July BMP Q&A

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

Q: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed rules often mention and refer to various watersheds. I remember hearing a definition somewhere, maybe at a logger training session. What exactly is a watershed?

A: A watershed is an area that includes all the land and water within the confines of a drainage divide or a water area consisting in whole, or in part, of a land needing drainage or irrigation. Say What!?! Basically a watershed is an area of land that drains into a stream or lake. For example, one segment of the Sabine River or the Angelina River may drain 1600 square miles. In comparison, a small stream located on the property you are logging may drain hundreds or less acres. These small watersheds are all linked together and collectively form larger watersheds like the Trinity River watershed or the Cypress Creek Basin watershed.

While forested watersheds provide the highest quality water, harvesting activities have the potential to lead to erosion that could enter these watersheds. Best Management Practices help keep the soil in place and out of the watershed. The use of streamside management zones (SMZs) and the proper construction of ditches, so that they do not empty directly into streams, help prevent siltation into streams. You can see that it is important to use SMZs and other BMPs because by protecting the smaller watersheds from erosion and sedimentation, in turn you are protecting the larger watersheds.

A watershed, depicted above, is an area of land that drains rainfall into a stream.

The figure above depicts a watershed with its associated streams. An ephemeral stream, sometimes called a drain or swag, flows water only for a short time during and after a rain. An ephemeral stream may or may not have a well-defined channel. An intermittent stream flows water at least 30% of the year continuously, but not year-round. Intermittent streams have well-defined stream channels with bottoms scoured from the flow. A perennial stream flows year-round or about 90% of the time in a year with normal rainfall amounts. It may form pools during drought conditions.

The EPA has an excellent web page that can help you learn more about watersheds. The address for that site is www.epa.gov/surf/. Any questions or comments can be directed to me.

* This article was published in the July 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

June BMP Q&A

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

Q: I heard that the Texas Forest Service inspects sites for BMP compliance. How does a site get selected and what is done with the information after it is collected? I do a good job as often as I can, although I admit I may have let one slide.

A: That is an excellent question that I get asked quite often. The Texas Forest Service (TFS) regularly inspects, with landowner permission, recently harvested tracts for voluntary compliance with BMPs. The TFS looks at about 150 tracts every two years. These sites are selected in a number of different ways. A common way a site can be selected is during “Bug Flights.” These flights are flown over East Texas to locate bug infestations. TFS employees identify sites that they see from the air that look like they have been recently harvested. The 150 sites that are selected are distributed proportionally into 3 landowner categories: Non-Industrial Private Forest (NIPF) landowners, Industry, and Government. Relatively more NIPF site inspections are conducted in northeast Texas where there is a larger percentage of NIPF landowners. Similarly, more industry sites are inspected in southeast Texas where they are more prevalent. This provides a sound foundation for the data presented in each of the monitoring reports.

After being selected and receiving landowner permission, then the site is inspected. I fill out a report based on how well BMPs were used and implemented over the entire site. I send a copy of my report to the landowner, the logger (if known), the forester (if applicable), and I keep a copy myself. The purpose of the inspection is purely educational. I may make recommendations about what might have been done differently. Once all 150 sites have been inspected, the data from the inspections is used to compile a monitoring report. This report, which includes a composite summary of the findings but no individual names or other specific tract information, is then sent to the EPA and a wide range of other interested folks. We have been doing a great job so far and hope to continue using BMPs on a voluntary basis.

Remember that the practices are currently voluntary. You may have heard recently about the EPA proposed change of silvicultural practices from a non-point source of pollution to a point source of pollution. If that occurs, then the EPA could then impose regulations that could incur penalties for poor implementation of BMPs. According to an article in the May 2000 issue of The Forestry Source, a news journal produced by the Society of American Foresters, the EPA is expected to release it proposed final rule by June 30th on its proposal to categorize silvicultural activities as point sources of pollution. A period of public comment, which is typically 60 to 90 days, would follow, with a final rule expected by the end of the summer. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me.

* This article was published in the June 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

May BMP Q&A

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

Q: A buddy of mine recently completed the BMP training course. He told me that I should not only put water control structures on haul roads but that I should also put them on skid trails. Is this really necessary, especially when I know that a site prep crew and planting crew will be on that site within a couple of months.

A: I am glad to hear that your buddy remembered that point from the BMP training course he attended. The answer to this question is, YES. Waterbars may be needed to stabilize skid trails but I wouldn’t necessarily suggest them on active haul roads.

On haul roads, rolling dips (Pages 45-46 in the Blue Book) may be a better alternative than waterbars. Rolling dips are basically extended or stretched-out water bars that are easier for trucks to drive over. On roads where there is a lot of traffic, rolling dips will definitely last longer than waterbars.

Skid trails typically don’t receive as much traffic as haul roads. Therefore, waterbars can be very effective if placed and constructed properly. Your initial thought may be that skid trails aren’t really that important. You may think that most skid trails will probably heal up before any erosion takes place. In some cases this may be correct. Often times, this is not the case.

Many times you expect a site prep crew to come in soon after a harvest. It seems senseless to put in waterbars on skid trails when a site prep crew might knock them down. It doesn’t always happen that way. For one reason or another that crew may be delayed for months or even a year. During that delay the site is exposed and a large amount of erosion and/or soil movement could occur.

About 90% of all sedimentation from a logging site comes from the road system. The road system is not limited to haul roads; it also includes skid trails. It may not be necessary to build waterbars on every skid trail. Your experience, based on topography and soil type, will tell you when it is necessary to stabilize skid trails.

Often times it may not be practical to build a waterbar on a skid trail. It can be extremely difficult, especially with all the stumps and roots in a skid trail. Placing slash in the skid trails may be a good alternative to building waterbars. These slash piles act similarly to a waterbar by redirecting and slowing the speed of the water moving downhill.

If you feel that a skid trail has the potential to wash out or erode, chances are it will. Therefore it is important then that you take the appropriate measures to stabilize that trail. An environmentalist considers a cup of dirt entering a stream from a logging site as a significant impact on water quality. While that is extreme, if we can keep a cup of dirt on that skid trail by placing waterbars and slash piles, then that is one less cup of dirt entering that stream on your logging site. That is also less ammunition environmentalists have to force you into government regulation.

Any questions or comments can be directed to me.

* This article was published in the May 2000 issue of the Texas Logger