Logger damage to residual stand

[CCC4]

We don't really have a lot of regulations here....but the creeks get cleaned out!

[Tom_Averwater]

 

    Water running over top of 30" culvert . 

   Water backed up above culvert . 

  Brush and tree tops in boundry creek . Left side is ours and the right side is the neighbors .

   Down stream from logging where 2 creeks come together , showing muddy and clear water .

[treeslayer2003]

I'm hoping the loggers show up today to finish cutting and skidding trees . Looks to be a out 40-50 trees left.
They started cutting on the landing side of the creek that they have had to cross . The plan from the very beginning  , and the logger was in agreement with it  , was to skid these approx.100 trees out along the edge of the field to the landing .  No, we come out into the field for about 50' and then plow up a small trail that I use for an access to get my Maple sap out on . UGH ! The forester and I even talked about which way to skid these trees numerous times, even that morning , even that morning.
With the rain we had the creek at the crossing over flowed and was running on top of the  road . It looks like a Beaver pond on the upstream side with all of the waterror backed up .
OK , now for a question . How much tree tops and brush are allowed to be left in a creek/waterway ? I can see already where the water is backing up in places from the tree tops .  I've delt with brush in the creek from  years past when my dad would dump the Apple tree trimmings  in the creek , only to watch the water cut the banks out and go around the brush .

none

[Corley5]

Have you consulted with an attorney yet?

[leeroyjd]

Sorry for you Tom, I could not imagine my woods getting torn apart like that.
I know some will say there's two sides to this but it seems obvious he has a mess.
  May seem irrelevant, but could you take some stump pictures?

[Tom_Averwater]

Have you consulted with an attorney yet?

No I haven't . Been waiting to see what he says he is going to do first . I usually try to  give someone  a chance to do the right thing , BUT.

[Southside]

I know here in Virginia both the logger and the landowner can be held responsible for silt and debris in the brook.  Not really sure how they would look at this situation, I mean the logger must know that at the very least he needs some silt fence along that crossing, anything to attempt to slow down the runoff, throw a bridge over the culvert or something to at least make it look it like he is trying.  The "forester" won't do anything to stop it and if that stream has any fish in it down stream they will be impacted.  Personally if it were my land I don't think I would stand by at this point and do nothing, at least cover your butt.  Maybe talk to an atty and see about sending the guy a registered letter saying you are aware of the issues and expect him to correct them, in compliance with the applicable law, so you are not left holding the bag when he leaves. 

[Tom_Averwater]

I just spoke to a  technician from our county's soil and water . He told me that the landowner would be held responsible for silt in the creek because we own the land . He said that he could put pressure on the logger to fix the problems  .  Sounds like it's time to smiley_hanged high .

[treeslayer2003]

they can, should and will put pressure on him. if they don't the county forester will and he may contact water resources......lets hope they fix it before water resources comes out.

[luvmexfood]

they can, should and will put pressure on him. if they don't the county forester will and he may contact water resources......lets hope they fix it before water resources comes out.

Usually, at least down this way, and having experience in both SW. Va and NE. Tn if you have made a good faith effort to follow proper regulations for stream protection they will give you time to prepare a mediation plan and implement.

But if you just go haphazard which looks like what has happened in your pictures in my opinion it may not end well. The other landowner that has his property affected may, and I certainly would, drop a dime. None of the experience I have is in logging and how it effects waterways but mainly construction meetings I had to attend while working for a previous employer.

Hope all ends well for you.

[curdog]

That stream would definitely be in violation of the forestry practice guidelines for nc, and I'd say most states. While silt in the creek is not allowed, a little can be expected. But backing water up in the channel is a no go. Each state is different as how water quality regulations are enforced and by which agency.  Hope you are able to get this straightened out soon.

[WDH]

Contact the State Forestry Department responsible for Best Management Practice Enforcement.  They will hold the logger responsible. 

[Jeff]

You need to do something right away to stop him Tom so it his goose that gets cooked and not yours. 

[barbender]

You need to do something right away to stop him Tom so it his goose that gets cooked and not yours. 

X2, you have let this guy get away with trashing your place for too long, IMO.

[thecfarm]

I can remember a logger 20 years ago that got fined for falling trees into a stream and leaving it and the stream cut a new path.

[SwampDonkey]

Used to working on steep ground in BC and loading of a gully (most have seeps or tiny runs of water) on them hillsides was quite often a recipe for a major land slide down that gully. Not to mention slopes were inheretly unstable to begin with with 2.5 meters of annual rain. However, the best tall spruce (220+ feet tall) grew on the fans at the bottoms of them slides to. And yes there were lots of natural slides around that had nothing to do with logging.

[Ron Scott]

   

You need to do something right away to stop him Tom so it his goose that gets cooked and not yours.

X2, you have let this guy get away with trashing your place for too long, IMO.

X3, this is getting criminal. The situation needs to be corrected soon as it is getting beyond what is expected of a prudent and environmentally sound logging operation permitted along and within a water course on private property. 

[Autocar]

What a shame to see your woods left like that, what up sets me more is a logger doing work like that and then we all seem to get roped into the same category as land rapers.

[luvmexfood]

Tom, here is what the Virginia Forestry Dept has on their website concerning logging. Didn't read the links. Maybe it can help you. IMO once the logger pulls his equipment off the site you are going to be left holding the bag.

Loggers operating in Virginia are required to prevent sediment pollution in the waters of Virginia due to their operations. VDOF recommends the use of site specific BMPs to prevent pollution. The Silvicultural Water Quality Law in Virginia (§10.1-1181.2) does not require the use of BMPs. It simply requires pollution prevention and/or remediation by whatever means necessary. This outcome based approach has proven very effective and BMP audits are performed to determine implementation rates on average as well as effective use of specific BMPs in Virginia. Virginia's audit process conforms to the principles of the Southern Group of State Foresters Water Resources Committee (SGSF-WRC) protocol.

Best of luck to you.

[WDH]

In most states, the BMP's are voluntary.  That is fine until you have a water quality violation.  Then you have to deal with the Feds.  So, in effect, they are not voluntary after all. 

[curdog]

Our best management practices are voluntary and encouraged,  but our forestry practice guidelines are required and enforced. The fpgs allow exception from the sedimentation and control act for forestry practices. Violation of fpgs  can result in fines from one of the denr agencies,  but woody debris blocking stream channels can actually be a criminal offense. This is only from silvicultural activities, and I can't remember it going that far on any job I've seen,  but degrading water quality is pretty serious business in most states.
The burden can fall back to the landowner if it goes that far and the logger doesn't fix the problems. It sounds like the forester isn't doing his job.

[barbender]

  The forester on this job is worse than worthless. Tom is obviously going to have to get very aggresive to get things straightened out here. You can't expect a bunch of hacks like that to make things right on their own. I would have an attorney working hard on this one- I don't like that route, in fact I've never used it, but some people will not make things right unless they are forced to. These guys obviously fall into that category, and it would be good to see this "forester" found negligent in court, too.  I would be trying to make them pay for someone else clean up their mess- can you see this outfit being able to do any remedial stream channel work? I'd be surprised to see them fix their ruts and restore your road to pre-sale condition.

     This is all a good example of certifications and education being worth not much more than the paper they are written on, when they are held by individuals that don't give a rip about the quality of their work.

[beenthere]

To me, a lot will depend on what is written in the contract. Maybe they are pretty free to do what they want.

Very little experience here, other than when I bought my property. Had a lawyer work on getting a clear abstract.
Rec'd a call and he asked "Are you buying this land with interest in the timber on it?"
I said "yes, certainly am". 
His response  "then you may have a problem. Hiram Walker and sons have a recorded contract on the property deed (in the county courthouse) that they have all rights to ingress and egress on your property"

Turns out,  HW & sons had a contract to take the white oak for staves, and the previous owner's lawyer had failed to get that contract off the recorded deed. Was no problem to get the owners of the property to remove it, but still was a sobering thought. Had it not been removed, HW & sons could have moved in anytime to take more white oak with their right to ingress and egress at their discretion.

True, times have changed with more Gov't watchdog organizations, but still the contract with Tom is maybe where the loggers (and forester) may have their apparent "free reign".
So far, don't think we know what that contract says, but many are assuming that it wouldn't let them run rampant over the land and landowner. From what I interpret from Tom (via his silence mostly), that he is involved in doing what is needed.

[barbender]

Beenthere, you raise a good point, but some of the things they are doing to his property (creek damage and siltation) are not allowable under any conditions.

[Corley5]

The waterway damage is the worst offense.  Just because this logger bought the timber doesn't give him the right to destroy the rest of the property harvesting those trees.