June BMP Q&A

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

Q:  In your opinion, if loggers had to focus on one specific BMP or area of BMPs what would it be and why?

A:  In evaluating BMP implementation all over east Texas, I see a lot of logging operations. Each logging operation is very different and yet the same elements are present on the majority of the sites I see. If I could get loggers to focus on one thing specifically it would be stream crossings.

I know we have beat this drum for a long time now but it really is a critical area of any harvest operation. Stream crossings are critical areas because this is where loggers can potentially have the greatest impact to water quality if precautions are not taken. As most of you have learned, sedimentation is the biggest concern with forestry operations and 90% of the sediment load comes from our forest roads. It is fairly clear to see that where our roads actually come into contact and cross streams, we have a recipe for problems if attention is not paid to protecting water quality by using proper BMPs.

Removing temporary crossings seems like a very simple task to undertake, it always amazes me when I run into temporary crossings that are left in streams. Most “temporary” crossings that are left behind are typically brush type crossings. These types of crossings do allow some water to pass through which makes them extremely useful to use during the operation. The reason they need to be removed is because they still impede water to a degree and also they trap debris on the upstream side of the crossing. Eventually they become blocked with leaf litter and become in effect a dam. Once this happens, it is only a matter of time before a blow out occurs and an extremely large sediment load around the crossing is eroded away and into the stream channel. This process is sped up during periods of high flow for the stream like during a major rain event. For this reason, most of these types of problem areas are considered significant risks to water quality both in real terms and also on the BMP Implementation Evaluation form. This process holds true for other types of temporary crossings left behind such as pole crossings or log crossings. According to at least one logger I spoke to, it takes less time to remove a brush crossing than it does to install it, and for that reason alone, there should be no reason a temporary brush crossing should ever be left behind.

Temporary crossings that are left in place following an operation can pose a significant risk to water quality

Another BMP as equally important as removing a stream crossing is stabilizing stream crossings and approaches. A lot of good work can be undone by simply not stabilizing the approaches. Approaches have to be stabilized because of their proximity to the stream channel itself. This limited amount of area provides little room for error when it comes to implementing BMPs properly. You can stabilize the approaches by laying down slash, laying down hay, seeding grass, and when necessary installing water bars. Water bars should only be installed on approaches if it is absolutely necessary to prevent a washout occurring on the approach due to steep slopes or moderate slopes on sandy sites. Again, because of the nearness to the stream if water bars are used, they must be installed properly at a 30 to 45 degree angle, 1 to 2 feet in height, tied in properly on the uphill side and venting water off the approach but not directly into the stream itself. When approaches are not stabilized, what typically happens is water begins finding its way down the approach and into the stream and before long a head cut starts right at the stream bank eroding sediment directly into the stream. Rain intensity, slope, and soil type all play a roll into how rapidly the head cut advances back up the slope and ultimately how much sediment is eroded into the stream. Stabilizing with rock or geo-textiles may be considered or necessary on approaches to permanent crossings.

These two areas, removing temporary crossings and stabilizing crossings and approaches, have consistently been problem areas for loggers throughout the history of BMP implementation monitoring. As I have pointed out numerous times, we already have been successful in implementing BMPs but that is no reason to sit on our laurels. If we, the forestry community, focus on addressing these two issues, I think we will have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest expectations.

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 June 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Informer - May 2008

May Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Forestry Services Vendor Database
• Famous Trees of Texas
• Improving My Land - Streamside Management Zones
• Interactive Website on Forests & Trees
• Determining Stream Types
• Texas Forest Service District Offices Serving You

April BMP Q&A

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

Q:   In the past couple of articles you have mentioned that the forestry community has achieved a BMP implementation rate of 91.7% in the “last round.” When was the last round completed and when will we know the results of the next round?

A:   The Texas Forest Service BMP Program currently conducts its implementation monitoring study on a three year cycle. The study has been conducted in various intervals since the TFS BMP Program began in 1989, with the most common interval being two years between studies and the longest interval between studies being four years. It is important to know that there have been some modifications to the forms used to evaluate BMP implementation over the years. The method of evaluation remained the same in the first two rounds of monitoring but by the third round, an improved, less subjective form was adopted and put into use. The sites that were evaluated in the third round were actually evaluated using both forms so a basis of comparison could be made to the earlier rounds.

The first report, Round I, was published in October 1992 and included sites evaluated from mid-1990 to mid-1992. The Round I study found that overall BMP implementation rates were about 88% (79% based on the current BMP implementation evaluation form) and it noted major deficiencies in several major categories of evaluation: permanent roads, temporary roads, streamside management zones, site preparation.
The second report was published four years later in March 1996 with this being the longest interval between monitoring cycles. The Round II study found that overall BMP implementation rates actually dropped to 87.4% (76% based on the current form). Since this study concluded in 1996, there has yet to be another drop in implementation rates.

After 1996, a two year monitoring cycle was adopted so that in 1998, 2000, and 2002, three more rounds of monitoring took place and subsequently three additional reports were published: Round III, Round IV, and Round V. During this six year span, the BMP implementation rate increased from 83.7% in 1998 to a 90.8% in 2002. Progress was definitely made during this period of monitoring to increase implementation rates, minimize non-point source pollution, and improve on the major deficiencies noted in Round I of monitoring.

After 2002, a three year monitoring cycle was adopted, primarily for managerial reasons related to the Federal grant that helps fund the BMP program, so that the next report was published in 2005. In this round, Round VI, BMP implementation rates reached 91.7% which is the implementation number that has been referred to most recently in my articles and also in other publications and at presentations. Simple math indicated that the next report is due out some time this year. In fact, the report will be completed by August 31^st and a publication of the results will most likely be available in September or soon thereafter. It is still too early to say if the implementation rate will continue its increase or not but whatever the case, we will have a new number for you soon.

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 April 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

March BMP Q&A

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

Q:   In one of your most recent BMP Q&A articles, you mentioned that you thought that there may be an increase in the number of complaints about logging. What evidence do you have that would make you believe that, and if it turns out to be true, what can we do to avoid having a complaint against our operation.

A:   Forestry as we know it is currently undergoing a change. In fact, Texas Forest Service (TFS) has recently offered several workshops called “Changing Roles in Forestry” and “Texas Forest Expo” to landowners, loggers, and foresters highlighting some of the issues related to this change. These workshops identify some trends that are beginning to emerge across the forestry landscape affecting its participants. A couple of the trends identified in these workshops are the basis for my claim regarding a possible increase in logging complaints but I would like to focus on what I consider to be the primary reason.

The most important trend in my opinion is that the urban wildland interface (UWI) is expanding rapidly, bringing with it more people with limited experiences concerning forestry operations. With this increase in population, comes an increase in the chance some of these people may pass by a timber harvest operation. The limited experience and potentially unfavorable view of timber harvesting of some of these individuals may cause them to complain about the harvest. In other words, the visibility of timber harvests increases as more and more people move into the areas where the majority of harvests occur. The increase in visibility combined with the number of people, all with varied ideologies regarding timber harvesting, could lead to more complaints.

An increase in complaints is not a certainty by any means, but it is a possibility. Furthermore, it is important to note as mentioned in the previous article, TFS Best Management Practices 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. Despite my speculation that the number of complaints may increase, I don’t expect the number with reasonable environmental concerns to increase because of the high BMP implementation rate (91.7%) throughout the state.

In regard to the second portion of the question, I don’t know if it is possible to avoid a complaint in all cases. The most important thing is to make sure you follow the BMP guidelines and implement BMPs properly on each job. BMPs have been proven to be effective and help to ensure that the timber being harvested is having a minimal effect on water quality and thus a minimal environmental effect.

If BMPs are implemented properly on a tract that received a complaint, then that creates an opportunity. The opportunity that is created is one of education for the person who lodged the complaint. A return call by a TFS BMP forester would include an explanation to the complainant as to why no further action was taken. This explanation would most likely include a description of the voluntary BMP system adopted in Texas, the high implementation rate that exists statewide, and possibly a very general overview of what was viewed i.e. if BMPs were implemented at the site in question. In some circumstances this explanation/educational opportunity could spill over into other aspects of forestry such as reforestation, harvest/reforestation rates, ecology, wildlife, or any other numerous avenues related to forestry.

The alternative is that if a complaint is legitimate, then it creates another opportunity for education. This opportunity relates to the landowner, forester, and logger of the operation in question as well as the BMP forester that addresses the complaint. It is important to understand why BMPs weren’t implemented properly: was it simply poor implementation of BMPs; could it be a poor understanding of how to implement the proper BMPs; did the landowner request that BMPs not be implemented; or was there some other reason? In all of these cases, some education needs to occur so that all the parties involved are aware of the implications of their actions.

Education always seems to be the key to solving most of our issues. Loggers should be well aware of how much education exists to help with Pro-Logger certification. It is important to know that the loggers aren’t the only ones who are the target of all the educational efforts. TFS, the Texas Forestry Association and other agencies and groups continue their efforts to educate these new landowners and UWI residents about forestry and forestry related issues. While we are educating these relative new comers about forestry, we are also educating ourselves about the different values and objectives they have for the land. This dialogue presents both sides with opportunities to build trust and with that the potential to see things from a different point of view.

The bottom line is while forestry may be changing, one thing that is not changing is people’s attitudes about timber being harvested in an environmentally sensitive and sustainable manner. Whether complaints increase or stay the same, as long as BMPs are being implemented at a high rate like they are today, loggers can take pride in the fact that they are doing their part. In fact, all you loggers should be proud to be such an outstanding group of environmentally sensitive lumberjacks and lumberjills, you’ve got the numbers to back it up (91.7% BMP implementation rate). Now, I have a question for you loggers, how many of you have been called environmentally sensitive before today?

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 March 2008 issue of the Texas Logger

BMP Informer - February 2008

February Issue of the BMP Informer Now Available

• Reforestation and BMPs
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
• Improving My Land - Stream Crossings
• Management Considerations for Wildlife
• New Stream Crossing Workshop A Success
• Websites of Interest

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