May BMP Q&A

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

Q: Two months ago I addressed the areas in which deficiencies were observed in 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 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, three major improvements were noted: 1) a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality 2) a higher overall rate of BMP implementation on avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings and 3) a higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands.

To begin with, let’s take a look at the first improvement – a decrease in the number of significant risks to water quality.  A significant risk to water quality is an existing on-the-ground condition resulting from failure to correctly implement BMPs, that if left unmitigated, has already or will likely result in an adverse change in the chemical, physical or biological condition of a waterbody. Such change may or may not violate water quality standards. Of the 18 significant risks identified, 15 of them were for not properly removing and restoring temporary stream crossings. Significant risks to water quality can be avoided by making sure that roads are properly stabilized, stream crossings are properly removed, restored, and stabilized, and that there is an adequate SMZ along all perennial and intermittent streams.

The second improvement that was identified was a higher overall rate of BMP implementation on avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary stream crossings. A good job is being done at avoiding or minimizing the number of temporary crossings installed during operations.  This is a major improvement because stream crossings come in direct contact with the stream. By choosing to cross a stream the risk of impacting water quality is increased.  Proper planning and using available resources such as topographic maps, aerial photos, and “on the ground” reconnaissance can help you determine if a stream crossing is necessary; and if so, where they should be located to minimize the number needed.

The third improvement that was identified was a higher overall BMP implementation on site preparation and wetlands.  Fifty-three sites were evaluated for implementation with site preparation BMPs. The implementation for site preparation was 98% with one significant risk noted. The lowest implementation was for honoring SMZ integrity and respecting sensitive areas (96% for both categories). Seventeen sites had wetland or “wetland like” areas – not necessarily jurisdictional wetlands. These sites had an overall implementation of 100%. No significant risks were noted and all mandatory road BMPs for wetlands were followed.

Overall a good job is being done implementing and adhering to Texas BMP guidelines as shown by the 91.5% BMP implementation rate for Round 7. Hopefully in the future there will be a continued improvement of the BMP implementation rate.

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 (903) 297-3910.

* This article was published in the May 2009 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

The Texas Water Source - March 2009

March Issue of the Texas Water Source Now Available

• Texas Forest Service BMP Project
• BMP Implementation Report
• Agency Spotlight: The Texas Water Development Board
• TWDB and Regional Water Planning
• What is a Watershed?
• Texas Forest Service Offices

February BMP Q&A

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

Q:  Several months ago you wrote that the Texas Forest Service was conducting another BMP implementation survey.  I wanted to know if the survey has been completed and if so what were some of the results? 

A:  Yes, the Texas Forest Service recently completed its seventh round of BMP implementation monitoring. Since 1990 the Texas Forest Service has conducted this monitoring with the purpose of determining and showing how well landowners, foresters, and loggers are implementing these voluntary practices.  This month I will give an overview of the latest monitoring results and over the next few months I will go into more detail regarding the results.

Texas Forest Service monitored 152 sites representing 13,742 acres from June 20, 2007 to November 18, 2008.  Sites were chosen randomly throughout East Texas based on the annual harvest of each county and ownership group.  Also all sites chosen had some type of silvicultural activity conducted on them during this time period.  Four ownership groups were targeted, including public, industry, corporate (commercial landowners that do not have wood processing facilities) and private landowners.  Each landowner was contacted and only with landowner permission was the site monitored.

Public ownership had the highest rating (100%) in protecting water quality, followed by corporate (95.7%), industry (91.1%) and private landowners (88.7%).  Overall BMP implementation was 91.5%.  Ratings were significantly higher when:

• A professional forester was involved in the activity or sale
• The logger had attended the BMP training workshop
• he landowner was familiar with BMPs
• BMPs were included in the timber sale contract
• The landowner was a member of the American Tree Farm System
• The timber was delivered to a major SFI^® mill

Landowners and loggers continue to do a good job of implementing BMPs on their operations and, hopefully, in the future we can see a continued improvement of the BMP implementation rate.  The basis for continued success in this project is education.  Significant improvement in BMP implementation has been noted since their development in 1989, largely due to the numerous BMP training workshops, seminars, and demonstration tours that have been conducted throughout the state.  Remember that one way we can continue to improve is to recognize the importance of using BMPs to protect water quality by treating each silvicultural operation as if it will be evaluated. 

Over the next few of months I will discuss areas in which improvements were noted as well as areas in which improvement is needed compared to previous monitoring rounds.  Also I will discuss each landowner category and break down their strengths and weaknesses.  To view a copy of the 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 February 2009 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Temporary stream crossings are used to gain vehicular access across a stream during a forest operation, without causing unnecessary or excessive impact to the integrity of the stream channel or water quality, and are promptly and completely removed after the operation is completed. Do you know what 2 pages in the BMP handbook specifically list these water crossing guidelines. (Hint: section 3 and section10).

Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

December BMP Q&A

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

Q:  I am interested in replanting my cutover timberland, but want to make sure that I follow all state recommended Best Management Practices.  Mechanical site preparation was done on the contour several months ago and the site is ready to plant.  What do I need to be aware of to ensure that water quality is protected during the planting operation?                 

A:  I am very glad to hear that you are interested in replanting your property.  This act of good stewardship will allow you to receive a better return on your investment and help satisfy the ever-increasing demand for forest products.  It will also aid in water quality protection.  Senate Bill 977 and other key legislation have developed tax incentives to encourage reforestation, so make sure you take advantage of these laws.  

The potential threat from erosion and sedimentation is not as great in planting operations as it is in mechanical site preparation.  A larger area is generally disturbed more intensively in the latter, therefore a higher risk to water quality is present.  Several factors can influence the magnitude of this risk, mainly the amount of exposed soil, degree of slope, and type of soil.   

Machine planting along the contour reduces erosion risks

Laying out your mechanical site preparation on the contour was an EXCELLENT thing to do!  This practice reduces the amount of erosion that can occur on a site, because it functions as a terrace.  When rainfall hits the top of a hill, the contours help slow down the runoff water.  This allows any sediment that has been eroded away from the hillside to be deposited before it can reach a waterbody. 

When planting, especially using a machine, it is important to continue to follow the contour of the land.  By not doing this, you are increasing the possibility of erosion that may occur.  Water will quickly flow down a furrow, washing out the soil in these rows.  Skid trails, temporary roads, and other woods roads that are no longer needed should be planted through. 

Streamside Management Zones should always be clearly designated so that they are protected from site preparation and planting operations.  These areas function as filters for streams and creeks, so minimal disturbance from equipment is recommended.

During these silvicultural processes, water control devices (culverts, waterbars, wing ditches, etc.) may become damaged.  It is important to avoid this if possible, but in the event that it occurs, repairs should be made immediately.  Reasonable attempts should be made to stabilize any erosion that results.   

Any trash (fluids, equipment parts, paper and plastic products, etc.) that is associated with these activities should be hauled to a legal waste disposal site.  Equipment fluids need to be caught in containers and disposed of in accordance with state and manufacturer regulations.  If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180

* This article was published in the December 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Effectiveness Monitoring 2008

Texas Forest Service BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Study Results Now Available 

Results from the Texas Silvicultural BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Project conducted between 2003 and 2007 are now available in a recently released report titled "Evaluating the Effectiveness of Texas Forestry Best Management Practices." This project was initiated to determine the effectiveness of BMPs in reducing nonpoint source (NPS) pollution from silvicultural activities in Texas. This report documents the findings of this 4 year long monitoring project.

Results from the project indicate that Texas forestry BMPs, when implemented properly, are effective in protecting water quality and aquatic biological communities, and further established that forestry BMPs are the optimum means for minimizing silvicultural nonpoint source pollution.