Resource Activity on Public Land

[grant]

i was really asking about specific on-the-ground management techniques that should be used to minimize damage from resource extraction activities.

the reason i asked is because i regularly see the impacts of both o&g activites and timber extraction and find the comparisons interesting.

[Shark Attack]

I've worked with property located in the affected areas for over a dozen years now. These days I dodge the log trucks and the tanker trucks while working the areas.

In the past the timber companies would come in & cut trails large enough for log trucks to access the timber, cut it & be done. After replanting, the land becomes pine plantations that hide the damage done by the dozers & other equipment on the land & near the streams & rivers. The roads are left rutted & muddy for the forest service or counties to repair.

The gas companies are comming in & build large, year 'round roads that will be needed eternally for access to the wells. The companies have so far been willing to reimburse the agencies involved for damage to roads. The footprint left behind includes the permanent access roads to the wells and a very sterile 2-5 acre area fenced with chain link & razor wire.

Either way, it's ugly

Wes

[Butch Crain]

A good start can be found at http://www.forestry.state.ar.us/bmp/bmp_final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KimL]

We have seen first hand here that without oversight at least one gas company does not obey laws. With oversight, they comply as long as someone is looking. Citations do not seem to have much effect. The company involved made promises, but as soon as the inspector left workers went right back to doing what they were doing, except right next to the road where people like us could report when they got their equipment stuck in a creek.. Multiple staff in ADEQ have now said that they used to visit every stream crossing and monitor work when STAAs were filed; now they are lucky if they get to a tiny fraction of them. If AGFC is going to lease land for drilling, then ADEQ has to get some of the money to increase staff for monitoring. Otherwise, there will not just be a permanent road but also the kind of damage that will take generations to repair.

[Trismegistus]

Amen. If the legislators don't acquire the monies -- and they are salivating -- the AGF&C should allocate 100% of their windfall to preservation and conservation -- and not necessarily simply to support our hunting and fishing breathren. Wouldn't it be nice if they purchased a 500 foot wide conservation easement along each and every notable stream overlying the Fayetteville shale. One thing for certain -- it is going to take millions and millions of dollars to maintain and restore our woodlands and streams during and after this onslaught.

It's already left some pretty ugly scars upon the earth -- and the band still hasn't taken the stage, i.e. a lot of pipelines still need to be built to extract the gas.

Citations do not seem to have much effect. And they are assessed only after the fact. As Kim and others have suggested we need inspectors on the ground. ADEQ is grossly understaffed.

[Cowper]

As Kim and others have suggested we need inspectors on the ground. ADEQ is grossly understaffed.

and another AMEN!

I didn't post this right away, because it is speculative in nature. But I'll separate the facts from the speculation:

Fact: It was ~2005 when we (DeBo and her posse) floated SFLR, through the Gulf Mountain WMA for our first time. We found a stream that was maybe a hair more challenging than the Cadron, but what really struck us was the incredibly good water quality, even following the local rainfalls that it required to bring the stream to floatable levels. This water quality changed noticeably (and not in a good way) as we floated past the Low Gap access (Swinging bridge), which is near where the stream exits the WMA and passes through land that has been cleared for pastures.

Fact: In July 2008, when we floated some of the same stretch in the WMA, the water quality was not good. I don't have chemical tests to back this up, but the turbidity as seen by the naked eye was just not in the same category. We have not yet had the chance to float or explore higher up on the watershed to see if a specific "source" of the increased sediment load can be identified.

Fact: We could hear the generators of a gas drilling operation somewhere in the distance as we floated in July 2008. This sound was not present before.

Fact: Relatively speaking, business is "booming" in the small town of Scotland; the number of small grocery stores has doubled (two now), and the local restaurant is doing well serving meals to gas drilling workers on a daily basis. For those not familiar with this area, Scotland is the closest small town to the Gulf Mountain WMA.

Speculation: Intense summertime thundershowers are noted for making rivers muddier than a gentle spring rain, so I can't run around and tell you the sky is falling. But my gut tells me this is more than that; this river is not running clean like it used to. I can't swear it is O&G; at least one land owner further upstream was doing some logging in 2005/2006, and was clearing down to the water’s edge. But at that time, we weren't seeing what we're seeing now, so his damage seemed to be more limited.

Conclusion (my beliefs): The damage to this area is already happening, and originates on a combination of private and publicly held lands. We can't just go after one "bad guy", whether that be a specific landowner, a big O&G operator, a State agency that we wish hadn't signed a lease, or a Federal agency that we wish would focus more on recreation as a non-consumptive use of the resource they manage. We can't stop this; there is too much money on the table, and people want it too badly. So, is it hopeless, nothing that can be done? No, I propose folks select from this list, and take as many of these actions as your personal time and resources allow:

1) Learn a little bit about what "best practices" are required, so that you know a violation when you see one. We won't get far if we report only what we find to be "ugly", we have to report specifics like, no silt fences, oil spills getting into water, and that sort of thing.

2) Buy a GPS, and learn how to use the “mark waypoint” feature, even if you care nothing else about it. If that is all you use if for, units that are good enough can be had brand new for about $100. We’ve seen multiple cases now where providing exact coordinates has helped with reports, because the enforcement agencies know they can send a man or woman to “check things out” and not have them driving around in circles or stomping through tick-infested underbrush for hours with nothing to show for it.

3) Take a different route when you go somewhere. “Patrol” your part of the state. Keep your eyes open; report suspected violations. (This is a big one.)

4) Contact your legislator; tell them you want the new funding to be used by ADEQ for conservation and enforcement activities. Due to this business boom it is critical that this agency get more “boots on the ground”.

That’s my list; feel free to add to it. But at the end of the day, remember my other mantra: Us discussing it here doesn’t change it. Go do some of these things!

[KimL]

[ Contact your legislator; tell them you want the new funding to be used by ADEQ for conservation and enforcement activities. Due to this business boom it is critical that this agency get more “boots on the ground”.

Cowper, I hesitated to say "contact your legislators" given the board guidelines, but that's exactly what the government staff I've spoken to over the past month have said. Thanks for saying it.

We also need stronger laws and better execution. In seeking remediation for the damage done next to us, which flows immediately into "our" creek, I was in contact with wetland consultants in other states. They all said the same thing. Arkansas is notorious for having weak laws. Also, since the states are responsible for reporting to the feds, we need stronger execution of existing laws in both places. Better funding for ADEQ is part of the solution, but funding is not the biggest part of the problem with the feds. When states are suing right and left to force the feds to enforce laws, you know you have a problem. That change in enforcement has to start at the top.

[Trismegistus]

Thanks Cowper. Well said -- and not speculative for I too have noticed more turbidity -- even on low flow days it's been worse.

One other addition to the list: Be persistent -- a single complaint often fails to yield a satisfactory response, but multiple complaints from multiple sources -- say like from several members within the ACC -- seems to get folks attention.

When we see a stink, make a stink!

[grant]

thanks Butch for posting the BMP's for NF logging activity. Is everyone happy with these criteria for resource extraction?

[KimL]

The BMPs are a good start. Thanks, Butch.
Unfortunately, gas companies are not following (and ADEQ is not requiring them to follow) these guidelines--e.g. SMZs and slope requirement. Here, the company said, well, no one will let us put the pipeline anywhere else without paying a whole lot more, and ADEQ said, okay, use straw and silt fences. That's not the same thing as standing trees, especially on the kind of slope they are working on here.
There are also some things in the BMPs that are currently under study for their validity.
*See the section on stream debris, for instance.
*Consider also a topic I did not find covered well here (although I admit I was skimming). A study is underway now to determine whether leaving slash and debris after logging is helpful or harmful for fire suppression. So far (5 years in?), the study has determined that logged areas where debris remains are more vulnerable to fire than unlogged areas or logged areas where all debris is removed.
* "Prescribed burns" may turn out to be the "drink 8 glasses of water" of forest management, at least with regard to historical use. Long story short, the genesis of modern controlled burns was a (great but) local study in one small time and place; you can't extrapolate from the study, at least in historical terms, across the entire US, as happened when forest management picked up on the practice and started saying "like Native Americans did it" everywhere. Frankly speaking, we just don't have evidence one way or another today, although a few local studies are underway now. Of course, I can't speak to the utility of fire today (not my area at all), except to say that I was pleased that the BMPs recognized that the wrong temperature fire does more damage than good.
Of course, these are BMPs for logging. What does gas extraction's list look like?

[grant]

There are no different BMP's for O&G activity that i am aware of other than ADEQ rules on reserve pit management which doesn't apply to timber harvest.

Kin, your point on timber slash being harmful to fire suppression seems obvious and has been a point of contention to me when told logging is being done for wildfire suppression. Since O&G activity has to clear a space for a rig, etc., anyone have info/opinions on leaving slash piles for wildlife shelter vs burning them?

8 glasses a day is a lot of water. any way to get govt. money for drinking them?

[Roger]

Right now a lot of the drilling pads in Cleburne and White counties are being built in pastureland so you're not seeing a lot of clearing.

I do know of two pads that needed timber cleared, but they weren't where you could see them. So I can't tell what they do in that situation.

[Trismegistus]

"anyone have info/opinions on leaving slash piles for wildlife shelter vs burning them?"

I have an opinion -- based solely upon personal experience -- I nearly always leave the slash piles. First, they are definitely used as wildlife habitat -- takes no time at all before a lizard moves in, birds take cover and small mammals start burrowing under them. Second, in Arkansas (high humidity, moderate rain) the lifespan of a slash pile is measured in months -- within 2-3 years even the largest slash pile is nothing but rotten wood -- and certainly unlikely to add much combustible material to a fire. Moreover by piling the wood up I minimize the likelihood of contributing to a "creep" if a fire does ever find its way into a plot which has been thinned. Third, it returns the organic material to where it belongs -- back to the soil. Repeated slash piles at the same site over time will result in "fill compost/dirt". And forth, it's more economically -- and often kinder on the environment -- than either burning the debris as it lays (air pollution) or hauling it our by tractor and truck (more air pollution, consumption of non-renwable resources). And lastly -- once the slash piles fade away -- a plot removed of its underbrush is significantly less likely to have an out-of-control tree-topping fire. We have 5-10 acre tracts scattered in northern Arkasnas representing all kinds of management practices and those thinned of invasive, diseased, and poorly formed trees in which the slash has been piled and left to rot exhibit not only some of the healthiest forests but are also the richest with regard to plant and animal diversity -- the key is to leave isolated thickets and accentuate the borders between ecological zones.

BTW: Did you notice that the recent spat of wildfires (both here in Arkansas and California) were nearly all due to lightning strikes?

[KimL]

Grant, we have left a pile here, but that was because it was on the way down to the creek. Previously residents had mowed to the creek edge, and we're trying to build back the buffer zone. I keep returning to watching ADEQ in action here (Cleburne County)--or rather ADEQ's absence. Please understand, I am not blaming individuals, but continued violations after more than a month of trying to get action demonstrates to me how there must be increased funding and internal coordination to reach even a basic level of BMP. Here, the gas company has used a chipper regardless of slope, claiming that the chips would hold the earth in place. Everything got washed bare in the first rain after the chipper came through.

Tris, I think the study was showing that slash contributed to forest fires. I see your points, but the study was showing that fire risk was higher with slash--not the consequences you want, ultimately. I just tried to find the article but don't see it now.

[grant]

kim, sounds like the company at least tried to stabilize the slope with the mulch. flat ground is generally little problem in re-claiming while steep ground is almost impossible
what will the ADEQ do if and when they show up? not asking you only..