April Issue of the BMP Informer Now AvailableTuesday, April 1, 2003
April BMP Q&A
By: Jake Donellan, BMP Forester (Ret.), Texas Forest Service
No question and answer this week, only a suggestion. I, like many of you, recently received a letter in the mail from the Texas Forestry Association and the Texas Logging Council reminding landowners, loggers, and foresters to be observant for any space shuttle material while operating in the woods. In the letter, Ron Hufford, the Executive Vice President of the Texas Forestry Association, urges loggers to walk tracts to look for shuttle debris before commencing operations. If you do find something that you suspect is shuttle material please mark the location (flagging, etc.) and call (936) 699-1032 or (936) 699-1034 or call your local sheriff’s office. If you find something that may be human remains please call (936) 699-1022. Do not handle or remove any debris you may encounter. The small amount of time it takes to conduct the walk could play a crucial part in the effort to help solve the shuttle tragedy and give closure to this event.
From a logging point of view, even after the shuttle recovery is over, I would encourage you to continue walking tracts before beginning your operations. In fact, the BMP program has always recommended to loggers that they walk the tract as part of the planning process before starting up operations on a tract.
If you are working on a private tract, ask the landowner or the landowner’s forester to be a part of the walk through, or if you are on an industry tract ask the company forester to come along. By walking a tract, you can find a wealth of information that can help you conduct an efficient and well-organized harvest operation. You can identify the best location to cross a creek, locate a skid trail or road, or place a loading deck. You can also get a feel for problem areas such as steep slopes or wet areas that may not be easily planned for from a map or aerial photo. Locating boundary lines is another important reason to walk a tract before starting. If it is a private tract, the landowner may identify special areas that may require a little more care and attention when harvesting. By paying attention to those sorts of things, you can certainly save yourself some headaches down the road. There is a lot of useful information that can be gained by a simple walk around a tract before starting an operation, especially if you include the landowner. That information may, in the end, save you some grief, it will save you some time and possibly even save you some money.
The forestry community has already done a fabulous job in assisting with the Columbia space shuttle recovery and your efforts are greatly appreciated by many. I would urge you all to continue with your gracious assistance by conducting a walk through on your tracts before starting up operations. Something you find may be the key to unraveling the mystery about what caused this terrible tragedy. While you are out there scanning the woods for shuttle material, take a few more minutes to be observant about the tract itself. These tract inspections, for obvious reasons, are something you definitely need to do right now, and something you should consider doing from now on. And if you are not anywhere near the shuttle recovery site, give this walk through a try and see if it helps and then let me know how it turns out.
From a logging point of view, even after the shuttle recovery is over, I would encourage you to continue walking tracts before beginning your operations. In fact, the BMP program has always recommended to loggers that they walk the tract as part of the planning process before starting up operations on a tract.
If you are working on a private tract, ask the landowner or the landowner’s forester to be a part of the walk through, or if you are on an industry tract ask the company forester to come along. By walking a tract, you can find a wealth of information that can help you conduct an efficient and well-organized harvest operation. You can identify the best location to cross a creek, locate a skid trail or road, or place a loading deck. You can also get a feel for problem areas such as steep slopes or wet areas that may not be easily planned for from a map or aerial photo. Locating boundary lines is another important reason to walk a tract before starting. If it is a private tract, the landowner may identify special areas that may require a little more care and attention when harvesting. By paying attention to those sorts of things, you can certainly save yourself some headaches down the road. There is a lot of useful information that can be gained by a simple walk around a tract before starting an operation, especially if you include the landowner. That information may, in the end, save you some grief, it will save you some time and possibly even save you some money.
The forestry community has already done a fabulous job in assisting with the Columbia space shuttle recovery and your efforts are greatly appreciated by many. I would urge you all to continue with your gracious assistance by conducting a walk through on your tracts before starting up operations. Something you find may be the key to unraveling the mystery about what caused this terrible tragedy. While you are out there scanning the woods for shuttle material, take a few more minutes to be observant about the tract itself. These tract inspections, for obvious reasons, are something you definitely need to do right now, and something you should consider doing from now on. And if you are not anywhere near the shuttle recovery site, give this walk through a try and see if it helps and then let me know how it turns out.
* This article was published in the April 2003 issue of the Texas Logger
Saturday, March 1, 2003
March BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: I have been reading the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices (Bluebook) and am a little confused about some of the Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) guidelines, especially regarding thinning within these areas. Would you mind trying to clarify these guidelines?
A: Certainly! SMZs are very important areas that should be established when conducting forestry operations. These areas provide many benefits to us, mainly through the protection of water quality by filtering runoff water before it enters waterways. To offset potential monetary losses for establishing SMZs, tax incentives were passed by the 76th Texas Legislature to encourage these practices.
A SMZ is a 50-foot strip of trees between the stream channel and the harvest area. These zones are primarily left on perennial and intermittent streams, but depending on site conditions, you may also want to establish them on ephemeral streams. Specific attention is given to management activities within these areas to protect instream and downstream water quality.
Partial harvesting (thinning) is acceptable within the SMZ. A minimum residual density of 50 square feet of basal area per acre should be retained. Basal area is generally measured using a 10 factor angle gauge (prism) and is based on the theory of the probability of selection being proportional to tree size. There is no minimum diameter limit for residual trees.
If you are not familiar with the concept of ' 'basal area" or do not have a prum, a. general rule of thumb that you can use is to retain a minimum of 50% of the original Crown cover. This is easily accomplished by looking up at the canopy and visualizing how it will look after the harvest while you are marking the trees to be cut. Keep in mind that in order to stay Within the guidelines, you usually must remove less than half of the original timber in the SMZ.
When thinning the SMZ, it is important to remember that the residual trees should be evenly distributed. Large gaps or open patches where the basal area falls below 50 square feet per acre should be avoided when possible. This can reduce the filtering and shading capacity of the SMZ. It is also important to plan for the damage and accidental felling of "leave" trees while thinning within this zone. SMZs that do not have an original basal area of 50 square feet per acre should not be thinned.
Placing a higher priority on removing the more valuable timber (mature pine) over lesser valuable timber (scrub hardwoods) can help reduce the financial burden of leaving an SMZ. However, harvesting this timber under certain site conditions may cause additional water quality impacts. Operating heavy equipment while the ground is saturated may cause rutting and sedimentation. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the March 2003 issue of the Texas Logger
Q: I have been reading the Texas Forestry Best Management Practices (Bluebook) and am a little confused about some of the Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) guidelines, especially regarding thinning within these areas. Would you mind trying to clarify these guidelines?
A: Certainly! SMZs are very important areas that should be established when conducting forestry operations. These areas provide many benefits to us, mainly through the protection of water quality by filtering runoff water before it enters waterways. To offset potential monetary losses for establishing SMZs, tax incentives were passed by the 76th Texas Legislature to encourage these practices.
Partial harvesting (thinning) is acceptable within the SMZ. A minimum residual density of 50 square feet of basal area per acre should be retained. Basal area is generally measured using a 10 factor angle gauge (prism) and is based on the theory of the probability of selection being proportional to tree size. There is no minimum diameter limit for residual trees.
If you are not familiar with the concept of ' 'basal area" or do not have a prum, a. general rule of thumb that you can use is to retain a minimum of 50% of the original Crown cover. This is easily accomplished by looking up at the canopy and visualizing how it will look after the harvest while you are marking the trees to be cut. Keep in mind that in order to stay Within the guidelines, you usually must remove less than half of the original timber in the SMZ.
When thinning the SMZ, it is important to remember that the residual trees should be evenly distributed. Large gaps or open patches where the basal area falls below 50 square feet per acre should be avoided when possible. This can reduce the filtering and shading capacity of the SMZ. It is also important to plan for the damage and accidental felling of "leave" trees while thinning within this zone. SMZs that do not have an original basal area of 50 square feet per acre should not be thinned.
Placing a higher priority on removing the more valuable timber (mature pine) over lesser valuable timber (scrub hardwoods) can help reduce the financial burden of leaving an SMZ. However, harvesting this timber under certain site conditions may cause additional water quality impacts. Operating heavy equipment while the ground is saturated may cause rutting and sedimentation. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the March 2003 issue of the Texas Logger
Saturday, February 1, 2003
February BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: I recently received a reminder card in the mail from the Texas Forest Service (TFS) regarding a Texas Logger Questionnaire that was mailed in mid–November. I don’t remember receiving one in the mail, but may have misplaced it. Would you mind sending me another questionnaire that I can fill out? Also, I would appreciate some background information on this questionnaire.
A: No problem! We will be happy to send you a copy of the Texas Logger Questionnaire. After you have finished filling it out, just place it in the postage-paid Business Reply envelope and drop it in the mail. This will help minimize your time and cost throughout this process.
The purpose of this survey is to gather your input on how the TFS can better serve loggers in Texas. It is designed to collect information about your activities and needs as loggers. The results will be used to help the TFS understand and address the needs of the logging community.
On November 13, 2002, 1,955 Texas Logger Questionnaires were mailed to the logging community. Survey responses started to steadily trickle in shortly after this date. On December 6, 2002 a reminder card was sent to encourage more replies. To date, we have received 269 surveys.
A total of 28 questions are on this four-page survey. Multiple choice and scale questions comprise the majority of the survey, but there are a few areas where respondents are given the opportunity to actually write out their answers.
There are certain questions that are asked to reveal general information about the demographics of the logging community (i.e. What is your primary position? What area of the state are you located? How many years have you been in the logging business?). Other questions on the survey provide direct feedback to the TFS regarding its service to the logging community (i.e. Is the support and outreach provided by the TFS important to the logging community? Does the TFS meet your needs? Please list some areas that the TFS could do better or is doing well to meet your needs.).
The Texas Logger Questionnaire is completely confidential and anonymous, and only summary information will be reported in the study results. Participants may request a complimentary copy of the results by contacting the TFS at (936) 639-8180 or (903) 665-7400. The results will also be posted on our webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.
We appreciate your participation in this survey. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.
Q: I recently received a reminder card in the mail from the Texas Forest Service (TFS) regarding a Texas Logger Questionnaire that was mailed in mid–November. I don’t remember receiving one in the mail, but may have misplaced it. Would you mind sending me another questionnaire that I can fill out? Also, I would appreciate some background information on this questionnaire.
A: No problem! We will be happy to send you a copy of the Texas Logger Questionnaire. After you have finished filling it out, just place it in the postage-paid Business Reply envelope and drop it in the mail. This will help minimize your time and cost throughout this process.
The purpose of this survey is to gather your input on how the TFS can better serve loggers in Texas. It is designed to collect information about your activities and needs as loggers. The results will be used to help the TFS understand and address the needs of the logging community.
On November 13, 2002, 1,955 Texas Logger Questionnaires were mailed to the logging community. Survey responses started to steadily trickle in shortly after this date. On December 6, 2002 a reminder card was sent to encourage more replies. To date, we have received 269 surveys.
A total of 28 questions are on this four-page survey. Multiple choice and scale questions comprise the majority of the survey, but there are a few areas where respondents are given the opportunity to actually write out their answers.
There are certain questions that are asked to reveal general information about the demographics of the logging community (i.e. What is your primary position? What area of the state are you located? How many years have you been in the logging business?). Other questions on the survey provide direct feedback to the TFS regarding its service to the logging community (i.e. Is the support and outreach provided by the TFS important to the logging community? Does the TFS meet your needs? Please list some areas that the TFS could do better or is doing well to meet your needs.).
The Texas Logger Questionnaire is completely confidential and anonymous, and only summary information will be reported in the study results. Participants may request a complimentary copy of the results by contacting the TFS at (936) 639-8180 or (903) 665-7400. The results will also be posted on our webpage at http://txforestservice.tamu.edu/water.
We appreciate your participation in this survey. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please contact me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the February issue of the Texas Logger
Wednesday, January 1, 2003
January BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: A tract that I have been working on in Southeast Texas has started to get wet from all of the recent rains. I pulled my crew off when I noticed that my skidders were starting to cause some rutting. This is really frustrating knowing that I am almost finished with the job and that it will probably be site prepared this summer. What is the big deal about rutting anyway?
A: First, I would like to commend you for moving off the job site when you noticed the rutting. It can be difficult and very tempting not to do this, especially when you only have a small piece left to finish. It is this kind of attitude that will allow Texas to maintain its high BMP implementation rates and keep the guidelines from becoming regulatory.
The major concern with rutting, as with any BMP guideline, is water quality protection. Ruts, especially on hillsides and slopes, can channel rainwater so that sediment will be delivered to streams. These ruts eventually turn into gullies, and become much harder to control. Also, if you are working in wetlands, it is important not to impede, restrict, or change natural water flows and drainages.
Other problems associated with rutting that are not directly related to water quality include site productivity and accessibility. Extensive rutting can lead to soil compaction, which can have a significant impact on future tree growth. Costly site preparation work must be done to correct this problem. In low-lying areas, rutting can cause water to pond. This is especially troublesome on roadways that receive heavy traffic.
As a general rule of thumb, rutting should not exceed a depth of six inches over a distance of more than 50 feet. This guideline is normally applied to haul roads and skid trails, but if this is occurring over the whole tract, it is probably time to move off. Roads should be reworked to remove ruts that exceed these guidelines. Reducing skidder loads is a good way to help minimize rutting under wet conditions.
If wet weather forces you to pull off a job, be sure to dress up the skid trails and temporary roads with waterbars or other structures if necessary. It may be a long time before you are able to move back on the site with your equipment and significant erosion can occur. Road washouts may cause you to spend extra time fixing the road when you could otherwise be finishing the operation.
This subject is covered in both the Recommended Specifications section (blue) and the Forest Wetlands section (green) of the Blue Book. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
Q: A tract that I have been working on in Southeast Texas has started to get wet from all of the recent rains. I pulled my crew off when I noticed that my skidders were starting to cause some rutting. This is really frustrating knowing that I am almost finished with the job and that it will probably be site prepared this summer. What is the big deal about rutting anyway?
A: First, I would like to commend you for moving off the job site when you noticed the rutting. It can be difficult and very tempting not to do this, especially when you only have a small piece left to finish. It is this kind of attitude that will allow Texas to maintain its high BMP implementation rates and keep the guidelines from becoming regulatory. The major concern with rutting, as with any BMP guideline, is water quality protection. Ruts, especially on hillsides and slopes, can channel rainwater so that sediment will be delivered to streams. These ruts eventually turn into gullies, and become much harder to control. Also, if you are working in wetlands, it is important not to impede, restrict, or change natural water flows and drainages.
Other problems associated with rutting that are not directly related to water quality include site productivity and accessibility. Extensive rutting can lead to soil compaction, which can have a significant impact on future tree growth. Costly site preparation work must be done to correct this problem. In low-lying areas, rutting can cause water to pond. This is especially troublesome on roadways that receive heavy traffic.
As a general rule of thumb, rutting should not exceed a depth of six inches over a distance of more than 50 feet. This guideline is normally applied to haul roads and skid trails, but if this is occurring over the whole tract, it is probably time to move off. Roads should be reworked to remove ruts that exceed these guidelines. Reducing skidder loads is a good way to help minimize rutting under wet conditions.
If wet weather forces you to pull off a job, be sure to dress up the skid trails and temporary roads with waterbars or other structures if necessary. It may be a long time before you are able to move back on the site with your equipment and significant erosion can occur. Road washouts may cause you to spend extra time fixing the road when you could otherwise be finishing the operation.
This subject is covered in both the Recommended Specifications section (blue) and the Forest Wetlands section (green) of the Blue Book. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the January 2003 issue of the Texas Logger
Sunday, December 1, 2002
December BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: This month’s BMP article is a continuation of last month’s question. That question asked me to explain the “problem areas” in greater detail that were noted in the BMP Implementation Report.
A: The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the second deficiency.
What exactly is a significant risk to water quality? The Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee defines it as “a situation or set of conditions that have resulted in or very likely will result in the measurable and significant degradation of water quality, and that can be remedied or otherwise mitigated.” This group developed a framework to provide south-wide guidance for monitoring BMP implementation.
Steep topography and highly erodible soils are key site conditions that are often associated with significant risks. Conducting forestry operations under these conditions without the proper implementation of certain BMPs may have a high potential to result in significant risk to water quality.
Overall, twenty-eight significant risks to water quality were noted in the fifth round of BMP implementation monitoring. All of these risks fell under private ownership (24 on non industrial private forest landowners and 4 on industry). The major areas of concern were stream crossings, streamside management zones, and to a lesser extent, roads and skid trails. Examples of forestry activities where significant risks were identified include not stabilizing or restoring stream crossings, not leaving a SMZ along intermittent streams, not removing logging debris from the stream channel, and not installing appropriate drainage structures on road systems.
Documenting the occurrence of significant risk is a very important part of the BMP site evaluations. This type of risk assessment lends much credibility and integrity to the BMP monitoring program by recognizing that high risk conditions can occur, and that prevention and/or restoration is a high priority to state forestry agencies. It also may show that the lack of BMPs may not necessarily equate to a water quality problem. Finally, this tool not only protects the environment, but may also protect the landowner and operator from what otherwise may result in enforcement proceedings or other personal liability.
It is extremely important that we improve upon the deficiencies that were noted in this report. These problems can have a definite impact on water quality, and will attract the attention of regulators. Continue to do the best job that you can and everything will take care of itself. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
Q: This month’s BMP article is a continuation of last month’s question. That question asked me to explain the “problem areas” in greater detail that were noted in the BMP Implementation Report.
A: The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the second deficiency. What exactly is a significant risk to water quality? The Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee defines it as “a situation or set of conditions that have resulted in or very likely will result in the measurable and significant degradation of water quality, and that can be remedied or otherwise mitigated.” This group developed a framework to provide south-wide guidance for monitoring BMP implementation.
Steep topography and highly erodible soils are key site conditions that are often associated with significant risks. Conducting forestry operations under these conditions without the proper implementation of certain BMPs may have a high potential to result in significant risk to water quality.
Overall, twenty-eight significant risks to water quality were noted in the fifth round of BMP implementation monitoring. All of these risks fell under private ownership (24 on non industrial private forest landowners and 4 on industry). The major areas of concern were stream crossings, streamside management zones, and to a lesser extent, roads and skid trails. Examples of forestry activities where significant risks were identified include not stabilizing or restoring stream crossings, not leaving a SMZ along intermittent streams, not removing logging debris from the stream channel, and not installing appropriate drainage structures on road systems.
Documenting the occurrence of significant risk is a very important part of the BMP site evaluations. This type of risk assessment lends much credibility and integrity to the BMP monitoring program by recognizing that high risk conditions can occur, and that prevention and/or restoration is a high priority to state forestry agencies. It also may show that the lack of BMPs may not necessarily equate to a water quality problem. Finally, this tool not only protects the environment, but may also protect the landowner and operator from what otherwise may result in enforcement proceedings or other personal liability.
It is extremely important that we improve upon the deficiencies that were noted in this report. These problems can have a definite impact on water quality, and will attract the attention of regulators. Continue to do the best job that you can and everything will take care of itself. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the December 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Friday, November 1, 2002
November BMP Q&A
By: Hughes Simpson, BMP Forester, Texas Forest Service
Q: The other day, I read the executive summary of the BMP report that you have been mentioning in this article the past two months. I saw that there were two major deficiencies noted in the evaluations. Could you explain these “problem areas” in greater detail?
A: Sure! The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the first deficiency.
Stream crossings are generally an area of concern because they have the potential to contribute a large amount of dirt to a stream. When these structures are not installed properly and without using BMPs, water quality may become impacted. The report primarily identified stream crossings on temporary roads, but crossings on permanent roads can cause similar problems.
These structures can be expensive to install and maintain, costing you both time and money. With proper planning, you might decide that crossing a stream may not be necessary. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil surveys, and on the ground field evaluations are excellent tools that can help you make these decisions. Going around the head of streams can also be a very effective and practical way to access the other side.
There are many situations when you have no other option but to install a crossing. The key is to minimize the amount of dirt that enters the stream. Dirt crossings should never be used. Logs or brush placed lengthwise in the stream channel can serve as good alternatives, as long as they are removed when the operation is completed. Drag line mats and “Arkansas bridges” also work effectively. If you decide to use a culvert, make sure it is properly sized and that you have the equipment to remove it and the fill dirt when the operation is finished.
Whenever you are putting in a crossing, find the straightest section of that stream and cross it at a right angle. This will help to minimize bank disturbance and reduce the amount of sloughing that occurs. It is also important to stabilize the approaches with grass, rip-rap, or other erosion control materials to ensure a stable roadbed approach and reduce the amount of dirt entering the stream.
Since the inception of the BMP monitoring program, stream crossings have always been a thorn in our side. We have made great strides over the past 10 years in installing these structures. This progress is best noted by the increase in BMP implementation ratings on stream crossings from Round 4 (67%) to Round 5 (85%). However, there is still plenty of room for improvement in these areas. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
A: Sure! The report “Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices in East Texas, Round 5” noted two major deficiencies in the evaluation of 150 forestry sites from August 16, 2000 to April 23, 2002. The first area of deficiency was improper stream crossings on temporary roads. The second area of deficiency was the high amount of significant risks to water quality that were noted. This month, let’s concentrate on the first deficiency. Stream crossings are generally an area of concern because they have the potential to contribute a large amount of dirt to a stream. When these structures are not installed properly and without using BMPs, water quality may become impacted. The report primarily identified stream crossings on temporary roads, but crossings on permanent roads can cause similar problems.
These structures can be expensive to install and maintain, costing you both time and money. With proper planning, you might decide that crossing a stream may not be necessary. Aerial photographs, topographic maps, soil surveys, and on the ground field evaluations are excellent tools that can help you make these decisions. Going around the head of streams can also be a very effective and practical way to access the other side.
There are many situations when you have no other option but to install a crossing. The key is to minimize the amount of dirt that enters the stream. Dirt crossings should never be used. Logs or brush placed lengthwise in the stream channel can serve as good alternatives, as long as they are removed when the operation is completed. Drag line mats and “Arkansas bridges” also work effectively. If you decide to use a culvert, make sure it is properly sized and that you have the equipment to remove it and the fill dirt when the operation is finished.
Whenever you are putting in a crossing, find the straightest section of that stream and cross it at a right angle. This will help to minimize bank disturbance and reduce the amount of sloughing that occurs. It is also important to stabilize the approaches with grass, rip-rap, or other erosion control materials to ensure a stable roadbed approach and reduce the amount of dirt entering the stream.
Since the inception of the BMP monitoring program, stream crossings have always been a thorn in our side. We have made great strides over the past 10 years in installing these structures. This progress is best noted by the increase in BMP implementation ratings on stream crossings from Round 4 (67%) to Round 5 (85%). However, there is still plenty of room for improvement in these areas. If you have a question regarding BMPs, please call me at (936) 639-8180.
* This article was published in the November 2002 issue of the Texas Logger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)