	P.O. Box 2642 \| Darien, GA 31305 \| Tel 912-437-8164 \| FAX 912-437-8765
Home \| About Us \| River News \| Wildlife \| Advocacy \| Education \| Events & Meetings \| Resources \| Links \| Newsletters

Are Best Management Practices (BMPs) for ForestryBeing Enforced in Georgia?

By James Holland, Altamaha Riverkeeper

Continued from Are Best Management Practices for Forestry Being Used Properly?

Federal and State BMPs are designed with one basic goal in mind, to protect water quality for humans, aquatic species, birds, and animals.

In Georgia, the property owner is responsible for any and all activities that take place on his or her property. This also holds true for activities related to the harvesting of timber. As the Altamaha Riverkeeper, I do not agree with the state's interpretation of the regulations that hold the property owner solely responsible for logging operations on private property. The only time I could possibly agree with this enforcement guide line is if a property owner instructed the timber harvester to cut the trees right up to the edge of or out into a body of water.

By far, the average property owner doesn't have the proper training and understanding about BMPs to be held totally responsible for a logging company's activities. On the other hand, the timber harvester (logger) should be required to be trained to use BMPs to harvest timber, to protect water quality for all Georgians. A word to the wise, if trees are being harvested on your property and you see something unusual happening, call the Georgia Forestry Commission or contact a forestry consultant.

One thing a property owner should be mindful of is clear cutting right up to the edge of a stream. If you have a stream or branch on your property the Stream Management Zone SMZ (buffer) should be more than just a stringer of trees immediately along the bank's edge. According to the BMP Manual, trees should not be harvested from inside the stream bank. Since these trees should not be cut, the timber cruiser should exclude trees inside the stream bank from the price for your trees.

Stream crossings for the logging equipment should be carefully designed to allow expected flows to pass through. Stream crossings should also be designed to avoid bank destruction and if it occurs, the logger should restore the banks back to their original elevation prior to leaving the site.

Deep ruts caused by the heavy harvesting equipment on your property should also be repaired before the logging company leaves the site. I say this regardless of what the BMP Manual for harvesting timber in Georgia says because it is the right thing to do. This is your property and it is private property, so don't allow someone to destroy your property in such a manner.

Oil spills including gas, oil, diesel or hydraulic fluid should be immediately cleaned up. If the spill is in or reaches a water body the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD) should be notified. It is quite common for heavy equipment left sitting around to leak hydraulic fluid on the ground, sometimes in large quantities. Soil from this type spill should be removed from the site and disposed of properly by the logging company.

Road turnouts on logging roads should not be tied into (open out into) a water body. This can cause harmful erosion and sedimentation into your stream for an indefinite period of time.

Are BMPs Being Enforced?

To answer the question in general terms, I must say that on large timber company lands, I don't know, but when it comes to harvesting timber on private property that I have inspected, the answer is NO.

I will cite a few examples of why I say that BMPs are not being enforced on some private properties. In a letter responding to one of my recent complaints was this statement. "As you know, a 40 foot streamside management zone (SMZ) is recommended in the BMPs for a perennial stream. While we found places along Pughe's Creek where the SMZ is less than 40 feet, we also found places that the SMZ is more than 40 feet. In our opinion, the average SMZ width is 40 feet and is within the BMP recommendations". This response letter was written by representatives of the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC). On the vast majority of the sites I inspect, if there is ample SMZ left, it is because there were very few trees in that area with any value.

The 40 foot SMZ is a recommended minimum, not something averaged out after the timber harvest has been completed. The BMP Manual states the remaining trees in the SMZ must be spread evenly throughout the zone. Some areas of Pughes Creek were properly protected while other areas along the streamside were left unprotected. The BMP Manual also states: "Determine and designate the appropriate SMZ widths on site prior to conducting any timber sale or forest practice."

The letter also stated that during the Georgia Forestry Commission site inspection turbidity and temperature samples were taken and no turbidity violations were occurring. The letter does not state that it was raining or if a rainfall event had just occurred. This leads me to believe that the turbidity sampling may have been conducted at an improper time. I have learned from consultants that in order to collect proper turbidity samples they should be done either during or very shortly after a rainfall event. I had a similar response from another site I filed a complaint on.

Stream Crossings: There are very few streams that do not require a culvert or log pole type crossing and I have filed complaints with the GFC about logging crews not using proper stream crossings. The reply has come in different forms. On one site the reply stated there should have been culverts used and if I had inspected the site during the logging operation they would have been required to install proper stream crossings. At another site I heard a GFC representative say they advise the loggers to have a culvert standing by and if it starts raining they should install the culvert. Is it any wonder that BMP's are not followed at these sites? There is no incentive for the logging crews to apply BMP's because they know there is no penalty when they don't use these recommended practices.

Road Turn Outs: Earlier I stated road turnouts should not be tied into a water body. Recently, I was on an inspection tour of a site in the Oconee River flood plains in Wilkinson County. On this site there are a number of turnouts tied directly into water bodies. During the inspection, a GFC representative was heard pointing out to the company owner that they should have installed hay bales in the turn outs to prevent erosion into the water body. Again, the BMP Manual doesn't say anything about methods such as placing hay bales in road turnouts to prevent erosion from entering a water body. Page 18 of the BMP Manual states: " Practices to avoid; Turn outs tied directly into perennial and intermittent streams or ephemeral streams."

Oil Spills: I have been on a number of sites after the logging operations were completed and the company had left the site. Some of these sites had oil spills on the ground or in the water. Until I reported the spills to the EPD, there was no clean up. Even then, there was no penalty for leaving the site without doing the right thing. Again, where is the incentive to do the right thing?

Wetland Conversion: I have reported a number of wetland sites because the wetlands were destroyed and converted into row crop pine plantations. This activity should require a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section "404" permit. Instead of punishing anyone for this CWA violation, I have been given a number of reasons for not properly applying the law. On one of these sites there were twenty-two acres with a stream destroyed and the response was; the wetland will restore itself. On another site, the response was: this is not a high quality wetland because it is not holding water. This occurred during the last drought and most of the major swamps in Southeastern Georgia were bone dry. Once again, where is the incentive to do the right thing?

No, on many logging sites on private property BMPs are not being applied properly. With the exception of the 15 Clean Water Act mandated rules, the BMP Manual for harvesting timber in Georgia is written with such subjective language the BMPs can never be enforced. Until the mind set of the general public changes, there will be no improvement in how logging practices are conducted in our forests and swamps

In some areas of Georgia, many believe that logging operations and ongoing silviculture practices have caused negative impacts to fishing and hunting. Many of our duck hunters in South Georgia believe that timbering practices have already negatively impacted the wood duck populations. The loss of nesting trees and acorn producing trees has not only negatively impacted the wood ducks, but many other wild game species as well.

The continued ditching and draining of these wet areas to plant pine trees is consistently causing us to lose more high quality wildlife habitat. We are losing this habitat at an alarmingly rapid rate by so called minor ditching (3 feet x 3 feet ditches) and draining.

On page 12 of the BMP Manual for harvesting timber in Georgia is a section called Special Management Areas. Second paragraph: 2.2.2 "Canals and Ditches- Minor drainage to TEMPORARILY lower the water level on a wetland site during road construction, timber harvesting, and site preparation is considered normal and exempt from Section "404" permitting if it does not result in the immediate or gradual conversion of a wetland to an upland or other land use. Minor drainage does not include the construction of a canal, dike or any other structure which continuously drains or significantly modifies a wetland or other water body."

It has been my experience that once these minor drainage ditches are installed they remain there forever. The way I read paragraph 2.2.2 is that these ditches are for temporary use only and that after the activity for which the ditch was installed for is complete, the ditch should be closed off. I have never seen one of these ditches closed off.

The Georgia Forestry Commission is exactly that, a Commission. The GFC is not a regulatory agency; the commission has no regulatory powers. However, in Georgia you must get the GFC to say there is a violation of the BMP Manual, including the 15 CWA mandated provisions before you can get the United States Army Corps of Engineers to look at a site to determine if there has been a Federal CWA violation.

On various logging sites I have witnessed a number of what appeared to be Federal CWA violations yet I have not been able to get the Army Corps of Engineers involved. In many of these cases, I believe if it had been a new subdivision development, the Corps of Engineers would have taken regulatory action. Is there any difference in a stream located in a river flood plain and one near a metropolitan area where there are stores or houses being built? In my mind, both streams should be treated with equal value and receive the same protection under the law.

The Altamaha Riverkeeper Organization is working very hard to gain the necessary support to change how logging practices are conducted in Georgia's swamps and forests.

The Altamaha Riverkeeper is working to protect and restore the Altamaha from its headwaters in the Ocmulgee, Oconee, and the Ohoopee to its terminus at the Atlantic Coast. You can help. Please send a tax-deductible donation to Altamaha Riverkeeper, P. O. Box 2642, Darien, GA, 31305. Become a part of our volunteer network of citizens taking action to protect our rivers. Help keep Georgia's largest watershed clean and safe so it will support healthy populations of people, fish, and wildlife.

Join ARK

The Altamaha Riverkeeper is working to protect and restore the Altamaha from its headwaters in the Ocmulgee, Oconee, and the Ohoopee to its terminus at the Atlantic Coast.

You can help!

Please send a tax-deductible donation online >>> or to Altamaha Riverkeeper, P. O. Box 2642, Darien, GA, 31305.

Become a part of our volunteer network of citizens taking action to protect our rivers. Help keep Georgia’s largest watershed clean and safe so it will support healthy populations of people, fish, and wildlife

| | | | | | | |