study Report of Findings, Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division ofForestry, Indianapolis, IN. 26 pp.

Koehn, S. W. and Grizzel, J. D.: 1995, Forestry Best Management Practices: An Assessment and Ana-lysis Report on BMP Implementation in Maryland, Maryland Department of Natural Resources,Forest Service, Annapolis, IN, 32 pp.

Tanz, J. S. and Campbell, W. L. C.: 1994, ‘Principles and perils of silvicultural audits’, ForestryChronicle 70 (1): 43–46.

bmp compliance monitoring programs in the eastern united states

Documents