January BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I was logging a tract the other day and a guy in a pick-up stopped by and said he was going to call Texas Forest Service (TFS) and file a complaint on us because he thought we were tearing up the place. I told him to go right ahead and he left looking mad. He had to be a neighbor or something because I know he wasn’t the landowner. My question is what if anything does TFS do when it gets complaints from people?

A:   This question is not necessarily directly related to BMPs but it is a question that is asked from time-to-time. There seems to have been a few more complaints received this year than in previous years. While this certainly could be an aberration, I think that this increase may likely be due to the fact that there are more people in the Urban/Wildland Interface (UWI – areas where urban developments and people come into contact with the forests and other wildlands) than ever before and also their general overall lack of exposure to forestry (an issue we can address next month).

Complaints can come from a variety of sources; landowners, neighbors, loggers, foresters, State agencies, Federal agencies, and often times random passer-bys. Regardless of who complains, TFS takes all complaints seriously and that sets in motion a complaint resolution process. Most logging complaints that are not of the timber theft or timber arson variety are forwarded to the BMP Program of TFS since this program deals directly with and is well versed in the best management practices for forestry. I am sure most of you are familiar with the BMP Program which is the program within TFS that is trained to determine if BMPs were implemented properly during forestry operations.

It is important to note before describing this process that TFS BMP Program usually receives on average only 3-5 complaints per year. Usually of those 3-5 complaints, only 1-2 of them turn out to be complaints that have reasonable environmental concerns.

When we receive a complaint we always state up front that TFS is not a regulatory agency and that forestry BMPs are voluntary practices implemented cooperatively by landowners, foresters, and loggers to protect water quality. If that is unsatisfactory to the complainant we may disclose other available options for addressing logging complaints which include calling the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s (SFI) Inconsistent Practices Board at the Texas Forestry Association, contacting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers if the complainant believes a violation occurred in a wetland, or contacting Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) which is the State’s regulatory agency. After describing all the options available, the BMP forester will make every effort to resolve the complaint before the complainant chooses to escalate it to any of the other options. In nearly all cases, the complainants are content to allow the TFS to address the merits of their complaint.

The first step in the process is to determine the exact nature of the complaint. We attempt to determine the location of the complaint and also the true severity of the complaint. This determination of severity may include a conversation about the specifics of the complaint and it may even require an informal site visit by a BMP forester to the tract in question. In many cases, after assessing the complaint, it is determined that the best course of action is to address the complainant’s understanding of forestry and forestry operations. Sometimes a discussion with the complainant about normal forestry practices helps to resolve unwarranted complaints.

If a complaint is assessed and then determined to be warranted, the BMP forester will then attempt to contact the landowner to find out more information about the tract. All information gathered about the tract including the landowner’s objectives, the landowner’s understanding of BMPs, and the agreement the landowner had with the forester or logger, etc., is used to determine what caused the issue related to the complaint. TFS BMP foresters then attempt to develop a cooperative and completely voluntary plan with the landowner to address the issues related to the complaint. This resolution process may sometimes include working with the forester who handled the sale and also the logger who conducted the operation to help remediate any problem areas.

If efforts to contact the landowner are unsuccessful or the landowner is unwilling to participate in the remediation process, then the complaint is typically left unresolved. However, because TFS generally has a great relationship with forest landowners usually some type of resolution is realized.

TFS does not share any specific information about the complaint to either of the parties involved in the process. The landowner is not told who lodged the complaint and the complainant is also not given any information about the landowner, foresters or the loggers involved. The only information shared with the complainant is that they may be kept informed about the status of a resolution process; for example we may share if the process is on-going, stalled or if there is no participation. In the end, complaint resolution all relies on cooperation just like the voluntary implementation of BMPs relies on cooperation from landowners, foresters, and loggers. This formula of voluntary cooperation has definitely been proven successful in Texas which I believe is why we have so few complaints to deal with annually. Keep up the good work!

For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book (a.k.a. the “Bluebook”), contact your local Texas Forest Service office, or you can contact me.

* This article was published in the January 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

December BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I am about to begin harvesting on a tract which shares a border with one of our National Forests and is also bordered by a major river; Are there any special BMPs that I should be aware of before I begin cutting? Specifically do I need to leave a buffer strip on the border with the National Forest or a wider SMZ on the major river?

A:   I recently received a phone call asking this very question from an interested individual. It is important to remember that the primary function of any BMP is to protect and minimize impacts to water quality from forestry operations. This question reveals that often times there can be confusion between what exactly are BMPs and what are policies/requirements that some companies, consulting foresters, and even landowners want met during operations.

For example, a timber company may require that an aesthetic buffer strip be left on any adjacent boundaries to the National Forestland. While this may be a requirement by the timber company, it is not related to the protection of water quality and thus it is not a BMP guideline or recommendation. It would certainly be prudent (especially if you wanted to continue your employment with this company) to leave the buffer strip, but during a BMP implementation evaluation, there would be no consideration given as to whether or not you followed company guidelines. The only consideration would be did the operators follow the guidelines set forth in the “Bluebook” and did the BMPs that were implemented effectively minimize and protect water quality on the site.

The second part of the question deals with the width of the SMZ on a major river. There is no special classification for rivers whether they be considered major or minor, they are all classified as perennial streams. There are however, several factors that need to be addressed before an answer about SMZ width can be determined. It is a known that the SMZ should meet the minimum width of 50 feet on each side of the river. There are two separate directives in the “Bluebook” that address the need to determine if the SMZ should be wider:

BMP Guidelines, Section 9.23, Pg. 28

"The width of an SMZ should be a site-specific determination made by foresters or other qualified professionals. Soil types, slope gradient, vegetative cover, volume of flow, and stream classification should be taken into consideration when designing each SMZ."

Recommended Specifications, Section 9.11, Pp. 58-59

"The width of the SMZ should be adjusted for slope, soils, and cover type and especially when protecting municipal water supplies"

Both of these directives indicate that a wider SMZ is certainly a possibility. Both of the directives also point to site conditions that should help you to determine if a wider SMZ is needed. According to the SMZ width chart on page 59 of the “Bluebook,” a 100 feet wide buffer is necessary if the river is a municipal water supply, i.e. water is being treated and used as the water supply for a community. I would suggest that some evaluation is needed of the soils and slope to fully answer this question. However based on the information that this is a “major river,” it probably has a large volume of flow. I would make a recommendation that the SMZ width be increased past the minimum width of 50 feet and I would further use the site’s soil and slope conditions to determine how much wider.

For more information regarding BMPs consult the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book (a.k.a. the “Bluebook”), contact your local Texas Forest office, or you can contact me.

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

BMP Trivia Question

Timber production is recognized as a land use that is compatible with wetland protection. Although wetlands are federally regulated, normal forestry operations in wetlands such as soil bedding, site preparation, harvesting, and minor drainage are exempt from permit requirements under the Clean Water Act, as long as the activity

1) qualifies as "normal silviculture,"
2) is part of an "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 water of the United States.

Do you know what the section number of the Clean Water Act is that exempts “normal silviculture” operations from being required to obtain a permit when operating in wetlands?


Click on "comments" below and post your answers.

October BMP Q&A

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

Q:   In June and July you described several key attributes or criteria to help to identify ephemeral and intermittent streams. Can you provide similar identifiable attributes or criteria for perennial streams?

A:   Certainly, it is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used to describe streams: 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 perennial streams. If you need more information about classifying intermittent or ephemeral streams you can look back at the June and July editions of the Texas Logger or you can find the information in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices manual or “the bluebook.”

Dictionary.com defines, the term “perennial” as an adjective: “lasting for an indefinitely long time;enduring” and also, “lasting or continuing throughout the entire year, as a stream.” Perennial streams have regular flow usually 90% to 100% of the year (10 ½ months to 12 months) under normal climatic conditions. During times of drought, some perennial streams may cease flow but this is not the “normal” condition of these streams.

While this definition seems at first glance to limit the number of streams that fall into this category, there are still a lot of streams in Texas that fit this definition. There are a lot of spring fed streams that a person could easily step across that fit this description. A spring that flows 10 ½ months or more is a perennial stream.

During the drought conditions and summer months, identifying flow characteristics can often be difficult. If flow cannot be determined, the presence of five or more of the following characteristics should be helpful in recognizing a perennial stream:

1. Well-defined channel.
2. Water pools present, even during dry conditions.
3. A channel that is almost always sinuous (winding or curvy).
4. Evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport, also the indication of a flood zone parallel to the stream by sediment deposits, sediment stained leaves, bare ground and/or drift lines.
5. Evidence of soil and debris movement (scouring) in the stream channel. Leaf litter is usually transient or temporary in the flow channel.
6. Wetland or hydrophytic vegetation is usually associated with the stream channel or flow area. Also, even along deeply incised or “down cut” channels there is usually wetland-like vegetation present along the banks.
7. Predominately gray soils (except soils of deep sands) with a loamy to clay texture. Red mottles or “specks” are usually present in gray soil matrix.
8. Usually identified on USGS topographic maps as a thin blue line or identified on a NRCS soil maps as a black line separated by one dot.
9. Perennial streams are considered “Waters of the United States” and therefore fall under the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

These characteristics are found on page 60 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook” and are designed to be a guide to help determine stream classification.

While it is important to know the differences in the streams and how to identify them, it is equally important to know that intermittent and perennial streams are treated in the same manner in the “bluebook.” The guidelines and recommendations should be applied the same once a stream is determined to be at least an intermittent. As you conduct your operations, always remember that your actions in the woods have the potential to affect water quality either positively or negatively.

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 October 2007 issue of the Texas Logger

September BMP Q&A

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

Q:    In June you described several key attributes or criteria to help to identify ephemeral streams. Can you provide similar identifiable attributes or criteria for intermittent streams?

A:   Certainly, it is important to remember that there are three general classifications of streams that are used to describe streams: 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 intermittent streams while the next BMP Q& A article will address perennial stream classification in greater detail.

Dictionary.com defines, the term “intermittent” as an adjective: “stopping or ceasing for a time; alternately ceasing and beginning again” Because water flow in intermittent streams can start and stop several times during a year, this is a great definition to describe the characteristics of intermittent streams. Intermittent streams have seasonal flow usually 30% to 90% of the year (3 ½ months to 10 ½ months) under normal climatic conditions.

This interpretation of intermittent streams means that a large majority of streams fall into this category. All that is required for a stream to be considered intermittent is for it to have some flow for 3 ½ months cumulatively during a year. So if a stream only flows during the wet winter months from November to February is it an intermittent? The answer in this case would be YES, since that equates to 4 months and all that is required is 3 ½ months. The same result would occur if this stream were to flow for two months in the spring and then again for two months in the winter.

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

1. Well-defined channel.
2. Water pools absent during dry conditions but present during wet conditions.
3. A channel that is mostly sinuous (winding or curvy).
4. Some evidence of fluctuating high water marks (flood prone width) and/or sediment transport, also the indication of a flood zone parallel to the stream by sediment deposits, sediment stained leaves, bare ground and/or drift lines.
5. Evidence of soil and debris movement (scouring) in the stream channel. Leaf litter is usually transient or temporary in the flow channel.
6. Wetland or hydrophytic vegetation is usually associated with the stream channel or flow area
7. Predominately brown soils with inclusions of gray soils (except soils of deep sands with extreme red soil color). Usually alluvial type soils with loamy to sandy texture.
8. Usually identified on USGS topographic maps as a thin blue line or a blue line separated by three dots or identified on a NRCS soil maps as a black line separated by two or more dots.
9. Intermittent streams are considered “Waters of the United States” and therefore fall under the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act.

These characteristics are found on page 61 of the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices book or “bluebook” and are designed to be a guide to help determine stream classification.

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 September 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 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