OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\00000A0Q\tiff\2000U1ZQ.tif): Unspecified error
-------
Sound Forest Management Can
Prevent Waver Pollution
Implementation of properly designed forest management
plans can result in logging activities that are both profitable
and protective of water quality. These plans address the full
range of forestry activities that can pollute waters—they
locate special areas of protection; plan for the proper timing
of forestry activities; and describe best management mea-
sures for road layout, design, construction, and maintenance,
as well as for harvesting methods and forest regeneration.
In many parts of the country, federal agencies, states,
and professional forest managers are implementing effective
forest management plans using a range of tools including
education, financial assistance, and regulatory requirements.
Lolo National Forest, Montana. A
temporary bridge with silt fence is
protecting the stream. Source: US EPA.
October 1998.
Some Forestry Operations Can Cause Water Pollution Problems
Despite these public and private forest
management efforts, sediments, excess nutri-
ents, and other pollutants from forestry opera-
tions that are not being properly managed have
caused and are still causing water quality
problems—preventing waters from being used
for fishing, swimming, or as a source of drinking
water. In 1998, 32 states identified forestry as a
source of water quality problems that affects
more than 20,000 miles of rivers and streams;
220,000 acres of lakes; and 15 square miles of
coastal waters. Due to data limitations, these
numbers underestimate the amount of waters
Dead Stream, Maine. Sedimentation from timber haul
road crossing. Source: Maine Forest Service. July 1998.
impaired by forestry operations.
Proposals to Achieve Cleaner Waters
Many states have been successful in addressing water pollution from forestry activities through
voluntary programs, and other states have adopted regulatory requirements that support these
voluntary efforts. EPA has supported these efforts in the past and will continue to support them in
the future. For example, EPA provides states with grant funds to support voluntary programs
addressing diffuse sources of water pollution, including runoff from forestry operations. This fund-
ing has recently been increased from $100 million to $200 million per year.
The Clean Water Act directs states and EPA to work together to identify impaired waters and
develop plans (called Total Maximum Daily Loads—or TMDLs) to restore the health of polluted
waters. In August 1999, EPA proposed revisions to the TMDL and other associated Clean Water
Act programs to help improve and strengthen efforts to achieve cleaner waters across the country.
-------
A key element of these proposed changes
is a clearer process for defining needed
pollution control measures and for assuring
that these measures are being implemented.
State programs of proven effectiveness,
whether voluntary or regulatory, are an
acceptable basis for assuring implementa-
tion. Where such programs do not exist,
however, clear authority to require imple-
mentation of measures to restore water
quality is needed.
Boise National Forest, Idaho. An earth slide, triggered by a
timber harvest, is chronically delivering sediment to a
bulltrout stream. Source: IDEQ-EPA sediment source
inventory. December 1998.
Proposed New Authority
Is Narrowly Focused
The proposed regulations would provide
states, most of which administer the Clean
Water Act discharge permit program, with the option of using this program to control pollution
from forestry operations, but only where:
• the operation includes a "discharge" of storm water from a discrete conveyance; and
• the state permit authority determines that the operation is a "significant contributor" of
pollutants or is contributing to the violation of a water quality standard.
Under these proposed regulations, forestry operations
that are not causing significant water quality problems would
not be subject to a permit. And even where forestry activities
were causing significant water quality problems, state permit
authorities would have the option of determining that other
approaches, such as state voluntary or regulatory programs,
are effective and sufficient to restore the health of the pol-
luted water body.
Where a state identifies a polluted water body, it would
develop a TMDL to restore the water, including a "reasonable
assurance" that the necessary pollution controls would actu-
ally be implemented. States would have the option to issue a
Clean Water Act permit for a forestry storm water discharge
where needed to supplement other appropriate mechanisms
and provide "reasonable assurance" that the pollution control
measures would be implemented. EPA expects that states will
only use this permit option to address "bad actors" who have
not responded to various non-regulatory approaches.
Middle James-Buffalo Watershed,
Virginia. Some road drainage structures
are not sufficient to control soil erosion.
Source: US EPA. August 1999.
EPA's Role Is Limited to Back-Stopping
States
The Clean Water Act requires that EPA review and approve TMDLs as adequate to restore the
health of polluted waters. Where a state TMDL is not adequate, EPA is required to establish the
TMDL. Where EPA establishes TMDLs that call for pollution reduction from forestry, the Agency will
rely on voluntary, incentive-based approaches where they are proven effective. Where no other option
is available, the proposed regulations would allow EPA to designate a forestry storm water discharge
as needing a Clean Water Act permit. EPA expects to use this authority only as a last resort.
-------
For More Information
For more information, contact EPA's Office
of Wastewater Management (mailcode 4203),
Washington, DC 20460, (202) 260-9541 or visit
www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl on the Internet. For
more information about forestry best management
practices and the development and implementation
of forest management plans, contact EPA's Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (mailcode
4503F),Washington, DC 20460, or visit
www.epa.gov/owow/nps/MMGI/Chapter3on
the Internet.
Upper New Watershed, North Carolina. Temporary
harvest road recontoured, seeded, and stabilized to protect
adjacent stream system. Source: US EPA. August 1999.
ssauisng IBIOIJJO
U S tnviron-nenial Pruua.cn
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th
Chicago. IL 60604-3590
091702 00
(je09fr) Aoua6y
IBJU8LUUOJJAU3
sejejs '
------- |