December BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I am about to begin harvesting on a tract which shares a border with one of our National Forests and is also bordered by a major river; Are there any special BMPs that I should be aware of before I begin cutting? Specifically do I need to leave a buffer strip on the border with the National Forest or a wider SMZ on the major river?

A:   I recently received a phone call asking this very question from an interested individual. It is important to remember that the primary function of any BMP is to protect and minimize impacts to water quality from forestry operations. This question reveals that often times there can be confusion between what exactly are BMPs and what are policies/requirements that some companies, consulting foresters, and even landowners want met during operations.

For example, a timber company may require that an aesthetic buffer strip be left on any adjacent boundaries to the National Forestland. While this may be a requirement by the timber company, it is not related to the protection of water quality and thus it is not a BMP guideline or recommendation. It would certainly be prudent (especially if you wanted to continue your employment with this company) to leave the buffer strip, but during a BMP implementation evaluation, there would be no consideration given as to whether or not you followed company guidelines. The only consideration would be did the operators follow the guidelines set forth in the “Bluebook” and did the BMPs that were implemented effectively minimize and protect water quality on the site.

The second part of the question deals with the width of the SMZ on a major river. There is no special classification for rivers whether they be considered major or minor, they are all classified as perennial streams. There are however, several factors that need to be addressed before an answer about SMZ width can be determined. It is a known that the SMZ should meet the minimum width of 50 feet on each side of the river. There are two separate directives in the “Bluebook” that address the need to determine if the SMZ should be wider:

BMP Guidelines, Section 9.23, Pg. 28

"The width of an SMZ should be a site-specific determination made by foresters or other qualified professionals. Soil types, slope gradient, vegetative cover, volume of flow, and stream classification should be taken into consideration when designing each SMZ."

Recommended Specifications, Section 9.11, Pp. 58-59

"The width of the SMZ should be adjusted for slope, soils, and cover type and especially when protecting municipal water supplies"

Both of these directives indicate that a wider SMZ is certainly a possibility. Both of the directives also point to site conditions that should help you to determine if a wider SMZ is needed. According to the SMZ width chart on page 59 of the “Bluebook,” a 100 feet wide buffer is necessary if the river is a municipal water supply, i.e. water is being treated and used as the water supply for a community. I would suggest that some evaluation is needed of the soils and slope to fully answer this question. However based on the information that this is a “major river,” it probably has a large volume of flow. I would make a recommendation that the SMZ width be increased past the minimum width of 50 feet and I would further use the site’s soil and slope conditions to determine how much wider.

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

* This article was published in the December 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Timber production is recognized as a land use that is compatible with wetland protection. Although wetlands are federally regulated, normal forestry operations in wetlands such as soil bedding, site preparation, harvesting, and minor drainage are exempt from permit requirements under the Clean Water Act, as long as the activity

1) qualifies as "normal silviculture,"
2) is part of an "established" silvicultural operation,
3) is not part of an activity whose purpose is to convert a water of the United States into a use to which it was not previously subject,
4) follows the fifteen Mandatory Road BMPs, and
5) contains no toxic pollutant listed under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act in discharge of dredge or fill materials into water of the United States.

Do you know what the section number of the Clean Water Act is that exempts “normal silviculture” operations from being required to obtain a permit when operating in wetlands?


Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

October BMP Q&A

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

Q:   In June and July you described several key attributes or criteria to help to identify ephemeral and intermittent streams. Can you provide similar identifiable attributes or criteria for perennial streams?

A:   Certainly, it is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used to describe streams: perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Both perennial and intermittent streams should have a SMZ according to the Texas forestry BMP guidelines. Ephemeral streams do not necessarily need a SMZ but in some cases it is wise to leave some trees to buffer the stream especially if it is clear that the stream may erode or “wash” if nothing is left. This article will look specifically at perennial streams. If you need more information about classifying intermittent or ephemeral streams you can look back at the June and July editions of the Texas Logger or you can find the information in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices manual or “the bluebook.”

Dictionary.com defines, the term “perennial” as an adjective: “lasting for an indefinitely long time;enduring” and also, “lasting or continuing throughout the entire year, as a stream.” Perennial streams have regular flow usually 90% to 100% of the year (10 ½ months to 12 months) under normal climatic conditions. During times of drought, some perennial streams may cease flow but this is not the “normal” condition of these streams.

While this definition seems at first glance to limit the number of streams that fall into this category, there are still a lot of streams in Texas that fit this definition. There are a lot of spring fed streams that a person could easily step across that fit this description. A spring that flows 10 ½ months or more is a perennial stream.

During the drought conditions and summer months, identifying flow characteristics can often be difficult. If flow cannot be determined, the presence of five or more of the following characteristics should be helpful in recognizing a perennial stream:

1. Well-defined channel.
2. Water pools present, even during dry conditions.
3. A channel that is almost always sinuous (winding or curvy).
4. Evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport, also the indication of a flood zone parallel to the stream by sediment deposits, sediment stained leaves, bare ground and/or drift lines.
5. Evidence of soil and debris movement (scouring) in the stream channel. Leaf litter is usually transient or temporary in the flow channel.
6. Wetland or hydrophytic vegetation is usually associated with the stream channel or flow area. Also, even along deeply incised or “down cut” channels there is usually wetland-like vegetation present along the banks.
7. Predominately gray soils (except soils of deep sands) with a loamy to clay texture. Red mottles or “specks” are usually present in gray soil matrix.
8. Usually identified on USGS topographic maps as a thin blue line or identified on a NRCS soil maps as a black line separated by one dot.
9. Perennial streams are considered “Waters of the United States” and therefore fall under the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

These characteristics are found on page 60 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook” and are designed to be a guide to help determine stream classification.

While it is important to know the differences in the streams and how to identify them, it is equally important to know that intermittent and perennial streams are treated in the same manner in the “bluebook.” The guidelines and recommendations should be applied the same once a stream is determined to be at least an intermittent. As you conduct your operations, always remember that your actions in the woods have the potential to affect water quality either positively or negatively.

For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book, contact your local Texas Forest office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the October 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

September BMP Q&A

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

Q:    In June you described several key attributes or criteria to help to identify ephemeral streams. Can you provide similar identifiable attributes or criteria for intermittent streams?

A:   Certainly, it is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used to describe streams: perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Both perennial and intermittent streams should have a SMZ according to the Texas forestry BMP guidelines. Ephemeral streams do not necessarily need a SMZ but in some cases it is wise to leave some trees to buffer the stream especially if it is clear that the stream may erode or “wash” if nothing is left. This article will look specifically at intermittent streams while the next BMP Q& A article will address perennial stream classification in greater detail.

Dictionary.com defines, the term “intermittent” as an adjective: “stopping or ceasing for a time; alternately ceasing and beginning again” Because water flow in intermittent streams can start and stop several times during a year, this is a great definition to describe the characteristics of intermittent streams. Intermittent streams have seasonal flow usually 30% to 90% of the year (3 ½ months to 10 ½ months) under normal climatic conditions.

This interpretation of intermittent streams means that a large majority of streams fall into this category. All that is required for a stream to be considered intermittent is for it to have some flow for 3 ½ months cumulatively during a year. So if a stream only flows during the wet winter months from November to February is it an intermittent? The answer in this case would be YES, since that equates to 4 months and all that is required is 3 ½ months. The same result would occur if this stream were to flow for two months in the spring and then again for two months in the winter.

During the dry summer months, however, identifying flow characteristics can often be difficult. If flow cannot be determined, the presence of five or more of the following characteristics should be helpful in recognizing an intermittent stream:

1. Well-defined channel.
2. Water pools absent during dry conditions but present during wet conditions.
3. A channel that is mostly sinuous (winding or curvy).
4. Some evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport, also the indication of a flood zone parallel to the stream by sediment deposits, sediment stained leaves, bare ground and/or drift lines.
5. Evidence of soil and debris movement (scouring) in the stream channel. Leaf litter is usually transient or temporary in the flow channel.
6. Wetland or hydrophytic vegetation is usually associated with the stream channel or flow area
7. Predominately brown soils with inclusions of gray soils (except soils of deep sands with extreme red soil color). Usually alluvial type soils with loamy to sandy texture.
8. Usually identified on USGS topographic maps as a thin blue line or a blue line separated by three dots or identified on a NRCS soil maps as a black line separated by two or more dots.
9. Intermittent streams are considered “Waters of the United States” and therefore fall under the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

These characteristics are found on page 61 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook” and are designed to be a guide to help determine stream classification.

For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book, contact your local Texas Forest office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the September 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Streams are classified into 3 categories; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Knowing the difference between these three categories can mean the difference in leaving an SMZ or not. Can you list four (4) classification criteria used to determine if a stream is ephemeral? This information can be found in the most recent publishing of the Texas BMP handbook.

1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)

Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

July BMP Q&A

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

Q:   It is starting to warm up now and it has become harder to tell whether or not streams need a SMZ (streamside management zone) or not. Are there any “rules of thumb” for knowing which streams ought to have a SMZ?

A:   It is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used in Texas: Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Both perennial and intermittent streams should have a SMZ according to the Texas forestry BMP guidelines. Ephemeral streams do not necessarily need a SMZ but in some cases it is wise to leave some trees to buffer the stream especially if it is clear that the stream may erode or “wash” if nothing is left. This article will look specifically at ephemeral streams while the next couple of BMP Q& A articles will address perennial and intermittent stream classification in greater detail.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the term ephemeral is defined as, “adjective – lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory.” By definition, ephemeral streams are streams that only last for a very short time. Ephemeral streams usually have a cumulative flow that is less than 30% of the year (about 3 ½ months). This normally equates to flow after rain events with the flow usually ending anywhere from immediately following the rain event to flow ending several days later.

During the dry summer months, identifying flow characteristics can often be difficult. If flow cannot be determined, the presence of three or more of the following characteristics should be helpful in recognizing an ephemeral stream:

1. May have no well-defined channel
2. The absence of water pools
3. A flow area (channel) that is almost always straight and either “flattens” out at the bottom of the slope or grades into intermittent or perennial streams
4. No or very little evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport
5. The presence of leaf litter and/or small debris jams in the flow area
6. Usually sparse or no wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation present
7. Side slope soils with characteristics typical of the surrounding landscape
8. Usually not identified on USGS topographic maps or NRCS soil maps

These characteristics are found on page 62 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook.”

You should rely on your professional judgment to determine when an ephemeral drain needs some type of protection in the form of a small SMZ or more simply a few buffer trees. These small streams are almost always connected to larger intermittent and perennial streams and severe erosion could enter the larger stream network if the ephemeral streams are not protected when necessary. For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book, contact your local Texas Forest office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the July 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

June BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Do you expect any changes in the overall BMP implementation score given all the changes in forestland ownership that have occurred lately; specifically industry lands being sold to TIMOs (timberland investment management organizations) and REITs (real estate investment trusts)?

A:   Thank you for the very interesting question. A recent study of long term trends of BMP implementation in Texas by Hughes Simpson, BMP Coordinator, Texas Forest Service, may be able to shed a little light on the subject. Historically, BMP implementation rates have generally trended higher. From a low of 76% in 1996 overall implementation rates have steadily increased to a high of 91.7% in 2005. Something that is not as clear is whether changes in forest ownership will result in a positive or negative change to the current average.

In order to answer your question we need to look at specific ownership categories that make up the overall rate: Public ownership, Industry ownership, TIMO/REIT ownership, and Family Forest landowners. Public ownership, primarily the National Forests, has always had the highest implementation rates of all the categories with a six round average of 95.4% with little variability. Similarly, Industry has also implemented BMPs at a high rate with a six round average of 92.1%, again with little variability. Based on the three rounds of monitoring and a limited number of sites, TIMO/REIT owned lands have initially demonstrated similar implementation rates as industry (93.0%). Finally, Family Forest ownership has the lowest overall average of 77.6% but demonstrates a generally increasing trend from a low of 68.5% in 1996 to 88.6% in 2005.

So what effect do we think TIMO/REIT ownership will have on overall BMP implementation rates? Because TIMO/REIT owned lands have long-term fiber agreements with industry-owned mills, one can theorize that TIMO/REITs will continue to implement BMPs in a manner similar to the previous landowners (Industry). Therefore the net effect on BMP implementation rates should be negligible. Historically, increases in Family Forest ownership BMP implementation rates have resulted in an increase in the overall BMP implementation rate. This is due to the high scores and low variability of the other ownership categories. Therefore changes to the overall BMP implementation rate should continue to be driven by the BMP implementation rates achieved by the Family Forest ownership group.

For more information regarding BMPs and BMP implementation you can visit the new and improved BMP page on the Texas Forest website located at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. Finally, if you prefer, you can contact me.

* This article was published in the June 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Streams are classified into 3 categories; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Knowing the difference between these three categories can mean the difference in leaving an SMZ or not. Can you list four (4) classification criteria used to determine if a stream is intermittent? This information can be found in the most recent publishing of the Texas BMP handbook.

1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)


Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

BMP Informer - May 2007

May Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Watch Word…TMDL
• Improving Water Quality in Adams and Cow Bayous A TMDL Project for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen and pH
• Improving My Land - Managing Streamside Management Zones
• Certified Forest Steward
• Texas Forest Service BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Project
• Forestry Acronyms

April BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Back in September of 2006, the BMP Quiz question dealt with how far a landing should be constructed outside of a streamside management zone (SMZ). I answered that as long as the landing was 50 feet from the stream channel that it would be okay. Evidently that was the wrong answer, could you please tell me what the distance is and what reasons there are for having if further away?

A:   This is an excellent question! The correct answer to the Quiz in the September issue of the Texas Logger should have been that landings be established at least 50 feet from the edge of the SMZ. This would thereby equate to a distance of 100 feet from the stream channel for a landing if you use the minimal 50 feet wide SMZ.

It is important to note that the “Recommended Specifications” in the bluebook call for the distance to be measured from the edge of the SMZ and not the stream channel. Rather than trying to figure out how wide your SMZ extends from the stream channel and then add the 50 feet, it is much easier to find the edge of the SMZ and establish the landing 50 feet from it.

There are a couple of reasons for this specification on landing design: The first reason is that landings almost always contain a large amount of woody debris and occasionally are the site of hydraulic fluid leaks/spills from various sources like equipment repair or unexpected hose failures etc. It is important to keep this material from entering a water source since it is deemed nonpoint source pollution. By establishing the landing 50 feet from the edge of the SMZ you create less opportunity for that woody debris and perhaps even the oil spills to reach the stream. This additional 50 feet helps in most cases to ensure that most of the excess woody debris at a landing will remain at the landing site and not end up in the stream channel if the stream floods up to and out of the SMZ, except of course under extreme flooding conditions.

Secondly the SMZ has always been referred appropriately as the “final filter” because it is the final opportunity on the site to filter overland flow before it reaches the stream. If it were necessary to establish a wider than the minimal 50 feet SMZ, say for instance on a steep sandy site, it would be counter productive to establish a wider SMZ if you created a landing 50 feet from the stream channel. This would place a landing within your SMZ thus reducing its overall filtering capacity.

Landings are high traffic areas that have the potential to concentrate some of the nonpoint source pollution that forestry operations generate. This is why it is important to keep them at least 50 feet from the SMZ or “final filter.” As always, though, each site is unique and some situations may not allow this 50 feet, when those occur it is important to use your professional judgment when placing the location of the landing in relation to the SMZ. That is the beauty of the voluntary, non-regulatory system we have in place; it allows us to set minimum guidelines but also apply common sense when the situation arises.

For more information regarding landings, streamside management zones, and BMPs consult the bluebook (Texas Forestry Best Management Practices). If you prefer, you can contact me

* This article was published in the April 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Prior to all the rains, I was operating in what I call flatwoods. Now, that same area I was cutting in back in November is too wet and portions are flooded. This got me to wondering if there are any special BMPs that I needed to follow in the flatwoods once I am able to get back in there to finish the harvest.

A:   Sorry the rain put a pinch on your harvest operation but I am glad you moved out of there when the rains came. The bluebook defines flatwoods as: forested areas with slopes of 1% or less that usually contain mixed pine and hardwoods. If this is the kind of area you were working in then the short answer to your question is; no, there are no special BMPs that need to be followed in a flatwoods.

Flatwoods are not necessarily jurisdictional wetlands and therefore the 15 mandatory road BMPs do not always apply. It is very difficult however, to determine when the criteria of jurisdictional wetlands has been met; if there are any questions about whether a tract contains a jurisdictional wetland, consult a hydrologist or qualified personnel from the local Natural Resource Conservation Service office.

For this example we will assume that these flatwoods are not jurisdictional and are indeed just your average, everyday flatwoods. In this case, we could expect that during the wet season, the soil is often saturated and may even have water at or near the soil surface. There may be the presences of mounds and intermounded soils which would create for a rough ride in a skidder or shear. Common trees found in this type setting would be mixed pines, sweetgum, willow oak, water oak, cherrybark oak, and mixed white oaks. Despite the presence of water, these areas do not require a streamside management zone (SMZ). The primary concern for an area like this would be rutting which could cause damage and changes to the natural hydrology.

Also in your situation, you mentioned some areas that remain flooded on the tract. These areas could be backwater basins which are areas that hold water from backwater flooding when adjacent water bodies overflow. Backwater basins do not require the protection of a SMZ. Be aware though that these basins can be difficult to distinguish from intermittent streams (which do require and SMZ) and intermittent ponds. In cases where backwater basins have well-defined banks, trees should be left or selectively thinned on the bank and inside the basin. Trees should not be cut within the basin if there is a possibility of disturbing the backwater basin’s natural flow by rutting or jeopardizing soil stability.

For more information regarding flatwoods, backwater basins, and BMPs consult the bluebook. If you prefer, you can contact me

* This article was published in the March 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Can you match the following terms with the correct definition?

Forest Road: ________________________________
Residual Tress: ______________________________                                    
Streamside Management Zone: _________________           
Water Way: _________________________________                                          
  
A: Forested area immediately adjacent to stream  channels 
B: A way or channel for water or the movement of water 
C: An access route for vehicles into forest land 
D: Live trees left standing after the completion of harvesting


Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

BMP Informer - February 2007

February Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Timber Sale Contract Basics
• Improving My Land - Harvest Planning
• Texas Water Facts Texas Water Resources
• Texas’ Forestry Best Management Practices Report Card – Results from 15 years of BMP Implementation Monitoring in Texas
• Federal and State Agency Websites

January BMP Q&A

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

Q:    I have heard you mention various products such as logging mats, culverts, and geo-textile fabrics in past articles.  I wanted to know where these types of products can be purchased and what do they typically cost.

A:    A variety of products are used in the management of forestlands and some of these products can be difficult to find.  The Texas Forest Service BMP Project Office maintains a product/vendor guide which lists a variety of products and the vendors who sell or manufacture them.  Prices are also listed with these products but the vendor should be contacted to ensure prices have not changed.

Products such as logging mats or drag line mats can be found in the BMP Product/Vendor Guide.  Logging mats are used when access across a stream or wet area is only needed for a short time during the harvest or planting of a tract.  These temporary crossings are relatively inexpensive, can be used multiple times, and when installed correctly greatly minimize or prevent any negative impacts to water quality.  Most logging mats when cared for properly can last anywhere from five to seven years and can be transported easily from operation to operation.  Logging mats are typically made of several hardwood cants that are bolted together and provide a secure and stable crossing for equipment.  Depending on the size logging mat purchased to price can range anywhere from $300 to $1200 each.   

Another common product that can be found in the BMP Product/Vendor Guide is culverts.  Culverts are used when permanent access is needed across a stream or the stream is too large for logging mats.  When installing culverts care should be taken to ensure that the proper size culvert is used and that it is installed correctly.  Soil type and topography greatly influence the size of culvert that is needed to adequately handle expected water flow through a stream.  A topographic map and soil survey can be used to determine the amount of water being drained from a watershed and the soil type of the area drained.  Culverts not properly installed can negatively impact water quality and can be very costly to repair.  There are several types of culverts and they come in various sizes ranging from 18 inches in diameter and larger and range widely in price depending on the size

Geo-textile products such as Geoweb are listed as well.  Geoweb is used for shallow stream crossings or low water crossings.  These crossings are permanent crossings on streams that have relatively flat approaches and shallow stream channels.  The purpose of using a product such as Geoweb is to provide a stable low water crossing and to prevent rutting up the stream channel for passing vehicles.  The stream must have a stable bottom for this type of crossing to be effective.  When purchasing Geoweb it is important to purchase enough material so that it stretches several feet out past the edge of the stream channel.  This is to ensure that the approaches do not become washed out and rutted which can increase the amount of erosion and sediment entering the stream.  Geoweb, when installed correctly, can provide a stable low water crossing that can last for many years.  Several companies sell Geoweb or products that are similar and they come in various sizes and range in price from $150 to $500 per unit.

For more information concerning these products or other products please consult the BMP Product/Vendor Guide which can be viewed by visiting the Texas Forest Service website at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.  If you have any questions concerning the BMP Product/Vendor Guide or BMPs in general please contact me by calling (936) 639-8180. 

* This article was published in the January 2007 issue of the Texas Logger