September BMP Q&A

By: Chuck Coup, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service

Q:  I have a question about a landowner that is clear-cutting a wetland / forest swamp area. It is a patchy clearcut, and they are removing most of the merchantable trees (the cypress and gum), leaving most of the tallow, gnarly oaks, and willow. There are no issues with rutting because of the dry conditions, and all best management practices (BMPs), to the best of my knowledge, are being followed. Of course, it appears that the area is being over-harvested, because I know the BMP handbook says you’re supposed to treat forest swamp areas as if they were SMZs. The tricky part is that this is a land conversion harvest. The landowner has managed the property for timber for many years, but is conducting this harvest because he wants to turn the area into pastureland. In fact, cows are already on the site. However, as I understand it, because this is a land conversion harvest that is taking the property out of ongoing forestry, BMPs would not apply. Is this correct?

A:  An excellent question! Let me start by saying great work consulting the BMP handbook to find out about the guidelines for forest swamps. You are exactly right that the green section of the handbook recommends treating these areas as if they were SMZs; so clear-cutting would not be a recommended forest management strategy. I am also glad to hear that the dry conditions allowed you to operate in the wetland without causing ruts, because it is extremely important that the natural flow patterns of these areas be maintained in order to protect the wetland’s many beneficial functions.

Now, do BMPs apply to this wetland conversion harvest? Well the answer is a little more complicated than a simple yes or no.

First, let’s start with some background information. As most of you know, our forestry BMPs originate from the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) which is directed at protecting our water resources. Section 404 of the CWA specifically relates to wetlands and makes it unlawful to “discharge dredged or fill material” (which includes rock, sand, soil, clay, and wood chips) into “waters of the United States” (which includes wetlands such as forest swamps) without a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE); commonly referred to as a 404 permit. This basically just means you can’t legally impact a wetland without first obtaining a permit from the ACOE. Fortunately, forestry is generally recognized as a land use that is compatible with wetland protection, and as a result, the CWA specifically exempts forestry operations from requiring 404 permitting.

However, that permit exemption comes with a few important conditions.

The first requires that the forestry operation qualify as “normal silviculture,” which includes such activities as soil bedding, site preparation, and harvesting. The second requires that the “fifteen mandatory road BMPs” are followed (check your BMP handbook if you are not familiar with these). The third requires that the operation must be conducted as part of an “established” silviculture operation; which means that the area has previously been managed for timber and the operation is just a continuation of that management. The fourth requires that no toxic pollutants be discharged into the waterway. And finally, the fifth requirement says that the purpose of the operation cannot be to convert any part of a wetland (such as a forest swamp) to a use that it was not previously subject to (such as pastureland). All five of these conditions must be met in order to be exempted from the 404 permit requirement.

Having gone through all of that, the answer to your question is “No.” While still a good idea, BMPs do not apply to your wetland conversion harvest, and therefore you are not required to harvest the area as if it were an SMZ. However, this is not because wetland conversion operations are somehow exempt from BMPs. Rather, it is because wetland conversion operations do not fall within the forestry exemption, and therefore, are required by federal law to have a section 404 permit from the ACOE.

For more information on wetlands and other BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or contact me by phone at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the September 2011 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

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

Q:  In last month’s article I was asked if there was any truth to the fact that there are sometimes mandatory BMPs which must be followed.

A:  The short answer to this question is that there are no mandatory BMPs you are required to follow, unless you are operating in jurisdictional wetlands. As mandated by Amendments to the Clean Water Act, forest roads in jurisdictional wetlands including “waters of the United States” must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the following Best Management Practices to retain Section 404 permit exemption status:

1. Permanent roads, temporary access roads, and skid trails in waters of the U.S. should be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total length consistent with the purpose of specific silvicultural operations and local topographic and climatic conditions.
2. All roads, temporary or permanent, should be located sufficiently far from streams or other water bodies (except portions of such roads that must cross water bodies) to minimize discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S.
3. The road fill should be bridged, culverted or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of expected flood flows.
4. The fill should be properly stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion during and following construction.
5. Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. to construct a road fill should be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within waters of the U.S. (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself.
6. In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the waters of the U.S. should be kept to a minimum.
7. The design, construction, and maintenance of the road crossing should not disrupt the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the water body.
8. Borrow material should be taken from upland sources whenever feasible.
9. The discharge should not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act, or adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species.
10. Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning areas, and wetlands should be avoided if practical alternatives exist.
11. The discharge should not be located in the proximity of a public water supply intake.
12. The discharge should not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish population.
13. The discharge should not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System.
14. The discharge of material should consist of suitable material free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts.
15. All temporary fills should be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its original elevation.

For more information on mandatory forest road BMPs and other BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water, contact me at (903) 297-3910.

* This article was published in the March 2010 issue of the Texas Logger

February BMP Q&A

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

Q:  Prior to the rains, I had started installing the roads for an operation on a fairly “wet” tract. Now the tract is much too wet or flooded to push roads in.  I would consider this particular tract to be a bottomland hardwood system. I was told by a buddy that there may actually be mandatory BMPs that I need to follow when installing the road system on this tract.  Is this true?

A:  I’m sorry the rains put your operations on hold, but I am glad to hear that you decided to move off the tract when the rains came.  The bluebook defines bottomland systems as: areas which may or may not be jurisdictional wetlands; include a major water course (either a perennial or intermittent stream) and associated floodplains, tributary water courses, sloughs, and ephemeral drains. The predominant timber type is hardwood, but usually includes some pine.  If this sounds like the area you were working in than the short answer is that there are no mandatory BMPs you are required to follow.

The tricky part is determining whether or not the tract you were working on contains jurisdictional wetlands.  The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Federal Register, 1982) and the Environmental Protection Agency (Federal Register, 1980) jointly define wetlands as:

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support and, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”

The three criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in delineating wetlands are:

Buttonbush is an easy-to-recognize bush that grows in water or moist soil

1. hydrophytic vegetation (plants that have the ability to grow, effectively compete, reproduce, and/or persist in anaerobic soil conditions)

2. hydric soils (soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season for anaerobic conditions to develop)

3. wetland hydrology (inundation by water sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation and develop hydric soils).

All three must be present under normal circumstances for an area to be identified as a jurisdictional wetland.  It can be very difficult to determine when the criteria of jurisdictional wetlands have been met.  If there are any questions about whether a tract contains a jurisdictional wetland, consult a hydrologist or qualified personnel from the local Natural Resource Conservation Service office.  If the tract does contain jurisdictional wetlands, there are 15 federally mandated BMPs which must be followed.

In next month’s article I will go over the 15 mandatory road BMPs.  I encourage you to attend one of our upcoming BMP Forest Roads Logger Training Workshops for more information.

For more information on mandatory forest road BMPs and other BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water, contact me at (903) 297-3910.

* This article was published in the February 2010 issue of the Texas Logger

June BMP Q&A

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

Q:  First I wanted to say that I attended the Forest Roads BMP workshop in Lufkin in May.  This was a very helpful workshop, and I know feel I have a better understanding of road BMPs and how to implement them.  Now for my question: I have been working for a Texas Pro Logger for about a year, and he always stresses the importance of BMPs during all phases of the harvest.  I guess what I would like to know is not why BMPs are so important, but where do they actually come from?  In other words, are these just a bunch of guidelines that where developed by loggers to help protect water quality, or are these “rules” that are handed down by a government agency or something?

A:  I’m glad you enjoyed the workshop and hope it gave you a better understanding of forest road BMPs.  We are having another workshop in June, and depending on how many loggers we have who are interested in the workshop, will probably be planning some more over the summer or in the fall.  I’m glad to here you work for a Texas Pro Logger.  They usually have many years of experience in the woods, and are a great source of knowledge.  To answer your question as to the source of BMPs, or why they were originated, I will need to explain some events from the past that have led to today’s Texas forestry BMPs.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law in the United States that governs water pollution. In 1972, Congress passed a CWA act that focused mainly on point sources of pollution.  These sources were the easiest to identify and target for permitting and clean-up, since they can be easily traced to a pipe or other pollution “point” source.  Many thought that these were the major sources of pollution in our nation’s waterways, and that once they were under control our waterways should start to heal and the problem would be solved.  However, after most of these sources were under control, several studies showed that many of our waterways still had pollution problems.

In 1987, Congress passed another act amending the CWA.  This new act targeted non-point sources of pollution.  This act put the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in charge of all non-point sources of pollution to our waterways.  The EPA mandated that each State come up with either a voluntary or regulatory system for controlling and monitoring non-point source pollution.

In Texas, the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) is the lead agency for the state’s agricultural and silvicultural non-point source programs.  TSSWCB receives funding from the EPA through Section 319(h) of the CWA.  In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, TSSWCB put the Texas Forest Service (TFS) in charge of creating a set of voluntary guidelines for loggers, foresters, and landowners to follow which would help protect water quality during silvicultural practices.  The TFS, in cooperation with many members of the forestry and scientific community, created the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices guidelines.  These guidelines have been revised several times over the last decade to account for new silvicultural practices and new scientific information regarding BMP effectiveness.

I hope this short explanation answered your questions as to why we have BMPs and where they stem from.  For more information on BMPs visit the Texas Forest Service webpage at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water, contact me at (903) 297-3910.

* This article was published in the June 2009 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.

July BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I am harvesting timber on a landowner’s tract and I came across an area that looked to me like some sort of wetland area. The landowner said he didn’t think that it was a wetland and not to worry about it. I know that timber harvesting is allowed in wetlands but how exactly can you tell what one looks like.

A:   You are correct, timber harvesting is allowed in wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 as long as it 1) qualifies as “normal silviculture,” 2) is part of “established” silvicultural operation, 3) is not part of an activity whose purpose is to convert a water of the United States into a use to which it was not previously subject, 4) follows the fifteen Mandatory Road BMPs, and 5) contains no toxic pollutant listed under Section 307 of the Clean Water Act in discharge of dredge or fill materials into waters of the United States.

To address your question, let me first quote the definition of a wetland. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) and the Environmental Protection Agency jointly define wetlands as:

“Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support and, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.”

While this definition is fairly lengthy and in depth, the last sentence provides us with the best idea of what a wetland looks like; “swamps, marshes, bogs, and other similar areas.”

There are three criteria that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers look at when delineating wetlands: (1) hydrophytic vegetation (plants that have the ability to grow, compete, reproduce and or persist in anaerobic soil conditions), (2) hydric soils (soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season for anaerobic soil conditions to develop, and (3) wetland hydrology (inundation by water sufficient to support hydrophytic vegetation and develop hydric soils). All three criteria must be present under normal circumstances for an area to be identified as a jurisdictional wetland.

There is an entire section, starting on page 82, in the Bluebook that is dedicated to helping you understand what a wetland is and how to minimize the impacts in these sensitive areas. This section also includes a list of the 15 Mandatory Road BMPs on pages 93 & 94. If you believe you are or will be operating in a wetland or wetland-like area, then you should definitely review the Forest Wetlands section of the Bluebook before beginning operations.

Landowners or loggers who have more questions or who are still unsure about wetlands should contact the Texas Forest Service or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. There are two U.S. ACE districts that cover east Texas, the Forth Worth District which you can reach at (817) 886-1326 or the Galveston District (409) 766-3004.

You can get a copy of the Bluebook at your local Texas Forest Service office or you can view it online at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. If you have any questions regarding BMPs please contact me.

* This article was published in the July 2003 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