February BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   I recently received a reminder card in the mail from the Texas Forest Service (TFS) regarding a Texas Logger Questionnaire that was mailed in mid–November. I don’t remember receiving one in the mail, but may have misplaced it. Would you mind sending me another questionnaire that I can fill out? Also, I would appreciate some background information on this questionnaire.

A:   No problem! We will be happy to send you a copy of the Texas Logger Questionnaire. After you have finished filling it out, just place it in the postage-paid Business Reply envelope and drop it in the mail. This will help minimize your time and cost throughout this process.

The purpose of this survey is to gather your input on how the TFS can better serve loggers in Texas. It is designed to collect information about your activities and needs as loggers. The results will be used to help the TFS understand and address the needs of the logging community.

On November 13, 2002, 1,955 Texas Logger Questionnaires were mailed to the logging community. Survey responses started to steadily trickle in shortly after this date. On December 6, 2002 a reminder card was sent to encourage more replies. To date, we have received 269 surveys.

A total of 28 questions are on this four-page survey. Multiple choice and scale questions comprise the majority of the survey, but there are a few areas where respondents are given the opportunity to actually write out their answers.

There are certain questions that are asked to reveal general information about the demographics of the logging community (i.e. What is your primary position? What area of the state are you located? How many years have you been in the logging business?). Other questions on the survey provide direct feedback to the TFS regarding its service to the logging community (i.e. Is the support and outreach provided by the TFS important to the logging community? Does the TFS meet your needs? Please list some areas that the TFS could do better or is doing well to meet your needs.).

The Texas Logger Questionnaire is completely confidential and anonymous, and only summary information will be reported in the study results. Participants may request a complimentary copy of the results by contacting the TFS at (936) 639-8180 or (903) 665-7400. The results will also be posted on our webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.

We appreciate your participation in this survey. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.

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

January BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:    A tract that I have been working on in Southeast Texas has started to get wet from all of the recent rains. I pulled my crew off when I noticed that my skidders were starting to cause some rutting. This is really frustrating knowing that I am almost finished with the job and that it will probably be site prepared this summer. What is the big deal about rutting anyway?

A:    First, I would like to commend you for moving off the job site when you noticed the rutting. It can be difficult and very tempting not to do this, especially when you only have a small piece left to finish. It is this kind of attitude that will allow Texas to maintain its high BMP implementation rates and keep the guidelines from becoming regulatory.

The major concern with rutting, as with any BMP guideline, is water quality protection. Ruts, especially on hillsides and slopes, can channel rainwater so that sediment will be delivered to streams. These ruts eventually turn into gullies, and become much harder to control. Also, if you are working in wetlands, it is important not to impede, restrict, or change natural water flows and drainages.

Other problems associated with rutting that are not directly related to water quality include site productivity and accessibility. Extensive rutting can lead to soil compaction, which can have a significant impact on future tree growth. Costly site preparation work must be done to correct this problem. In low-lying areas, rutting can cause water to pond. This is especially troublesome on roadways that receive heavy traffic.

As a general rule of thumb, rutting should not exceed a depth of six inches over a distance of more than 50 feet. This guideline is normally applied to haul roads and skid trails, but if this is occurring over the whole tract, it is probably time to move off. Roads should be reworked to remove ruts that exceed these guidelines. Reducing skidder loads is a good way to help minimize rutting under wet conditions.

If wet weather forces you to pull off a job, be sure to dress up the skid trails and temporary roads with waterbars or other structures if necessary. It may be a long time before you are able to move back on the site with your equipment and significant erosion can occur. Road washouts may cause you to spend extra time fixing the road when you could otherwise be finishing the operation.

This subject is covered in both the Recommended Specifications section (blue) and the Forest Wetlands section (green) of the Blue Book. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the January 2003 issue of the Texas Logger

December BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   This month’s BMP article is a continuation of last month’s question. That question asked me to explain the “problem areas” in greater detail that were noted in the BMP Implementation Report.

A:   The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the second deficiency.

What exactly is a significant risk to water quality? The Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee defines it as “a situation or set of conditions that have resulted in or very likely will result in the measurable and significant degradation of water quality, and that can be remedied or otherwise mitigated.” This group developed a framework to provide south-wide guidance for monitoring BMP implementation.

Steep topography and highly erodible soils are key site conditions that are often associated with significant risks. Conducting forestry operations under these conditions without the proper implementation of certain BMPs may have a high potential to result in significant risk to water quality.

Overall, twenty-eight significant risks to water quality were noted in the fifth round of BMP implementation monitoring. All of these risks fell under private ownership (24 on non industrial private forest landowners and 4 on industry). The major areas of concern were stream crossings, streamside management zones, and to a lesser extent, roads and skid trails. Examples of forestry activities where significant risks were identified include not stabilizing or restoring stream crossings, not leaving a SMZ along intermittent streams, not removing logging debris from the stream channel, and not installing appropriate drainage structures on road systems.

Documenting the occurrence of significant risk is a very important part of the BMP site evaluations. This type of risk assessment lends much credibility and integrity to the BMP monitoring program by recognizing that high risk conditions can occur, and that prevention and/or restoration is a high priority to state forestry agencies. It also may show that the lack of BMPs may not necessarily equate to a water quality problem. Finally, this tool not only protects the environment, but may also protect the landowner and operator from what otherwise may result in enforcement proceedings or other personal liability.

It is extremely important that we improve upon the deficiencies that were noted in this report. These problems can have a definite impact on water quality, and will attract the attention of regulators. Continue to do the best job that you can and everything will take care of itself. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the December 2002 issue of the Texas Logger

November BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   The other day, I read the executive summary of the BMP report that you have been mentioning in this article the past two months. I saw that there were two major deficiencies noted in the evaluations. Could you explain these “problem areas” in greater detail?

A:   Sure! The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the first deficiency.

Stream crossings are generally an area of concern because they have the potential to contribute a large amount of dirt to a stream. When these structures are not installed properly and without using BMPs, water quality may become impacted. The report primarily identified stream crossings on temporary roads, but crossings on permanent roads can cause similar problems.

These structures can be expensive to install and maintain, costing you both time and money. With proper planning, you might decide that crossing a stream may not be necessary. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil surveys, and on the ground field evaluations are excellent tools that can help you make these decisions. Going around the head of streams can also be a very effective and practical way to access the other side.

There are many situations when you have no other option but to install a crossing. The key is to minimize the amount of dirt that enters the stream. Dirt crossings should never be used. Logs or brush placed lengthwise in the stream channel can serve as good alternatives, as long as they are removed when the operation is completed. Drag line mats and “Arkansas bridges” also work effectively. If you decide to use a culvert, make sure it is properly sized and that you have the equipment to remove it and the fill dirt when the operation is finished.

Whenever you are putting in a crossing, find the straightest section of that stream and cross it at a right angle. This will help to minimize bank disturbance and reduce the amount of sloughing that occurs. It is also important to stabilize the approaches with grass, rip-rap, or other erosion control materials to ensure a stable roadbed approach and reduce the amount of dirt entering the stream.

Since the inception of the BMP monitoring program, stream crossings have always been a thorn in our side. We have made great strides over the past 10 years in installing these structures. This progress is best noted by the increase in BMP implementation ratings on stream crossings from Round 4 (67%) to Round 5 (85%). However, there is still plenty of room for improvement in these areas. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the November 2002 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Informer - October 2002

October Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Remember BMPs When Planting
• Seedlings On-line!
• Improving My Land Permanent Stream Crossings
• How Do I Know What Size Culvert I Should Use?
• Forestry and Water Quality Protection in East Texas
• Culvert Installation

October BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   Last month, you mentioned a report that the Texas Forest Service publishes regarding the results of randomly inspected forestry activities for BMP implementation. I was very pleased to see that the forestry community in East Texas had reached an all time high for the past round of monitoring. How does Texas compare to other states in BMP implementation monitoring rates?

A:   I knew someone would ask this question before too long! Does the old saying, “Everything is bigger in Texas” apply to forestry BMP implementation monitoring rates? This is somewhat difficult to answer due to the variations in the actual forestry BMPs and monitoring programs among the states, but I will give it a shot.

The manner in which forestry BMPs are administered generally fall into one of two categories: regulatory or non-regulatory. Although there is no significant difference in BMP implementation rates between the two approaches, it is easier to compare apples to apples. Texas is currently operating under the non-regulatory approach, so let’s look at other states that use this same method.

Non-regulatory BMP programs are widely found throughout the South, from South Carolina to Texas. However, the actual BMP recommendations can vary significantly among the Southern states. For example, the guidelines for SMZ width and residual density along intermittent streams may be completely different from state to state. It is important to recognize these differences when comparing BMP implementation rates.

Variations can also be found in the monitoring program (monitoring frequency, site selection, scoring methodology, risk assessment, etc.). To counteract this, a Regional BMP Implementation Monitoring Protocol has been developed and approved by the Southern Group of State Foresters. This protocol improved the integrity of BMP monitoring in the South by providing a statistically sound, objective, and technically defensible approach to measuring BMP implementation. The results are generally comparable among states.

As I mentioned in the last month’s article, the overall BMP implementation rate found for the fifth round of monitoring (2002) in Texas was 91.5%. BMP implementation rates for the state of Louisiana (2000) were also found to be in this range. Arkansas recently released the results of their latest survey (2001) and found overall BMP implementation to be 83%. Oklahoma should be completing their next survey in the near future and Mississippi is currently in the process of customizing a monitoring program that will follow the above mentioned protocol.

Texas is definitely at the top of the list in BMP implementation rates. In order for the saying, “everything is bigger in Texas” to remain true, the forestry community must continue its hard work and effort in protecting water quality through the implementation of BMPs. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the October 2002 issue of the Texas Logger

September BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   A few months ago, I received a copy of the Texas BMP Monitoring Checklist regarding one of my logging operations in the mail. I thought that I did a real good job following the Best Management Practices (BMPs) on this site and was glad to see that you felt the same way. In general, how are East Texas loggers doing in implementing forestry BMPs? Isn’t there some kind of report that the Texas Forest Service publishes documenting their findings?

A:   There sure is! The report you are talking about “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas” is currently at the printers and should be available in several weeks. An online version is posted on the TFS webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. This information is extremely important because it shows how well voluntary efforts are protecting water quality.

The Texas Forest Service has published this report every two years, starting with the first round of BMP implementation monitoring in 1992. The current report, round 5, was compiled from the results of 150 site evaluations in which silvicultural activities were monitored between August 16, 2000 and April 23, 2002.

Random selection of potential sites is critical, and is primarily done through aerial detection of forestry operations. These sites may include any “normal” forestry activity (clearcuts, thinnings, site preparation, planting, etc.) and preferably have occurred within the last year. Before any BMP evaluation is conducted, permission must be granted by the landowner.

Overall BMP implementation for the monitored tracts was 91.5%, the highest rate ever in the history of the program. In general, implementation was higher on tracts under public or industrial ownership. The breakdown of the monitoring sites among ownership groups is as follows:

Public (10 sites) – 98.4%

Industry (66 sites) – 96.1%

NIPF (74 sites) – 86.4%

Major improvements from the last round of monitoring include an increase in overall BMP implementation on stream crossings and roads as well as an increase in implementation rates across all ownership groups. Although progress has been made in road and stream crossing construction, there is still room for improvement since these areas can have an impact on water quality.

Through the hard work and commitment of the forestry community, we have done an excellent job in protecting water quality by implementing BMPs on our forestry activities. Let’s challenge ourselves to improve upon this all time high, and reach an overall implementation rate of 95% for the next round. Congratulations on a job well done! If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the September 2002 issue of the Texas Logger