March BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   I have been reading the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices (Bluebook) and am a little confused about some of the Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) guidelines, especially regarding thinning within these areas. Would you mind trying to clarify these guidelines?

A:   Certainly! SMZs are very important areas that should be established when conducting forestry operations. These areas provide many benefits to us, mainly through the protection of water quality by filtering runoff water before it enters waterways. To offset potential monetary losses for establishing SMZs, tax incentives were passed by the 76th Texas Legislature to encourage these practices.

A SMZ is a 50-foot strip of trees between the stream channel and the harvest area. These zones are primarily left on perennial and intermittent streams, but depending on site conditions, you may also want to establish them on ephemeral streams. Specific attention is given to management activities within these areas to protect instream and downstream water quality.

Partial harvesting (thinning) is acceptable within the SMZ. A minimum residual density of 50 square feet of basal area per acre should be retained. Basal area is generally measured using a 10 factor angle gauge (prism) and is based on the theory of the probability of selection being proportional to tree size. There is no minimum diameter limit for residual trees.

If you are not familiar with the concept of ' 'basal area" or do not have a prum, a. general rule of thumb that you can use is to retain a minimum of 50% of the original Crown cover. This is easily accomplished by looking up at the canopy and visualizing how it will look after the harvest while you are marking the trees to be cut. Keep in mind that in order to stay Within the guidelines, you usually must remove less than half of the original timber in the SMZ.

When thinning the SMZ, it is important to remember that the residual trees should be evenly distributed. Large gaps or open patches where the basal area falls below 50 square feet per acre should be avoided when possible. This can reduce the filtering and shading capacity of the SMZ. It is also important to plan for the damage and accidental felling of "leave" trees while thinning within this zone. SMZs that do not have an original basal area of 50 square feet per acre should not be thinned.

Placing a higher priority on removing the more valuable timber (mature pine) over lesser valuable timber (scrub hardwoods) can help reduce the financial burden of leaving an SMZ. However, harvesting this timber under certain site conditions may cause additional water quality impacts. Operating heavy equipment while the ground is saturated may cause rutting and sedimentation. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the March 2003 issue of the Texas Logger

February BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   I recently received a reminder card in the mail from the Texas Forest Service (TFS) regarding a Texas Logger Questionnaire that was mailed in mid–November. I don’t remember receiving one in the mail, but may have misplaced it. Would you mind sending me another questionnaire that I can fill out? Also, I would appreciate some background information on this questionnaire.

A:   No problem! We will be happy to send you a copy of the Texas Logger Questionnaire. After you have finished filling it out, just place it in the postage-paid Business Reply envelope and drop it in the mail. This will help minimize your time and cost throughout this process.

The purpose of this survey is to gather your input on how the TFS can better serve loggers in Texas. It is designed to collect information about your activities and needs as loggers. The results will be used to help the TFS understand and address the needs of the logging community.

On November 13, 2002, 1,955 Texas Logger Questionnaires were mailed to the logging community. Survey responses started to steadily trickle in shortly after this date. On December 6, 2002 a reminder card was sent to encourage more replies. To date, we have received 269 surveys.

A total of 28 questions are on this four-page survey. Multiple choice and scale questions comprise the majority of the survey, but there are a few areas where respondents are given the opportunity to actually write out their answers.

There are certain questions that are asked to reveal general information about the demographics of the logging community (i.e. What is your primary position? What area of the state are you located? How many years have you been in the logging business?). Other questions on the survey provide direct feedback to the TFS regarding its service to the logging community (i.e. Is the support and outreach provided by the TFS important to the logging community? Does the TFS meet your needs? Please list some areas that the TFS could do better or is doing well to meet your needs.).

The Texas Logger Questionnaire is completely confidential and anonymous, and only summary information will be reported in the study results. Participants may request a complimentary copy of the results by contacting the TFS at (936) 639-8180 or (903) 665-7400. The results will also be posted on our webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.

We appreciate your participation in this survey. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.

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

January BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:    A tract that I have been working on in Southeast Texas has started to get wet from all of the recent rains. I pulled my crew off when I noticed that my skidders were starting to cause some rutting. This is really frustrating knowing that I am almost finished with the job and that it will probably be site prepared this summer. What is the big deal about rutting anyway?

A:    First, I would like to commend you for moving off the job site when you noticed the rutting. It can be difficult and very tempting not to do this, especially when you only have a small piece left to finish. It is this kind of attitude that will allow Texas to maintain its high BMP implementation rates and keep the guidelines from becoming regulatory.

The major concern with rutting, as with any BMP guideline, is water quality protection. Ruts, especially on hillsides and slopes, can channel rainwater so that sediment will be delivered to streams. These ruts eventually turn into gullies, and become much harder to control. Also, if you are working in wetlands, it is important not to impede, restrict, or change natural water flows and drainages.

Other problems associated with rutting that are not directly related to water quality include site productivity and accessibility. Extensive rutting can lead to soil compaction, which can have a significant impact on future tree growth. Costly site preparation work must be done to correct this problem. In low-lying areas, rutting can cause water to pond. This is especially troublesome on roadways that receive heavy traffic.

As a general rule of thumb, rutting should not exceed a depth of six inches over a distance of more than 50 feet. This guideline is normally applied to haul roads and skid trails, but if this is occurring over the whole tract, it is probably time to move off. Roads should be reworked to remove ruts that exceed these guidelines. Reducing skidder loads is a good way to help minimize rutting under wet conditions.

If wet weather forces you to pull off a job, be sure to dress up the skid trails and temporary roads with waterbars or other structures if necessary. It may be a long time before you are able to move back on the site with your equipment and significant erosion can occur. Road washouts may cause you to spend extra time fixing the road when you could otherwise be finishing the operation.

This subject is covered in both the Recommended Specifications section (blue) and the Forest Wetlands section (green) of the Blue Book. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the January 2003 issue of the Texas Logger

December BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   This month’s BMP article is a continuation of last month’s question. That question asked me to explain the “problem areas” in greater detail that were noted in the BMP Implementation Report.

A:   The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the second deficiency.

What exactly is a significant risk to water quality? The Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee defines it as “a situation or set of conditions that have resulted in or very likely will result in the measurable and significant degradation of water quality, and that can be remedied or otherwise mitigated.” This group developed a framework to provide south-wide guidance for monitoring BMP implementation.

Steep topography and highly erodible soils are key site conditions that are often associated with significant risks. Conducting forestry operations under these conditions without the proper implementation of certain BMPs may have a high potential to result in significant risk to water quality.

Overall, twenty-eight significant risks to water quality were noted in the fifth round of BMP implementation monitoring. All of these risks fell under private ownership (24 on non industrial private forest landowners and 4 on industry). The major areas of concern were stream crossings, streamside management zones, and to a lesser extent, roads and skid trails. Examples of forestry activities where significant risks were identified include not stabilizing or restoring stream crossings, not leaving a SMZ along intermittent streams, not removing logging debris from the stream channel, and not installing appropriate drainage structures on road systems.

Documenting the occurrence of significant risk is a very important part of the BMP site evaluations. This type of risk assessment lends much credibility and integrity to the BMP monitoring program by recognizing that high risk conditions can occur, and that prevention and/or restoration is a high priority to state forestry agencies. It also may show that the lack of BMPs may not necessarily equate to a water quality problem. Finally, this tool not only protects the environment, but may also protect the landowner and operator from what otherwise may result in enforcement proceedings or other personal liability.

It is extremely important that we improve upon the deficiencies that were noted in this report. These problems can have a definite impact on water quality, and will attract the attention of regulators. Continue to do the best job that you can and everything will take care of itself. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the December 2002 issue of the Texas Logger

November BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   The other day, I read the executive summary of the BMP report that you have been mentioning in this article the past two months. I saw that there were two major deficiencies noted in the evaluations. Could you explain these “problem areas” in greater detail?

A:   Sure! The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the first deficiency.

Stream crossings are generally an area of concern because they have the potential to contribute a large amount of dirt to a stream. When these structures are not installed properly and without using BMPs, water quality may become impacted. The report primarily identified stream crossings on temporary roads, but crossings on permanent roads can cause similar problems.

These structures can be expensive to install and maintain, costing you both time and money. With proper planning, you might decide that crossing a stream may not be necessary. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil surveys, and on the ground field evaluations are excellent tools that can help you make these decisions. Going around the head of streams can also be a very effective and practical way to access the other side.

There are many situations when you have no other option but to install a crossing. The key is to minimize the amount of dirt that enters the stream. Dirt crossings should never be used. Logs or brush placed lengthwise in the stream channel can serve as good alternatives, as long as they are removed when the operation is completed. Drag line mats and “Arkansas bridges” also work effectively. If you decide to use a culvert, make sure it is properly sized and that you have the equipment to remove it and the fill dirt when the operation is finished.

Whenever you are putting in a crossing, find the straightest section of that stream and cross it at a right angle. This will help to minimize bank disturbance and reduce the amount of sloughing that occurs. It is also important to stabilize the approaches with grass, rip-rap, or other erosion control materials to ensure a stable roadbed approach and reduce the amount of dirt entering the stream.

Since the inception of the BMP monitoring program, stream crossings have always been a thorn in our side. We have made great strides over the past 10 years in installing these structures. This progress is best noted by the increase in BMP implementation ratings on stream crossings from Round 4 (67%) to Round 5 (85%). However, there is still plenty of room for improvement in these areas. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the November 2002 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Informer - October 2002

October Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Remember BMPs When Planting
• Seedlings On-line!
• Improving My Land Permanent Stream Crossings
• How Do I Know What Size Culvert I Should Use?
• Forestry and Water Quality Protection in East Texas
• Culvert Installation

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