November 2013 BMP Q&A

       By: Todd Thomas, Water Resources Forester, Texas A&M Forest Service

Q:  While conducting a complete harvest on a site with dense underbrush, my crew accidentally cut through an area that should have been reserved as an SMZ.  Now that what’s done is done, what do you recommend as our next move?

A: While I hate to hear of the destruction of an SMZ, do not worry, not all is lost.  First things first, in order to eliminate any confusion during site prep and planting, the area that would have been SMZ needs to be flagged off.  This will avoid any intrusion of site prep or other management activities down the road that could cause any damage to water quality.

Aerial view of Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) on a recent harvest in East Texas

During site preparation and planting it is extremely important that any equipment on site stay out of the newly flagged off SMZ to avoid soil disturbance next to the stream.  This will reduce erosion and the resulting sediment that could enter the stream.  Remember, since you have harvested the timber off the tract, there will be more water wanting to enter the stream since those trees are no longer there to use it.  This means that there will be more water in the soil, especially right next to the stream, making the area much more prone to rutting.  If you do decide to plant this area when you are planting the rest of the tract, be sure and plant it by hand so you don’t rut up this sensitive area. 

Going ahead and marking off the area that would have been SMZ will also be extremely beneficial if you plan on using herbicides during site prep.  This will eliminate the possibility of any herbicide being directly applied to the stream.  Also, not spraying here will allow vegetation to re-establish itself quickly, and reduce erosion potential.  Not to mention this helps with maintaining biodiversity for wildlife habitat, one of the side benefits of SMZs. 

It may not be a bad idea to go ahead and plant a mix of hardwood seedlings in this area, just to ensure that things begin to reestablish at a rapid pace.  However, there is a good chance that there is enough seed already in the soil for seedlings and shrubs to grow in this area pretty densely.  I have heard stories relating to similar scenarios where hardwoods were planted, but were eventually out-competed by seedlings that grew from the already existing seed bank.  How you choose to approach this is totally up to your discretion. 

If you plant anything, it is probably a good idea to at least put down some grass seed.  There is chart that is extremely helpful in determining what to plant on page 67 and 68 of your blue book.  This form of revegetation will hold the soil in place while any seedlings are getting established.  Remember, per Texas BMPs, that it is not recommended to use fertilizer within an SMZ (page 66, blue book).  This is because excessive nutrients entering the stream can greatly degrade water quality. 

In conclusion, while it is never a good thing to slick off an SMZ, there are measures to restore the SMZ and to correct the mistake.  Remember to delineate the area, keep out equipment, and to actively manage the area to reestablish vegetation so that it can return to a functioning SMZ.  Keep the questions coming; you can call them in to me at 936-639-8180, or email me at tthomas@tfs.tamu.edu.

*This article was published in the November 2013 edition of the Texas Logger

June 2013 BMP Q&A

By: Todd Thomas, Water Resources Forester, Texas A&M Forest Service

Q: When harvesting trees within an SMZ I've always been told to keep tops and slash out of the stream, however, when you walk along a stream in the forest there are tons of limbs already in the stream. What is the big deal?  I know it is a guideline, but why is it so important to keep limbs out of the stream when there are already so many there naturally?

A: You bring up a good point, but since there are in fact lots of limbs and debris in the stream bed, there is no need to add any additional debris.  First and foremost, the more debris that gets added to a stream the greater the likelihood of the stream being dammed up and as a result causing flooding.  Flooding is going to happen from time to time with heavy rains, but the less floods in these forested streams the better.  With excessive flooding comes the potential for more erosion on a site, as well as the potential for nutrient loss in the soil.  As the flood waters recede, the eroded soil and nutrients are then carried to the stream, severely affecting water quality.  This flooding could also cause a reduction in the amount of water downstream, further affecting other bodies of water.

Build up of slash in an intermittent stream in East Texas

With the increase of limbs in the stream also comes more scouring or erosion of the stream bank itself.  Since this already occurs naturally, additional scouring can be problematic.  The first issue comes with more sediment in the stream.  More sediment traveling downstream has many negative effects on water quality as well as on aquatic plants and animals.   This increased scouring also releases nutrients that were once stored up in the soil of the stream banks.  As more nutrients travel downstream, they can accumulate and degrade water quality. 

Another benefit of keeping the slash out of the stream is being able to utilize the slash elsewhere on the tract.  Slash is an excellent tool for erosion prevention on closed out skid trails and temporary roads.  Why contribute to a problem when something can contribute to a solution? 

In conclusion, keep slash out of streams, the folks downstream will thank you, aquatic life will thank you, and the landowner will thank you.  Remember extra debris in the stream contributes to flooding and water quality degradation.  Remember to keep the questions coming, you can send them to me at tthomas@tfs.tamu.edu or just phone it in by calling (936) 639-8180.  

*This article was published in the June 2013 edition of the Texas Logger  

August 2012 BMP Q&A

By: Todd Thomas, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q: While discussing streamside management zones (SMZs) with a co-worker, the topic of thinning came up.  I told him that the guidelines recommend leaving at least 50 ft² of basal area per acre.   He insisted that it was 50% crown cover.  Who is right?   Is there really a difference?

 A: Great question.  SMZs provide many critical functions in protecting water quality, so it is important that we don’t limit their effectiveness through over harvesting.  Not only do these areas slow and filter runoff, they also provide shade to streams, maintain bank stability, and lessen the impacts from raindrops that can lead to erosion. 

Now back to your question.  In essence, there is some truth to both answers, though in the event you have a friendly wager riding on this, I would have to side with you.  According to the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Handbook, within the SMZ of perennial and intermittent streams, a minimum of 50 square feet of basal area per acre should be left.  The residual basal area should be evenly distributed throughout the SMZ in order to provide adequate protection to the stream. 

So what exactly is basal area?  This forestry term is primarily used as a measure of density and is defined as the cross sectional area of a tree stem in square feet at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground).  Since this can sometimes be a difficult concept for people to understand, especially those unfamiliar with forest measurements, the BMP handbook also includes a general rule of thumb that can be used.  Retaining 50% overstory crown cover within the SMZ can usually serve the same purpose, though in order to achieve this, you probably will have to leave a little more than half the trees in a forest that has reached canopy closure. 

Basal area, once you understand it, is very easy to measure, especially when you have the right tool.  A BAF 10 factor prism can quickly help you determine the residual density of the SMZ.  If you don’t have a prism, the BMP handbook includes a section on page 107 that provides information on how to calculate basal area. 

Remember, any time you are working in SMZs, special care is necessary in order to maintain their critical function.  While it is important to manage these areas, operators should continue to follow all related BMPs.  Roads and skid trails should be located outside of these areas when feasible and logging decks should be at least 50 feet from the edge of the SMZ.  Directional felling should also be used to minimize the amount of debris that enters the stream.  Logging slash that inadvertently enters the stream should be removed.  Lastly, minimize the number of bank trees that are harvested, as these help protect the integrity of the stream, provide shade, and stabilize the bank. 

Thanks for taking the time to increase your knowledge of BMPs and keep up the good work out there in the woods.  Also, please send in any BMP questions you may have, because chances are if you are unsure of something, there is someone else out there who has the same question.  Feel free to contact me at tthomas@tfs.tamu.edu or (936)-639-8180. 

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

June 2012 BMP Q&A

By: Todd Thomas, Water Resources Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q: Although it does not happen very often, occasionally I will come across a landowner who is not interested in leaving any sort of SMZs on their property. Next time I encounter this sort of situation, how should I handle it?

A: The best way to deal with this is to be informed of all of the benefits provided by SMZs. The first and foremost function of an SMZ is to protect water quality. SMZs protect water quality in four primary ways. The first is to slow down runoff from the surrounding area. By slowing down runoff, the potential for erosion next to the stream has been greatly reduced. The second is holding the soil adjacent to the stream in place; the roots of the vegetation that encompasses the SMZ do a tremendous job of this. The third is thermal protection. The shade provided by the SMZ helps to maintain the pH and the amount of oxygen in the water, maintaining the health of aquatic plants and animals. The fourth way that comes to mind is interception. SMZs intercept rainfall and drastically reduce the amount of sediment that can be displaced as a result of raindrops hitting bare soil directly. Remember, if we want clean water it only makes sense to protect it at its source.

If providing them with information on how SMZs protect water quality is not enough, provide them with some information on how SMZs benefit wildlife. It seems that most private landowners enjoy the wildlife on their property in some capacity and giving them this information could potentially change their mind. Any hunter knows that when you are in a clearcut, one of the best places to hunt is right along an SMZ, no matter what your quarry. One way that SMZs benefit wildlife is by providing edge. In a clearcut, edge is the area adjacent to the boundaries of the clearcut and the area around the SMZ. In these areas, the amount of vegetation that provide food for the wildlife is tremendous due to the amount of sunlight that previously was not reaching the area as well as an increased availability of nutrients and water. SMZs also provide travel corridors for wildlife. Since the SMZ is not as exposed as the rest of the clearcut, wildlife such as deer prefer to use it for travel due to less exposure. Many animals also use SMZs as nesting, den, and bedding sites; also a result of decreased exposure.

If they still are not convinced, remind them that according to Texas Forestry BMPs, SMZs can be thinned as long as they are not thinned so that the basal area gets below 50 square feet per acre. This allows a logger to remove the commercially viable timber while still maintaining the integrity of the SMZ. Basically, this land is not totally taken out of production, just managed in a fashion that protects water quality.

SMZs are an integral part of our best management practices and there is no good reason for removing them. Next time a landowner asks you to cut through an SMZ, remind them of all of the benefits provided by SMZs and what they will be missing out on. Remember, to send any questions you have about BMPs my way and I will be more than happy to answer them. You can reach me by e-mail at tthomas@tfs.tamu.edu or by phone at 936-639-8180. 

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

May 2012 BMP Q&A

By: Todd Thomas, Water Resources Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q: Recently we were doing some work on a tract that had a pond in the middle of it and just to be safe we left a buffer of trees around the pond. I understand that we are to leave an SMZ on perennial and intermittent streams as well as on ephemeral streams depending on site conditions; but what about ponds and why?

A: If the pond is connected to an intermittent or perennial stream, then leaving an SMZ is recommended. Professional judgment, just like with ephemeral streams, can be used on disconnected ponds. Certainly leaving a buffer around a pond is beneficial, and can help maintain high water quality as well as extend the lifespan of the pond.

First and foremost, the SMZ slows down runoff from the surrounding areas. Without this buffer, runoff water would continually gain speed as it headed towards the pond giving it the power to erode the surrounding soil and carry it into the water. Not only does this buffer slow down runoff, but the remaining vegetation intercepts rainfall. It’s hard to believe, but the impact of a raindrop can greatly displace soil. Instead of a direct hit, the trees catch the rain and slow it down so that its impact and resulting erosion is greatly reduced.

Increased sediment from erosion can eventually silt in a pond, but aside from this there is another reason to leave some of the surrounding trees. In all likelihood, trees have grown up on the dam. These trees should be left there or you risk weakening the dam and potentially losing the pond all together. Once these trees are removed, the roots and stumps rot out and an empty space is left there, weakening the structural integrity of the dam, and increasing the risk of the dam collapsing. Not only could you lose the pond, but the water from the dam breaking could cause massive erosion, making the other BMPs you implemented on the tract pointless.

Lastly, SMZs provide shade to the pond’s edge, helping keep the water in the more shallow areas cool. This is especially important for aquatic life such as small insects and fish, which often serve as food for the larger fish in the pond.

Next time you stumble across a pond or lake on a tract remember, that if it is part of a stream system, be sure to leave an SMZ. If it is not, consider the benefits of leaving a buffer if you deem it necessary.

Before I wrap this up, I want to take a moment and mention that the Texas Forest Service Water Resources Program has recently released a new online “blog” on which we will be discussing and highlighting current BMP and water related issues. The blog also contains all of our past BMP Q&A articles dating back to 2000! You can search through the articles by date or keyword and add your own thoughts and experiences by commenting on the posts. The blog is located at http://www.tfswater.blogspot.com. I would encourage you to stay up to date with the latest BMP news and information by checking it often. Be sure to tell your friends about this new resource as well.

In addition to the blog, there is a wealth of BMP information on the Texas Forest Service website at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water. If you have any questions you would like answered or to see in this article, please send them my way, you can contact me by phone at (936) 639-8180 or email at tthomas@tfs.tamu.edu.

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

Free Riparian Management Workshop - May 3, 2012

(Click on image for larger view)

The Lampasas Watershed Partnership will host a one-day “Proper Functioning Condition" Riparian workshop on May 3 in Hamilton, TX.

Riparian and wetland areas occur along watercourses or water bodies and occupy the transitional area between the upland and water ecosystems. Typical examples would include floodplains, stream banks and lakeshores.

Participants will learn the basic interaction of Hydrology, Erosion/Deposition, and Vegetation for central Texas creeks and rivers. Among topics to be covered are channels, floodplains, water table, vegetation, base flow, flood flow, sediment and how these things in combination are what make up the Riparian Area. The workshop, which is free and open to the public, consists of classroom and field instruction on the South Lampasas River.

The course primarily will be conducted by U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service personnel.

Three continuing education units will be available to holders of Texas Department of Agriculture private pesticide applicator licenses.

The workshop will be on May 3 at the Texas Game Warden Training Center, 4363 FM 1047, Hamilton, TX. Lunch will be provided for registered participants. The field portion will begin at the Texas Game Warden Training Center and then move down river to the Bettie Sheldon Black Ranch.

There is no fee required to attend these workshops, however, those who wish to attend must RSVP to Lisa Prcin by email or phone by May 1. For more information contact her at 254-774-6008 or lprcin@brc.tamus.edu. A draft workshop agenda is available at www.lampasasriver.org as well as maps to the workshop location.

The Lampasas River Watershed Partnership is a collaborative effort by local stakeholders, AgriLife Research, and the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board to address water quality concerns within the Lampasas River watershed through the development of a watershed protection plan.  The Lampasas River watershed encompasses parts of Mills, Hamilton, Lampasas, Coryell, Burnet, Bell and Williamson counties.

BMP Fact Sheets

Need Some Quick Info on Forestry Best Management Practices?


Texas Forest Service has several fact sheets available to help you understand various aspects of using Best Managment Practices during your forest operations. These are a great resources for landowners or land managers unfamiliar with forestry BMPs.

Topics include:

• BMP Guidelines Overview
• Forest Roads
• Reasonable BMP Expectations
• BMPs for Reforestation and Site Preparation
• Stream Crossings
• Streamside Management Zones 

March BMP Q&A

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

Q:  I have a client in East Texas whose timberland was damaged by the 2011 fires. The streamside management zones (SMZs) were damaged as well, and I am trying to give some advice on restoring these areas in order to continue protecting water quality. Would it be better to allow these areas to naturally heal or should I recommend taking action? 

A:  That is a really good question, and I would imagine that many of you might have been wondering the same thing.  As we all know, the two primary purposes of an SMZ are to reduce or eliminate the potential for nonpoint source pollution, like sediment and logging debris, from reaching streams, and to maintain cool water temperatures. Of course, they also provide other important benefits like maintaining the integrity and function of the stream, providing habitat and cover for wildlife, and helping with the aesthetics of the site. We all know that SMZs are important areas that serve important functions, so what do we do if they are burned in a wildfire?  Do we stand back or take action?

It can be a tricky situation, so here is what I would suggest:

First, start by making an initial assessment of the impacted SMZ to determine the severity of the damage, the density of surviving trees, the potential for regeneration, and the immediate threat to water quality. Once you have done that, you just might have enough information to conclude that the SMZ can heal itself on its own in a reasonable amount of time. That would certainly be the case in less severely burned areas where the basal area of surviving trees is at or near the recommended 50 square feet per acre and evenly distributed (refer to your BMP handbook if you need a refresher on basal area), the SMZ is still at least 50 feet wide on either side of the stream channel, the canopy trees are mostly intact or likely to survive, new tree seedlings and other vegetation are sprouting across the ground, and erosion does not appear to be a significant problem. However, these can be very tricky things to judge, especially if you don’t have much experience. In that case, I would certainly recommend getting some help from a professional forester.

In some situations it might be necessary to salvage at least part of the SMZ and possibly even replant it. This might be the case where the fire was severe, killing most of the trees and leaving very little vegetation, the SMZ does not appear to be re-growing on its own, and the lack of vegetation has led to substantial erosion concerns. Again, get help from a professional forester if you are unsure. If salvage and artificial regeneration are necessary I would strongly recommend that you take appropriate precautions and follow all applicable BMPs. Be especially careful to minimize the amount of ground disturbance resulting from your operations. As always, keep haul roads, skid trails, and landings outside the SMZ and avoid or minimize stream crossings. Trees and tops should not be felled across or pushed into the channel, and every effort should be made to protect and leave trees in the SMZ that are not severely damaged.

If re-planting is deemed necessary after evaluating the regeneration potential of the SMZ, then site preparation and machine planting should be avoided within the SMZ. When replanting, every effort should be made to ensure that the number of seedlings planted will meet the minimum recommended basal area of 50 square feet per acre and that the SMZ will encompass the standard 50 foot width on either side of the stream channel. Herbicide and fertilizer use should be limited within the SMZ and applied with extreme caution. Seeding or other erosion control practices could be installed to temporarily control short-term erosion issues until the SMZ becomes re-established.

The initial assessment should help you decided on a strategy for restoring the various conditions across the SMZ. In some situations it might make sense to stand back and let nature take its course, while prudent management might be appropriate for others. Either way, make sure you consider the potential impacts to water quality and follow all appropriate Best Management Practices. For a copy of the BMP handbook visit your local Texas Forest Service office or view online at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.  For questions regarding repairing damaged SMZs or BMPs in general please contact me by calling (936) 639-8180. 

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

November BMP Q&A

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

Q: We own several hundred acres of timberland which were lost due to the recent wildfires in East Texas. We have spoken with our consulting forester and are planning on conducting some salvage harvesting operations. Our property has a fairly good sized stream which usually flows 3-4 months out of the year during the wetter months. Most of what we will be harvesting was completely or nearly completely killed by the fire, although there are some areas with higher survival. I would like to know if you have any recommendations on how we should conduct our harvesting so that we have as little impact to water quality as possible.
 
A: Sorry to hear about your loss of timber during this unprecedented fire season. I am glad to hear that you have consulted a professional forester to help you with the recovery of some of your timbers value. I would be happy to provide some recommendations for Best Management Practices which will help you reduce the risk of impacting your streams water quality during your operations. It appears you likely have an intermittent stream that flows through your property based on your description of the stream. Let’s start with the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) along this stream.

SMZs provide several functions to help protect water quality. One of an SMZs primary functions is to provide shade to the water body. The shade provided by an SMZ helps regulate the water temperature, thereby protecting the thermal qualities of the stream. Many organisms have small tolerances to large thermal changes. Therefore, care should be taken during wildfire salvage operations not to remove more trees from the SMZ than absolutely necessary. Your forester should survey the SMZ, and make determinations of which trees will likely die from the fire, and which trees may survive. We recommend that any trees which may survive be left uncut to provide as much shade to the stream as possible. A good rule of thumb for hardwoods in the SMZ may be to leave any trees which still have at least 50% of their crown intact. As far as the pine trees go, if they are going to die from the fires we had this year, they have probably already turned brown and dropped their needles. Any pine trees which still have a majority of the crown in lush green needles should be saved if possible.

While selectively harvesting within the SMZ, care should be taken to disturb the ground as little as possible to maintain the SMZs protection of the stream from runoff. If the vegetation on the ground within the SMZ was completely consumed, efforts should be made to re-establish vegetation as soon as possible.

On rare occasion (flat terrain, lightly erodible soils, and cooler burned areas), a forester may use his professional judgment to determine if it is safe to narrow an SMZ so that it is less than the recommended 50’ on each side of a stream during salvage operations to recover some of the value. If it is determined that an SMZ will be narrower (maybe 30’– 40’ feet wide) than the 50’ recommendation, efforts should be made to disturb the soils and vegetation that would normally fall within the recommended SMZ as little as possible. Any mechanical or chemical site preparation or machine planting should be conducted outside the original 50’ buffer to reduce the risk of impairing water quality.

As far as the rest of the tract outside the SMZ; the harvesting, site preparation, and planting should all be conducted in accordance with all other BMP guidelines in the bluebook.

If you have any questions about wildfire salvage BMPs or any other BMPs please contact me.

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

The Texas Water Source - September 2011

September Issue of the Texas Water Source Now Available

• One More Reason for Leaving SMZs!
• Forest Landowners Meeting
• Agency Spotlight: Texas Logging Council
• Texas Pro Logger Program
• Water Conservation Bill Passes
• Upcoming Events

September BMP Q&A

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

Q:  I have a question about a landowner that is clear-cutting a wetland / forest swamp area. It is a patchy clearcut, and they are removing most of the merchantable trees (the cypress and gum), leaving most of the tallow, gnarly oaks, and willow. There are no issues with rutting because of the dry conditions, and all best management practices (BMPs), to the best of my knowledge, are being followed. Of course, it appears that the area is being over-harvested, because I know the BMP handbook says you’re supposed to treat forest swamp areas as if they were SMZs. The tricky part is that this is a land conversion harvest. The landowner has managed the property for timber for many years, but is conducting this harvest because he wants to turn the area into pastureland. In fact, cows are already on the site. However, as I understand it, because this is a land conversion harvest that is taking the property out of ongoing forestry, BMPs would not apply. Is this correct?

A:  An excellent question! Let me start by saying great work consulting the BMP handbook to find out about the guidelines for forest swamps. You are exactly right that the green section of the handbook recommends treating these areas as if they were SMZs; so clear-cutting would not be a recommended forest management strategy. I am also glad to hear that the dry conditions allowed you to operate in the wetland without causing ruts, because it is extremely important that the natural flow patterns of these areas be maintained in order to protect the wetland’s many beneficial functions.

Now, do BMPs apply to this wetland conversion harvest? Well the answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no.

First, let’s start with some background information. As most of you know, our forestry BMPs originate from the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which is directed at protecting our water resources. Section 404 of the CWA specifically relates to wetlands and makes it unlawful to “discharge dredged or fill material” (which includes rock, sand, soil, clay, and wood chips) into “waters of the United States” (which includes wetlands such as forest swamps) without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); commonly referred to as a 404 permit. This basically just means you can’t legally impact a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the ACOE. Fortunately, forestry is generally recognized as a land use that is compatible with wetland protection, and as a result, the CWA specifically exempts forestry operations from requiring 404 permitting.

However, that permit exemption comes with a few important conditions.

The first requires that the forestry operation qualify as “normal silviculture,” which includes such activities as soil bedding, site preparation, and harvesting. The second requires that the “fifteen mandatory road BMPs” are followed (check your BMP handbook if you are not familiar with these). The third requires that the operation must be conducted as part of an “established” silviculture operation; which means that the area has previously been managed for timber and the operation is just a continuation of that management. The fourth requires that no toxic pollutants be discharged into the waterway. And finally, the fifth requirement says that the purpose of the operation cannot be to convert any part of a wetland (such as a forest swamp) to a use that it was not previously subject to (such as pastureland). All five of these conditions must be met in order to be exempted from the 404 permit requirement.

Having gone through all of that, the answer to your question is “No.” While still a good idea, BMPs do not apply to your wetland conversion harvest, and therefore you are not required to harvest the area as if it were an SMZ. However, this is not because wetland conversion operations are somehow exempt from BMPs. Rather, it is because wetland conversion operations do not fall within the forestry exemption, and therefore, are required by federal law to have a section 404 permit from the ACOE.

For more information on wetlands and other BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or contact me by phone at (936) 639-8180.

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

June BMP Q&A

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

Q:   When dealing with temporary stream crossings, I have been told several things about where to put waterbars to prevent road sediment from entering the stream. I have heard that you are supposed to put a waterbar on each side of the streambank at the crossing to prevent any water flowing down the road from getting into the stream. I have also been told to never put any waterbars inside the SMZ. Would you please clear this up for me?

A:   It is certainly easy to see how both recommendations could seem valid, but let’s see if we can’t shed some light on this debate.

The thought behind closing out a temporary stream crossing by constructing a waterbar at the edge of a stream is that it will provide a place to stop or redirect any water entering the SMZ just before it gets into the stream. However, experience has shown that waterbars at the streamside typically serve more as a source of sediment. These waterbars will often slough off into the stream with a heavy rain. If rains are heavy enough to cause the stream to overflow its banks, the waterbar may be completely washed away.

Therefore, as a general rule, waterbars should be kept at least 50 feet away from the stream channel (i.e., outside the SMZ). A properly constructed waterbar at the edge of the SMZ will divert water off the road as it approaches the SMZ and give plenty of distance for the water to slow down, spread out, and drop any sediment before it reaches the stream. Just be sure you don’t construct a long narrow wing ditch off that water bar into the SMZ that will channelize the water and direct it into the stream.

Of course, as with any rule, there are exceptions. If your SMZ is wider than the minimum 50-foot recommendation then it would be alright to have a waterbar within the SMZ. If you are dealing with steep approaches and erosive soils then it may be necessary to construct an additional waterbar with in the 50-foot buffer. However, you should try to keep it as far back from the stream bank as possible and be sure that it does not discharge directly into the stream channel.

It is important that you also re-establish the original slope and condition of the streambank as best as you can when you pull out your temporary stream crossing. An effort should be made to stabilize the streambanks where the crossing and approaches to the crossing were. Stabilizing these areas becomes even more important for crossings with more erodible soils or steeper slopes. This can be accomplished using grass seed or logging slash; however, you want to make sure that any logging slash you put next to the stream is well incorporated into the soil and above flood level so that it will not wash into the channel during high flows. If this is done, there should be little or no erosion at the crossing.

As always, the very best way to prevent sediment from entering a stream at a crossing is to avoid putting in the crossing in the first place.

For more information on stream crossing BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or contact me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the June 2011 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

BMP Informer - May 2008

May Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Forestry Services Vendor Database
• Famous Trees of Texas
• Improving My Land - Streamside Management Zones
• Interactive Website on Forests & Trees
• Determining Stream Types
• Texas Forest Service District Offices Serving You

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

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

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

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