BMP Trivia Question

Streams are classified into 3 categories; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Knowing the difference between these three categories can mean the difference in leaving an SMZ or not. Can you list four (4) classification criteria used to determine if a stream is ephemeral? This information can be found in the most recent publishing of the Texas BMP handbook.

1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)

Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

July BMP Q&A

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

Q:   It is starting to warm up now and it has become harder to tell whether or not streams need a SMZ (streamside management zone) or not. Are there any “rules of thumb” for knowing which streams ought to have a SMZ?

A:   It is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used in Texas: Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Both perennial and intermittent streams should have a SMZ according to the Texas forestry BMP guidelines. Ephemeral streams do not necessarily need a SMZ but in some cases it is wise to leave some trees to buffer the stream especially if it is clear that the stream may erode or “wash” if nothing is left. This article will look specifically at ephemeral streams while the next couple of BMP Q& A articles will address perennial and intermittent stream classification in greater detail.

According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, the term ephemeral is defined as, “adjective – lasting a very short time; short-lived; transitory.” By definition, ephemeral streams are streams that only last for a very short time. Ephemeral streams usually have a cumulative flow that is less than 30% of the year (about 3 ½ months). This normally equates to flow after rain events with the flow usually ending anywhere from immediately following the rain event to flow ending several days later.

During the dry summer months, identifying flow characteristics can often be difficult. If flow cannot be determined, the presence of three or more of the following characteristics should be helpful in recognizing an ephemeral stream:

1. May have no well-defined channel
2. The absence of water pools
3. A flow area (channel) that is almost always straight and either “flattens” out at the bottom of the slope or grades into intermittent or perennial streams
4. No or very little evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport
5. The presence of leaf litter and/or small debris jams in the flow area
6. Usually sparse or no wetland (hydrophytic) vegetation present
7. Side slope soils with characteristics typical of the surrounding landscape
8. Usually not identified on USGS topographic maps or NRCS soil maps

These characteristics are found on page 62 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook.”

You should rely on your professional judgment to determine when an ephemeral drain needs some type of protection in the form of a small SMZ or more simply a few buffer trees. These small streams are almost always connected to larger intermittent and perennial streams and severe erosion could enter the larger stream network if the ephemeral streams are not protected when necessary. For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book, contact your local Texas Forest office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the July 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

June BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Do you expect any changes in the overall BMP implementation score given all the changes in forestland ownership that have occurred lately; specifically industry lands being sold to TIMOs (timberland investment management organizations) and REITs (real estate investment trusts)?

A:   Thank you for the very interesting question. A recent study of long term trends of BMP implementation in Texas by Hughes Simpson, BMP Coordinator, Texas Forest Service, may be able to shed a little light on the subject. Historically, BMP implementation rates have generally trended higher. From a low of 76% in 1996 overall implementation rates have steadily increased to a high of 91.7% in 2005. Something that is not as clear is whether changes in forest ownership will result in a positive or negative change to the current average.

In order to answer your question we need to look at specific ownership categories that make up the overall rate: Public ownership, Industry ownership, TIMO/REIT ownership, and Family Forest landowners. Public ownership, primarily the National Forests, has always had the highest implementation rates of all the categories with a six round average of 95.4% with little variability. Similarly, Industry has also implemented BMPs at a high rate with a six round average of 92.1%, again with little variability. Based on the three rounds of monitoring and a limited number of sites, TIMO/REIT owned lands have initially demonstrated similar implementation rates as industry (93.0%). Finally, Family Forest ownership has the lowest overall average of 77.6% but demonstrates a generally increasing trend from a low of 68.5% in 1996 to 88.6% in 2005.

So what effect do we think TIMO/REIT ownership will have on overall BMP implementation rates? Because TIMO/REIT owned lands have long-term fiber agreements with industry-owned mills, one can theorize that TIMO/REITs will continue to implement BMPs in a manner similar to the previous landowners (Industry). Therefore the net effect on BMP implementation rates should be negligible. Historically, increases in Family Forest ownership BMP implementation rates have resulted in an increase in the overall BMP implementation rate. This is due to the high scores and low variability of the other ownership categories. Therefore changes to the overall BMP implementation rate should continue to be driven by the BMP implementation rates achieved by the Family Forest ownership group.

For more information regarding BMPs and BMP implementation you can visit the new and improved BMP page on the Texas Forest website located at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. Finally, if you prefer, you can contact me.

* This article was published in the June 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Trivia Question

Streams are classified into 3 categories; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral. Knowing the difference between these three categories can mean the difference in leaving an SMZ or not. Can you list four (4) classification criteria used to determine if a stream is intermittent? This information can be found in the most recent publishing of the Texas BMP handbook.

1.)
2.)
3.)
4.)


Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

BMP Informer - May 2007

May Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Watch Word…TMDL
• Improving Water Quality in Adams and Cow Bayous A TMDL Project for Bacteria, Dissolved Oxygen and pH
• Improving My Land - Managing Streamside Management Zones
• Certified Forest Steward
• Texas Forest Service BMP Effectiveness Monitoring Project
• Forestry Acronyms

April BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Back in September of 2006, the BMP Quiz question dealt with how far a landing should be constructed outside of a streamside management zone (SMZ). I answered that as long as the landing was 50 feet from the stream channel that it would be okay. Evidently that was the wrong answer, could you please tell me what the distance is and what reasons there are for having if further away?

A:   This is an excellent question! The correct answer to the Quiz in the September issue of the Texas Logger should have been that landings be established at least 50 feet from the edge of the SMZ. This would thereby equate to a distance of 100 feet from the stream channel for a landing if you use the minimal 50 feet wide SMZ.

It is important to note that the “Recommended Specifications” in the bluebook call for the distance to be measured from the edge of the SMZ and not the stream channel. Rather than trying to figure out how wide your SMZ extends from the stream channel and then add the 50 feet, it is much easier to find the edge of the SMZ and establish the landing 50 feet from it.

There are a couple of reasons for this specification on landing design: The first reason is that landings almost always contain a large amount of woody debris and occasionally are the site of hydraulic fluid leaks/spills from various sources like equipment repair or unexpected hose failures etc. It is important to keep this material from entering a water source since it is deemed nonpoint source pollution. By establishing the landing 50 feet from the edge of the SMZ you create less opportunity for that woody debris and perhaps even the oil spills to reach the stream. This additional 50 feet helps in most cases to ensure that most of the excess woody debris at a landing will remain at the landing site and not end up in the stream channel if the stream floods up to and out of the SMZ, except of course under extreme flooding conditions.

Secondly the SMZ has always been referred appropriately as the “final filter” because it is the final opportunity on the site to filter overland flow before it reaches the stream. If it were necessary to establish a wider than the minimal 50 feet SMZ, say for instance on a steep sandy site, it would be counter productive to establish a wider SMZ if you created a landing 50 feet from the stream channel. This would place a landing within your SMZ thus reducing its overall filtering capacity.

Landings are high traffic areas that have the potential to concentrate some of the nonpoint source pollution that forestry operations generate. This is why it is important to keep them at least 50 feet from the SMZ or “final filter.” As always, though, each site is unique and some situations may not allow this 50 feet, when those occur it is important to use your professional judgment when placing the location of the landing in relation to the SMZ. That is the beauty of the voluntary, non-regulatory system we have in place; it allows us to set minimum guidelines but also apply common sense when the situation arises.

For more information regarding landings, streamside management zones, and BMPs consult the bluebook (Texas Forestry Best Management Practices). If you prefer, you can contact me

* This article was published in the April 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Prior to all the rains, I was operating in what I call flatwoods. Now, that same area I was cutting in back in November is too wet and portions are flooded. This got me to wondering if there are any special BMPs that I needed to follow in the flatwoods once I am able to get back in there to finish the harvest.

A:   Sorry the rain put a pinch on your harvest operation but I am glad you moved out of there when the rains came. The bluebook defines flatwoods as: forested areas with slopes of 1% or less that usually contain mixed pine and hardwoods. If this is the kind of area you were working in then the short answer to your question is; no, there are no special BMPs that need to be followed in a flatwoods.

Flatwoods are not necessarily jurisdictional wetlands and therefore the 15 mandatory road BMPs do not always apply. It is very difficult however, to determine when the criteria of jurisdictional wetlands has 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.

For this example we will assume that these flatwoods are not jurisdictional and are indeed just your average, everyday flatwoods. In this case, we could expect that during the wet season, the soil is often saturated and may even have water at or near the soil surface. There may be the presences of mounds and intermounded soils which would create for a rough ride in a skidder or shear. Common trees found in this type setting would be mixed pines, sweetgum, willow oak, water oak, cherrybark oak, and mixed white oaks. Despite the presence of water, these areas do not require a streamside management zone (SMZ). The primary concern for an area like this would be rutting which could cause damage and changes to the natural hydrology.

Also in your situation, you mentioned some areas that remain flooded on the tract. These areas could be backwater basins which are areas that hold water from backwater flooding when adjacent water bodies overflow. Backwater basins do not require the protection of a SMZ. Be aware though that these basins can be difficult to distinguish from intermittent streams (which do require and SMZ) and intermittent ponds. In cases where backwater basins have well-defined banks, trees should be left or selectively thinned on the bank and inside the basin. Trees should not be cut within the basin if there is a possibility of disturbing the backwater basin’s natural flow by rutting or jeopardizing soil stability.

For more information regarding flatwoods, backwater basins, and BMPs consult the bluebook. If you prefer, you can contact me

* This article was published in the March 2007 issue of the Texas Logger