October Issue of the BMP Informer Now AvailableTuesday, October 1, 2002
October BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: Last month, you mentioned a report that the Texas Forest Service publishes regarding the results of randomly inspected forestry activities for BMP implementation. I was very pleased to see that the forestry community in East Texas had reached an all time high for the past round of monitoring. How does Texas compare to other states in BMP implementation monitoring rates?
A: I knew someone would ask this question before too long! Does the old saying, “Everything is bigger in Texas” apply to forestry BMP implementation monitoring rates? This is somewhat difficult to answer due to the variations in the actual forestry BMPs and monitoring programs among the states, but I will give it a shot.
The manner in which forestry BMPs are administered generally fall into one of two categories: regulatory or non-regulatory. Although there is no significant difference in BMP implementation rates between the two approaches, it is easier to compare apples to apples. Texas is currently operating under the non-regulatory approach, so let’s look at other states that use this same method.
Non-regulatory BMP programs are widely found throughout the South, from South Carolina to Texas. However, the actual BMP recommendations can vary significantly among the Southern states. For example, the guidelines for SMZ width and residual density along intermittent streams may be completely different from state to state. It is important to recognize these differences when comparing BMP implementation rates.
Variations can also be found in the monitoring program (monitoring frequency, site selection, scoring methodology, risk assessment, etc.). To counteract this, a Regional BMP Implementation Monitoring Protocol has been developed and approved by the Southern Group of State Foresters. This protocol improved the integrity of BMP monitoring in the South by providing a statistically sound, objective, and technically defensible approach to measuring BMP implementation. The results are generally comparable among states.
As I mentioned in the last month’s article, the overall BMP implementation rate found for the fifth round of monitoring (2002) in Texas was 91.5%. BMP implementation rates for the state of Louisiana (2000) were also found to be in this range. Arkansas recently released the results of their latest survey (2001) and found overall BMP implementation to be 83%. Oklahoma should be completing their next survey in the near future and Mississippi is currently in the process of customizing a monitoring program that will follow the above mentioned protocol.
Texas is definitely at the top of the list in BMP implementation rates. In order for the saying, “everything is bigger in Texas” to remain true, the forestry community must continue its hard work and effort in protecting water quality through the implementation of BMPs. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the October 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Q: Last month, you mentioned a report that the Texas Forest Service publishes regarding the results of randomly inspected forestry activities for BMP implementation. I was very pleased to see that the forestry community in East Texas had reached an all time high for the past round of monitoring. How does Texas compare to other states in BMP implementation monitoring rates?
A: I knew someone would ask this question before too long! Does the old saying, “Everything is bigger in Texas” apply to forestry BMP implementation monitoring rates? This is somewhat difficult to answer due to the variations in the actual forestry BMPs and monitoring programs among the states, but I will give it a shot. The manner in which forestry BMPs are administered generally fall into one of two categories: regulatory or non-regulatory. Although there is no significant difference in BMP implementation rates between the two approaches, it is easier to compare apples to apples. Texas is currently operating under the non-regulatory approach, so let’s look at other states that use this same method.
Non-regulatory BMP programs are widely found throughout the South, from South Carolina to Texas. However, the actual BMP recommendations can vary significantly among the Southern states. For example, the guidelines for SMZ width and residual density along intermittent streams may be completely different from state to state. It is important to recognize these differences when comparing BMP implementation rates.
Variations can also be found in the monitoring program (monitoring frequency, site selection, scoring methodology, risk assessment, etc.). To counteract this, a Regional BMP Implementation Monitoring Protocol has been developed and approved by the Southern Group of State Foresters. This protocol improved the integrity of BMP monitoring in the South by providing a statistically sound, objective, and technically defensible approach to measuring BMP implementation. The results are generally comparable among states.
As I mentioned in the last month’s article, the overall BMP implementation rate found for the fifth round of monitoring (2002) in Texas was 91.5%. BMP implementation rates for the state of Louisiana (2000) were also found to be in this range. Arkansas recently released the results of their latest survey (2001) and found overall BMP implementation to be 83%. Oklahoma should be completing their next survey in the near future and Mississippi is currently in the process of customizing a monitoring program that will follow the above mentioned protocol.
Texas is definitely at the top of the list in BMP implementation rates. In order for the saying, “everything is bigger in Texas” to remain true, the forestry community must continue its hard work and effort in protecting water quality through the implementation of BMPs. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the October 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Sunday, September 1, 2002
September BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: A few months ago, I received a copy of the Texas BMP Monitoring Checklist regarding one of my logging operations in the mail. I thought that I did a real good job following the Best Management Practices (BMPs) on this site and was glad to see that you felt the same way. In general, how are East Texas loggers doing in implementing forestry BMPs? Isn’t there some kind of report that the Texas Forest Service publishes documenting their findings?
A: There sure is! The report you are talking about “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas” is currently at the printers and should be available in several weeks. An online version is posted on the TFS webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. This information is extremely important because it shows how well voluntary efforts are protecting water quality.
The Texas Forest Service has published this report every two years, starting with the first round of BMP implementation monitoring in 1992. The current report, round 5, was compiled from the results of 150 site evaluations in which silvicultural activities were monitored between August 16, 2000 and April 23, 2002.
Random selection of potential sites is critical, and is primarily done through aerial detection of forestry operations. These sites may include any “normal” forestry activity (clearcuts, thinnings, site preparation, planting, etc.) and preferably have occurred within the last year. Before any BMP evaluation is conducted, permission must be granted by the landowner.
Overall BMP implementation for the monitored tracts was 91.5%, the highest rate ever in the history of the program. In general, implementation was higher on tracts under public or industrial ownership. The breakdown of the monitoring sites among ownership groups is as follows:
Q: A few months ago, I received a copy of the Texas BMP Monitoring Checklist regarding one of my logging operations in the mail. I thought that I did a real good job following the Best Management Practices (BMPs) on this site and was glad to see that you felt the same way. In general, how are East Texas loggers doing in implementing forestry BMPs? Isn’t there some kind of report that the Texas Forest Service publishes documenting their findings?
The Texas Forest Service has published this report every two years, starting with the first round of BMP implementation monitoring in 1992. The current report, round 5, was compiled from the results of 150 site evaluations in which silvicultural activities were monitored between August 16, 2000 and April 23, 2002.
Random selection of potential sites is critical, and is primarily done through aerial detection of forestry operations. These sites may include any “normal” forestry activity (clearcuts, thinnings, site preparation, planting, etc.) and preferably have occurred within the last year. Before any BMP evaluation is conducted, permission must be granted by the landowner.
Overall BMP implementation for the monitored tracts was 91.5%, the highest rate ever in the history of the program. In general, implementation was higher on tracts under public or industrial ownership. The breakdown of the monitoring sites among ownership groups is as follows:
Public (10 sites) – 98.4%
Industry (66 sites) – 96.1%
NIPF (74 sites) – 86.4%
Major improvements from the last round of monitoring include an increase in overall BMP implementation on stream crossings and roads as well as an increase in implementation rates across all ownership groups. Although progress has been made in road and stream crossing construction, there is still room for improvement since these areas can have an impact on water quality.
Through the hard work and commitment of the forestry community, we have done an excellent job in protecting water quality by implementing BMPs on our forestry activities. Let’s challenge ourselves to improve upon this all time high, and reach an overall implementation rate of 95% for the next round. Congratulations on a job well done! If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the September 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Thursday, August 1, 2002
August BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: A major perennial stream flows through our property and floods at least once a year. These high waters have blown out several culverts and caused severe erosion on the stream banks. Reinstalling another culvert is extremely expensive, so we have decided to retire this rarely used crossing. However, we still would like to stabilize the banks to keep them from washing into the stream. Is there an effective way to accomplish this?
A: Stream crossings can be very expensive to install and maintain, and if they don’t function properly, can cause major impacts to water quality. These “contact points” are areas where soil can directly enter streams. Retiring old crossings that are not used and stabilizing their stream banks are excellent practices to reduce the potential severity of sedimentation problems.
There are several effective ways that you can stabilize the stream banks of this crossing. Establishing a good vegetative cover on these erodible sites through seeding will help keep the bank intact and filter runoff water before it reaches the stream. Seed mixes should include a variety of grasses suited for the site conditions present to ensure a high survival rate. Planting in the spring or fall can greatly increase the success of this operation. Fertilizers should not be applied inside the Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) to prevent stream contamination.
Depending on the time of year and the site conditions, grasses may not always grow in these areas. Spreading hay along these banks can also provide erosion control. This method is extremely effective when it is done after seeding. As the hay decomposes, the grass seed begins to germinate and holds the soil in place. This material can be applied more efficiently and evenly distributed using hay blowers. Care should be taken to avoid hay from reaching the stream channel.
Another method that works well is installing rock along the slopes. Securing this material in place can provide great erosion protection and bank stability, however this procedure is generally more expensive than the above mentioned. It is also important to prevent rocks from entering the channel and impeding stream flow.
There are many other techniques that can be implemented to help with this problem, including geotextiles, bioengineering products, and other erosion control fabrics. More information can be found on the Texas Forest Service webpage under the BMP Product and Vendor Guide. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
Q: A major perennial stream flows through our property and floods at least once a year. These high waters have blown out several culverts and caused severe erosion on the stream banks. Reinstalling another culvert is extremely expensive, so we have decided to retire this rarely used crossing. However, we still would like to stabilize the banks to keep them from washing into the stream. Is there an effective way to accomplish this?
A: Stream crossings can be very expensive to install and maintain, and if they don’t function properly, can cause major impacts to water quality. These “contact points” are areas where soil can directly enter streams. Retiring old crossings that are not used and stabilizing their stream banks are excellent practices to reduce the potential severity of sedimentation problems.
 |
| Restored and seeded stream crossing |
Depending on the time of year and the site conditions, grasses may not always grow in these areas. Spreading hay along these banks can also provide erosion control. This method is extremely effective when it is done after seeding. As the hay decomposes, the grass seed begins to germinate and holds the soil in place. This material can be applied more efficiently and evenly distributed using hay blowers. Care should be taken to avoid hay from reaching the stream channel.
Another method that works well is installing rock along the slopes. Securing this material in place can provide great erosion protection and bank stability, however this procedure is generally more expensive than the above mentioned. It is also important to prevent rocks from entering the channel and impeding stream flow.
There are many other techniques that can be implemented to help with this problem, including geotextiles, bioengineering products, and other erosion control fabrics. More information can be found on the Texas Forest Service webpage under the BMP Product and Vendor Guide. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the August 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Monday, July 1, 2002
July BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: My family owns some forested property located near the Red River Valley in Lamar County that we use extensively for recreation. The heavy rains that fell this past winter have caused severe erosion to occur on the main road, making it impassable in certain areas. We tried revegetating it with grass, but the seed did not take, probably because the area is heavily shaded by hardwoods. This is the only road that provides access to the backside of the property and we must be able to drive it. What can we do?
A: The sandy soils that are typical of the landscape along the Red River Valley are highly erodible. Combine this with the heavy rains we had this past winter and even the slightest topography, and it is extremely difficult to keep your road from washing. However, the use of certain Best Management Practices can prevent this from occurring.
The first area of concern that needs to be addressed is the shading of the road system. Road systems that are heavily shaded do not receive enough sunlight necessary to dry them after storm events. This can lead to rutting and increased washing, which ultimately limits vehicular access. Harvesting trees along the road bank can ensure drying of the road and will go along way in fixing the erosion problem.
The road will also need to be reconstructed in the areas that have severe erosion in order to make them passable again. During the reconstruction process, it is important to consider installing water control devices. These structures are useful in diverting water off the roadway, reducing the erosion hazard of the site. Rolling dips can be used to accomplish this and at the same time, allow truck traffic on the road. A medium sized dozer should be able to handle this task.
To provide additional protection to your road, it would be a good idea to revegetate it again. This activity will help hold the soil in place, stabilizing it so that future washing will be minimal. Since the hardwood trees are not shading the area anymore, more sunlight can reach the seeds, allowing them to germinate. If necessary, fertilizer can be applied to speed up the process of establishing vegetative cover.
Fixing washed out roads can become quite expensive and time consuming, but is absolutely necessary in order to have good access to your property. It also prevents sedimentation from occurring in nearby streams. Finding a contractor that can perform a turnkey operation (harvest the roadside timber, rework, and revegetate the road) on your property will be more economical.
The Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Bluebook can help you with the recommended specifications of constructing rolling dips (p. 45-46) and seeding (p. 61-65). If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the July 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Q: My family owns some forested property located near the Red River Valley in Lamar County that we use extensively for recreation. The heavy rains that fell this past winter have caused severe erosion to occur on the main road, making it impassable in certain areas. We tried revegetating it with grass, but the seed did not take, probably because the area is heavily shaded by hardwoods. This is the only road that provides access to the backside of the property and we must be able to drive it. What can we do?
A: The sandy soils that are typical of the landscape along the Red River Valley are highly erodible. Combine this with the heavy rains we had this past winter and even the slightest topography, and it is extremely difficult to keep your road from washing. However, the use of certain Best Management Practices can prevent this from occurring.
The first area of concern that needs to be addressed is the shading of the road system. Road systems that are heavily shaded do not receive enough sunlight necessary to dry them after storm events. This can lead to rutting and increased washing, which ultimately limits vehicular access. Harvesting trees along the road bank can ensure drying of the road and will go along way in fixing the erosion problem.
The road will also need to be reconstructed in the areas that have severe erosion in order to make them passable again. During the reconstruction process, it is important to consider installing water control devices. These structures are useful in diverting water off the roadway, reducing the erosion hazard of the site. Rolling dips can be used to accomplish this and at the same time, allow truck traffic on the road. A medium sized dozer should be able to handle this task.
To provide additional protection to your road, it would be a good idea to revegetate it again. This activity will help hold the soil in place, stabilizing it so that future washing will be minimal. Since the hardwood trees are not shading the area anymore, more sunlight can reach the seeds, allowing them to germinate. If necessary, fertilizer can be applied to speed up the process of establishing vegetative cover.
Fixing washed out roads can become quite expensive and time consuming, but is absolutely necessary in order to have good access to your property. It also prevents sedimentation from occurring in nearby streams. Finding a contractor that can perform a turnkey operation (harvest the roadside timber, rework, and revegetate the road) on your property will be more economical.
The Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Bluebook can help you with the recommended specifications of constructing rolling dips (p. 45-46) and seeding (p. 61-65). If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the July 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Saturday, June 1, 2002
June BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: Five years ago, we harvested timber and left an extra wide (200 feet on either side) Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) along an intermittent stream. The erosion hazard on this tract is very slight due to the slope and soil type, and it was reforested the following year. The reason for leaving such a large zone was for wildlife habitat. This property is currently under a hunting lease and by doing this, my lessees will benefit from improved hunting. However, I would still like to thin this SMZ in the future, but do not want to wipe out part of my 4 year old plantation to ensure that a set is not located inside the SMZ. What can I do?
A: First off, I am very pleased to hear that you have left such a wide SMZ. This will not only provide larger travel corridors for wildlife, but it will also function in greater water quality protection. Maybe now your lessees will understand if the price of their hunting lease rises.
 |
| Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) protect water quality and provide wildlife habitat |
However, the book also states that SMZs should have a minimum width of 50 feet on either side of perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Since the width of your SMZ was extended past the minimum guidelines for purposes other than water quality protection (wildlife habitat), I do not think it is necessary to clear part of your new plantation for this set. The extra width on your SMZ should give you plenty of room to comply with both recommendations.
During the thinning operation, I would suggest locating the set just inside the area that was left for wildlife habitat. This maximizes the distance from the set to the intermittent stream while allowing you to save your new plantation. The residual density in the first 50 feet along the stream should be at least 50 square feet of basal area per acre, evenly distributed. Skid trails should be minimized in this area also.
If possible, sets should have a slight slope to permit drainage and be on firm, well drained soils that dry quickly. This practice can prevent mud holes from forming. Equipment that is serviced on-site should be done very carefully to avoid spills. Used chemicals should be drained into containers and properly disposed in accordance with all laws and regulations. Any trash associated with the thinning operation should be removed. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the June 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)