August Issue of the BMP Informer Now AvailableFriday, August 1, 2008
August BMP Q&A
By Shane Harrington, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest
Service
Q: Last year I heard that the Texas Forest Service was conducting a new workshop for loggers through the Texas Pro-Logger Program. Several years ago I attended the BMP Logger Training Workshop in order to obtain my Pro-Logger certification. Is the workshop I’m hearing about the same as the one that has been offered in years past or is it something new?
A: Texas Forest Service in 2007 began offering a new BMP workshop
focusing on stream crossings to logging professionals as part of the Pro-Logger
program. This course is approved for 6.0
hours of continuing education, meeting the annual requirements for logging
contractors to maintain their certification.
Q: Last year I heard that the Texas Forest Service was conducting a new workshop for loggers through the Texas Pro-Logger Program. Several years ago I attended the BMP Logger Training Workshop in order to obtain my Pro-Logger certification. Is the workshop I’m hearing about the same as the one that has been offered in years past or is it something new?
To date Texas Forest Service
has conducted six workshops in Lufkin, Jefferson, Silsbee, and Woodville. “The response we have seen from logging
professionals in East Texas has been
tremendous and the attendance at each workshop proves that with each being full
thus far” said Shane Harrington, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service. “We’ve even had other states contact us about
using our workshop as a model for their own states” said Harrington. Future dates for additional stream crossing
workshops are being planned now for 2008.
This new workshop is designed
like the traditional BMP course in which attendees spend the morning session
participating in discussions, watching videos, and listening to slide
presentations. After lunch, the class
travels to several field sites to apply the principles that were presented
earlier that morning. Topics covered in
this workshop include:
- How to plan a stream crossing
- Advantages and disadvantages of various stream crossing methods
- Proper installation and remediation of stream crossings
The idea to develop this
course came after the release of the 2005 Texas BMP Implementation Monitoring
report, a document produced to determine the extent to which the forestry
community is voluntarily following the recommended guidelines. The report showed that stream crossings
consistently ranked lower than any other category evaluated, which is a
concern, given the sensitivity of these areas.
“Implementing BMPs on stream
crossings is absolutely critical because these locations are direct contact
points to the stream. Improperly
constructing a stream crossing can have a negative impact on water quality,”
said Hughes Simpson, Texas BMP Coordinator.
Participants have seen the
benefits in attending this course. Post
workshop evaluations show that 97% of attendees would recommend this class to
others. Also the evaluations showed that
most attendees would like to see future workshops on streamside management
zones and forest roads. Typical written
comments from participants were:
"I think this was a good workshop and everyone that works on dirt needs to attend.""Good. The men did a great job of showing different ideas about future logging procedures.""Thanks for your effort. The class is needed to try to get everyone on the same page!""Good. Great opportunity to expand knowledge."
A stream crossing workshop is
currently being planned for later this fall in the Livingston
area and to register for this workshop or any other course required for the Pro-Logger certification, contact the
Texas Forestry Association at (936) 632-8733.
For more information on Best Management Practices, please contact the
Texas Forest Service at (936) 639-8180 or go online at http://texasforestservice.tamu.edu/water.
* This article was published in the August 2008 issue of the Texas Logger
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
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
section 404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977.Do you know what Federal Agency regulates operations that are conducted within jurisdictional wetlands?
Click on "comments" below and post your answers.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
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.
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
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
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
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 31st 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
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 31st 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
Saturday, March 1, 2008
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)