February BMP Q&A

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

Q:   Due to the fact there were no questions this month, I would like to look in detail at some of the deficiencies noted in the latest round (Round 4) of BMP compliance monitoring.

A:   The report, “Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas,” noted two major deficiencies during the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from June 3, 1998 to August 31, 1999. The first area of deficiency was sedimentation from stream crossings. The second area of concern was erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. This month lets look at the problem with stream crossings in closer detail.

Stream crossings can potentially contribute a large portion of sediment to a stream, thereby impacting water quality. This is one reason why we should really work hard to install them properly. The best stream crossing is one that never occurred. How can this happen? During the planning stage of your harvest operation, use tools like aerial photographs, topographical maps, and soil surveys in combination with field reconnaissance to determine site conditions.

By using these tools and getting out on the ground, you may be able to spot some backside access to the timber. Sometimes it is worth paying an adjoining landowner a couple hundred dollars to gain access than it is to build a crossing. If that is not possible, and many times it isn’t, then it becomes really important that you install your crossing properly so that you minimize the potential for sedimentation to occur.

There are a number of methods available to successfully cross streams and have little impact on water quality. You could try using a brush crossing or laying logs in the stream channel lengthwise. These types of crossings are very inexpensive and generally have a minimal impact on water quality as long as the material is removed promptly. Another alternative is temporary bridges like crossing mats or a bridge made of poles that can be loaded onto the truck later. When using culverts for permanent or temporary crossings, it is extremely important that they be properly sized. The culvert should be large enough to handle the stream’s maximum flow. They should also be maintained and kept free of debris. There is a culvert size chart located on page 50 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices – “Bluebook.”

Lastly, you should always cross streams at right angles and use of equipment in the streambed should be kept to an absolute minimum. It is also important that the approaches to the crossing be stabilized with appropriate structures. Stream crossings also require frequent inspections during operations to determine their functional and safe condition. When needed, corrective measures should be taken immediately to fully restore the crossing.

Next month if there are no questions we will look at how to improve on erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. If you do have a question regarding BMPs please contact me.

* This article was published in the February 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

January BMP Q&A

By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service

Q:   Due to the fact there were no questions this month, I would like to look in detail at some of the problems noted in the latest round (Round 4) of BMP compliance monitoring.

A:   The report, “Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas,” noted two areas requiring improvement in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from June 3, 1998 to August 31, 1999. The first shortfall was sedimentation from stream crossings. The second area of concern was erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads. This month let’s look at the problem with skid trails and temporary roads in closer detail.

The major problems associated with skid trails and temporary roads, identified by the report, were not being well drained or stabilized with appropriate structures. These areas can erode severely and contribute a large amount of sediment to streams if not properly constructed. This impact to water quality can be greatly reduced with proper planning. During the planning stage of your harvest operation, use tools like aerial photographs, topographical maps, and soil surveys in combination with an actual on the ground field evaluation to determine site conditions. These practices can help in determining the proper placement of roads and trails.

When laying out road systems, try to achieve the best possible grade, avoiding slopes greater than 15%. This is not always possible, so installing a slant or zig-zag pattern may be necessary to prevent a directed water flow. Natural drainage areas requiring Streamside Management Zones should not be used for road locations or other traffic areas. Rutting should be minimized on wet soils to reduce the impact to water quality.

Upon completion of the harvest operation, skid trails and temporary roads should immediately be protected from erosion. One way to accomplish this is by constructing waterbars to allow for proper drainage. These structures should be installed at a 30 to 45 degree angle downslope, with an outlet to allow water to drain off the road. Improperly built waterbars can function as water dams, which trap the water and create more problems. A chart located on page 53 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices “Bluebook” shows the suggested spacing between waterbars.

Another way to protect skid trails and temporary roads from erosion is by placing wing ditches along travel areas. These devices allow water to be diverted from the roadway into undisturbed areas. This process also reduces the speed and amount of flowing water, the major cause of erosion. Runoff water should be spread at the outlet, not dumped directly into drainages or stream channels.

Permanent vegetative cover can also be established to offer greater protection. Seeding is an option on skid trails and temporary roads if disturbed soil areas are not expected to revegetate naturally in time to prevent erosion. Logging slash and brush can also be positioned along the roadway to achieve the same effect in a more economical way. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.

* This article was published in the January 2001 issue of the Texas Logger

December BMP Q&A

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

Q:   A few months ago you wrote about a report that the Texas Forest Service produces about BMP compliance. How often do you produce that report? Also, is it possible for regular people like me to see the report? I would like to see how we as an industry are doing with the BMPs.

A:   The report that you mention is titled, Voluntary Compliance with Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas. This report has been produced every two years since 1992. Each two year period is called a "round," and we have just finished the 4th round of monitoring. The data for this latest round has recently been complied and the report was published in September. You can download a copy of the results at the Texas Forest Service WebPage: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water. You can also request a copy from your local TFS office. For those of you who do not have time to read the report, here is a brief summary of the results from the last round of BMP monitoring.

The latest report documents the results of 150 sites throughout east Texas that were monitored between June 1998 and August 1999. Sites included lands owned by the public (national and state forest), forest industry, and non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners. Results indicated an increase in overall compliance with using BMPs from 87.3% in 1998 to 88.6% in the latest report.

In general, compliance was highest on sites owned by the USDA Forest Service or forest industry. Forest Service sites had an overall compliance of 97.9%, while industry sites had a 94.2% compliance rating. NIPF lands scored 81.2% overall.

The report indicates that compliance is greatest when landowners are familiar with Best Management Practices, when loggers have attended BMP training classes, when BMPs are included in the contract, and when a professional forester was involved with the operation.

In previous rounds (1,2, and 3) of monitoring, tracts were graded for compliance using a "Pass or Fail" method. For round 4, a new system was developed that uses percentages to denote compliance. The tracts in round 4 were also rated using the old method. When looking at the ratings using the old method, this fourth round shows an increase in compliance overall and by NIPF landowner and industry. USDA Forest Service lands again rated 100% in compliance when using the old method.

Next month we will talk about the areas of improvement and areas that need work that were indicated by the report. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

* This article was published in the December 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

November BMP Q&A

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

Q:   I have heard you mention that the Texas Forest Service (TFS) produces a report on how well loggers are doing with BMPs. What is covered in that report? I would also like to know if I could get a copy?

A:   Your question is very well timed. The latest report just made it off the presses in September. This program evaluated the level of compliance with the voluntary forestry BMPs. A total of 150 sites on which silvicultural activities occurred were evaluated. These sites are a representative sample of the forestry activities that occurred in East Texas between June 3, 1998 and August 31, 2000.

Overall compliance on the sites monitored was 88.6%. In general compliance was highest on sites owned by the USDA Forest Service or forest industry. The Forest Service had an overall compliance of 97.9%, while industry sites had a 94.2% compliance rating. Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands scored 81.2% overall.

In previous rounds (1,2,and 3) of monitoring, tracts were graded for compliance using a “Pass or Fail” method. For Round 4, a new system was developed that uses percentages to denote compliance. The tracts in Round 4 were also rated using the old method. When looking at ratings using the old method, this fourth round shows an increase in compliance overall and by NIPF landowners and industry.

Major improvements from the previous rounds included: The presence of SMZs where needed and increased NIPF compliance. However there were some major deficiencies noted including sedimentation from stream crossings and erosion problems from skid trails and temporary roads.

An overall compliance of 88.6% is good. However, you can see we still have plenty of room for improvement. The increased BMP compliance by landowners and loggers helped us earlier in the year in our efforts to have the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exclude forestry provisions from the total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulations. Continue to do a good job out there in the log woods. Always strive to improve in every aspect of your job and take pride in your work. If we do that then the rest will take care of itself. I would like to throw out a challenge to you. Let’s set our goal for the next monitoring round at 92% overall compliance. If everyone works hard and does the best job they can every time, I know we can do it!

You can get a copy of the results from Round 4 of BMP Compliance Monitoring at the TFS webpage: http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water or there are a few copies available at the TFS office in Lufkin. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

* This article was published in the November 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

October BMP Q&A

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

Q: If you leave a buffer strip on ephemeral drains, do you treat it as a Streamside Management Zone (SMZ)? A landowner asked me that question this past weekend and I didn’t know the answer. My buddy suggested that I send this question in to see what you would recommend. What do you think?

A: That is an excellent question. Ephemeral drains can often times be very difficult to deal with. I am sure most of you know the difference between the three classifications of streams but I would like to review them for those who may have forgotten. The three classifications of streams are perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams.

Perennial streams are streams that flow throughout the majority of the year (90% of the time or greater) and flows in a well-defined channel. Intermittent streams flow mostly during the wet periods of the year (30-90% of the time) and flows in a well-defined channel. Ephemeral streams or drains flow only during and for short periods following precipitation and flows in low areas that may or may not have a well-defined channel.

The Texas Best Management Practices “bluebook” recommends an SMZ, with a minimum width of 50 feet on either side of the stream channel, on all perennial and intermittent streams. Buffer strips on ephemeral drains are left up to your professional judgement. Your experience may tell you that you need a buffer strip on an ephemeral drain to keep it from washing out and becoming an erosion problem. However, the recommended guidelines do not treat buffer strips on ephemeral drains in the same manner as SMZs. I would simply say that you should use your professional judgement here as to how to treat the buffer strip. I would look at the soil type and slope to determine the width of my buffer strip. On a steep sandy soil, I might treat the buffer strip very similar to the way I treat an SMZ. However on a clay soil with moderate slopes, I would probably have a narrower buffer strip. I would also try to keep the channel free of tops and debris, and avoid crossing the drain if practicable.

The ball is really in each of your courts in circumstances like these. This situation is one of those areas that can really make the difference for us (the forest industry as a whole) in our efforts to keep BMPs non-regulatory. Good, prudent decisions can help us all look that much better to our critics.

I hope that answered your question. Does anybody else have any other suggestions or methods that they use? Thanks to your buddy for suggesting that you give me an opportunity to make some recommendations. I always appreciate the opportunity to address specific BMP related questions.
If you are in the area stop by see me. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

* This article was published in the October 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

September BMP Q&A

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

Q: I have a question about wing ditches. My guys put them in whenever they think one is needed. I was wondering do you have any specific guidelines as to how many and how often they need to install them?

A: Wing Ditches are water turnouts that divert water away from the road and/or a side ditch. The purpose of a wing ditch is to collect and direct water from road surface runoff into an undisturbed area. It is necessary that the wing ditch allow the water to slow down and to channel the water away from the road and roadside ditches. There are some guidelines to use on when to install wing ditches and how often. Experience, which should never be downplayed, also plays a large role in knowing when and where to put the wing ditches along your roads.

You probably want to use wing ditches anywhere where there is an accumulation of water or a section of road or trail. The water should be diverted so as to decrease the volume and velocity of the water especially on slopes. You also should use wing ditches where there is a buildup of drainage water in roadside ditches. This buildup can eat away at roadbeds and scour out the roadside ditch itself. The recommended guidelines for wing ditches are on pages37 and 38 in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Manuel sometimes called, “the Bluebook.”

The spacing of your wing ditches depends on slope and soil conditions. On 2%-5% slopes the spacing should be no greater than 200 feet apart. On slopes 5%-10%, the distance between wing ditches should be no greater than 100 feet apart. Slopes greater than 10% should have wing ditches no more than 75 feet apart. Your experience should tell you that you might need more wing ditches if you are working on highly erodible soils. One other thing to keep in mind is that wing ditches should not feed directly into streams, gullies, or adjacent drains or ditches.


Wing ditches should be installed so that they leave the road ditch line at about a 30 to 45 degree angle to the roadbed and be designed to follow the natural shape (contour) of the land. The runoff water can be spread out, filtered by brush, or retained in the wing ditch. Wing ditches are very effective tools to help maintain roads and trails. Wing ditches can be even more effective when used in conjunction with other road BMPs like water bars, rolling dips and crowning the road. I hope that answered your question. Does anybody else have any other suggestions or methods that they use?

If you are in the area stop by see me. If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

* This article was published in the September 2000 issue of the Texas Logger

August BMP Q&A

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

Q: I recently had a landowner ask me to seed his roads after we moved off his property. Is seeding in his roads going to be enough to stop erosion, and how do I know what to seeds to plant?

A: Seeding or revegetation of disturbed areas is an excellent erosion control tool. The objective of seeding is to quickly establish a ground cover that will hold the soil together under most conditions. Seed selection is important and you should consider the season, soil type and the availability of sunlight to the seeding area. To get the best results, it is sometimes necessary to use a combination of seeds. There is a section (begins on page 61) in the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices Book, the “Blue Book,” that addresses revegetation of disturbed areas. This section also provides information about which type of grasses and legumes are best suited for the different soil types; sands, loams, and clays. It provides information about the optimum planting dates and growing seasons for each of the recommended grasses and legumes. Seeding is usually more successful in the spring and fall. There are a couple of different methods of seeding including; broadcast, sprigging and drilling. The most common technique of seeding is the broadcast method. Broadcast seed can be covered by dragging a chain or brush to ensure good seed contact with the soil (1/2 to 1 inch deep). The use of fertilizer is often recommended when seeding. Care should be taken to insure that the fertilizer does not enter a stream. Avoid applying fertilizer in streamside management zones (SMZs). Another important factor to keep in mind the topography or slope of the land. Steep or hilly slopes will require more than seeding. Your experience should tell you what and how many other erosion control structures are necessary to stabilize the roads.

Your experience on each site will tell you that it depends on a number of factors as to whether or not seeding the road is going to reduce erosion. Seeding the roads can be very effective when used alone or in combination with other BMPs. I would also recommend that prior to seeding, you check with the landowner to see if he/she has a specific seed in mind. Seeding the road in can provide some wildlife benefits and can act as a large food plot. You may even be able to convince the landowner to buy or share the cost of the seed.

If you have a BMP question you would like answered, please contact me.

* This article was published in the August 2000 issue of the Texas Logger