December BMP Q&A

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

Q:   A few months ago you wrote about a report that the Texas Forest Service produces about BMP compliance. How often do you produce that report? Also, is it possible for regular people like me to see the report? I would like to see how we as an industry are doing with the BMPs.

A:   The report that you mention is titled, Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas. This report has been produced every two years since 1992. Each two year period is called a "round," and we have just finished the 4th round of monitoring. The data for this latest round has recently been complied and the report was published in September. You can download a copy of the results at the Texas Forest Service WebPage: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. You can also request a copy from your local TFS office. For those of you who do not have time to read the report, here is a brief summary of the results from the last round of BMP monitoring.

The latest report documents the results of 150 sites throughout east Texas that were monitored between June 1998 and August 1999. Sites included lands owned by the public (national and state forest), forest industry, and non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners. Results indicated an increase in overall compliance with using BMPs from 87.3% in 1998 to 88.6% in the latest report.

In general, compliance was highest on sites owned by the USDA Forest Service or forest industry. Forest Service sites had an overall compliance of 97.9%, while industry sites had a 94.2% compliance rating. NIPF lands scored 81.2% overall.

The report indicates that compliance is greatest when landowners are familiar with Best Management Practices, when loggers have attended BMP training classes, when BMPs are included in the contract, and when a professional forester was involved with the operation.

In previous rounds (1,2, and 3) of monitoring, tracts were graded for compliance using a "Pass or Fail" method. For round 4, a new system was developed that uses percentages to denote compliance. The tracts in round 4 were also rated using the old method. When looking at the ratings using the old method, this fourth round shows an increase in compliance overall and by NIPF landowner and industry. USDA Forest Service lands again rated 100% in compliance when using the old method.

Next month we will talk about the areas of improvement and areas that need work that were indicated by the report. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

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

November BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I have heard you mention that the Texas Forest Service (TFS) produces a report on how well loggers are doing with BMPs. What is covered in that report? I would also like to know if I could get a copy?

A:   Your question is very well timed. The latest report just made it off the presses in September. This program evaluated the level of compliance with the voluntary forestry BMPs. A total of 150 sites on which silvicultural activities occurred were evaluated. These sites are a representative sample of the forestry activities that occurred in East Texas between June 3, 1998 and August 31, 2000.

Overall compliance on the sites monitored was 88.6%. In general compliance was highest on sites owned by the USDA Forest Service or forest industry. The Forest Service had an overall compliance of 97.9%, while industry sites had a 94.2% compliance rating. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands scored 81.2% overall.

In previous rounds (1,2,and 3) of monitoring, tracts were graded for compliance using a “Pass or Fail” method. For Round 4, a new system was developed that uses percentages to denote compliance. The tracts in Round 4 were also rated using the old method. When looking at ratings using the old method, this fourth round shows an increase in compliance overall and by NIPF landowners and industry.

Major improvements from the previous rounds included: The presence of SMZs where needed and increased NIPF compliance. However there were some major deficiencies noted including sedimentation from stream crossings and erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads.

An overall compliance of 88.6% is good. However, you can see we still have plenty of room for improvement. The increased BMP compliance by landowners and loggers helped us earlier in the year in our efforts to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exclude forestry provisions from the total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations. Continue to do a good job out there in the log woods. Always strive to improve in every aspect of your job and take pride in your work. If we do that then the rest will take care of itself. I would like to throw out a challenge to you. Let’s set our goal for the next monitoring round at 92% overall compliance. If everyone works hard and does the best job they can every time, I know we can do it!

You can get a copy of the results from Round 4 of BMP Compliance Monitoring at the TFS webpage: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or there are a few copies available at the TFS office in Lufkin. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

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

October BMP Q&A

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

Q: If you leave a buffer strip on ephemeral drains, do you treat it as a Streamside Management Zone (SMZ)? A landowner asked me that question this past weekend and I didn’t know the answer. My buddy suggested that I send this question in to see what you would recommend. What do you think?

A: That is an excellent question. Ephemeral drains can often times be very difficult to deal with. I am sure most of you know the difference between the three classifications of streams but I would like to review them for those who may have forgotten. The three classifications of streams are perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.

Perennial streams are streams that flow throughout the majority of the year (90% of the time or greater) and flows in a well-defined channel. Intermittent streams flow mostly during the wet periods of the year (30-90% of the time) and flows in a well-defined channel. Ephemeral streams or drains flow only during and for short periods following precipitation and flows in low areas that may or may not have a well-defined channel.

The Texas Best Management Practices “bluebook” recommends an SMZ, with a minimum width of 50 feet on either side of the stream channel, on all perennial and intermittent streams. Buffer strips on ephemeral drains are left up to your professional judgement. Your experience may tell you that you need a buffer strip on an ephemeral drain to keep it from washing out and becoming an erosion problem. However, the recommended guidelines do not treat buffer strips on ephemeral drains in the same manner as SMZs. I would simply say that you should use your professional judgement here as to how to treat the buffer strip. I would look at the soil type and slope to determine the width of my buffer strip. On a steep sandy soil, I might treat the buffer strip very similar to the way I treat an SMZ. However on a clay soil with moderate slopes, I would probably have a narrower buffer strip. I would also try to keep the channel free of tops and debris, and avoid crossing the drain if practicable.

The ball is really in each of your courts in circumstances like these. This situation is one of those areas that can really make the difference for us (the forest industry as a whole) in our efforts to keep BMPs non-regulatory. Good, prudent decisions can help us all look that much better to our critics.

I hope that answered your question. Does anybody else have any other suggestions or methods that they use? Thanks to your buddy for suggesting that you give me an opportunity to make some recommendations. I always appreciate the opportunity to address specific BMP related questions.
If you are in the area stop by see me. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

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

September BMP Q&A

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

Q: I have a question about wing ditches. My guys put them in whenever they think one is needed. I was wondering do you have any specific guidelines as to how many and how often they need to install them?

A: Wing Ditches are water turnouts that divert water away from the road and/or a side ditch. The purpose of a wing ditch is to collect and direct water from road surface runoff into an undisturbed area. It is necessary that the wing ditch allow the water to slow down and to channel the water away from the road and roadside ditches. There are some guidelines to use on when to install wing ditches and how often. Experience, which should never be downplayed, also plays a large role in knowing when and where to put the wing ditches along your roads.

You probably want to use wing ditches anywhere where there is an accumulation of water or a section of road or trail. The water should be diverted so as to decrease the volume and velocity of the water especially on slopes. You also should use wing ditches where there is a buildup of drainage water in roadside ditches. This buildup can eat away at roadbeds and scour out the roadside ditch itself. The recommended guidelines for wing ditches are on pages37 and 38 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Manuel sometimes called, “the Bluebook.”

The spacing of your wing ditches depends on slope and soil conditions. On 2%-5% slopes the spacing should be no greater than 200 feet apart. On slopes 5%-10%, the distance between wing ditches should be no greater than 100 feet apart. Slopes greater than 10% should have wing ditches no more than 75 feet apart. Your experience should tell you that you might need more wing ditches if you are working on highly erodible soils. One other thing to keep in mind is that wing ditches should not feed directly into streams, gullies, or adjacent drains or ditches.


Wing ditches should be installed so that they leave the road ditch line at about a 30 to 45 degree angle to the roadbed and be designed to follow the natural shape (contour) of the land. The runoff water can be spread out, filtered by brush, or retained in the wing ditch. Wing ditches are very effective tools to help maintain roads and trails. Wing ditches can be even more effective when used in conjunction with other road BMPs like water bars, rolling dips and crowning the road. I hope that answered your question. Does anybody else have any other suggestions or methods that they use?

If you are in the area stop by see me. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

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

August BMP Q&A

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

Q: I recently had a landowner ask me to seed his roads after we moved off his property. Is seeding in his roads going to be enough to stop erosion, and how do I know what to seeds to plant?

A: Seeding or revegetation of disturbed areas is an excellent erosion control tool. The objective of seeding is to quickly establish a ground cover that will hold the soil together under most conditions. Seed selection is important and you should consider the season, soil type and the availability of sunlight to the seeding area. To get the best results, it is sometimes necessary to use a combination of seeds. There is a section (begins on page 61) in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Book, the “Blue Book,” that addresses revegetation of disturbed areas. This section also provides information about which type of grasses and legumes are best suited for the different soil types; sands, loams, and clays. It provides information about the optimum planting dates and growing seasons for each of the recommended grasses and legumes. Seeding is usually more successful in the spring and fall. There are a couple of different methods of seeding including; broadcast, sprigging and drilling. The most common technique of seeding is the broadcast method. Broadcast seed can be covered by dragging a chain or brush to ensure good seed contact with the soil (1/2 to 1 inch deep). The use of fertilizer is often recommended when seeding. Care should be taken to insure that the fertilizer does not enter a stream. Avoid applying fertilizer in streamside management zones (SMZs). Another important factor to keep in mind the topography or slope of the land. Steep or hilly slopes will require more than seeding. Your experience should tell you what and how many other erosion control structures are necessary to stabilize the roads.

Your experience on each site will tell you that it depends on a number of factors as to whether or not seeding the road is going to reduce erosion. Seeding the roads can be very effective when used alone or in combination with other BMPs. I would also recommend that prior to seeding, you check with the landowner to see if he/she has a specific seed in mind. Seeding the road in can provide some wildlife benefits and can act as a large food plot. You may even be able to convince the landowner to buy or share the cost of the seed.

If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

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

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