April BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service 

Q:   I am planning on cutting a tract of timber in San Augustine County that has several streams running through it. I have heard about leaving Streamside Management Zones and want to follow the recommended guidelines, but don’t really know which streams need protection. Do all streams need protection? If not, how can I determine which ones should be protected?

A:   This is an excellent question. First of all, not all streams need protection. Streams are grouped into one of three categories (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral), based on the amount of time during the year that water flows through them. An important thing to remember is that there are transition zones along streams where one category might be turning into another category. As you might guess, this classification can become very complex and challenging, especially during periods of heavy rainfall or extreme drought.

Streams are classified as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. Perennial and
intermittent streams require SMZ protection.

A perennial stream will flow at least 90% of the year and have a well defined channel. This channel will be sinuous (winding) and show evidence of soil and debris movement. Water pools are present, even during dry conditions. High water marks are sometimes noticed along the stream, as well as wetland vegetation, such as mosses, ferns, and some woody species. Gray soils with red specks are associated with these types of streams. The Texas Forest Service recommends leaving a minimum width of 50 feet on either side of perennial streams.

An intermittent stream will flow at least 30% of the year, usually during the wet winter months. This type of stream also has a well defined, sinuous channel that shows evidence of soil and debris movement. Water pools are absent during dry conditions but present during wet conditions. High water marks and wetland vegetation still occur along these areas. Predominately brown soils with gray soils mixed in are usually found here. The Texas Forest Service recommends leaving a minimum width of 50 feet on either side of intermittent streams.

An ephemeral stream will flow only during or after it rains. These streams are short lived, and don’t have a well defined channel. The flow area is almost always straight and there is an absence of water pools. High water marks and wetland vegetation are not found along these areas. Regular soils typical of the site occur around these streams. The Texas Forest Service recommends using your professional judgement in determining whether or not to leave an SMZ along ephemeral streams.

Remember, Streamside Management Zones can be managed to remove some of the economic value. These areas can be thinned to a minimum of 50% of the original crown cover or 50 square feet of basal area per acre. All logging debris should be removed from streams immediately to prevent any unnecessary blockage of the stream channel. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the April 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   I understand the importance of using Best Management Practices, but would like to see some actual field examples. We did this in the BMP training workshop and it was very helpful. Is there anywhere in East Texas that shows on the ground applications of BMPs that the public can view?

A:   You bet there is! The Texas Forest Service manages five state forests throughout East Texas, totaling 7,314 acres. Their primary function is to provide public education and sound forest management demonstrations. Two of these state forests, the W. Goodrich Jones and the John Henry Kirby, display the use of Best Management Practices for the protection of water quality from non-point source water pollution during forestry operations.

The W. Goodrich Jones State Forest is located in Conroe, approximately 1.5 miles west of Interstate 45 on FM 1488. This 1,733 acre forest contains examples of road BMPs and streamside management zones. Stream crossings are also shown in great detail, and include bridges, culverts, and low water crossings.

The John Henry Kirby State Forest is located on Highway 69, south of Warren in Tyler County. This 600 acre forest also has demonstrations of road construction and drainage, stream crossings, and even includes a wetlands designation.

These forests are open year round to the general public during daylight hours and provide an excellent educational opportunity to learn about protecting water quality. A wooden sign is used to mark each BMP example, describe the actual demonstration, and explain its function.

For those of you who do not have time to visit these areas, a virtual forest tour has been developed on the Internet. This tour includes topics that discuss road maintenance and stabilization, stream crossings, streamside management zones, culvert installations, and other useful BMPs. It can be accessed by visiting the Texas Forest Service’s webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. All BMPs pictured have a description of how they work to protect water quality. You will find detailed instructions on how to properly install culverts. There are also before and after pictures of roadwork.

For more information on these state forests or to arrange an on the ground field tour for your group, contact the BMP office at (936) 639-8180. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me.

* This article was published in the March 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

February BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Due to the fact there were no questions this month, I would like to look in detail at some of the deficiencies noted in the latest round (Round 4) of BMP compliance monitoring.

A:   The report, “Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas,” noted two major deficiencies during the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from June 3, 1998 to August 31, 1999. The first area of deficiency was sedimentation from stream crossings. The second area of concern was erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. This month lets look at the problem with stream crossings in closer detail.

Stream crossings can potentially contribute a large portion of sediment to a stream, thereby impacting water quality. This is one reason why we should really work hard to install them properly. The best stream crossing is one that never occurred. How can this happen? During the planning stage of your harvest operation, use tools like aerial photographs, topographical maps, and soil surveys in combination with field reconnaissance to determine site conditions.

By using these tools and getting out on the ground, you may be able to spot some backside access to the timber. Sometimes it is worth paying an adjoining landowner a couple hundred dollars to gain access than it is to build a crossing. If that is not possible, and many times it isn’t, then it becomes really important that you install your crossing properly so that you minimize the potential for sedimentation to occur.

There are a number of methods available to successfully cross streams and have little impact on water quality. You could try using a brush crossing or laying logs in the stream channel lengthwise. These types of crossings are very inexpensive and generally have a minimal impact on water quality as long as the material is removed promptly. Another alternative is temporary bridges like crossing mats or a bridge made of poles that can be loaded onto the truck later. When using culverts for permanent or temporary crossings, it is extremely important that they be properly sized. The culvert should be large enough to handle the stream’s maximum flow. They should also be maintained and kept free of debris. There is a culvert size chart located on page 50 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices – “Bluebook.”

Lastly, you should always cross streams at right angles and use of equipment in the streambed should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is also important that the approaches to the crossing be stabilized with appropriate structures. Stream crossings also require frequent inspections during operations to determine their functional and safe condition. When needed, corrective measures should be taken immediately to fully restore the crossing.

Next month if there are no questions we will look at how to improve on erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. If you do have a question regarding BMPs please contact me.

* This article was published in the February 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

January BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   Due to the fact there were no questions this month, I would like to look in detail at some of the problems noted in the latest round (Round 4) of BMP compliance monitoring.

A:   The report, “Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas,” noted two areas requiring improvement in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from June 3, 1998 to August 31, 1999. The first shortfall was sedimentation from stream crossings. The second area of concern was erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. This month let’s look at the problem with skid trails and temporary roads in closer detail.

The major problems associated with skid trails and temporary roads, identified by the report, were not being well drained or stabilized with appropriate structures. These areas can erode severely and contribute a large amount of sediment to streams if not properly constructed. This impact to water quality can be greatly reduced with proper planning. During the planning stage of your harvest operation, use tools like aerial photographs, topographical maps, and soil surveys in combination with an actual on the ground field evaluation to determine site conditions. These practices can help in determining the proper placement of roads and trails.

When laying out road systems, try to achieve the best possible grade, avoiding slopes greater than 15%. This is not always possible, so installing a slant or zig-zag pattern may be necessary to prevent a directed water flow. Natural drainage areas requiring Streamside Management Zones should not be used for road locations or other traffic areas. Rutting should be minimized on wet soils to reduce the impact to water quality.

Upon completion of the harvest operation, skid trails and temporary roads should immediately be protected from erosion. One way to accomplish this is by constructing waterbars to allow for proper drainage. These structures should be installed at a 30 to 45 degree angle downslope, with an outlet to allow water to drain off the road. Improperly built waterbars can function as water dams, which trap the water and create more problems. A chart located on page 53 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices “Bluebook” shows the suggested spacing between waterbars.

Another way to protect skid trails and temporary roads from erosion is by placing wing ditches along travel areas. These devices allow water to be diverted from the roadway into undisturbed areas. This process also reduces the speed and amount of flowing water, the major cause of erosion. Runoff water should be spread at the outlet, not dumped directly into drainages or stream channels.

Permanent vegetative cover can also be established to offer greater protection. Seeding is an option on skid trails and temporary roads if disturbed soil areas are not expected to revegetate naturally in time to prevent erosion. Logging slash and brush can also be positioned along the roadway to achieve the same effect in a more economical way. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the January 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

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