National Management Measures
to Control Nonpoint Source
Pollution from Forestry
-------
%l PROt«-°
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
(4503F)
EPA-841-B-05-001
April 2005
-------
National Management Measures to
Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
from Forestry
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
April 2005
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document provides guidance to States, Territories, authorized
Tribes, commercial and non-industrial private forest owners and
managers, and the public regarding management measures that may be used
to reduce nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. At times
this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions which
contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute
for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on FPA, States,
Territories, authorized Tribes, or the public and may not apply to a
particular situation based upon the circumstances, EPA, State,
Territory, and authorized Tribe decision makers retain the discretion to
adopt approaches to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry
activities on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where
appropriate, FPA may change this guidance in the future.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: [[[1-1
The Purpose and Scope of This Guidance 1-1
What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? 1-4
Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution 1-5
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 1-6
Nonpoint Source Program—-Section 319 of the Clean Water Act 1-6
National Estuary Program-—Section 320 of the Clean Water Act,..,..,,..,,..,,.,,.. 1-7
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 1-7
Total Maximum Daily Loads—Section 303 of the Clean Water Act 1-9
Forest Stewardship 1-10
2: AND ...................... 2-1
Forested Watershed Hydrology[[[2-2
Forestry Activities and Forest Hydrology 2-3
Road Construction and Road Use 2-4
Timber Harvesting 2-5
Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration[[[ 2-7
Prescribed Burning 2-8
Forestry Pollutants and Water Quality Effects 2-8
Sediment 2-9
Increased Temperature[[[2-11
Nutrients 2-12
Organic Debris[[[ 2-12
Forest Chemicals 2-13
Hydrologic Modifications[[[2-13
Physical Barriers 2-14
Cumulative Effects 2-15
-------
Contents
3: ............................................ 3-1
Scope of This Chapter 3-1
Management Measure Effectiveness 3-2
Examples of Management Measure Effectiveness 3-3
3A: [[[ 3-5
Management Measure Description [[[ 3-6
Benefits of Preharvest Planning[[[3-7
Best Management Practices 3-9
Harvest Planning Practices[[[3-9
Road System Planning Practices 3-9
Road Location Practices[[[3-9
Road Design Practices[[[3-12
Road Surfacing Practices [[[ 3-14
Road Stream Crossing Practices[[[3-14
Scheduling Practices [[[3-16
Preharvest Notification Practices [[[ 3-16
3B: [[[ 3-17
Management Measure Description 3-17
Benefits of Streamside Management Areas 3-19
Best Management Practices[[[3-23
3C: [[[ 3-25
Management Measure Description [[[ 3-25
General Road Construction Considerations 3-25
Road Surface Shape and Composition [[[3-27
Slope Stabilization 3-32
Road Construction, Fish Habitat, Stream Crossings, and Fish Passage 3-34
Wetland Road Considerations 3-36
Benefits of Road Construction Practices[[[3-37
-------
Contents
Best Management Practices 3-61
Road Maintenance Practices [[[3-61
Wet and Winter Road Practices 3-63
Stream Crossing and Drainage Structure Practices 3-64
Road Decommissioning, Obliteration, and Closure Practices 3-64
3E: TIMBER [[[3-69
Management Measure Description 3-69
Benefits of Timber Harvesting Practices 3-72
Best Management Practices[[[3-73
Harvesting Practices 3-73
Practices for Landings [[[ 3-74
Ground Skidding Practices 3-75
Cable Yarding Practices[[[3-76
Other Yarding Methods 3-77
Winter Harvesting 3-79
Petroleum Management Practices 3-80
3F: SITE PREPARATION AND FOREST ..............................................3-81
Management Measure Description 3-81
Mechanical Site Preparation in Wetlands[[[3-84
Benefits of Site Preparation Practices[[[ 3-84
Best Management Practices 3-86
Site Preparation Practices[[[3-86
Forest Regeneration Practices 3-87
3G: FIRE [[[
Management Measure Description 3-89
Cost of Prescribed Burning 3-90
Best Management Practices 3-90
Prescribed Fire Practices[[[3-90
Prescribed Fire in Wetlands 3-90
-------
Contents
Best Management Practices 3-103
3J: WETLANDS FOREST MANAGEMENT [[[3-107
Management Measure Description [[[ 3-107
Forestry in Wetlands: Section 404 3-108
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, section 232.3: Activities Not
Requiring a Section 404 Permit 3-109
Best Management Practices 3-110
Wetland Harvesting Practices[[[3-110
Wetland Road Design and Construction Practices.,,......,......,,.....,,......,......,3-112
Practices for Crossing Wetlands in Winter 3-115
Wetland Site Preparation and Regeneration Practices 3-116
Wetland Fire Management Practices 3-117
Chemical Management Practices 3-118
EPA and Corps of Engineers Memorandum to the Field........................... 3-118
Mechanical Site Preparation Activities and CWA Section 404 3-118
Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities
Require a Section 404 Permit 3-119
Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities Do Not
Require a Section 404 Permit 3-120
Best Management Practices 3-121
4: TO AND
IN .. 4-1
The EPA Watershed Approach 4-2
Cumulative Effects 4-3
Definition [[[4-3
The Importance of Considering and Analyzing Cumulative Effects 4-4
Problems in Cumulative Effects Analysis 4-5
Approaches to Cumulative Effects Analysis 4-7
1. EPA The Synoptic Approach [[[4-8
Synoptic Indices 4-8
Landscape Indicators 4-9
2, Washington State Watershed Analysis 4-9
3. Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS).. 4-9
4. California Department of Forestry Questionnaire 4-10
5. Phased Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment............................... 4-10
Forest Watershed Management: An Example ............................................4-13
-------
Contents
5: AND ......................... 5-1
Overview 5-1
Monitoring Program Fundamentals 5-2
Monitoring BMP Implementation [[[ 5-4
Monitoring BMP Effectiveness[[[5-5
Importance of BMP Monitoring 5-6
Quality Assurance and Quality Control 5-6
Definitions of Quality Assurance and Quality Control....................................... 5-6
Importance of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs 5-6
EPA Quality Policy 5-7
Review of State Management Practice Monitoring Programs 5-7
Objectives of the Audits[[[5-7
Criteria Used to Choose the Audit Sites 5-8
Geographic Distribution 5-9
Time Since Harvest 5-9
Minimum Size 5-9
Proximity to Watercourse 5-10
Representation of Ownership 5-10
Randomness 5-10
Audit Focus: BMP Implementation and BMP Effectiveness 5-10
Number of Sites Investigated 5-10
Number of BMPs Evaluated[[[5-11
Composition of the Investigation Teams 5-11
BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Rating Systems ............................... 5-12
Audit Results 5-12
EPA Recommendations for Forestry Practice Audits...................................... 5-13
Volunteer Water Monitoring [[[5-14
Volunteer Monitoring Resources 5-15
Best Management Practices Evaluation Program: U.S. Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Region 5-16
Important Points to Note About the BMPEP 5-18
REFERENCES [[[R-1
[[[ G-1
APPENDICES
-------
Contents
Figure 1-1. Timbetland ownership by region 1-10
Figure 1-2. Forested lands in the United States 1-11
Figure 2-1. Distribution of the cost of regulatory programs among different groups in
representative states 2-22
Figure 3-1. Comparison of sediment concentrations in runoff from various forest
conditions to drinking water standard [[[ 3-8
Figure 3-2. An example of laying out sample road systems for comparison
purposes [[[3-11
Figure 3-3. Maximum recommended stable angles for (a) backslopes and
(b) fill slopes[[[3-13
Figure 3-4. Alternative water crossing structures 3-15
Figure 3-5. Calculation of slope—an important step in determining SMA width 3-18
Figure 3-6. Mitigation techniques used for controlling erosion and sediment
to protect water quality and fish habitat 3-28
Figure 3-7. Illustration of road structure terms[[[3-29
Figure 3-8. Types of road surface shape 3-29
Figure 3-9. Comparison of sedimentation rates (as tons of sediment in runoff per
acre per inch of rainfall) from different forest road surfaces 3-31
Figure 3-10. Percent reduction in sediment runoff from a forest road surface with
different treatments 3-31
Figure 3-11. Sediment yield from plots using various forms of ground covering 3-32
Figure 3-12. Culvert conditions that block fish [[[ 3-35
Figure 3-13. Multiple culverts for fish in streams that have a wide range
of flows 3-35
Figure 3-14. Broad-based dip installation 3-41
Figure 3-15. Typical road profiles for drainage and stability 3-42
Figure 3-16. Design and installation of relief culvert 3-43
Figure 3-17. Details of installation of open-top and pole culverts 3-44
Figure 3-18. Grading and spacing of road turnouts 3-44
Figure 3-19. Sediment trap constructed to collect runoff from ditch along cutslope...........3-45
Figure 3-20. Brush barrier placed at toe of fill to intercept runoff and sediment................. 3-46
Figure 3-21. Silt fence installation [[[3-46
-------
Contents
Figure 3-24. Portable bridge for temporary stream crossing 3-50
Figure 3-25. A stream ford. Hard and stable approaches to a ford are necessary 3-50
Figure 3-26. Design and installation of pipe culvert at stream crossing 3-51
Figure 3-27. Proper installation of culvert in the stream is critical to preventing plugging
or undercutting 3-52
Figure 3-28. Procedure for installing culvert when excavation in channel section of
stream could cause sediment movement and increase turbidity 3-53
Figure 3-29. Details of ice bridge construction for temporary stream crossing
in winter 3-54
Figure 3-30. Road-related storm damage by type in the Detroit Ranger District................. 3-62
Figure 3-31. Install visible traffic barriers where appropriate to prevent off-road
vehicle and other undesired disturbance to recently stabilized roads 3-66
Figure 3-32. Construct trails using the same drainage structures as closed forest roads... 3-66
Figure 3-33. Broad-based dips reduce the potential for erosion 3-67
Figure 3-34. General large woody debris stability guide on Salmon Creek,
Washington 3-75
Figure 3-35. Typical cable yarding operation 3-77
Figure 3-36. Common pattern of shovel logging operations.............................................. 3-78
Figure 3-37. Balloon harvesting practices on a steep slope............................................... 3-79
Figure 3-38. Deposited, suspended, and total sediment losses in experimental
watersheds during water years 1976 and 1977 for various site
preparation techniques[[[3-82
Figure 3-39. Predicted erosion rates using various site preparation techniques for
physiographic regions in the southeastern United States 3-83
Figure 3-40. Erosion rates for site preparation practices in selected land resource
areas in the Southeast 3-83
Figure 3-41. Sediment loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,
to August 31,1981 3-84
Figure 3-42. Nutrient loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,
to August 31,1981 [[[3-84
Figure 3-43. Comparison of the effectiveness of seed, fertilizer, mulch, and netting
in controlling cumulative erosion from treated plots on a steep road fill
in Idaho [[[3-94
Figure 3-44. Soil losses from a 35-foot-long slope[[[ 3-96
Figure 3-45. Establish buffer zones of appropriate width during aerial applications
of forest chemicals to protect water quality, people, and animals 3-103
Figure 3-46. Comparison of impervious (a) and pervious (b) roadfill sections 3-115
-------
Contents
Table 1 -1. Leading Pollutants and Sources Causing Impairment in Assessed Rivers,
Lakes, and Estuaries 1-2
Table 1-2, Miles of Rivers and Streams Affected by Sources,,..,,.,,..,,..,,..,..,,..,,..,,.,,..,,..,, 1-3
Table 2-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Stream Crossing Structures 2-11
Table 2-2. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP
Programs by Program Type[[[2-20
Table 2-3, Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in the
Southeast and Midwest[[[2-21
Table 2-4, Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for Individual
BMPs, by Region [[[2-23
Table 3-1. Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable
Miniyarder on Soil in Georgia 3-6
Table 3-2. Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths 3-18
Table 3-3. Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths 3-18
Table 3-4. Storm Water Suspended Sediment Delivery for Treatments 3-20
Table 3-5. Average Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel
After Harvesting 3-20
Table 3-6. Comparison of Effects of Two Methods of Harvesting on
Water Quality [[[3-20
Table 3-7. Average Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs perMBF 3-21
Table 3-8. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for
Streamside Management Areas 3-22
Table 3-9. Cost Effects of Three Alternative Buffer Strips............................................... 3-22
Table 3-10. Goals of Two Main Types of LWD Projects 3-24
Table 3-11. Effects of Several Road Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield
in Idaho 3-26
Table 3-12. Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments in Controlling Soil Losses in
West Virginia[[[3-31
Table 3-13. Reduction in the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20 Feet
Long by Grass and Forest Debris[[[ 3-32
Table 3-14. Comparison of Downslope Movement of Sediment from Roads for
-------
Contents
Table 3-18. Costs of Erosion Control Measures in Idaho 3-38
Table 3-19. Sediment Loss Reduction from Reinforcement at Road Stream
Crossings 3-53
Table 3-20. Comparison of Road Repair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and
Without BMPs 3-60
Table 3-21, Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Watershed Treatments Associated
with Roads [[[3-60
Table 3-22. Comparative Costs of Reclamation of Roads and Removal of Stream
Crossing Structures [[[3-61
Table 3-23. Example of Recommended Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope.......... 3-67
Table 3-24. Soil Disturbance from Roads for Alternative Methods of Timber
Harvesting 3-71
Table 3-25. Soil Disturbance from Logging by Alternative Harvesting Methods 3-72
Table 3-26. Relative Effects of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and
Compaction in Pacific Northwest Clear-cuts 3-73
Table 3-27. Percent of Land Area Affected by Logging Operations 3-73
Table 3-28. Skidding/Yarding Method Comparison 3-73
Table 3-29. Costs Associated with Various Methods of Yarding 3-79
Table 3-30. Analysis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site
Productivity in the Southeast 3-85
Table 3-31. Site Preparation Comparison [[[3-85
Table 3-32. Comparison of Costs of Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM)
vs. Broadcast Burning[[[ 3-86
Table 3-33. Range of Prescribed Fire Costs 3-90
Table 3-34. Economic Impact of Implementation of Proposed Management
Measures on Road Construction and Maintenance 3-94
Table 3-35. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed,
Fertilizer, and Mulch 3-94
Table 3-36. Estimated Costs for Revegetation 3-95
Table 3-37. Peak Concentrations of Forest Chemicals in Soils, Lakes, and Streams
After Application 3-100
Table 3-38. Nitrogen Losses from Two Subwatersheds in the Umpqua Experimental
Watershed 3-102
-------
Contents
xii National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The Nation's aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although environmen-
tal protection programs in the United States have successfully improved water quality
during the past 25 years, many challenges remain. Significant strides have been made in
reducing the effects of discrete pollutant sources, such as factories and sewage treatment
plants (called point sources). But aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, mostly because of
complex problems caused by polluted runoff, known as nonpoint source pollution.
Every 2 years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports to Congress on
the status of the Nation's waters. The 1998 National Water Quality Inventory (USEPA,
2000) reports that the most significant source of water quality impairment to rivers and
streams and lakes, ponds, and reservoirs is agriculture, and the most significant source of
impairment to estuaries is municipal point sources of pollution (Table 1-1). Other impor-
tant sources of impairment or alterations that can impair water quality include hydrologic
modifications like dams and channelization (a leading cause of impairment to rivers and
streams and lakes, ponds, and reservoirs), urban runoff and storm sewer discharges
(leading sources of impairment to all surface waters), and pollutants deposited from the
atmosphere (a leading source of impairment to estuaries). The five leading pollutants
impairing the Nation's waters are siltation, nutrients (from fertilizers and animal waste),
bacteria, toxic metals, and organic enrichment that lowers dissolved oxygen (USEPA,
2000).l Siltation is the leading cause of water quality impairment to rivers and streams
and the third leading cause of impairment to lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Nine states list:
silviculture as a leading source of impairment to rivers and streams.2
This guidance is designed to
provide current information to
state forestry program
managers and foresters,
commercial forest managers,
private foresters and loggers,
and nonindustrial private
forest owners on nonpoint
source pollution from forestry
activities.
Of
This guidance document is intended to provide technical assistance to state water quality
and forestry program managers, nonindustrial private forest owners, industrial forest
owners, and others involved with forest management on the best available, most eco-
nomically achievable means of reducing the nonpoint source pollution of surface and
groundwaters that can result from forestry activities. The guidance provides background
information about: nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities, including where it
1 The term pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological
materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste
discharged into water (Clean Water Act [Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter III, Section 1329]). The term pollution means the man-made or man-
induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water (Clean Water Act [Title 33, Chapter 26. Subchapter V, Sec.
1362(19)]).
2 Nine states list silviculture as a major source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams: Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico,
Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia; 11 states/tribes list silviculture as a minor/moderate source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams: Coyote
Valley Reservation, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin; 6 states list silviculture
as a source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams without specifying whether it is a major or minor/moderate source: Alaska, Colorado, Montana,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington. (Source: USEPA, 2000; National Water Quality Inventory, Appendix A-5.)
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
1-1
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Table 1-1. Pollutants and Sources Causing Impairment in Riwers, Lakes, and (USEPA, 2000)
Pollytants
Sources
Rivers and Streams8
Siltation
Pathogens (bacteria)
Nutrients
Agriculture
Hydromodificatlon
Urban runoff/
Storm
Lakes, Ponds, and Resewoirs1*
Nutrients
Metals
Siltation
Agriculture
Hydromodifieation
Urban runoff/
Storm sewers
Estyaries"
Pathogens (bacteria)
Organic enrichment/
Low dissolved oxygen
Metals
Municipal Point Sources
Urban runoff/
Storm sewers
Atmospheric deposition
" on states' surveys of 23% of total river and stream miles.
b on states' surveys of 42% of total lake, reservoir, and pond acres.
c Based on states' surveys of 32% of total estuary square miles.
This guidance does not replace
the 1993 Guidance Specifying
Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution
in Coastal Waters.l\\t\m
guidance still applies to coastal
states.
comes from and how it enters our waters. It presents the most current technical informa-
tion about how to minimize and reduce nonpoint source pollution to forest waters, and it
discusses the broad concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems on a
watershed level. By assessing and addressing water quality problems at the watershed
level, state program managers and others involved with forest: management can integrate
concerns about forestry activities with those of other resource management activities to
identify conflicting requirements and provide balance between short-term impacts and
long-term benefits (Table 1-2). This approach can maximize the potential for overall
improvement and protection of watershed conditions and provide multiple environmental
benefits.
The causes of nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities, the specific pollutants of
concern, and general approaches to reducing the effect of such pollutants on aquatic
resources are discussed in the Overview (Chapter 2). Also included in Chapter 2 is a
general discussion of best management practices (BMPs) and the use of combinations of
individual practices (BMP systems) to protect surface and groundwaters. Management
measures for forest management and management practices that can be used to achieve
the management measures are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 summarizes watershed
planning principles and the application of management measures in a watershed context.
Chapter 5 provides an overview of nonpoint source monitoring and tracking techniques.
Because this document is national in scope, it cannot address all practices or techniques
specific to local or regional soils, climate, or forest types. Field research on management
practices is ongoing in different parts of the country and under different harvesting
circumstances to provide more guidance on how the practices mentioned in this guide
and other management practices should be applied under specific circumstances. State
laws and programs, or regional guidances published by the U.S. Forest Service, for
instance, will have the criteria for site-specific management practice implementation.
EPA encourages states to review their existing laws and programs for their relevance to
forestry activities and to implement the management measures in this guidance within the
context of state laws and programs wherever possible. In some cases very few adjust-
ments to state laws and programs will be necessary to fully meet EPA's management
measures. In other cases, major revisions or an entirely new program focus may be
necessary. This guidance should prove useful in directing states toward those improve-
ments that are necessary to protect water quality from forestry activities. Consult with
1-2
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Table 1-2. Miles of Rivers and Streams Affected By Sources (USEPA, 2000).
SOURCE
Agriculture
Hydromodifi cation
Nonirrigated Crop Production
Natural Sources
Urban Runoff/ Storm Sewers
Irrigated Crop Production
Municipal Point Sources
Animal Feeding Operations
Resource Extraction
Silviculture
Land Disposal
Range Grazing - Riparian and/or Upland
Habitat Modification (other than Hydro)
Channelization
Industrial Point Sources
Construction
Onsite Wastewater Systems (Septic Tanks)
Pasture Grazing - Riparian and/or Upland
Bank or Shoreline Modification
Other
MAJOR
21,856
7,930
2,551
7,437
5,747
3,123
6,667
2,736
5,948
717
2,030
2,434
2,169
3,024
3,409
1,653
874
1,262
1,308
768
MINOR
102,264
30,266
34,747
11,980
20,060
20,784
15,293
24,908
9,771
14,884
9,565
10,382
11,713
9,677
7,335
6,331
3,123
9,335
4,472
4,375
NOT
SPECIFIED
46,630
19,567
9,186
13,587
6,504
7,250
7,127
108
9,612
4,420
8,333
6,653
4,569
4,802
3,051
4,452
7,834
0
4,114
2,495
TOTAL
170,750
57,763
46,484
33,004
32,310
31,156
29,087
27,751
25,231
20,020
19,928
19,469
18,451
17,503
13,795
12,436
11,831
10,597
9,894
7,638
TOTAL as
Percent of
Assessed Miles
20.3
6.9
5.5
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.5
3.3
3.0
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
0.9
state or local agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
(USDA-FS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Cooperative State,
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); soil and water conservation
districts; state forestry agencies; local cooperative extension services; and professional
forestry organizations for additional information on nonpoint source pollution controls
for forestry activities applicable to your local area. Resources and Internet sites related to
forestry are listed in Appendices A and B.
This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes; commercial and
nonindustrial private forest owners and managers; and the public regarding management
measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities.
At times this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions that contain legally
binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regula-
tions, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements
on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particu-
lar situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, state, territory, and authorized tribe
decision makers retain the discretion to adopt on a case-by-case basis approaches to
control nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities that differ from this guidance
where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
1-3
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Nonpoint sources, i.e.,
sources not defined by statute
as point sources as described
above, include return flow
from irrigated agriculture,
other agricultural runoff and
infiltration, urban runoff from
small or non-sewered urban
areas, flow from abandoned
mines, hydrologic modifica-
tion, and runoff from forestry
activities.
Readers should note that this guidance is entirely consistent: with the Guidance Specifying
Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA,
1993), published under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amend-
ments of 1990 (CZARA). This guidance, however, does not supplant or replace the 1993
coastal management measures guidance for the purpose of implementing programs under
section 6217.
Under CZARA, states that participate in the Coastal Zone Management Program under
the Coastal Zone Management Act are required to develop coastal nonpoint pollution
control programs that ensure the implementation of EPA's management measures in their
coastal management area. The 1993 guidance continues to apply to that program.
This document modifies and expands upon supplementary technical information con-
tained in the 1993 coastal management measures guidance both to reflect circumstances
relevant to differing inland conditions and to provide current technical information. It
does not set new or additional standards for section 6217 or Clean Water Act section 319
programs. It does, however, provide information that government agencies, private sector
groups, and individuals can use to understand and apply measures and practices to
address sources of nonpoint source pollution from forestry.
Is
Nonpoint source pollution usually results from precipitation, atmospheric deposition,
land runoff, infiltration, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification. As runoff from
rainfall or snowmelt moves, it picks up and carries natural pollutants and pollutants
resulting from human activity, ultimately dumping them into rivers, lakes, wetlands,
coastal waters, and groundwater. Technically, the term nonpoint source is defined to
mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of point source
in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act of 1987:
The term point source means any discernible, confined, and discrete convey-
ance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit,
well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding
operation, or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may
be discharged. This term does not include agricultural storm water and return
flows from irrigated agriculture.
Although diffuse runoff is typically treated as nonpoint source pollution, runoff that
enters and is discharged from conveyances such as those described above is treated as a
point source discharge and therefore is subject to the permit requirements of the Clean
Water Act. In contrast, nonpoint sources, including runoff from forestry activities, are not
subject to federal permit requirements. Point source discharges usually enter receiving
water bodies at some identifiable site and carry pollutants whose generation is controlled
by some internal (e.g., industrial) process or activity, not by the weather. Point source
discharges like municipal and industrial wastewaters, runoff or leachate from solid waste
disposal sites, and storm sewer outfalls from large urban centers are regulated and
permitted under the Clean Water Act.
Although water program managers understand and manage nonpoint sources in accor-
dance with legal definitions and requirements, the nonlegal community often character-
izes nonpoint sources in the following ways:
1-4
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
* Nonpoint source discharges enter surface and/or groundwaters in a diffuse manner at:
irregular intervals related mostly to weather.
* The pollutants arise over an extensive land area and move overland before they
reach surface waters or infiltrate into groundwaters.
« The extent of nonpoint source pollution is related to uncontrollable climatic events
and to geographic and geologic conditions and varies greatly from place to place and
from year to year.
« Nonpoint sources are often more difficult or expensive to monitor at their point(s) of
origin than point sources.
* Abatement of nonpoint sources is focused on land and runoff management practices,
rather than on effluent treatment.
• Nonpoint source pollutants can be transported and deposited as airborne contami-
nants.
The nonpoint source pollutant of greatest concern with respect to forestry activities is
sediment. The potential for sediment delivery to streams is a long-term (beyond 2 years)
concern from almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads regardless of
their level of use or age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other pollutants of significance,
including nutrients, temperature, toxic chemicals and metals, organic matter, pathogens,
herbicides, and pesticides, are also of concern, and problems associated with these other
pollutants (in the context of forestry activities) generally do not extend beyond 2 years
from the time of harvest or are associated with a specific activity, such as an herbicide
application. Nevertheless, all of these pollutants have the potential to affect water quality
and aquatic habitat, and minimizing their delivery to surface waters and groundwater
deserves serious consideration before and during forestry activities. Forest harvesting can
also affect the hydrology of a watershed, and hydrologic alterations within a watershed
have the potential to degrade water quality.
to
During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water pollution
(1972-1987), EPA and the states focused most of their water pollution control activities
on traditional point sources. They regulated these point sources (and continue to regulate
them) through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program established by section 402 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act). Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA also have regulated discharges of dredged and fill materials into
wetlands.
As a result of the above activities, the United States has greatly reduced pollutant loads
from point source discharges and has made considerable progress in restoring and
maintaining water quality. However, the gains in controlling point sources have not
solved all of our water quality problems. Studies and surveys conducted by EPA, other
federal agencies, and state water quality agencies indicate that: most: of the remaining
water quality impairments in our rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and
wetlands result from nonpoint source pollution and other nontraditional sources, such as
urban storm water discharges and overflows from combined sewers (sewers that carry
both wastewater and storm water runoff). Summarized below are some legislative and
programmatic efforts to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-5
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
The Federal Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program
(6117) is designed to enhance
state and local efforts to
manage land use activities that
degrade coastal habitats and
waters.
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
In November 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
(CZARA). These amendments were intended to address several concerns, including the
effect of nonpoint source pollution on coastal waters.
To more specifically address the effects of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water
quality, Congress enacted section 6217, Protecting Coastal Waters (codified as 16 U.S.C.
section 1455b), Section 6217 requires that each state with an approved Coastal Zone
Management Program develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program and submit
it to EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for ap-
proval. The purpose of the program is "to develop and implement management measures
for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close
conjunction with other state and local authorities."
Coastal Nonpoint: Pollution Control Programs are not intended to replace existing coastal
zone management programs and nonpoint source management programs. Rather, they are
intended to serve as an update and expansion of existing programs and are to be coordi-
nated closely with the coastal zone management programs that states and territories are
already implementing in keeping with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The
legislative history indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the
links between federal and state coastal zone management and water quality programs and
to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal
waters and habitats.
Section 6217(g) of CZARA requires EPA to publish, in consultation with NOAA, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal agencies, "guidance for specifying
management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters." Section
6217(g)(5) defines management measures as
economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollut-
ants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint sources of
pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable
through the application of the best available nonpoint source control prac-
tices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, and other
alternatives.
EPA published Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993). In that document, management measures for
urban areas; agricultural sources; forestry; marinas and recreational boating;
hydromodification (channelization and channel modification, dams, and streambank and
shoreline erosion); and wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems were
defined and described. The management measures for controlling forestry nonpoint
source pollution discussed in Chapter 3 of this document are based on those outlined by
EPA in the coastal management: measures guidance.
Nonpoint Program— 319 of the Water Act
In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the growing
national awareness of the increasingly dominant influence of nonpoint source pollution
on water quality, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to focus greater national effort
on nonpoint sources. Under this amended version, called the 1987 Water Quality Act,
1-6
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Congress revised section 101, "Declaration of Goals and Policy," to add the following
fundamental principle:
It is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of
pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to
enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and
nonpoint sources of pollution.
More important, Congress enacted section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act, which
established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under
section 319, states, tribes, and territories address nonpoint source pollution by assessing
the causes and sources of nonpoint source pollution and implementing management
programs to control them. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to states, tribes, and
territories to assist them in implementing management programs or portions of manage-
ment programs that have been approved by EPA. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropri-
ated $237,476,800 for this purpose.
Section 319 nonpoint source pollution control programs are an important element of
coastal states' efforts to comply with section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs. Under section 6217, coastal states are directed to coordinate development of
their coastal waters protection programs with their section 319 programs and related
programs developed under other sections of the Clean Water Act, and two primary means
of complying with section 6217 are through changes made to section 319 and Coastal
Zone Management Programs.
Program— 320 of the Act
EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the Clean Water
Act. This program focuses on point source and nonpoint source pollution in geographi-
cally targeted, high-priority estuarine waters. In this program, EPA assists state, regional,
and local governments in developing comprehensive conservation and management plans
that recommend priority corrective actions to restore estuarine water quality, fish popula-
tions, and other designated uses of the waters.
404 of the Clean Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of
dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities
regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (such
as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports), and
conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and EPA jointly administer the section 404 program. The Corps administers the
day-to-day program, including permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations; devel-
ops policy and guidance; and enforces section 404 provisions. EPA develops and inter-
prets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications; determines the scope
of geographic jurisdiction; and approves and oversees state assumption. EPA also identi-
fies activities that are exempt, enforces section 404 provisions, and has the authority to
elevate or veto Corps permit decisions. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies have important
advisory roles.
Section 319 requires states to
assess nonpoint source
pollution and implement
management programs, and
authorizes EPA to provide
grants to assist state nonpoint
source pollution control
programs.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
1-7
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
The Water Quality Act of 1987, the last full reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, replaced the act's
Clean Water Construction Grants Program with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The
CWSRF is a state-based program to provide assistance to municipalities to construct wastewater
treatment works, nonpoint source pollution control projects, and estuary protection. Congress insured
that CWSRF could address all state water quality program priorities. CWSRF programs provided an
average of $3.4 billion per year over the past 5 years, primarily in low-interest loans, to fund such
water quality protection projects as well as watershed management projects. The CWSRF have
provided more than $38.7 billion in funding over the life of the program.
Nationally, interest rates for CWSRF loans in 2002 averaged 2.5 percent, compared to market rates
that averaged 5.1 percent. A CWSRF-funded project would therefore cost about 21 percent less than a
project funded at the market rate. CWSRF loans can fund 100 percent of the project cost and provide
flexible repayment terms up to 20 years.
States are required to match the federal funds received from CWSRF; but this match requirement is not
passed on to loan recipients. Furthermore, the money received as a CWSRF loan can be leveraged as
matching funds to obtain funding under other federal programs, such as 319 grants and USDA cost-
share programs. This is because much of the CWSRF funds are recycled through loans, so fewer
federal requirements apply to them compared to other federal funding sources.
CWSRF loans provide more than $200 million annually to control pollution from nonpoint sources and
to protect estuaries, and total funding for these purposes has exceeded $1.6 billion. Some innovative
funding examples follow.
Q The Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, are using Ohio's
CWSRF to help Master Loggers and Certified Foresters purchase logging and tree planting equip-
ment. Financed equipment includes bulldozers, tracked forwarders and hydro-bunchers, bridges,
and mulching machines. Ohio hopes that this type of funding will support the successful use of
BMPs on logging operations.
Q The California CWSRF provided funds to landowners in the Tahoe Basin to assist them with the
removal of dead and dying trees in a manner that minimized erosion and fully protected water
quality. The area had a high risk of fire due to the large quantities of natural fuel for fires located on
public and private lands throughout the basin.
Q The Nature Conservancy of Ohio received three CWSRF loans totaling $264,000 for riparian zone
conservation. The funds are used to protect 383 acres along Ohio's Brush Creek. The Nature
Conservancy purchased 62 acres and obtained conservation easements on 321 acres. Protection
measures include planting the riparian corridor with hardwood trees for streambank stabilization.
"Restoring and preserving these riparian areas is an important part of controlling contaminated
runoff that threatens water quality and stream habitat," said the director of Ohio EPA.
Q Ohio EPA has worked to fund both point and nonpoint source projects through the newly
developed Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (WRRSP). The WRRSP provides low-
interest loans to communities for wastewater treatment plant improvements if the communities
also sponsor water resource restoration projects. Provided that both projects qualify, CWSRF
provides the financial support for both projects and reduces a community's interest rate on the
total amount borrowed. As a result, the total amount repaid on the CWSRF loan for both projects is
less than what would have been repaid on the wastewater treatment plant project alone. Ohio
communities used $24 million of CWSRF loan funds to protect and restore 1,850 acres of riparian
lands and wetlands and 38 miles of Ohio's stream corridors in 2000 and 2001. The WRRSP was
designed to help prevent the loss of biodiversity and to maintain ecological health, and it has
supported the acquisition of conservation easements, restoration of habitats, and modification of
dams. The CWSRF program has assisted a variety of borrowers such as municipalities,
communities of all sizes, farmers, homeowners, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. CWSRF
recipients often partner with banks, nonprofits, local governments, and other federal and state
agencies to leverage the maximum financing for their communities.
Sources: USEPA, undated a, undated b, 2002a, 2002b.
1-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
The basic premise of the program is that: no discharge of dredged or fill material can be
permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environ-
ment or if the Nation's waters would be significantly degraded. In other words, an
applicant for a permit is asked to show that
« Wetland effects have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable.
« Potential effects on wetlands have been minimized.
« Compensation has been provided for any remaining unavoidable effects through
activities such as wetlands restoration and creation.
Regulated activities are controlled by a permit review process. An individual permit is
required for potentially significant effects. However, for most discharges that will have
only minimal adverse effects, the Army Corps of Engineers often grants general permits.
These may be issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories of
activities (for example, minor road crossings, utility line backfill and bedding) as a means
to expedite the permitting process.
Section 404(f) exempts normal forestry activities that are part of an established, ongoing
forestry operation. This exemption does not apply to activities that represent a new use of
the wetland and that: would result in a reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circu-
lation of waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, section 404(f)
provides an exemption of discharges of dredged or fill material for the purpose of con-
structing or maintaining forest roads, where such roads are constructed or maintained in
accordance with BMPs to ensure that the How and circulation patterns and chemical and
biological characteristics of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the reach of the
navigable waters is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment
will be otherwise minimized. (More information on wetlands and forestry, including a list
of the aforementioned BMPs, is provided in Chapter 3, section J.)
Total Daily — 303 of the Act
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a statement of the total quantity of a pollutant
that can be released to a water body or stretch of stream or river on a daily basis to
maintain the water quality standard for the pollutant. A single water body might have
many TMDLs, one for each pollutant of concern. A TMDL is the sum of the individual
wasteload allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural
background sources, plus a margin of safety for an individual body of water. TMDLs can
be expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per unit time, to aquatic organisms toxicity, or
other appropriate measures that relate to state water quality standards.
The process of creating TMDLs was established by Clean Water Act section 303(d) to
guide the application of state standards to protect the designated "beneficial uses" (e.g.
fishing, swimming, drinking water, fish habitat, aesthetics) of individual water bodies.
Beginning in 1992, states, territories and authorized tribes were to submit lists of im-
paired waters (i.e., waters that do not meet water quality standards) to EPA every two
years. Beginning in 1994, lists were due to EPA on April 1 of even-numbered years.
States, territories, and authorized tribes rank the listed waters by priority, taking into
account the severity of the pollution and the water body's designated uses.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-9
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
A TMDL is established to identify reduction targets for two types of water pollution
sources in rivers and streams:
• Point source pollution
• Nonpoint source pollution
While point sources of water pollution are regulated by discharge permits, nonpoint
sources are controlled by the installation of BMPs, either voluntarily or by regulatory
requirement, depending on the state.
A TMDL is a process as well as an outcome. The following are components of TMDL
development:
• Problem identification
• Identification of water quality indicators and target values
• Source assessment
• Linkage between water quality targets and sources
• Allocations
• Follow-up monitoring and evaluation plan
• Assembling the TMDL
Forest harvesting; road construction, maintenance, and use; and abandoned roads in
forests are the primary sources of sediment and other pollutants to water bodies from
forestry activities. If a state determines that a priority water body is impaired by a pollut-
ant that partially or wholly arises from forestry activities, the state develops a TMDL for
the water body and in it determines the maximum allowable quantity of the pollutant that
may be released from forestry activities. Some means of ensuring that no more than this
quantity is released must then be implemented. BMPs are one method that could be used
in conjunction with other methods chosen.
160
140
120
8 ioo
iZ
u
c 80
1
- 60
40
20
JT
B
,,
: . ;
11 ;
'• '•:
.
i j;
: :
• •
M
Lj fcl
• National Forest
DOther Public
D Forest Industry
D Other Private
North South Rocky Mtns Pacific Coast
Region
Forest Stewardship
Forest stewardship, including implementa-
tion of the management measures and
BMPs in this guidance or similar ones (for
instance, state-recommended BMPs) to
minimize water quality impairment due to
forest harvesting and associated activities,
is the responsibility of those who own and
harvest the land. In the United States,
timberland ownership is divided among
public agencies, the commercial forest
industry, and other private timberland
owners. On a national scale, 71 percent of
timberland is owned privately and 29
percent publicly (Smith et al., 2001). The
distribution of ownership among different
public and private entities differs widely by region, as summarized in Figure 1-1. Figure
1-2 shows the distribution of forested land throughout the country.
Figure 1 -1. Timberland ownership by region (Smith et al., 2001).
1-10
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
This guidance is oriented toward the implementation of management measures and BMPs
that will promote the protection of water quality, but it does not focus on assessing the
quality of water that results from forestry activities. Other requirements, notably state
water quality standards and designated uses, apply to all ownership categories and types
of land-based activities. Thus, while different management measures and BMPs are
recommended for forestry activities and agriculture, for instance, maintaining state water
quality standards is the responsibility of those who undertake both activities.
Finally, it is important to mention that forests, especially well-managed forests, are a key
element in any state, local, or federal water quality protection program. Forests and
forested land, whether in a rural setting, along streams on agricultural land, intermixed
with other land uses in suburban settings, or in urban locations, are natural filters for
storm water runoff and one of the least expensive and most effective means of protecting
water quality. It is the hope of EPA that the management measures and BMPs contained
in this guidance, and the suggestions for their implementation, will help all persons
involved with forestry activities and forest management to maintain the quality of the
Nation's surface and groundwaters.
Figure 1 -2. Forested lands of the United States.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
1-11
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
1-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CHAPTER 2: WATER QUALITY AND
FORESTRY ACTIVITIES
Nonpoint source pollution remains a major challenge to meeting water quality standards
and designated uses in much of the Nation. Chapter 1 defines and describes nonpoint
source pollution. The potential for sediment delivery to streams is a long-term (beyond
2 years) concern from almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads
regardless of their level of use or age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other pollutants of
significance, including nutrients, increased temperature, toxic chemicals and metals,
organic matter, pathogens, herbicides, and pesticides, are also of concern, and problems
associated with these other pollutants (in the context of forestry activities) generally do
not extend beyond 2 years from the time of harvest or are associated with a specific
activity, such as an herbicide application. Temperature effects might generally extend
beyond 2 years because of the time necessary for regrowth to occur in harvested stream-
side management areas (SMAs). Nevertheless, all of these pollutants have the potential to
affect water quality and aquatic habitat and minimizing their delivery to surface waters
and groundwater deserves serious consideration before and during forestry activities.
Forest harvesting can also affect the hydrology of a watershed, and hydrologic alterations
within a watershed also have the potential to degrade water quality. Forestry activities
can also affect the habitats of aquatic species through physical disturbances caused by
construction of stream crossings, equipment use within stream corridors, and placement
of slash or other debris generated by forestry activities within streams. The effects of
sediment and other pollutants on water quality in forested areas are discussed below.
The effects of forestry activities on surface waters are of concern to EPA and state and
local authorities because healthy, clean waters are important for aquatic life, drinking
water, and recreational use. Surface waters and their ecology can be affected by inputs of
sediment, nutrients, and chemicals, and by alterations to stream flow that can result from
forestry activities. The purpose of implementing management measures and best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) to protect surface waters during and after forestry activities is to
protect important ecological conditions and characteristics of the surface waters in roaded
and logged forested areas. These conditions vary with water body type, but in general the
ecological conditions that management measures and BMPs are intended to protect
include the following:
• General water quality, by minimizing inputs of polluted runoff.
• Water temperature, by ensuring an adequate (but not excessive) and appropriate
amount of shade along shorelines and streambanks.
• Nutrient balance, by providing for an adequate influx of carbon and nutrients that
serve as the basis of aquatic food chains.
• Habitat diversity, by ensuring that inputs of large organic debris to the aquatic
system are appropriate for the system.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-1
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
• Hydrologic processes, by limiting disturbances to stream flow patterns, both sea-
sonal and annual.
A great deal has been learned over the past 20 to 30 years about effective ways to reduce
nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. Developing more effective ways to
control nonpoint source pollution in forested settings requires a basic understanding of
forest hydrology and how forestry activities affect it. This chapter discusses the hydro-
logic processes of forested watersheds, the interaction of forestry activities with those
processes, the general causes of nonpoint source pollution due to forestry activities, the
specific pollutants and water quality concerns related to forestry activities, and general
approaches to reducing the generation of pollutants. The information helps the reader
understand how the management measures and BMPs discussed in Chapter 3 can mini-
mize nonpoint source pollution and why proper implementation of BMPs is so critical to
maintaining water quality in our forests.
Forested Watershed Hydrology
A watershed is an area that, due to its natural drainage pattern, collects precipitation and
deposits it into a particular body of water. In western regions of the country these land
areas are often called "drainages," and throughout the Nation they're sometimes referred
to as river or stream "basins" (CWP, 2000). Streamflow is a critical element in under-
standing watershed processes and the effects of land use on those processes because it is
the primary medium through which water, sediment, nutrients, organic material, thermal
energy, and aquatic species move.
Streamflow is produced by vadose zone flow and groundwater seepage. Vadose zone flow
is the flow that occurs between the ground surface and saturated soil, or the water table
where groundwater lies. Rainfall and snowmelt supply and replenish both, but in a
forested area only a portion of rainfall and snowmelt reaches surface waters. A portion is
evaporated back to the atmosphere from the surface of leaves, other vegetative surfaces,
and the ground. Some is absorbed by vegetation and either metabolized or transpired
back to the atmosphere; and another portion is retained by the soil. Factors such as
climate, soil type, topography, elapsed time since the last precipitation event, and amount
of vegetation determine the portion of rainfall or snowmelt that actually reaches surface
waters. The same factors, as well as soil structure (for instance, the presence of
macropores created by animals or decayed roots, etc.) and geomorphology (e.g., depth to
bedrock and type of underlying rock), determine how quickly moisture that infiltrates the
soil reaches surface waters. If soil is already saturated or the quantity of rainfall or
snowmelt is sufficient to exceed the soil's capacity to absorb moisture, surface runoff will
occur, though it is not common in forested areas.
Surface runoff in a forested area is more likely to be caused by changes within a water-
shed than by excessive precipitation, and it is of concern because it has far more erosive
power than subsurface flow. There is little storage of water that flows over a forest floor,
whereas subsurface storage in soil can be substantial. For this reason, surface water flows
down hillslopes more than 10 times faster than it flows through soil. Obstacles on the
ground, such as leaf litter and woody debris, help slow surface runoff, but other factors
can increase its velocity or volume. Such factors include a loss of vegetative cover that
would contribute to evaporation and evapotranspiration, soil compaction, impervious
surfaces, and cutslopes of roads or other soil disturbances where subsurface flow can be
2-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
transformed into surface flow. Both the extent to which precipitation is delivered directly
to the ground and prevented from infiltrating the soil and the amount of subsurface flow
that is converted to overland flow are important factors that can affect the timing and
volume of streamflow. When more water is delivered to streams faster than usual, stream
flow peaks sooner and higher than normal, and instream erosion can occur.
Stormflow response in small basins depends primarily on hillslope processes, whereas
that in large basins depends primarily on the geomorphology of the stream channel
network. Consequently, land use changes and other site factors as mentioned above (e.g.,
soil compaction) affect streamflow in small basins more than in large basins. In any
watershed, however, streamflow response to a given rain event largely depends on the
capacity of the vegetation and soil to intercept rainfall or snowmelt. Saturated soil and
little vegetative cover would tend to lead to a much faster streamflow response than dry
soil and complete vegetative cover.
Streamflow during a season, the variability of streamflow within a season, and the
variability of streamflow between seasons strongly influence channel form and processes.
These factors also strongly affect aquatic and riparian species. In a stable stream—that is,
one in equilibrium—each channel segment carries off sediment contributed from up-
stream locations and from tributaries. When the sediment input rate is greater than the
energy in the stream to carry off sediment, sediment accumulates and a channel aggrades.
When a stream has more energy than what is necessary to carry the sediment the water is
carrying, it can pick up extra sediment and incise the stream.
Forested riparian buffers can provide some measure of flow regulation under certain
watershed conditions (Desbonnet et al., 1994). A primary way in which buffers reduce
flow velocity is by slowing flow velocity and allowing absorption of water into soil.
They also maintain streamside soils in a condition to absorb water by virtue of their
extensive root systems that provide the soil structure necessary for a large quantity of
absorption. Rainfall and runoff intensity, soil characteristics, hydrologic regime, and
slope of the buffer and runoff source area are once again some of the factors that
determine a forested riparian buffer's ability to regulate stream flow. A narrow forested
buffer on a steep, nonvegetated slope has little ability to regulate flow, whereas a wide
forested buffer on a gentle, vegetated slope could help reduce peak flow levels and
provide for dry season flow.
Forestry Activities and Forest Hydrology
When one factor in a system changes, other factors may be affected as well. In a forested
watershed, logging has the effect of both compacting and loosening soils due to the
construction and use of roads, use of heavy machinery, logs being dragged over the
ground or otherwise transported to yarding areas, and vegetation being removed. Roads
and road ditches, ruts on the ground, and areas cleared of leaf litter or other soil coverings
create opportunities for water channelling and flow diversion, which, if not properly
controlled and directed, can generate erosive flows. Thus, the disturbances caused by
logging in a forested watershed can lead to hydrologic changes within the same water-
shed, which can in turn lead to nonpoint source pollution. Forestry activities and their
potential effects on forest hydrology and water quality (through nonpoint source pollu-
tion) are discussed below.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-3
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
A note on the concept of disturbance ecology is in order here. A forest is not an ecosys-
tem that has been in perfect equilibrium from its beginning as a grassland to its mature
state, modified only by the slow successional changes that occur naturally. Numerous
disturbances occur along the way, ranging from those on a small scale (such as a treefall)
to those on a large scale (such as a wildfire). Forests react to these disturbances in ways
that can increase biodiversity and promote overall forest health. For many years people
have managed forests—including protection from disturbance and unnatural disturbance
(such as harvesting and altering land use)—without paying attention to the natural
disturbance regime of the particular forest. An ecosystem approach to forest management
is evolving as more is learned about natural disturbance, and forest management ap-
proaches are being developed that benefit both forests and people by creating disturbance
in spatial and temporal patterns that closely resemble those of natural disturbances. Thus,
forest management activities can be done such that the disturbances they cause benefit
the forest ecosystem. Managing a forest this way, however, requires good knowledge of
the forest ecosystem dynamics and consideration of all past, present, and future distur-
bance-creating activities within the forest ecosystem that could cumulatively create more
disturbance—and thus unintended damage—than the project being considered, for
instance road construction or a harvest.
Road Construction and Road Use
Roads are generally considered to be the major source of sediment to water bodies from
harvested forest lands. They have been found to contribute up to 90 percent of the total
sediment production from forestry activities (Megahan, 1980; Patric, 1976; Rothwell,
1983). There is some evidence that modern road building practices, such as locating
roads on ridgetops instead of middle slopes, removing excavated material to an offsite
location, and using full bench construction is reducing the amount of sediment delivered
to streams from forest roads (Copstead, 1997). Erosion from roads can be disproportion-
ately high because roads lack vegetative cover, are exposed to direct rainfall, have a
tendency to channel water on their surfaces, and are disturbed repeatedly when used.
Erosion from roads can be exacerbated by instability on cut-and-fill slopes, water flow
over the road surface or through a roadside ditch, flow from surrounding areas becoming
concentrated and channelled by a road surface, and lack of a protective surfacing. Much
of the sediment load to streams that is associated with roads can be attributed to older
roads, which may have been constructed with steep gradients and deep cut-and-fill
sections and which may have poorly maintained drainage structures.
Numerous factors need to be considered to protect water quality from the potential
effects of forest roads. Stream crossings of both older and modern forest roads and old
forest roads that were placed near streams are the most troublesome source of sediment
to streams. While roads contribute more to erosion on forested land on a per-area basis
(e.g., quantity of eroded soil per acre of road versus per acre of undisturbed forest), they
also occupy a disproportionately small amount of a forested area. Evidence indicates that
the total amount of eroded soil from roads is not much if any greater than the total
amount of soil eroded from the non-roaded surface of a forested area (Gucinski et al.,
2001). A related factor is that a small percentage of road area may be responsible for
most of the erosion from roads. Rice and Lewis (1986, cited in Gucinski et al., 2001)
found that major erosional features of roads occupied only 0.6 percent of the length of
roads. A final factor to consider is that soil loss from roads tends to be greatest during and
immediately after road construction because of the unstabilized road prism and
2-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
disturbance by passage of heavy trucks and equipment (Swift, 1984). Consideration of
these factors to reduce water pollution from roads is provided in Chapter 3, section C,
Road Construction/Reconstruction, and section D, Road Management.
Careful planning and proper road layout and design, however, can minimize erosion and
substantially reduce the effects of roads on streams. The effect that a forest road network
has on sediment input and flow changes in stream networks depends in part on how inter-
connected the road and stream networks are. Roads generally are hydrologically connected
to stream networks where subsurface groundwater flow is converted to channelled overland
flow at road cuts, and road surface runoff drains directly to stream channels. Overland flow
is delivered to streams much more quickly than subsurface flow, so the conversion of
subsurface flow to overland flow and the connectivity of road networks to stream networks
can have an effect on stormflow patterns in streams (Jones and Grant, 1996; Montgomery,
1994; Wemple et al., 1996). Careful road system planning, taking watershed processes, soil
type, topography, and vegetative characteristics into account, and designing with natural
drainage patterns to minimize hydrologic connections of the road network to streams and
maximize opportunities for filtering surface drainage, can reduce these effects. Chapter 3,
section A, Preharvest Planning, discusses these factors.
Timber Harvesting
Timber harvesting generally involves the use of forest roads (the effects of which are
discussed separately above and in Chapter 3), skid trails (along which felled trees are
dragged), yarding areas (where cut timber is collected for transport away from the harvest
site), and machinery associated with harvesting, skidding, and yarding. Soil disturbance,
soil compaction, and vegetation removal on the harvest site, skid trails, and yarding areas
can contribute to water quality problems. Methods for minimizing the water quality
effects of timber harvesting are discussed in Chapter 3, section E, Timber Harvesting.
The association between timber harvesting—especially clear-cut harvesting—and mass
erosion events has been and continues to be controversial. Studies of landslides done up
to the 1980s, primarily in the Pacific Northwest, found an association between clear-
cutting and landslides, but the findings of the studies were inconclusive due to the way
data were collected (Hockman-Wert, undated). Studies were often conducted using aerial
photographs and concentrated on the steepest slopes. Aerial images cannot account for
mass erosion that occurs under forest cover, and later research indicated that as much as
50 percent of mass erosion movements are unaccounted for on aerial photographs. While
some studies found clear-cuts to lead to more landslides on steep slopes, when more
gentle slopes were investigated the occurrence of landslides was found to be as common
on forested sites as on clear-cut sites.
There is a general consensus that harvesting on steep slopes increases the landslide
hazard for a period of time after the harvest. It is not clear, however, whether more or
larger landslides occur due to harvesting. In an issue paper written for the Oregon Board
of Forestry and to provide background information for policy decisions related to har-
vesting and public safety, Mills and Hinkle (2001) discuss the latest scientific evidence
related to landslides and timber harvesting. They report that in three of four study areas
higher landslide densities were found in stands that had been harvested within the previ-
ous nine years than in mature (i.e., more than 100 years old) forest stands, and that stands
30 to 100 years old had lower landslide densities than mature stands. They also report
that the studies showed that average landslide volume was similar regardless of stand age.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-5
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Furthermore, landslides are known to be natural occurrences and important elements in
stream ecology in that they are a primary means by which wood and gravel are delivered
to streams to create fish habitat (Shaffer, undated). It may be, then, that landslides occur
in steep areas regardless of land use history, but that harvesting may concentrate the
occurrence of landslides into the 10 years after harvesting.
Geology, soil type, soil depth, and topography might have much more to do with
determining whether a site is susceptible to landslides than land use history (Shaffer, nd).
Underlying geology plays a role because porous bedrock drains water from soils quickly,
while impermeable bedrock keeps water in the soil. Different types of bedrock, such as
shales or granite, weather into different types of soils that will either promote or resist
sliding. Soil type determines whether a soil binds well to itself and to bedrock to resist
sliding or is easily dislodged to promote sliding. Soil depth determines how much soil
volume there is above bedrock to absorb water before the soil becomes saturated and
what the weight of soil available for sliding is. Water contributes to sliding not only by
acting as a lubricant between soil and bedrock, but also by adding considerable weight to
the soil. Two inches of rain in 24 hours adds 10 pounds of water in every square foot of
soil. On flat topography, saturated soil will result in puddling or overland flow. On gently
sloping topography, soil might "creep" downhill at the rate of a few inches a year. On
steep topography, the combined weight of water and soil under saturated conditions can
trigger a slide. Finally, vegetation provides soil binding to resist sliding, and root decay
can make soils less cohesive. Root cohesion—the ability of roots to hold soil to a slope—
is at its lowest about 10 years after a harvest (or some other event that kills trees, such as
a wind storm after an ice storm). Depending on all of these factors—geology, soil type,
soil depth, and topography, combined with the elements of precipitation and land use
history—a landslide could occur before or after soil becomes saturated, before or after a
harvest, and either slowly and progressively or suddenly and massively.
Finally, research on the effectiveness of different harvesting methods (e.g., clear-cutting
or selective cutting) or logging practices to reduce landslide occurrence does not exist
(Mills and Hinkle, 2001). The effectiveness of BMPs for minimizing the hazard of
landslides from timber harvest sites is also not known.
Recent research in Canada has demonstrated that clear-cut harvesting can lead to in-
creased mercury concentrations in runoff (Mcllroy, 2001). Mercury is carried through the
atmosphere from areas with sources such as coal combustion and incinerators, and
can be deposited in forested areas. When those forested areas are clear-cut har-
vested, the additional runoff generated after the trees are removed might lead to
increased mercury concentrations in the runoff. The Canadian study indicated that
the effect is accentuated by heavy, clear-cut harvesting in large watersheds, and that
the problem might be avoided by selective harvesting. Further study of the potential
problem is needed to clearly portray the association, if any, between forest harvest-
ing and mercury.
Another potential adverse effect of timber harvesting is an increase in stream water tem-
perature—a water quality criterion for physical water quality—that can result if too much
streamside vegetation is removed. Small streams are affected more by a loss of shade than
are large streams. One reason that streamside buffer strips, or SMAs, are maintained is to
minimize or prevent water temperature increases. Stream temperature maintenance is
important for aquatic biota. For instance, stream temperature has been found to affect the
time required for salmonid eggs to develop and hatch (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Fish and
2-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
aquatic invertebrates are cold-blooded adapted to ranges of water temperature, and
can be adversely affected by the water temperature exceeding the high temperature of
the range for which they are adapted. Maintaining streamside vegetation in an amount
sufficient to provide shade that maintains the stream temperature within the proper
range is a key goal of the Streamside Management Area Management Measure (see
Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas).
Timber harvesting along a stream can also affect stream ecology by removing overhang-
ing trees and branches from which twigs, leaves, branches, and sometimes entire trees fall
into the stream channel. Overhanging vegetation contributes organic material in the form
of leaves and needles, and large woody debris, or LWD, to surface waters. These materi-
als serve as a source of energy and provide nutrients for aquatic life and provide habitat
diversity. They are a primary source of nutrients in small, low-order streams high in
watersheds where aquatic vegetation might not be abundant and upstream sources of
nutrients are limited. Farther downstream, instream sources of nutrients, such as aquatic
plants and organic matter transported from upstream sources, are more abundant and
organic debris from overhanging trees is a less important source of energy and nutrients.
LWD is still important in these streams, however, for the habitat diversity it creates. LWD
creates eddies, provides shelter and anchoring points for small aquatic animals, and
forms areas of relatively calm water in flowing streams and rivers. SMAs protect these
important ecological processes and benefits, without which stream waters might be
prevented from attaining the water quality criterion of supporting aquatic life.
Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
Site preparation is done to prepare a harvested site for regeneration. It can be accom-
plished mechanically using wheeled or tracked machinery, by the use of prescribed
burning, or with applications of chemicals (herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides). These
techniques may be used alone or in combination. These operations can affect water
quality if chemicals used and/or spilled during site preparation operations or soils dis-
turbed during site preparation are transported to surface waters.
The chemicals associated with forestry operations that are of most concern from a water
quality perspective are petroleum compounds, lubricants, and other machinery-related
chemicals. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers pose little threat to water quality if used
and applied according to the specific directions for the chemical being applied and state
and EPA guidelines. The herbicides and pesticides used in forestry operations are gener-
ally specific to the target vegetation and pose little threat to aquatic organisms, and they
generally are short-lived in the environment. Fertilizers pose little threat to aquatic
environments because they are used very infrequently for forestry operations, perhaps as
little as two applications on a harvest site in 50 years.
Mechanical site preparation by large tractors that shear, disk, drum-chop, or root-rake a
site can result in considerable soil disturbance over large areas (Beasley, 1979). Site
preparation techniques can result in the removal of vegetation left after a harvest and
forest litter, soil compaction and a loss of infiltration capacity, and soil exposure and
disturbance. All of these effects can lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. They
are most pronounced soon after a harvest and decrease over time, usually within 2 years,
as vegetative cover returns to the harvested site.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2- 7
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Forest regeneration methods can be divided into two general types: (1) regeneration
from sprouts and seedlings, either planted seedlings or those present naturally on a
harvest site, and (2) regeneration from seed, which can be natural seed in the soil or
seed from a broadcast application after a harvest. Loss of soil from a harvest site is
obviously undesirable from a water quality perspective, and also because of the
lowered soil productivity and tree regeneration that can result. Protecting a harvest site
from undue disturbance during site preparation, therefore, is desirable both from water
quality (reduced erosion) and site productivity perspectives. Means to protect soils
from erosion and undue disturbance during site preparation and forest regeneration
are discussed in Chapter 3, section F, Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration, and
section H, Revegetation of Disturbed Areas.
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning is a method used to prepare a site for regeneration after a harvest,
however because the methods for minimizing water quality effects due to fire are some-
what specialized, it is treated separately in this document (see Chapter 3, section G, Fire
Management). Prescribed burning of slash can increase erosion on some soils by elimi-
nating protective cover and altering soil properties (Megahan, 1980). Burning can have
the effect of making some soils water repellent, which will tend to increase runoff (Reid,
1993; Ziemer and Lisle, 1998). This effect can penetrate to a depth of 6 inches and persist
for 6 or more years after a fire. Burning enhances infiltration in other soils. Which soils
will be affected in what way cannot be consistently predicted, and the effect is evidently
dependent on the type of vegetation in the area burned. Burning also releases nutrients,
immediately increasing nitrogen available to plants, but produces an overall effect of
decreasing nitrogen in the forest floor (Reid, 1993). Little effect occurs on soils not
affected by fire.
The degree of erosion following a prescribed burn depends on soil erodibility; slope;
timing, volume, and intensity of precipitation after a burn; fire severity; cover remaining
on the soil; and speed of revegetation. Erosion resulting from prescribed burning is
generally less than that resulting from roads and skid trails and from site preparation
techniques that cause severe soil disturbance (Golden et al., 1984). However, serious
erosion can occur following a prescribed burn if the slash being burned is collected or
piled and soil on the harvest site is disturbed in the process of preparing for the burn.
The effects of fire on a watershed depend on burn severity and hydrologic events that
follow a fire (Robichaud et al., 2000). Burn severity is related to the amount of vegetation
loss and heat-related changes in soil chemistry due to a fire. In general, wildfire has a
more severe effect on watershed processes than prescribed burning because it is more
intense than a prescribed burn. Prescribed burns are generally set under conditions such
that they can be controlled and the fire will burn lower and less intensely than would a
wildfire. Given the potential effects that a severe burn can have on watershed processes,
prescribed burning can be used effectively both for site preparation and to reduce the
chances of wildfire—and the often more severe effects that the latter can have on water-
shed processes.
Forestry Pollutants and Water Quality Effects
The discussion above focused on forestry activities, the potential they have for generating
nonpoint source pollution and pollutants, and the watershed processes that can be affected
2-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
by forestry activities. Below is a discussion of the pollutants that can be generated
from forestry activities and the potential effects that these pollutants can have on water
quality.
The nonpoint source pollution problem of greatest concern with respect to forestry
activities is the addition of sediment to surface waters. Without adequate precau-
tions, however, many water quality issues can arise from forestry operations:
• Sediment concentrations can increase because of accelerated erosion.
• Nutrients in water can increase after their release from decaying organic matter on
the ground or in the water, or after a prescribed burn.
• Organic and inorganic chemical concentrations can increase because of harvesting
and fertilizer and pesticide applications.
• Slash and other organic debris can accumulate in waterbodies, which can lead to
dissolved oxygen depletion.
• Water temperatures can increase because of removal of riparian vegetation.
• Streamflow can increase because of reduced evapotranspiration and runoff channeling.
The discussions below of the individual pollutants that can be generated by forestry
activities present the range of effects that might occur during and after road construction
or use or a harvest. The particular effects of a forestry activities in a specific watershed
will depend on the unique interaction of the characteristics of the area where the activities
occur, time of year, harvesting method, and the BMPs used.
Sediment
Sediment deposited in surface waters is of concern in this guidance because of its poten-
tial to affect instream conditions and aquatic communities. Sediment is the pollutant most
associated with forestry activities. Sediment is the solid material that is eroded from the
land surface by water, ice, wind, or other processes and then transported or deposited
away from its original location. Soil is lost from the forest floor by surface erosion or
mass wasting (for example, landslides).
Surface erosion generally contributes minor quantities of sediment to streams in undis-
turbed forests, and the quantity of surface erosion depends on factors mentioned previ-
ously, such as soil type, topography, and amount of vegetative cover (Spence et al., 1996).
Rill erosion and channelized flow occur where rainwater and snowmelt are concen-
trated by landforms, including berms on roads and roadside ditches. They cause erosion
most severely where water is permitted to travel for a long distance without interrup-
tion over steep slopes, because the combination of distance and slope tends to increase
the volume and velocity of runoff. Sheet erosion, or overland flow, occurs occasionally
on exposed soils where the conditions necessary for it, including saturated soil or a
rainfall intensity that is greater than the ability of soil to absorb the water, but it is not
common on forest soils.
Mass wasting—including slumps, earthflows, and landslides—occurs most often in
mountainous regions where surface erosion is minor (Spence et al., 1996). It can contrib-
ute large quantities of sediment to streams—and stream ecology and fish populations may
depend on this sediment; but it occurs episodically, usually following heavy rains. Clear-
cutting can promote landslides on steep slopes where other factors, such as type and
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-9
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
depth of soil and type of bedrock, are favorable for landsliding. These other factors
have a lot to do with whether a landslide will occur at a site, and tree removal
increases the chance that a landslide will occur on a site that is prone to landsliding
within a 10-year timeframe after a harvest (Mills and Hinkle, 2001). If topographic
and geologic conditions at a site are favorable for landslides, then landslides are
likely to occur at the site whether it is harvested or not, though harvesting may
certainly affect the timing, volume, and composition of a slide. Many landslides
occur on completely forested areas (Hockman-Wert, undated) and landslides are
important to stream ecology in that they provide wood and gravel important to the
creation of fish habitat (Shaffer, undated).
Gucinski and others (2000) reviewed the scientific information available on forest
roads and forest road-related issues in a paper, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of the
Scientific Information, for the U.S. Forest Service. The authors review information
related to the direct physical and ecological effects, the indirect landscape effects,
and the direct and indirect socioeconomic effects of forest roads. The reviewers
conclude that forest roads can lead to mass failures if road fills and stream crossings
are improperly located, culverts are too small to pass flood waters and debris, roads
are sited poorly, surface and subsurface drainage is modified by a road, or water is
diverted from a road to unstable soil areas. Furthermore, the reviewers emphasize
that on most roads only a small percentage of a road's surface, as little as 1 percent
or less, contributes to mass wasting. Many of the studies reviewed were conducted
on roads that were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. While studies of roads
constructed with more modern road-building technologies, including technologies
that incorporate the BMPs discussed in Chapter 3, Road Construction/Reconstruc-
tion (section C) and Road Management (section D), are not widely available yet, use
of the modern technologies may lead to reduced mass wasting and water quality
impacts from roads in general in the future.
Forest road stream crossings can be sites of sedimentation and hydrologic change if
an inappropriate type and size of crossing is installed. A culvert that is too small will
not permit the passage of debris and water during flood events, and can lead to
instream erosion and culvert blowout. A culvert, ford, or bridge that is improperly
installed can cause erosion at the site of the crossing. Problems associated with
stream crossings can be avoided by proper planning (Wiest, 1998). Crossings can
be located where gradient or channel alignment are relatively uniform and selected
to be large enough for floodwaters and instream debris to pass through. The advan-
tages and disadvantages of various stream crossing structures are summarized in
Table 2-1. Management measures and BMPs for preventing problems at stream
crossings associated with forestry activities are discussed in Chapter 3, sections C,
Road Construction/Reconstruction, and D, Road Management.
An excessive quantity of sediment in a water body can cause or lead to a variety of
problems. Sediment can reduce a water body's ability to support aquatic life when it fills
the spaces between rocks and grains of sand where many organisms live, forage, and
spawn, hindering these activities. Fine sediments, of the size that can be deposited
between grains of sand, are most threatening to fish. If deposited on fish eggs, fine
sediments can reduce egg-to-fry survival and fry quality by suffocating eggs and forming
a physical barrier to emerging larvae. Different species have different tolerances to fine
sediment due to the fry having different head diameters. Coarse sediment can cap a
2-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Table 2-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Stream Crossing Structures
Stream Crossing Structure
Circular Pipe Ditch Relief
Culvert
Bottomless or Log Culvert
Embedded Pipe Arch Culvert
Ford
Bridge
Advantages
Stable and reliable for steep grades;
less erosion and more economical
than surface cross drains for high-
traffic roads
Preserves natural streambed and
gradient; no significant change in
water velocity; maintains normal
stream width
When properly installed, maintains
natural stream channel width, grade,
and sediment transport
characteristics
Useful for low-water crossings
Best option for maintaining natural
stream channel
Disadvantages
Needs periodic maintenance and
inspection to avoid plugging; if too
small can plug and lead to erosion
Vulnerable to erosion and
downcutting; large logs might be
required to achieve adequate flow
with log culverts; expensive and can
be difficult to install; not practical
where footings cannot be placed in
stable, nonerodible material
Complex and time-consuming
installation; sizing must account for
area lost to embedding; fitting with
machinery possible only if the
diameter is large enough to permit
machine entry
Can be barriers to fish passage
during low-flow conditions
Expensive; requires special
installation techniques; difficult to fit
to tight road curves
Notes
Should be located far enough above
stream crossings to avoid releasing
ditch drainage water directly into
streams
Generally spans the entire
streambed and minimizes effects on
the natural stream channel
Must be constructed on suitable
bedding material; suitable on
bedrock when concrete footings can
be used
Stream channel and slope must be
suitable; useful where transportation
requirements are seasonal
Requires determination of 50- or
1 00-year flow
gravel streambed and restrict the emergence of alevins (Murphy and Miller, 1997).
Murphy and Miller (1997) found that fine sediment deposited in spawning gravels
after timber harvest contributed to a 25 percent reduction in chum salmon escape-
ment.
High sediment concentrations in the water can cause pools—preferred by some
salmon species such as coho—to fill with sediment and reduce or destroy essential
rearing habitat. When streams are affected by high sediment deposition, these
formerly productive low-gradient reaches become wide and shallow and recovery of
fish habitat can take decades (Frissell, 1992).
Sediment suspended in water increases turbidity, limiting the depth to which light
can penetrate if turbidity is increased to a sufficient degree and, thus, potentially
reducing photosynthesis and oxygen replenishment. A quantity of suspended
sediment far in excess of that normally present in a water body can suffocate aquatic
animals and severely limit the ability of sight-feeding fish to find and obtain food.
Increased Temperature
Temperature increases in streams are of concern because of the potential effects on
aquatic species. The water quality criterion for temperature is set for waters to protect
aquatic biota, and the temperature tolerance limits of fish are used to indicate whether
a water body's temperature has been adversely affected. When streamside vegetation
is removed, any increase in solar radiation reaching the stream can increase the water
temperature. The temperature increase can be dramatic in smaller (lower order)
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
2-11
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
streams and can heat the water to beyond the tolerance limits of some aquatic species.
Increased water temperatures can also accelerate the chemical processes that occur in
the water, decrease the ability of a water body to hold oxygen, and lower the concen-
tration of dissolved oxygen.
Because streams in forests are shaded, fish species in forested streams tend to be
cooler-water species, such as salmon and trout, than fish species in non-forested
streams. The duration of an elevated temperature and the availability of cool pools
of water are among the factors that determine how severe an effect a temperature
increase has on fish and other biota. An elevated water temperature can retard
growth, reduce reproductive success, increase susceptibility to disease, decrease the
ability to avoid predators, and decrease the ability to compete for food (Spence et
al., 1996).
Riparian forested buffers, as discussed above and in Chapter 3, section B (Stream-
side Management Areas) are a primary means of minimizing temperature increases
due to timber harvesting. The role of riparian forested buffers in regulating ambient
stream temperature, however, varies with stream width and vegetation type, as well
as other factors such as stream depth, orientation to the sun, and surrounding topog-
raphy. A narrow stream with a complete riparian forested buffer might receive as
little as 1 to 3 percent of the total incoming solar radiation, whereas a wide mid-
order stream might receive as much as 10 to 25 percent. Riparian vegetation, there-
fore, has less ability to regulate water temperature as stream width increases (Spence
et al., 1996).
Nutrients
Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, soil, and plant material, are
primary chemical water quality constituents. They can enter water bodies attached to
sediments, dissolved in the water, or transported by air. Forest harvesting can increase
nutrient leaching from the soil, though the effect generally subsides to near precutting
levels within two years of a harvest. Low to moderate increases in nutrient levels may
have no or a beneficial effect on an aquatic environment, but excessive amounts of
nutrients can stimulate algal blooms or an overgrowth of other types of aquatic vegeta-
tion. This can in turn lead to an increase in the amount of decomposing plant material in
an aquatic system and, in turn, increased turbidity and biological oxygen demand. The
latter effect can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations, with potentially detrimental
effects to aquatic biota. Chapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical Management, discusses
methods for minimizing the adverse effects of forestry activities on nutrient balances.
Organic debris, discussed below, can be an important source of nutrients in an aquatic
environment, and SMAs play an important role in organic debris inputs and maintaining
nutrient balances in aquatic forest ecosystems.
Organic Debris
Organic debris—primarily composed of leaves, twigs, branches, and fallen trees—is an
important element of water quality in that it provides nutrients and stream structure that
are important to supporting aquatic life. It ranges in size from suspended organic matter
in water to fallen trees. Large woody debris, or LWD, can be whole trees or tree limbs
that have fallen into streams. It creates the physical habitat diversity essential to support-
2-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
ing aquatic life. As a structural element, it influences the movement and storage of
sediment and gravel in streams and stabilizes streambeds and banks (Spence et al.,
1996). Small organic litter—primarily leaves in deciduous forests and cones and
needles in coniferous forests—is an important source of nutrients for aquatic com-
munities. It usually decomposes over a year or more, depending on forest type.
When streamside vegetation is removed, inputs of organic debris decrease and the
amount of sunlight reaching the water increases. A stream that might previously have
relied primarily on sources of nutrients external to the stream (fallen debris) can be
forced to rely primarily on instream sources (such as algal growth and instream vegeta-
tion). The latter may not be present in high-order streams.
Organic debris generated during forestry activities includes residual logs, slash, litter, and
soil organic matter. These materials can perform some of the same positive functions as
naturally occurring LWD and organic litter. If their abundance in a stream is substantially
greater than normal, however, they can also block or redirect streamflow, alter nutrient
balances, and decrease the concentration of dissolved oxygen as they decompose and
consume oxygen. Observing management guidelines for streamside management areas,
discussed in Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas, is a key means to
minimize ecological and water quality effects due to organic debris.
Forest Chemicals
Chemicals that enter surface waters can be toxic to aquatic biota, make it difficult to
attain drinking water quality criteria, and degrade the aesthetics of streams. The most
harmful substances considered under the general category of "forest chemicals" and used
during forestry operations are fuel, oil, and lubricants; coolants; and others used for
harvesting and road-building equipment. Simple precautions can prevent water quality
deterioration, whereas improper use and management of chemicals used during forestry
operations can result in degraded water quality.
Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are used to prepare a site for regeneration and to
protect forests from disease and pests. Adverse effects on water quality due to forest
chemical applications typically result from not following the specific application instruc-
tions for the chemical being used, such as specifications for the quantity to apply and the
distance to maintain around watercourses (Norris and Moore, 1971). Generally, the water
quality and aquatic biota threats due to fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are small
because the chemicals are applied at most only one to three times at a harvest site and
they specifically target biochemical pathways present only in plants, rendering them of
little danger to aquatic animals. Furthermore, the half-lives of forestry herbicides are on
the order of less than 100 days, so bioaccumulation in aquatic species is rarely of con-
cern. Precautions for minimizing water quality effects due to forest chemical use are
discussed in Chapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical Management.
Hydrologic Modifications
Streamflow is a concern because of the instream changes that can occur if the
quantity of streamflow or the timing of streamflow is changed substantially as a
result of a forest harvest or repeated forest harvesting. The dynamics of forest
harvesting and streamflow response are discussed above under Forested Watershed
Hydrology. Methods of minimizing the streamflow effects of forest roads and timber
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-13
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
harvesting are discussed in Chapter 3, and particularly in sections C, Road
Construction/Reconstruction, D, Road Management, and E, Timber Harvesting.
If forest roads or timber harvesting result in a more rapid delivery of runoff to
streams than before roads were present or timber was harvested, peak flows can be
increased. This can lead to increases in channel scouring, streambank erosion,
downstream sedimentation, and flooding. The magnitude of changes in peak flows
after logging depends on the size of the watershed and the amount of land har-
vested, and to a lesser extent on road building. Changes are usually greatest in small
watersheds and where a large percentage of the surrounding watershed is logged at
one time. Streamflow can be increased as a result of forest road building alone, but
this usually occurs only in small, upland watersheds where streams and Streamflow
are small and the amount of impervious or heavily compacted surface from the
harvest and associated activities is large in proportion to the areal extent of the
watershed. Downstream flooding is rarely a consequence of logging in small,
upstream watersheds (Adams and Ringer, 1994).
Normally, when only a small portion (e.g., less than 15 percent) of a watershed is
harvested, flow is not altered in associated streams. Where more than 15 to 20
percent of the forest canopy is removed, Streamflow typically increases. Any in-
crease is greatest in the first years after harvest and typically becomes smaller with
time as vegetation grows on harvested sites. Streamflow generally returns to the
original level within 20 to 60 years, depending on forest and land type (Adams and
Ringer, 1994).
Physical Barriers
Forest road stream crossings can be sites of hydrologic change, sedimentation, and debris
buildup if the appropriate type and size of crossing are not selected. Improperly installed
culverts at stream crossings can lead to erosion around the culvert and of the road surface
when the design storm is exceeded or if debris inhibits or redirects flow. This can result
in excessive sedimentation and channel alterations downstream. Culverts installed above
the grade of a stream can create a barrier to upstream fish migration. Any of the following
conditions associated with culverts can block fish passage: water velocity at the culvert is
too fast, water depth at the culvert is too shallow, there is no resting pool below the
culvert, the culvert is too high for a fish to jump, or the culvert is clogged because of lack
of maintenance.
Problems associated with stream crossings can be avoided by proper planning (Wiest,
1998). Crossings can be located where they do not cause large increases in water velocity
and there are not large changes in gradient or channel alignment. Doing so can minimize
effects on sedimentation and fish passage. Planning for safe fish passage involves deter-
mining the type and extent of fish habitat, the species of fish present in the stream, and
the window during which instream work can occur without harming fish habitat or
interfering with fish migration. Adequate fish passage is that which conserves the free
movement of fish in and about streams, lakes, and rivers in order that they can complete
critical phases of their life cycles. It permits adult fish to migrate to spawning areas and
juvenile fish to accompany adult fish or make local moves to rearing or overwintering
areas. The advantages and disadvantages of various stream crossing structures are sum-
marized in Table 2-1.
2-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Fords, bridges, and culverts of various sizes, shapes, and materials can be installed
to avoid hydrologic and habitat changes and to provide adequate fish passage. Road
crossings and culverts also need to be installed to fail when the design storm is
exceeded to prevent substantial sedimentation. Management measures and BMPs for
preventing physical barriers in streams associated with forestry activities are dis-
cussed in Chapter 3, sections C, Road Construction/Reconstruction, and D, Road
Management.
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects occur when two or more activities cause the same response within a
watershed (e.g., lead to increased stream flow at a given time of year), when multiple
responses disturb the same resource (e.g., increased stream flow and sediment yield both
affect the same stream reach), when one response provokes another (e.g., increased
stream flow induces scouring around culverts), or when responses interact to pro-
duce another (e.g., road construction on a steep slope and unusually heavy rains
produce a mass soil movement) (Reid, 1993). Cumulative effects can occur spa-
tially, when numerous activities conducted at different locations within a watershed
contribute to instream responses, or temporally, when a single activity repeated in
the same place or different activities conducted in different places at different times
have an additive effect. Most land use activities affect only one of four environmen-
tal parameters—vegetation, soils, topography, or chemicals—and other watershed
changes result from initial effects on these factors. If a change in vegetation or
another one of these four factors is persistent or affects watershed transport pro-
cesses or rates, cumulative effects can result.
Cumulative effects are of concern with respect to forest roads; forest road construc-
tion, use, and maintenance; and forest harvesting because the changes that can
occur in watershed processes following these activities can persist for many years.
This persistence increases the potential for cumulative effects to occur. Examples of
potential persistent effects due to forestry activities include the delivery of sediment
to streams from a forest road used repeatedly over a period of years and increased
subsurface flow and decreased evapotranspiration due to a reduced amount of
vegetation at a harvest site.
Forest roads and timber harvesting can cause changes to a landscape or stream on a
temporal scale far different from that associated with the life of the road or duration of
the harvest. A road may be constructed and used for many years, and its effect on a
landscape can continue for years after it is no longer needed. Cafferata and Spittler
(1998) found that "legacy" roads can be significant sources of sediment for decades after
their construction. Reid (1998) also found that sedimentation rates may increase 25 years
or more after logging roads are abandoned as they begin to fail and erode. A harvest
might occur in one season, or numerous harvests in a watershed might occur over a
number of years, and during the months or years afterward temporary roads and stream
crossings might be removed and the ground or streambeds rehabilitated. In contrast,
recovery of a forest, instream recovery from channel erosion, habitat recovery, and
aquatic community recovery occur on time scales much longer than the harvest. The
long-term recovery times provide ample opportunity for other disturbances to contribute
to cumulative effects.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-15
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Consider the following study of cumulative effects, modeled using Monte Carlo
simulations of four hypothetical watersheds (Ziemer et al., 1991). Each watershed
was a 10,000-ha, fifth-order watershed typical of one that might be located in
coastal Oregon or California at 300 to 500 meters of elevation and 30 kilometers
inland from the coast. Annual rainfall was simulated at 1500 millimeters. The four
watersheds were simulated to have the following treatments:
• One watershed was simulated as undisturbed.
• One watershed was simulated as clear-cut and roaded within 10 years of the com-
mencement of harvesting, with harvesting beginning at the upper reaches of the
watershed and progressing toward the mouth.
• One watershed was simulated as harvested at the rate of 1 percent per year, begin-
ning at the mouth and progressing upstream.
• The fourth watershed was again simulated as harvested at a rate of 1 percent per
year, but with the harvests widely dispersed throughout the watershed.
These harvesting patterns were simulated as being repeated each 100 years, and in
each watershed (except the unharvested one) one-third of the road network was
simulated to be rebuilt each 100 years. The greatest differences between the treat-
ments were noticed in the first 100 years, and they related most to the rate of treat-
ment. That is, to whether the harvests were concentrated or dispersed temporally. By
the second 100 years, the primary difference between the treatments was in the
timing of the impacts. Interestingly, the simulation indicated that temporally dispers-
ing the harvest units did not reduce cumulative effects.
The conclusion reached by the authors was that current estimates of cumulative
effects due to logging underestimate the effects because they accumulate over much
longer periods than previously thought, but they overestimate the benefits of tempo-
rally dispersing harvests in a watershed. Concentrating the treatments (over 10 years
instead of 100 years) increased the chances of cumulative effects on the affected
resources.
A more detailed discussion of issues related to cumulative effect assessment is
provided in Chapter 4, Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint
Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds.
Mechanisms to Control Forestry Nonpoint
Source Pollution
Nonpoint source pollution control practices for forestry activities are referred to as best
management practices (BMPs), management practices, accepted forestry practices,
management measures, BMP systems, management practice systems, and the like. Some
of these terms have specific uses in legislation and regulations, whereas other terms are
found in technical manuals, journal articles, and informational materials. Forestry man-
agement practices have been developed by all states, though they may not exist as a
separate program or set of rules or guidelines. In some states, forest protection guidelines
are contained within watershed protection or water quality protection programs, in some
they are incorporated into erosion and sedimentation control programs, while in others a
separate program of forestry rules or guidelines governs harvesting activities. Links to all
2-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
state forestry programs, with information on the agencies that are involved in pro-
tecting forests in the states, can be found at the Web site www.usabmp.net.
BMPs are individual practices (such as leaving a streamside management area) that
serve specific functions (such as protecting streams from temperature increases and
filtering sediment and nutrients from runoff). Management measures, as the term is
used in this guidance, are environmental goals to be attained by using one or more
BMPs. For instance, minimizing sediment delivery to streams (part of the overall
goal of the Management Measure for Streamside Management Areas [see Chapter 3,
section B]) from harvest sites might be accomplished with the following BMPs:
maintaining a riparian buffer; locating roads, yarding areas, and skid trails away
from streams; and not using machinery in streams.
BMPs are the building blocks for BMP systems and management measures, and the
implementation of the forestry management measures in this guidance, as appropriate to
the situation, can result in comprehensive water quality protection for most harvesting
operations.
Management Measures
The management measures in this guidance contain technology-based performance
expectations and, in many cases, specific actions to be taken to prevent or minimize
nonpoint source pollution. Management measures are means to control the entry of
pollutants into surface waters. Management measures achieve nonpoint source pollutant
control goals through the application of nonpoint pollution control BMPs, which may be
technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives. Chapter
3 contains the management measures and recommended BMPs controlling nonpoint
source pollution from forestry activities.
For example, the Management Measure for Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration (see
section F) contains the performance expectation Confine on-site potential nonpoint
source pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation and the regeneration of
forest stands. Statements of BMPs or actions that can be taken to achieve this perfor-
mance expectation (e.g., Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site
preparation activities on the contour of sloping terrain) are generally included in the
management measure statement. Even so, in most cases there is considerable flexibility
to determine how to best achieve the performance expectations for the management
measures. EPA's management measures for forestry and BMPs recommended to be used
to achieve them are described in Chapter 3.
Best Management Practices
BMPs can be structural (e.g., culverts, broad-based dips, windrows) or managerial (e.g.,
preharvest planning, forest chemical management, fire management). Both types are used
to control the delivery of nonpoint source pollutants to receiving waters in one of three
ways:
• They minimize the quantity of pollutants released (pollution prevention).
• They retard the transport or delivery of pollutants, either by reducing the amount of
water (and thus the amount of the pollutant) transported or by improving deposition
of the pollutant (delivery reduction).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-17
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
• They render the pollutant harmless or less harmful before or after it is delivered
to a water body through chemical or biological transformation.
BMPs are usually designed to control a particular type of pollutant from a specific land use
or activity. For example, stream crossings are specified and designed to control erosion
from stream banks where roads cross them and sediment delivery from roads to streams.
BMPs might also provide secondary benefits. Streamside management areas, for instance,
reduce sediment delivery to streams and protect streams from temperature increases, and
they also provide a source of large organic debris to streams and habitat for wildlife.
Sometimes, however, a BMP might increase the generation, transport, or delivery of
a pollutant and is best used in combination with other BMPs. Site preparation, for
example, is generally performed for commercial timber regeneration, but can tempo-
rarily expose soil to erosive forces. Therefore, sedimentation control BMPs, such as
establishing SMAs of widths suitable to retain the anticipated quantity of eroded soil
and not conducting mechanical site preparation on steep slopes, are recommended
to be combined with site preparation techniques.
Which BMP is best for in a given situation depends on many factors. Criteria for
determining which BMP is best for a particular forestry activity might include the
harvesting technique, frequency of road use, topography, soil type, climate, amount
of maintenance feasible BMPs will require, the willingness of landowners to imple-
ment BMPs (in a program of voluntary implementation, for instance), and BMP cost
and cost-effectiveness. The relative importance assigned to these and other criteria
in judging what is best varies among states, within states, and among landowners,
often for very good reasons. For example, erosion control considerations are very
different in mountainous western regions versus relatively flat southeastern coastal
plain regions. Some BMPs that can be used to achieve the forestry management
measures are described in Chapter 3.
Best Management Practice Systems
The distinction between BMPs selected for particular areas or aspects (e.g., roads,
yarding areas, skid trails, stream crossings) of a harvest activity and a BMP system is
similar to the difference between controlling pollutant sources individually and
controlling them based on a TMDL. Pollutant sources, especially point sources,
controlled on an individual basis are analyzed independently relative to a standard
for a type of industry and water quality criteria for the receiving water body. A
TMDL incorporates all pollutant sources affecting a water body and limits loads for
individual sources relative to the assimilative capacity of the water body. Similarly,
BMPs selected for individual aspects of a harvest activity views those activities or
areas independently of other activities and areas to control water pollution, while
approaching water quality considerations from the point of view of a BMP system
would involve considering the harvest and all of its activities and affected areas
from a hydrologic perspective, examining the flow of surface water and groundwa-
ter over the entire site, and determining the best locations for sediment, nutrient, and
other pollutant interception. As an example, consider a harvest operation that in-
volves road repairs, a stream crossing, creation of a yarding area, and site prepara-
tion. Individual BMPs can be selected for each aspect of the harvest operation. That
is, BMPs for sediment retention (for example) could be chosen for the road segment,
others selected for the stream crossing, and still others placed on the yarding area.
2-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Each set of BMPs for these separate areas would be selected to control sediment
runoff from that area alone. Alternatively, the spatial relationship of the three areas
from a water flow or hydrologic perspective could be considered to understand how
BMPs selected for the site preparation work might be altered somewhat to capture
sediment from the yarding area, thus eliminating the need for separate BMPs for the
yarding area. Also, it might be noticed that a different type or orientation of BMPs
along the road segment could significantly reduce the potential for sediment deliv-
ery along the road to the stream crossing, thus permitting a change in the stream
crossing to better ensure retaining the natural stream shape. The BMP system ap-
proach might reduce the total number of BMPs required and increase the efficiency
of the BMPs for protecting water quality, and thus reduce the cost of the operation.
Structural and managerial BMPs used as part of a BMP system can be selected,
designed, implemented, and maintained in accordance with site-specific consider-
ations (e.g., slope, soil type, proximity to streams, and layout of the harvest) so they
work effectively together. Planning BMP use as part of a system also helps to ensure
that design standards and specifications for the individual BMPs are compatible so
they will achieve the greatest amount nonpoint source pollution control possible
with the least cost.
Cost Estimates for Forest Practice
Implementation
Estimates of the per acre cost of implementing BMPs for timber harvests were arrived at
based on information obtained from published reports on regional studies of the cost of
BMP implementation and cost estimates based on the regulatory structure of forestry
practice programs. Studies have been conducted on the cost of implementing forestry
practices for water quality and soil protection in the Southeast and some western states
(Aust et al., 1996; Dissmeyer and Foster, 1987; Dubois et al., 1991; Henly, 1992;
Lickwar, 1989; Olsen et al., 1987). Costs associated with complying with forest practices
in states where their implementation is either voluntary or regulated, with differing
numbers and types of requirements depending on the state, have also been estimated
(Table 2-2) (Ellefson et al., 1995).
Some cost information for forest practice implementation is based on the average
increased cost of conducting a harvest when management measures, i.e., a suite of
practices, are used versus when they are not used (Table 2-3). Costs provided in this
way emphasize the difficulty in separating the costs of implementing individual
forest practices. This difficulty is due to incorporating the cost of using numerous
BMPs into the accomplishment of a single harvesting or road construction activity,
and spreading the cost for individual practices across the accomplishment of mul-
tiple activities. For example, the cost of adhering to a state regulation for stream
crossings might be spread among the costs of planning a harvest to minimize the
number of stream crossings, designing and constructing forest roads to accommo-
date the plan and minimize instream effect to water quality and fish, and the actual
construction of the stream crossings. Furthermore, these costs differ with each
harvest because the terrain, soils, location of harvest site relative to streams, and
hydrology are different at each harvest site. Therefore, all costs presented here are
best regarded as rough estimates.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-19
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Table 2-2. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP Programs by Program Type
Applicability
Virginia and southeastern states
(applicable to central and northern
states)
California
Oregon, Washington, Alaska
Nevada, New Mexico, Idaho
Arizona, Colorado, Montana, Utah,
Wyoming, Hawaii
Cost Estimation
Voluntary-to-mandatory implementation ($)
Coastal plain region: = $1 1 .70 per acre
Piedmont region: = $30.40 per acre
Mountain region: = $44.50 per acre
Stringent/Enforceable implementation ($)
Coastal plain region: = $21 .40 per acre
Piedmont region: = $38.00 per acre
Mountain region: = $49.10 per acre
Average cost = $250 per acre
Inland areas = $81 - $414 per acre3
Coastal areas = $460 per acre"
Average cost =$175- $373 per acre
Noncoastal areas = $175 per acre
Coastal areas = $373 per acre
Other western states with forest practice regulation.
Cost per acre is estimated as the average of costs in western states
without forest practice regulation and the low-end cost given for
Oregon noncoastal forests:
($125 + $175)/2 =$150 per acre
Western states without forest practice regulation.
Cost per acre is estimated as one-half of California's noncoastal cost:
$250/2 =$125 per acre
Reference
Austetal., 1996
Henly, 1992
Ellefson et al., 1 995(Division
between coastal and
noncoastal based on California
model)
Note: All costs in 1998 dollars.
" Excluding most costly scenario.
The costs of implementing state forest practices arise from conducting timber sur-
veys, preparing management plans, constructing roads, and implementing practices
specifically designed to protect water quality. Many of these costs are borne whether
or not a stream or other surface water is located on or near a harvest site, though
additional costs (e.g., designing and flagging an SMA, constructing stream cross-
ings) are incurred where streams are present. Costs also take the form of lost rev-
enue from trees that are not harvested to ensure compliance with forest practices.
Revenue might be reduced if merchantable trees are left standing in SMAs or when
selective cutting is called for rather than clear-cutting. Although the loss of revenue
is a real "cost" to landowners, it is very market- and species-dependent and is
generally not included in the cost estimates provided here. The overall costs of
complying with regulatory forestry BMP programs might be borne by forest landown-
ers alone or shared among landowners, timber operators, and others (Figure 2-1).
Factors that typically affect the cost of implementing forest practices include the
type of terrain on which a harvest occurs (with costs for harvesting on steeper
2-20
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
Table 2-3. Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in the Southeast and Midwest
Practice
Planning
Savings from road
design/ location
Savings in
maintenance
SMA
Road Construction
Construction Phase
(as percent of total
cost)
Road Maintenance
Mechanical Site
Preparation
Regeneration
Revegetation
Prescribed burning
Pesticide application
Fertilizer application
Average Cost
($385/mi)
($231/mi)
$3,996
$2,20543,941
S140/ac
$50/ac
$22,741
$13/ac
$102/ac
$63/ac
Cost Range
$5,301/mi -
$42,393
$14,801 -$42,393
$229/mi -
$11,604/mi
10%
20 - 25%
20 - 25%
10%
30 - 40%
$77/ac -$281/ac
$75/ac-$180/ac
$84/ac - $355/ac
$48/ac - $60/ac
$132/ac-
$239/ac
$10/ac-$19/ac
$56/ac-$138/ac
$43/ac - $73/ac
Comments
Savings were associated with avoiding problem soils, wet
areas, and unstable slopes. Maintenance savings resulted
from revegetating cut and fill slopes, which reduced erosion.
Southern states.
Costs for average tract size of 1,361 ac; include marking and
foregone timber value. Southern states.
Lower end for no gravel and few culverts; upper end for
complete graveling and more culverts. West Virginia.
Lower end for 1,832-ac forest with slopes <3%; upper end for
1,1 48-ac forest with slopes >9%. Southern states.
Lower end for grass surfacing; upper end for large stone
surfacing. Appalachia.
Equipment and Material
Clearing, grubbing, and slash disposal
Excavation
Culvert installation
Rock surfacing
Lower end for roads constructed without BMPs; upper end for
roads constructed with BMPs. Costs over 20 years
discounted at 4%.
Lower end for disking only; upper end for shear-rake-pile-disk.
Southern states.
Lower end for light preparation, including hand; upper end for
chemical-mechanical site preparation.
Lower end for direct seeding; upper end for tree planting with
purchased planting stock.
Lower end for machine planting; upper end for hand planting.
Southern states.
Cost for average sized tract of 1,361 ac; includes seed,
fertilizer, mulch. Southern states.
Lower end for introduced grasses; upper end for native
grasses. Includes seedbed preparation, fertilizer, chemical
application, seed, seedlings.
Lower end for windrow burning; upper end for burning after
chemical site preparation. Southern states.
Lower end for ground application; upper end for aerial
application. Southern states.
Lower end for ground application; upper end for aerial
application. Southern states.
Reference
Dissmeyer and
Foster, 1987
Lickwar, 1989
Kockenderfer and
Wendel, 1980
Lickwar, 1989
Swift, 1984
USDA-SCS, cited in
Weaver and Hagans,
1994
Dissmeyer and
Frandsen, 1988
Duboisetal., 1991
Minnesota, 1991
Illinois, 1990
Duboisetal., 1991
Lickwar, 1989
Minnesota, 1991
Duboisetal., 1991
Duboisetal., 1991
Duboisetal., 1991
Note: All costs in 1998 dollars.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
2-21
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
terrain typically being higher than costs for harvesting on flatter terrain) and the
regulatory structure of forest practice rules. Compliance in states that have numer-
ous and stringent forest practice regulatory requirements generally costs more than
compliance in states where regulatory requirements are fewer or less stringent, or
are voluntary. Some states have single regulations that can add significantly to the
cost of forest harvesting. An example is the requirement for a detailed forest harvest
plan in California. This alone places compliance with forest practices in California in
a category by itself.
Table 2-2 summarizes estimations of the overall per-harvest cost of complying
with forest practice regulations in different regions and states. Table 2-3 provides
cost estimates for implementation of individual management measures in the
Southeast and Midwest. The costs, updated to 1998 dollars, have been verified
with state and federal forest management agencies and have been found to be
representative of actual expenditures. Although most of the cost information came
from case studies in the southeastern United States, they are representative of costs
incurred nationwide. Costs vary depending on the site-specific nature of the
timber harvesting area. Table 2-4 provides estimates of costs for installing indi-
vidual road construction and erosion control BMPs. Costs are provided by region.
Factors that affect implementation costs are mentioned in the Comments column.
Other costs, where available, are provided for individual management measures or
BMPs within the appropriate discussions in Chapter 3.
120%
100%
80%
3
CO
c
-------
Table 2-4. Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for Individual BMPs, by Region
BMP
Broad-based dip
Waterbar
Mulch
Seed
Riprap
Gravel
Culvert
Straw Matting
Geotextiles
Hardwood Mats
(pallets)
Turn-outs
Silt Fence
Dust Control
Temporary
Bridge
Barge (Alaska)
Approximate Construction and Implementation Costs per BMP Installed, by Region
Northeast'
$1,000(ac)
(hydro-seed)
$120 -$200
$40 -$50
$1,000
(mile, using
calcium chloride)
Southeast2
$40
$20 (not
including labor)
$71 (ton)
$1-$6
(Ib)
n/a
$6 -$10
(ton)
$420
$56
(roll,
7.5' x 120')
$378
(700 yd*)
$120 -$200
$50 - $70
$24
(24"Hx100'L)
$500 -$20,000
Midwest'
$40 -$90
$60 -$75
(on skid trails)
$20 -$80
(ton)
$0.50 -$10
(Ib)
$5 -$10
(yd3)
$500 -$2,000
$2- $6
(ft)
$170
(10'x12')
$50 -$70
not commonly
used
$500 -$15,000
Rocky
Mountains4
$50-60
n/a
n/a
$6
(Ib)
$21
(yd3)
$35,000-
$40,000
(mile,
14'Wx4"D)
$19
(ft, 18" pipe)
n/a
$8 -$12
(ft)
$120 -$200
$50
not commonly
used
$200 -$25,000
Northwest
$25-35
$100
$1,500(ac)
(hydro-mulch)
$400 -$450
(ac)
$15-$30(ycP)
$16 -$26
(yd3)
$26
(ft, 24" pipe)
$100
(ft, 72" pipe)
$2
(yd2)
$1-$2
(ft)
$120 -$200
$50
$1.50
(yd2)
$1,000 -$3,000
(mile, annually)
$1,000 -$2,000
(ft)
Southwest"
$100 -$130
$45 -$60
$400 -$500
(ac)
$200 -$400
(ac)
n/a
$30
(yd3)
$24
(ft, 18" pipe)
$1-$3
(yd2)
n/a
$120-200
$40 -$50
$4
(ft)
$190
(ton)
n/a
Alaska?
$30 -$40
$25 -$35
$80 -$90
(ton)
$7 -$10
(Ib)
$19 -$37
(yd3)
$18 -$22
(yd3)
$23
(ft, 18" pipe)
$2.50
(yd2)
$14
(ft)
$155
(10'x12')
$71
$2
(yd2)
$1,250 -$2,500
(ft)
$1,000
(hr)
Comments
Depends on the cost of labor, equipment, and terrain
(Northwest costs include profit and overhead).
Cost varies with size and construction material.
Cost varies with regional market price and haul
distance.
Cost varies with species of seed, regional market
price, and terrain.
Price varies with size of rock used.
Cost varies with the size of rock and haul distance.
Cost varies with size and length of culvert. Costs
provided reflect base cost for installation.
Cost varies with size of matting.
Woven geotextiles are the only geotextile
recommended for road-stream crossings.
Cost varies with size.
Cost varies with equipment and labor costs.
Cost varies with regional prices and length.
Varies widely with traffic level.
Cost varies widely with quality of materials used,
width, and span.
Barge transport in southeastern Alaska (Tongass
Natl. Forest) is the most common means to deliver
material to a site.
Note: All costs are per unit provided (ac = acre; ft = line
Where units are not provided, cost is per BMP installed.
1 Schmid, 2000
2 Holburg, 2000; Marzac, 2000
3 Hansit, 2000; Gambles, 2000
4 Taylor, 2000
5 Dom, 2000; Hulet, 2000; Wilbrecht, 2000; Yoder, 2000
6 Leyba, 2000
7 Jenson, 2000
= linear foot; hr = hour; Ib = pound; yd2 = square yard; yd3 = cubic yard; D = depth; H = height; L = length; W = width).
-------
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities
2-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT MEASURES
Scope of This Chapter
For the purposes of this guidance, EPA has addressed the activities associated with
forestry activities that could affect water quality through nine management measures. A
separate management measure is applicable specifically to forested wetlands. The man-
agement measures are stated as steps to be taken, guidelines for operations, or goals to be
achieved for protecting water quality during the related phases or activities. The follow-
ing are EPA's forestry management measures:
• Preharvest planning
• Streamside management areas
• Road construction/reconstruction
• Road management
• Timber harvesting
• Site preparation and forest regeneration
• Fire management
• Revegetation of disturbed areas
• Forest chemical management
• Wetland forest management
Numerous BMPs are associated with each management measure. BMPs are specific
actions, processes, or technologies that can be used to achieve a management measure.
These BMPs are very similar to those recommended by most states. Because of the
national scope of this guidance, however, some of the particulars of implementation (such
as prescriptions for sizes of pipes, lengths of road at particular slopes, and other such
site- or region-specific details) are not included as part of the descriptions of BMPs.
Implementation of one or more BMPs is usually necessary to achieve the level of pollu-
tion control intended by a single management measure.
Each management measure is addressed in a separate section of this chapter. Each section
contains the wording of the management measure, which has not been changed from that
in the 1993 CZARA guidance; a description of the management measure's purpose or
how it can be used effectively to protect water quality; and information on BMPs that are
suitable, either alone or in combination with other BMPs, to achieve the management
measure. Where new or improved versions of BMPs have been developed, they are
discussed in this guidance. Many of the BMPs were in the 1993 CZARA guidance, and
most can be found in state forest practices manuals. For recommendations on widths of
Streamside management areas, slopes and lengths of culverts, and other criteria for your
specific area, consult a state forest practices manual or contact your local forester.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-1
-------
Chapter 3: Management Measures
Since the forestry management measures developed for CZARA are for the most part a
system of BMPs commonly used and recommended by states and the U.S. Forest Ser-
vice, many BMPs are already being implemented at many harvest sites and on many
forest roads. Where the BMPs in place are inadequate to protect water quality, augment-
ing them with additional or complementary BMPs might be all that is necessary. Where
measures are lacking and water quality is or might become impaired, this guidance can
assist in the choice of BMPs suitable to the source of water quality impairment.
Management Measure Effectiveness
States have used a number of approaches for assessing the effectiveness of management
measures and BMPs. Florida and South Carolina have assessed their effectiveness using
bioassessment techniques and stream habitat assessment. Florida has compared sites
adjacent to harvests with non-logged reference sites, and South Carolina has also com-
pared sites upstream from harvests to those downstream from harvests and conditions at
the same site before harvests to those after harvests. Maine and Virginia have placed in-
stream water quality samplers in streams near forest harvest operations. South Carolina
and Washington have used a weight-of-evidence approach, in which a variety of different
assessment approaches are used and the conclusion about effectiveness arrived at most by
the different approaches is accepted as the overall conclusion. South Carolina has con-
cluded from its weight-of-evidence assessments that on sites with perennial streams,
BMP compliance checks, stream habitat assessment, and benthic macroinvertebrate
assessments can be used effectively to assess BMP effectiveness.
All of the approaches have produced valuable information about BMP effectiveness. The
conclusions from these studies are many:
• BMP assessment monitoring is important for determining that the standards for
design and implementation of BMPs are appropriate for the soils and topography
where they are to be used.
• One or more BMP assessment approaches, including BMP compliance and an in-
stream habitat or macroinvertebrate approach, can help determine whether BMP
implementation standards are adequate.
• Once adequate implementation standards have been developed, rigorous BMP
compliance checks generally suffice as an indicator of BMP effectiveness. The
compliance checks are used to verify that BMPs are being installed properly and in a
timely manner, and that they are maintained adequately.
• It is important to assess the effectiveness of BMPs under a variety of site conditions
and to tailor implementation standards to different types of soils, slopes, and re-
gional site characteristics if the BMPs are to be effectively applied.
• Application of BMPs per implementation standards during forest harvesting protects
water quality in adjacent streams. BMPs protect stream ecology and stream tempera-
ture, and they prevent sedimentation.
• When BMPs are not properly applied, they do not adequately protect water quality.
Improperly applied BMPs can result in stream sedimentation, changes in stream
morphology, increased average water temperatures, wider water temperature fluctua-
tions, and changes to stream ecology.
3-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3: Management Measures
• Many water quality problems that arise from forest harvesting are associated with
improperly applied BMPs or not having used BMPs. The most frequently misap-
plied or missing BMPs are those for road surface drainage control, erosion control
prior to the harvest, stream crossings, and SMAs.
• Some states do not adequately address some water quality problems associated with
forest harvesting. BMPs for ephemeral drainages need to be developed and the
circumstances under which ephemeral drainages require BMPs needs to be deter-
mined. Ephemeral drainages can produce or deliver large quantities of sediment to
other streams if left unprotected after a harvest.
• The most important BMPs for protecting stream water quality are properly sized
SMAs, properly designed BMPs for erosion control implemented prior to the
commencement of road construction and harvesting, properly designed stream
crossings, and comprehensive preharvest plans.
Examples of Management Measure Effectiveness
Examples of how BMPs can operate as a system to control nonpoint source pollution are
given in a paper that summarizes a national effort by USDA's Forest Service to develop
analysis procedures for estimating the economic benefits of soil and water resource
management (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1990). The paper focuses on benefits in five areas—
timber, forage, fish, enhanced water quality, and road construction and maintenance. The
benefits noted from the use of resource management systems are expressed as increased
timber production, increased forage on the harvest site, and benefits to other resources
from improved soil and water resource management. The following are the examples of
the proper implementation of resource management systems provided in Dissmeyer and
Foster (1990) and Dissmeyer and Frandsen (1988). Each example begins with a hypo-
thetical situation and then describes how BMPs apply to the situation.
Example 1 focuses on soil and water resource management in road construction and
maintenance. In this example, a main haul road is built across problem soils, cutbanks
yield excessive surface runoff and erode easily, the runoff volume from the site is suffi-
cient to erode through the road surface and road subgrade, road maintenance (without
BMPs installed) is needed every 3 years, and the road is assumed to be used for 20 years.
Applying a resource management system to this situation, the following solution was
devised: construct the road with midslope terraces in the cutbanks; install water diver-
sions above the cutbanks; and seed, fertilize, and mulch the cutbanks. The total estimated
repair costs over 20 years were calculated at $2,137 for materials, labor, and cost of
technical assistance. The one-time installation of BMPs, which would eliminate the need
for maintenance every 3 years, would cost $1,200. The resulting net present value, or
economic benefit to the property owner, of installing the BMPs in this example was
calculated as $937 (all cost figures in 1990 dollars).
Example 2 relates to recouping timber growth and yield losses through skid trail rehabili-
tation. Skid trails and skid roads in harvest areas are areas where sediment is lost, and as
a result the timber yield in primary skid trails and on skid roads is in general severely
reduced. Soils in skid trails can become severely compacted, limiting water infiltration
and thus soil moisture availability and tree root development. Finally, soil nutrients are
removed during skidding and during road construction. A resource management system
solution to this problem involves using the following BMPs: ripping and tilling the soil,
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-3
-------
Chapter 3: Management Measures
waterbarring, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching. Using these practices as a system, the
net present value of timber volume recovered (based on estimations provided in pub-
lished studies) would be $210 per acre based on a harvest of shortleaf pine stands and
$237 per acre in hardwood stands. Note that the economic returns are positive in high-
value shortleaf pine stands and negative in low-value hardwood stands. The study notes,
however, that the herbaceous growth from applying a system of resource BMPs in
hardwood stands would have positive value for hunting and environmental protection.
Example 3 relates to the effect of site preparation, which can affect sediment production,
soil productivity, and timber growth and yields. Poor site preparation practices that
compact the soil, remove litter, and remove nutrients adversely affect soil productivity
and sediment retention. The study, based on modeling data from independent studies of
BMPs used for site preparation, found that site preparation results in economic benefits.
Specifically, investing $50 more per acre in preparing a site with shearing and windrow-
ing reduced future maintenance costs by $129 per acre, compared to chopping and
burning.
These examples highlight the economic and ecological advantages of using management
measures and BMPs as a system to reduce effects on surface waters and to ensure more
rapid site regeneration and healthier timber stands.
3-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
3A: PREHARVEST PLANNING
Management Measure for Prenarvesf Planning
Perform advance planning for forest harvesting that includes the following elements where appropriate:
(1) Identify the area to be harvested including location of water bodies and sensitive areas such as wet-
lands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high-erosion-hazard areas (landslide-
prone areas) within the harvest unit.
(2) Clearly mark these sensitive areas with paint or flagging tape, or in another highly visible manner, prior
to harvest or road construction.
(3) Time the activity for the season or moisture conditions when the least effect occurs.
(4) Consider potential water quality effects and erosion and sedimentation control in the selection of silvicul-
tural and regeneration systems, especially for harvesting and site preparation.
(5) Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying high-erosion-hazard areas
and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable.
(6) Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known existing water quality impair-
ments or problems in watersheds of concern.
Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the following elements where appropriate:
(1) Locate and design road systems to minimize, to the extent practicable, potential sediment generation
and delivery to surface waters. Key components are:
• locate roads, landings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent practicable steep grades and steep
hillslope areas, and to decrease the number of stream crossings;
• avoid to the extent practicable locating new roads and landings in Streamside Management Areas
(SMAs); and
• determine road usage and select the appropriate road standard.
(2) Locate and design temporary and permanent stream crossings to prevent failure and control effects from
the road system. Key components are:
• size and site crossing structures to prevent failure;
• for fish-bearing streams, design crossings to facilitate fish passage.
(3) Ensure that the design of road prism and the road surface drainage are appropriate to the terrain and
that road surface design is consistent with the road drainage structures.
(4) Identify and plan to use road surfacing materials suitable to the intended vehicle use for roads that are
planned for all-weather use.
(5) Design road systems to avoid high erosion or landslide hazard areas. Identify these areas and consult a
qualified specialist for design of any roads that must be constructed through these areas.
Each state should develop a process (or utilize an existing process) that ensures that the management
measures in this chapter are implemented. Such a process should include appropriate notification, compli-
ance audits, or other mechanisms for forestry activities with the potential for significant adverse nonpoint
source effects based on the type and size of operation and the presence of stream crossings or SMAs.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-5
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Management Measure Description
The objective of this management measure is to ensure that forestry activities, including
timber harvesting, site preparation, and associated road construction, are planned with
water quality considerations in mind and conducted without significant nonpoint source
pollutant delivery to streams or other surface waters. Road system planning is an essential
part of this management measure because road construction is the main soil destabilizing
activity carried out in forestry, and avoidance is the most cost-effective means of dealing
with unstable terrain (Weaver and Hagans, 1994).
A basic tenet of road planning is to minimize the number of road miles constructed in a
watershed through basin-wide planning. A second tenet is to locate roads to minimize the
risk of water quality impacts. Good road location and design can greatly reduce the
sources and transport of sediment. Road systems can be designed to minimize the length
and surface area of roads and skid trails, the size and number of landings, and the number
of stream crossings, and to locate all of these road system elements as far from surface
waters as feasible. Minimizing stream crossings is especially important in sensitive
watersheds.
Preharvest planning includes consideration of the potential water quality and habitat
effects of the component parts of the harvest, including the harvesting system (e.g., clear-
cut or selective cut); the yarding system (e.g., skyline cable or ground skidding); the road
system; and postharvest activities such as site preparation. Water quality considerations
can most effectively be incorporated into preharvest planning by determining which
pollutants are likely to be generated during each of the phases of the harvest and how best
to ensure that they are kept out of surface waters. Reviewing Section 2 can help with the
task of identifying the pollutants, and Section 3 provides information on the BMPs that
will minimize their entry into surface waters.
The water quality effects of yarding can be reduced with thoughtful preharvest planning.
Yarding done with ground skidding equipment can cause much more soil disturbance than
cable yarding. McMinn (1984) compared a skidder logging system and a cable yarder for
their relative effects on soil disturbance (Table 3-1). With the cable yarder, 99 percent of
the soil remained undisturbed (the original litter still covered the mineral soil), whereas
the amount of soil remaining undisturbed after logging by skidder was only 63 percent.
Whether cable yarding, ground skidding, or skyline yarding is best for the particular
harvest is based on whether the stand is even-aged or uneven-aged, the terrain, cost, and
other factors. Among these other factors should be the need and means to protect water
quality.
Table 3-1. Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable Miniyarder on Soil in Georgia (McMinn, 1964)
Disturbance Class3
Undisturbed
Soil exposed
Soil disturbed
Cable Skidder
63%
12%
25%
Miniyarder
99%
1%
0%
a Undisturbed = original duff or litter still covering the mineral soil.
Exposed = litter and duff scraped away, exposing mineral soil, but no scarification.
Disturbed = Mineral soil exposed and scarified or dislocated.
3-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Preharvest planning is the time to consider how harvested areas are to be replanted or
regenerated to prevent erosion and effects on water bodies after the harvest has occurred.
At the same time, it is important to consider other activities that have occurred recently,
will coincide with the harvesting, or are scheduled to occur in the watershed where
harvesting is to take place, as well as the overall soil, habitat, and water quality condi-
tions of the watershed. Other activities within the watershed that can also stress water
systems include land use changes from forest to agriculture, residential development or
other construction, and applications of pesticides or herbicides. Cumulative effects on
soils, water quality, and habitats from other activities and the proposed forest practices
can result in excessive erosion and pollutant transport, and detrimental receiving water
effects (Sidle, 1989). Cumulative effects are influenced by forest management activities,
natural ecosystem processes, and the distribution of other land uses within a watershed.
Forestry operations such as timber harvesting, road construction, and chemical use can
increase runoff of nonpoint source pollutants and thereby contribute to preexisting
impairments to water quality.
A previously completed cumulative assessment might exist for the area to be harvested,
in which case it can be determined whether water quality problems, if any, in the water-
shed are attributable to the types of pollutants that might be generated by the planned
forestry activity. If more pollutants of the same types are likely to be generated as a result
of the harvesting activity, adjustments to the harvest plan or use of management practices
beyond those normally used might be necessary. For instance, consider selecting harvest
units with low sedimentation risk, such as flat ridges or broad valleys; postponing har-
vesting until existing erosion sources are stabilized; or selecting limited harvest areas
using existing roads. The need for additional measures, as well as the appropriate type
and extent, is best considered and addressed during the preharvest planning process.
During preharvest planning, it is also particularly important to plan implementation of
management practices to be used to control sediment delivery from sources that are
characteristically erosion-prone and lead to water quality impairment at stream crossings,
landings, road fills on steep slopes, road drainage structures, and roads located close to
streams. Constructing roads through high-erosion-hazard areas can lead to serious water
quality degradation and should be avoided when possible. Some geographical areas (e.g.,
the Pacific coast states) tend to have more serious erosion problems (landslides, major
gullies, etc.) after road construction than other areas. Factors such as climate, slope
steepness, soil and rock characteristics, and local hydrology influence this potential. A
person trained to recognize high-erosion hazard areas should be involved with preharvest
planning.
Erosion hazard areas are often mapped by public agencies, and these maps are one tool to
use in identifying high-erosion-hazard sites. The U.S. Geological Survey has produced
geologic hazard maps for some areas. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) and Agricultural Farm Service Agency (FSA), as well as state and local
agencies, might also have erosion-hazard-area maps.
Benefits of Preharvest Planning
The Virginia Department of Forestry found that preharvest planning is one of the three
BMPs that are crucial to water quality protection. The other two are the establishment
and use of streamside management areas (SMAs) and properly designed and constructed
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-7
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
stream crossings. Although all BMPs are considered to be important, these three were
found to be the most important to preventing water quality degradation.
In a study conducted by Black and Clark (no date), sediment concentrations were com-
pared from stream waters in an unlogged watershed, a watershed where a harvesting
operation with thorough preharvest planning had been conducted, and a watershed where
a harvesting operation with no preharvest planning had been conducted. Sediment
concentrations in the water from the unlogged watershed averaged 4 parts per million
(ppm), those in the water from the watershed with the planned logging operation aver-
aged 5 ppm, and those from the watershed with the unplanned harvest averaged 31 ppm
(Figure 3-1). Preharvest planning in this study took into consideration road siting and
construction techniques, landing siting, yarding techniques, and other BMPs intended to
minimize erosion and sediment loss.
Of course, BMPs are effective only when properly designed, constructed, implemented,
and maintained. Too often, BMPs are not installed early enough in the process to effec-
tively control nonpoint source pollution, or they are not maintained properly, which can
lead to their failure and to sedimentation or other forms of pollution. In general, poor
BMP effectiveness can be attributed to one or more of the following:
• A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins.
• A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs.
• A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs.
• The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and
can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been
completed.
a
a
35
30
I 25
20
o
ffi
i
• Unplanned logging
operation
Ei Maximum allowable
sediment yield for
drinking water
D Planned logging
operation
DUnlogged
watershed
Source Reference
Figure 3-1. Comparison of sediment concentrations in runoff from various forest
conditions to drinking water standard (after Black and Clark, nd).
3-8
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Best Management Practices
Harvest Planning Practices
+ Use topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, geologic maps, and sea-
sonal precipitation information—as slow long duration precipitation can be as
limiting as high intensity short duration rainfall—to augment site reconnaissance to
lay out and map harvest units. Identify and mark, as appropriate:
• Sensitive habitats that need special protection, such as threatened and endangered
species nesting areas.
• Streamside management areas.
• Steep slopes, high-erosion-hazard areas, and landslide-prone areas.
• Wetlands.
+ In warmer regions, schedule harvest and construction operations during dry periods
or seasons. Where weather permits, schedule harvest and construction operations
during the winter to take advantage of snow cover and frozen ground conditions.
+ Consider potential water quality and habitat effects when selecting the silvicultural
system as even-aged (clear-cut, seed tree, or shelterwood) or uneven-aged (group or
individual selection). The yarding system, site preparation method, and any pesti-
cides that will be used can also be considered during preharvest planning. As part of
this practice, consider the potential effects from and extent of roads needed for each
silvicultural system.
+ In high-erosion-hazard areas, trained specialists (geologist, soil scientist,
geotechnical engineer, wild land hydrologist) can identify sites that have high risk of
landslides or that might become unstable after harvest. These specialists can recom-
mend specific practices to reduce the likelihood of erosion hazards and protect water
quality.
+ Determine what other harvesting activities, chemical applications, or other poten-
tially polluting activities are scheduled to occur in the watershed and, where appro-
priate, conduct the harvest at a time and in such a manner as to minimize potential
cumulative effects.
Road System Planning Practices
Road Location Practices
+ Preplan skid trail and landing locations on stable soils and avoid steep gradients,
landslide-prone areas, high-erosion-hazard areas, and poor-drainage areas.
• Plan to minimize roads, stream crossings, landings, skid trails, and activities on
unstable soils and steep slopes.
• Locate landings outside of SMAs and ephemeral drainage areas.
• Locate new roads and skid trails outside of SMAs, except where necessary to cross
drainages.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-9
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
• Locate roads away from stream channels where road fill extends within 50 to 100
horizontal feet of the annual high water level. (Bankfull stage is also used as a
reference point for this.)
+ Systematically design transportation systems to minimize total mileage.
• Compare layouts for roads, skid trails, landings, and yarding plans, and determine
which will result in the least soil disturbance and erosion.
• Locate landings to minimize skid trail and haul road mileage and disturbance of
unstable soils.
+ Identify areas that would need the least modification for use as log landings and use
them to reduce the potential for soil disturbance. Avoid using areas, such as ephem-
eral drainages, that could contribute considerably to nonpoint source pollution if
high precipitation occurs during the harvest. Use topographic maps and aerial
photographs to locate these areas.
+ Plot feasible routes and locations on aerial photographs or topographic maps to
assist in the final determination of road locations. Compare the possible road loca-
tion on-the-ground and proof the layout to ensure that the road follows the contours.
Design roads and skid trails to follow the natural topography and contour, minimiz-
ing alteration of natural features.
Proper design can reduce the area of soil exposed by construction activities. Figure 3-2
presents a comparison of road systems. Following the natural topography and contours
can reduce the amount of cut and fill needed and consequently reduce both road failure
potential and cost. Ridge routes and hillside routes are good locations for ensuring stream
protection because they are removed from stream channels and the intervening undis-
turbed vegetation acts as a sediment barrier. Wide valley bottoms are good routes if
stream crossings are few and roads are located outside SMAs.
+ Plan the management of existing and future roads and road systems to minimize
environmental problems arising from them.
Roads analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic approach to transporta-
tion planning addressing both existing and future road systems. The U.S. Forest Service's
Roads Analysis procedure, developed by a team of Forest Service scientists and manag-
ers, is designed to help national forest managers bring their road systems into balance
with current social, economic, and environmental needs. The top priority is to provide
road systems that are safe for the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally
sound, affordable, and efficient to manage. A roads analysis provides scientific informa-
tion used to inform decision makers about effects, consequences, options, priorities, and
other factors. This information is essential to plan efficiently and manage the forest
transportation crisis. The iterative procedure for conducting the roads analysis consists of
six steps aimed at producing needed information and maps (USDA Forest Service, 1999):
• Step 1: Set up the analysis. The analysis is designed to produce an overview of the
road system. An interdisciplinary team develops a list of information needs and a
plan for the analysis.
• Step 2: Describe the situation. The interdisciplinary team describes the existing road
system in relation to current forest management plans. Products from this step
include a map of the existing road system, descriptions of access needs, and
3-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Permanent Haul Road
Temporary Haul Road
Plans A, B, and C show three ways to
place truck and skid roads on a cutting
unit. The comments next to each plan
indicate why Plan C is best.
Plan A layout: 2 bridges
4 landings
3 miles of haul road
Comment: Road and bridge construction
costs too high. Skid distance too short.
Too much steep downhill skidding. Too
many landings on too steep land. Two
bridges are unnecessary.
Skid Road (or Trail) EE3
Bridge (water crossing) LjCj
Landing F*»3
Plan B layout:
1 bridge
3 landings
3.5 miles of haul road
Comment: Loop road unnecessary. Skid
distances too short. Erosion minimized up
hill skidding.
Plan C layout:
1 bridge
2 landings
2 miles of haul road
Comment: Haul road follows high ground.
Minimal road construction. Ideal skidding
distances. Erosion minimized by uphill
skidding. Least number of landings. Only
one bridge required.
Figure 3-2. An example of laying out sample road systems for comparison purposes
(Hynson etal., 1982).
information about physical, biological, social, cultural, economic, and political
conditions associated with the road system.
Step 3: Identify issues. The interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with the public,
identifies important road-related issues and the information needed to address them.
The interdisciplinary team also determines data needs associated with analyzing the
road system in the context of the important issues, for both existing and future roads.
The output from this step includes a summary of key road-related issues, a list of
screening questions to evaluate them, a description of the status of relevant available
data, and a list of additional data needed to conduct the analysis.
Step 4: Assess benefits, problems, and risks. After identifying the important issues
and associated analytical questions, the interdisciplinary team systematically exam-
ines the major uses and effects of the road system, including the environmental,
social, and economic effects of the existing road system and the values and sensitivi-
ties associated with unroaded areas. The output from this step is a synthesis of the
benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system and the risks and benefits of
building roads into unroaded areas.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-11
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
• Step 5: Describe opportunities and set priorities. The interdisciplinary team identi-
fies management opportunities, establishes priorities, and formulates technical
recommendations that respond to the issues and effects. The output from this step
includes a map and a descriptive ranking of management options and technical
recommendations.
• Step 6: Report. The interdisciplinary team then produces a report and maps that
portray management opportunities and provide supporting information important for
making decisions about the future characteristics of the road system. This informa-
tion sets the context for the development of proposed actions to improve the road
system and for future amendment and revision of forest plans.
+ Consider using or upgrading existing roads to minimize the total amount of road
construction necessary whenever practical and when less adverse environmental
impact would be caused.
Existing roads should be used where they are in good condition or can be feasibly up-
graded, unless using the roads would cause more water quality impacts than building a
new road elsewhere (Weaver and Hagans, 1994). When an existing road is available on
the side of a drainage opposite the harvest site, consider using it instead of constructing a
new road to minimize the amount of soil disturbance due to new road construction. Avoid
using existing or previously-used roads, however, if they are likely to create water quality
problems, such as if they were constructed next to streams in valleys.
Road Design Practices
+ In moderately sloping terrain, plan for road grades of less than 10 percent, with an
optimal grade of between 3 percent and 5 percent. In steep terrain, short sections of
road at steeper grades can be used if the grade is broken at regular intervals. On
steep grades, vary road grades frequently to reduce culvert and road drainage ditch
flows, road surface erosion, and concentrated culvert discharges.
Gentle grades are desirable for proper drainage and economical construction. Steeper
grades are acceptable for short distances (200-300 feet), but an increased number of
drainage structures might be needed above, on, and below the steeper grade to reduce
runoff potential and minimize erosion. Heavy traffic on steep grades can result in surface
rutting that renders crowning, outsloping, and insloping ineffective. On sloping terrain,
no-grade road sections are difficult to drain properly and are best avoided when possible.
+ Design skid trail grades to be 15 percent or less, with steeper grades only for short
distances.
+ In designing roads for steep terrain, avoid the use of switchbacks through the use of
more favorable locations. Avoid stacking roads above one another in steep terrain by
using longer span cable harvest techniques.
+ Avoid locating roads where they will need fills on slopes greater than 60 percent.
When necessary to construct roads across slopes that exceed the angle of repose, use
full-bench construction and/or engineered bin walls or other stabilizing techniques.
+ Plan to use full-bench construction and remove fill material to a suitable location
where constructing road prisms on side slopes greater than 60 percent.
3-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Flat
. Steep
Soil Type
Solid rock
Hardpan or soft rock
Most soils types with ground
slopes <55%
Most soils types with ground
slopes <55%
Flat ground cuts under 0.9m
+ Design cut-and-fill slopes to be at stable angles, or less than the normal angle of
repose, to minimize erosion and slope failure potential.
The degree of steepness that can be obtained is determined by the stability of the soil.
Figure 3-3 presents recommended stable backslope and fill slope angles for different soil
materials.
• Use retaining walls, with properly designed drainage, to reduce and contain excava-
tion and embankment quantities. Vertical banks can be used without retaining walls
if the soil is stable and water control structures are adequate.
• Balance excavation and embankments to minimize the need for supplemental
building material and to
maximize road stability.
• Avoid the use of road fills
at drainage crossings as
water impoundments
unless they have been
designed as an earthfill
dam (in which case they
might be subject to section
404 requirements). These
earthfill embankments
need outlet controls to
allow draining prior to
runoff periods and a
design that permits flood
flows to pass.
+ Try to avoid springs wher-
ever possible. However,
where they must be crossed,
provide drainage structures
for springs that flow to
roads and that flow continu-
ously for longer than 1
month, rather than allowing
road ditches to carry the
flow to a drainage culvert.
Avoiding springs will limit
disruptions to the natural
hydrology of an area and limit
the extent to which roads can
become integrated into an area's
drainage system. Unmanaged
springs can compromise sec-
tions of roads and contribute to
erosion and sedimentation.
0.5
1.5
2.5
Angle Ratio (X:1)
Flat
Steep
Soil Type
Gravel
Rock, crushed
Ballast
Shale
Sand, moist
Common for most soil types
Sand, saturated
Alluvial soils
Clay
2 3
Angle Ratio (X:1)
Figure 3-3. Maximum recommended stable angles for (a) backslopes and (b) fill slopes
(after Rothwell, 1978).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-13
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
+ Design roads crossing low-lying areas so that water does not pond on the upslope
side of the road.
• Use overlay construction techniques with suitable nonhazardous materials for roads
crossing muskegs.
• Provide cross drains at short intervals to ensure free drainage and avoid ponding,
especially in sloping areas.
• Provide adequate cross drainage to maintain natural dispersed hydrologic flows
through wet areas.
+ Plan water source developments, used for wetting and compacting roadbeds and
surfaces, to prevent channel bank and stream bed effects.
+ Design access roads such that they do not provide sediment to the water source.
Road Surfacing Practices
+ Select a road surface material suitable for the intended road use and likelihood of
water quality effects.
The volume and composition of traffic, the desired service life, and the stability and
strength of the road foundation (subgrade) material will determine the type of road
surfacing needed. Roads that are closer to streams or other surface waters should be
considered for a durable, non-erosive surface.
+ Where grades increase the potential for surface erosion, design roads with a surface
of gravel, grass, wood chips, or crushed rocks.
+ Where a road is to be surfaced, select an appropriately sized aggregate, appropriate
percentage of fines, and suitable particle hardness to protect road surfaces from
rutting and erosion under heavy truck traffic during wet periods.
When a road is to be used for only a short time period, consider not surfacing it, and
closing it and returning the surface to natural vegetation after use.
Road Stream Crossing Practices
+ Lay out roads, skid trails, and harvest units to minimize the number of stream cross-
ings.
+ Design and site stream crossings to cross drainages perpendicular to the streamflow.
Design road segments with water turn-outs and broad-based dips to minimize runoff
directly entering the stream at the crossing.
+ Locate stream crossings to avoid channel changes and minimize the amount of
excavation or fill needed at the crossing. Apply the following criteria to determine
the locations of stream crossings:
• Construct crossings at locations where the streambed has a straight and uniform
profile above, at, and below the crossing.
• Locate the crossing so the stream and road alignment are straight in all four directions.
• Cross where the stream is relatively narrow with low banks and firm, rocky soil.
• Avoid deeply cut streambanks and soft, muddy soil.
3-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
+ Choose stream-crossing structures (bridges, culverts, or fords) with the structural
capacity to safely handle expected vehicle loads with the least disturbance to the
watercourse.
+ Design culverts and bridges for minimal effect on water quality. Install culverts of a
size that is appropriate to pass a design storm. Opening size varies depending on
climate, the drainage area upstream of where the stream-crossing structure is to be
placed, and the likelihood of plugging with debris.
Consider the following guidelines for culvert sizing, but consult the state forestry agency
and local hydrologists: a 50-year design storm for small diameter culverts and a 100-year
design storm for large diameter culverts and bridges. Bridges or arch culverts, which
retain the natural stream bottom and slope, are preferred over pipe culverts for streams
used for fish migrating or spawning areas (Figure 3-4). The FishXing Web site (http://
www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/index.html) provides software and learning systems for
fish passage through culverts.
'•££-*
~? '•*,•«: y*?-^
g -
/Bridge
Used for spans over 6 m (20)
i**3
Used for spans over 4 m (12')
Multiple Culverts
Used for spans 2 m to 12 m (6-40')
*f*r
•i *"" ji iMF*Jjr.^--^raw s
Arch Culvert ***%y«i
Usedforspans4mto9m(12'-30') :S
Figure 3-4. Alternative water crossing structures (Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources, 1988).
+ The use affords is best limited to areas where the stream bed has a firm rock or
gravel bottom (or where the bottom has been armored with stable material), where
the approaches are both low and stable enough to support traffic, where fish are not
present during low flow, and where the water depth is no more than 3 feet.
+ Design small stream crossings on temporary roads using temporary bridges.
Temporary bridges usually consist of logs bound together and suspended above the
stream, with no part in contact with the stream itself. This prevents stream bank erosion,
disturbance of stream bottoms, and excessive turbidity. Provide additional capacity to
accommodate debris loading that might lodge in the structure opening and reduce its
capacity.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-15
-------
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning
Scheduling Practices
+ Plan road construction or improvement to allow sufficient time afterward for dis-
turbed soil and fill material to stabilize prior to use of the road.
Compact and stabilize roads prior to use. This reduces the amount of maintenance needed
during and after harvesting activities.
+ To minimize soil disturbance and road damage, plan to suspend operations when
soils are highly saturated. This will reduce sediment runoff potential and creation of
ruts in the haul road, landings, skid trails, and loading areas, which in turn will
prevent possible damage to vehicles. Damage to forested slopes can also be mini-
mized by not operating logging equipment when soils are wet, during wet weather, or
when the ground is thawing.
Preharvest Notification Practices
+ Encourage timberland owners and harvesters to submit a preharvest plan to the state
for review prior to performing any road work or harvesting.
States are encouraged to adopt notification mechanisms for harvest planning that inte-
grate and avoid duplicating existing requirements or recommendations for notification,
including severance taxes, stream crossing permits, erosion control permits, labor per-
mits, forest practice acts, plans, and so forth. For example, states might recommend that a
preharvest plan be submitted by the landowner to a single state or local office. The
appropriate state agency might encourage forest landowners to develop a preharvest plan.
The plan would address the components of this management measure, including the area
to be harvested, any forest roads to be constructed, and the timing of the activity.
Many states currently use some process to ensure implementation of management prac-
tices. These processes are typically related to the planning phase of forestry operations
and commonly involve some type of notification process. Some states have one or more
processes in place that serve as notification mechanisms used to ensure implementation.
These state processes are usually associated with forest practices acts, erosion control
acts, state dredge and fill or CWA section 404 requirements, timber tax requirements, or
state and federal incentive and cost share programs. Some state education and training
programs are discussed in Section 2.
It is suggested that notification be encouraged prior to:
• Timber harvesting or commercial timber cutting.
• Road construction or road improvement.
• Stream crossing construction or any work within 50 feet
of a watercourse or water body.
• Reforestation.
• Pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer applications.
• Any work in a wetland.
• Conversion of forestland to a non-forest use.
3-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
for
Establish and maintain a streamside management area along surface waters, which is sufficiently wide and
which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to buffer against detrimental changes in the tempera-
ture regime of the water body, to provide bank stability, and to withstand wind damage. Manage the SMA in
such a way as to protect against soil disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream of sediments and
nutrients generated by forestry activities, including harvesting. Manage the SMA canopy species to provide
a sustainable source of large woody debris needed for in-stream channel structure and aquatic species
habitat.
Streamside management areas (SMAs), also commonly referred to as streamside man-
agement zones or riparian management areas or zones, are areas of riparian vegetation
along streams that receive special management attention because of their value in protect-
ing water quality and habitat. Riparian vegetation is highly beneficial to water quality and
aquatic habitat. Riparian areas reduce runoff and trap sediment from upslope areas and
may reduce nutrients in runoff (Belt et al, 1992). Canopy species shade surface waters,
moderating water temperature and providing detritus that serves as an energy source for
streams. Trees in riparian areas are a source of large woody debris (LWD) to surface
waters. Riparian areas provide important habitat for aquatic organisms and terrestrial
species.
The width of SMAs is determined in one of two ways: (1) a fixed minimum width is
recommended or prescribed, or (2) a variable width is determined based on site condi-
tions such as slope (Phillips et al., 2000) (Figure 3-5). SMAs need to be of sufficient
width to protect the adjacent water body. A minimum width of 35 to 50 feet is generally
recommended for SMAs to be effective. Areas such as intermittent channels, ephemeral
channels, and depressions need to be given special consideration when determining SMA
boundaries. Channels should be disturbed as little as possible to maximize the effective-
ness of an SMA, as disturbance in and adjacent to a SMA can contribute considerably to
pollutant runoff volumes. SMAs also need to be able to withstand wind damage or
blowdown. For example, a single rank of canopy trees is not likely to withstand
blowdown and maintain the functions of an SMA.
Table 3-2 presents North Carolina's recommendations for SMA widths for various types
of water bodies dependent on adjacent upland slope. Maine's recommended filter strip
widths are dependent on the land slope between the road and the water body (Table 3-3).
SMA widths might vary along a stream's course and on opposite sides of the same
stream. SMA width is measured along the ground from the streambank on each side of
the stream and not from the centerline of the watercourse (Georgia Forestry Commission,
1999).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry Draft 3-17
-------
Chapter 36; Streams/tie Management Areas
- 50 ft shade strip -
- 50 ft filter strip -
Shade strips represent minimum filter strips in all situations.
The filter strip may be wider dependent on slope.
Figure 3-5. Calculation of slope—an important step in determining SMA width (Georgia Forestry
Commission, 1999).
Table 3-2. Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths (North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, 1989)
Type of Stream
or Water Body
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial trout waters
Public water supplies
(Streams and reservoirs)
Percent Slope of Adjacent Lands
0-5 6-10 11-20 21-45 46+
SMZ Width Each Side (feet)
50
50
50
50
50
50
66
100
50
50
75
150
50
50
100
150
50
50
125
200
Table 3-3. Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths (Maine Forest Service, 1991)
Slope of Land (%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Width of Strip (ft along ground)
25
45
65
85
105
125
145
165
3-18
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas
A sufficient number of large trees in an SMA provide for bank stability and a sustainable
source of large woody debris. LWD consists of naturally occurring dead and downed
woody materials, not to be confused with logging slash or debris. Trees to be maintained
or managed in the SMA can provide large woody debris to the stream at a rate that
maintains beneficial uses associated with fish habitat and stream structure. Woody debris
is added at the site and downstream at a rate that is sustainable over a long time period.
A sufficient number of canopy species are maintained in an SMA also to provide shading
to the stream water surface to prevent changes in the temperature regime of the water
body and to prevent harmful temperature- or sunlight-related effects on the aquatic biota.
If the existing shading conditions for the water body prior to activity are known to be less
than optimal for the stream, SMAs can be managed to increase shading of the water body.
Lakeside management areas, or LMAs—the lake and pond equivalent of SMAs—should
also be left around lakes and ponds on harvest sites (Minnesota Forest Resources Coun-
cil, 1999; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2003). The width of LMAs varies
depending on site conditions, as do the recommended widths of SMAs. Topography,
hydrology, size of water body, size of adjacent harvest area, harvest method, forest
management objectives (e.g., timber production, wildlife), whether the water body
contains sensitive fish species, and tree species composition all influence the size and
leave-tree recommendations for LMAs.
Generally, LMAs should be as wide as SMAs, or generally between 50 and 100 feet
wide, though where sensitive fish species are present in the water body, a wider LMA—
up to 200 feet—may be necessary to fully protect water quality.
Other considerations for timber harvesting near lakes and ponds include ensuring that
some trees are left on all areas surrounding water bodies all the way to the top of the
adjacent slope, and using an extended rotation period within LMAs (as should be done
for SMAs) to minimize soil and riparian area disturbance.
To preserve SMA integrity for water quality protection, some states limit the type of
harvesting, timing of operations, amount harvested, or reforestation methods used in
them. SMAs are managed to use only harvest and forestry methods that prevent soil
disturbance in the SMA. Additional operational considerations for SMAs are addressed in
subsequent management measures. Practices for SMA applications to wetlands are
described in the Wetlands Forest Management Measure (Chapter 3, section J).
Of
The effectiveness of SMAs in regulating water temperature depends on the interrelation-
ship between vegetative and stream characteristics. Specifying leave tree and stream
shade quantities is an effective way to prevent detrimental temperature changes. An
example of a leave tree specification might be Leave trees that provide midsummer and
midday shade to the water surface, and preferably a quantity of trees that provide a
minimum of 50 percent of the summer midday shade. Shade cover is preferably left
distributed evenly within the SMA. If a threat of blowdown exists, leave trees may be
clumped and clustered as long as sufficient shade at the reach scale is provided.
Lynch and others (1985) studied the effectiveness of SMAs in controlling suspended
sediment and turbidity levels (Table 3-4). A combination of practices were applied,
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-19
-------
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas
Table 3-4. Storm Water Suspended Sediment Deliwerf for Treatments (Pennsflwania) (Lynch et a!.,
1185)
Water Year and
Treatment
Annual Awerage Sediment
in
1977
1978
Forested control
Clear-cut-herbicide
Commercial clear-cut with BMPsa
Forested control
Clear-cut-herbicide
Commercial clear-cut with BMPsa
1,7(0.2-8,6)
10.4(2.3-30.5)
5.9 (0.3-20.9)
5.1 (0.3-33.5)
-"(18-38.0)
9.3 (0.2-76.0)
"Buffer strips, skidding in streams prohibited, slash disposal away torn streams, skid trail and road layout away from streams.
'Data not available
including SMAs and prohibitions on skidding, slash disposal, and roads located in or near
streams. Average storm water-suspended sediment and turbidity levels in the area without:
these practices were very high compared to those of the control and SMA/BMP sites.
Table 3-5 presents data on how effective different cutting practices and buffer strips are
in preventing debris from entering the stream channel (Froehlich, 1973).
Hall and others (1987) studied the effectiveness of SMAs in protecting streams from
temperature increases, large increases in sediment load, and reduced dissolved oxygen
(Table 3-6). The value of SMAs for protecting streams from water temperature changes is
clear from the 30 °F maximum daily increase in stream temperature observed during the
study. The study also showed that not leaving a SMA can cause sediment increases
streams, and more recent research has demonstrated that SMAs might be effective in
Table 3-5. Awerage Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel After Harwesting (Oregon) {Froehlich, 1973}
Cutting Practice
in Felling %
per hundred of channel)
Conventional tree-felling
Cable-assisted directional felling
Conventional tree-felling with buffer strip3
8.1
16
12
47
14
1.3
570
112
14
"Buffer strips ranged from 20 to 130 feet wide for different channel segments.
Table 3-B. Comparison of Effects of Two of on Qualitf (Oregon) et al., 1S87)
Watershed
Deer Creek
Branch
Method
Patch cut with
buffer (750
acres)
Clearcut with no
stream protection
(175 acres)
Streamflow
No increase in
flow
Small
Water
Temperature
No change
Large changes,
daily maximum
by 30 °F,
returning to pre-log
temp, within 7 years
Sediment
Increases for one
due to periodic
road failure
Five-fold
during first winter,
returning to near
normal the fourth
year after harvest
Dissolved Oxygen
No change
Reduced by logging
slash to near zero
in some reaches;
returned to normal
when slash
removed
3-20
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas
intercepting overland flow and some sediment it contains, but not in intercepting sedi-
ment contained in channelized flow (Belt et al., 1992; Keim and Schoenholtz, 1999).
Keim and Schoenholtz (1999), in a study on highly credible soils in Mississippi, found
that the primary means by which SMAs reduce sediment delivery to streams is by
preventing soil disturbance next to the stream and not by intercepting sediment from
upland sources. Finally, the study demonstrated the effect that logging slash placed in
streams has in depleting dissolved oxygen as it decomposes.
Hartman and others (1987) compared the physical changes associated with logging using
three streamside treatments—leaving a variable-width strip of vegetation along a stream
(least intensive); clear cutting to the margin of a stream, but with virtually no instream
disturbance (intensive); and clear-cutting to the stream bank with some yarding near the
stream and pulling merchantable timber from the stream (most intensive). They per-
formed their study to observe the effect of different SMAs on the supply of woody debris.
The volume and stability of large woody debris decreased immediately in the most
intensive treatment area, decreased a few years after logging in the careful logging area,
and remained stable where streamside trees and other vegetation remained.
The costs associated with SMAs vary according to site conditions. SMAs can be more
difficult to lay out on rough terrain or along a stream or river that meanders a lot due to
the need to adjust the SMA width appropriately. Also, harvesters or landowners take into
account the value of merchantable timber left unharvested because of SMA restrictions.
No single SMA width or layout is preferable for all sites in terms of cost. Dykstra and
Froelich (1976a) concluded in one study that a 55-foot buffer strip was the least costly on
a million-board-foot (infb) basis, but they cautioned that cost is not the only factor to
consider when deciding what type of stream protection to use (Table 3-7).
There are several research papers that focus on the costs of SMA implementation.
Lickwar (1989) examined the costs of SMAs as determined by varying slope steepness
(Table 3-8) in different regions in the Southeast and compared them to road construction
and revegetation practice costs. He found that SMAs are the least expensive practice, in
general, and that their cost is approximately the same regardless of slope. The costs
associated with use of alternative buffer and filter strips were also analyzed in an Oregon
study (Olsen, 1987) (Table 3-9). In that study, increasing the SMA width from 35 feet on
each side of a stream to 50 feet reduced the value per acre by $75 (discounted cost) to
$103 (undiscounted cost), or an approximate 2 percent increase in harvesting cost per
acre (from $3,163 discounted to $5,163 undiscounted). Doubling the SMA width from
Table 3-7. Awerage Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs per MBF (Oregon) (Dfkstra and Froehlich, 197Ba)
Cutting Practice
Conventional felling
Cable-assisted directional felling (1.43%
within 200-foot stream)
felling (10%
Buffer strip (55 feet wide)
Buffer strip (1 50 feet wide)
Total Cost
Average
$70.98
$74.62
$70.59
$66.86
$77.78
Range
$62.74-85.74
$61.19-89.49
$56.00-85.42
$56.84-79.55
$69.70-86.74
Volume Foregone
None
— -
—
0 - 6 percent
6 -17 percent
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars.
Cost estimates for each of 10 studied by Dykstra and Froehlich were averaged for this table.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-21
-------
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas
Table 3-8. Cost Estimates Cost as a Percent of Gross iewenues) for Streamside Management (Lickwar, 1989)
Practice Component
Management Zones
$2,958
(0.52%)
$3,441
(0.51%)
Flat
$3,363
(0.26%)
Note: All to 1998 dollars.
a on a 1,148-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $573,485. Slopes average over 9 percent.
b Based on a 1,104-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $678,947. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to 8 percent.
c Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $1,290,641. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to 3 percent.
3-9. Cost of Three Alternatiwe (Oregon): Case Studf with S40-acre Base (38 mbf/acre)
(Olsen, 1987)
Average buffer width (feet on each side)
Percent conifers removed
Percent reclassified Class II streams8
Harvesting restrictions
Construction
New
Road and landing
Cost total (1000's)
Cost/acre
Harvesting Activities'1
mmbf harvested
Acres harvested
Cost total (1000's)
Cost/acre
Cost/mbf
Inaccessible Area and Volume
Percent area in buffers
mmbf left in buffers
Acres unloggable
mmbf lost to and landings
Undiscounted Costs (1000's)
Road cost
Harvesting cost
Value of volume foregone0
Total
Cost/acre
Reduced dollar value/acre
Discounted Costs
Cost with 4% discount rate (1000's)
Cost/acre
Reduced value/acre
I
35
100
0
Current
2.09
10.9
$96.00
$149.00
22.681
638.3
$3,104.00
$4,841.00
$136.87
1.3
0.000
1.44
0.202
$96.00
$3,104.00
$38.00
$3,238.00
$5,060.00
—
$2,023.00
$3,162.00
—
Scenario
II
50
60
20
New
2.14
11.1
$102.00
$160.00
22.265
635.5
$3,101.00
$4,835.00
$139.26
3.9
0.313
4.32
0.205
$102.00
$3,101.00
$101.00
$3,304.00
$5,163.00
$103.00
$2,071.00
$3,237.00
$75.00
III
70
25
80
New
3.06
15.9
$197.00
$307.00
20.277
633.1
$2,842.00
$4,432.00
$140.17
14.0
2.214
6.72
0.295
$197.00
$2,842.00
$413.00
$3,451.00
$5,393.00
$323.00
$2,195.00
$3,431.00
$269.00
Note: mmbf = millon board feet; mbf = thousand board feet.
1986 dollars.
•Generally, only Class I streams are buffered.
b Includes felling, landing construction and setup, yarding, loading, and hauling.
"Volume foregone x net revenue ($150/mbf).
3-22
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas
35 to 70 feet on each side of a stream reduced the dollar value per acre by approximately
3 times, adding approximately 8 percent to the discounted harvesting costs.
According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, adequately sized SMAs are the
best means to protect water quality (VANR, 1998). The agency conducted habitat assess-
ments and bioassessments on stream segments above and below harvest sites and before
and after harvesting and determined that SMAs are particularly important for protecting
small headwater streams and ephemeral stream channels. The Virginia Department of
Forestry also monitored BMP implementation and effectiveness and determined that
although improvement was needed in meeting minimum standards of implementation,
properly implemented SMAs (together with stream crossings and prcharvcst plans) are
crucial to protecting water quality.
The Oregon Department of Forestry similarly found that application of a riparian rule
(passed in 1987) results in stream protection that generally maintains pre-operation
vegetative conditions.
Where SMAs were found to be ineffective or less effective than possible, the Virginia
Department of Forestry discovered that in some cases this was the result of careless
timber harvesting in the SMAs, a lack of adequately sized SMAs on adjacent intermittent
streams, or gaps in SMAs caused by cutting in them.
Of course, BMPs are effective only when properly designed and constructed. In general,
poor BMP effectiveness can be attributed to one or more of the following:
« A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins.
« A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs.
« A lack of equipment needed to implement BMPs effectively.
* The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and can
be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been completed.
• A lack of timely implementation and maintenance of BMPs.
•t> Minimize disturbances that would expose the mineral soil of the SMA forest floor. Do
not operate skidders or other heavy machinery in the SMA,
+ Locale all landings, portable sawmills, and roads outside the SMA.
4> Restrict mechanical site preparation in the SMA, and encourage natural revegetation,
seeding, and hand planting.
4- Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the SMA. Establish buffers for pesticide appli-
cation for all flowing streams.
4> Directionally fell trees away from streams to prevent excessive quantities of logging
slash and organic debris from entering the water body. Remove slash and debris
unless consultation with a fisheries biologist indicates that it should be left in the
stream for large woody debris.
There is no "correct" amount of organic debris that streams should have. Streams have
natural amounts of organic debris (e.g., fallen leaves, twigs, limbs, and trees), but the
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-23
-------
Chapter 36; Streams/tie Management Areas
amount varies with season, tree falls, storms, and so forth. Aquatic organisms are adapted
to the annual (and longer) range of the quantities of organic debris in the stream. As
discussed in Chapter 2, large woody debris, or LWD, alters sediment and water routing
and, thereby, affects channel morphology, provides structure and complexity to aquatic
and terrestrial organism habitats, and is a source of nutrients for aquatic organisms.
Periodic variations in the influx of sediment and LWD also contribute to habitat heteroge-
neity that is reflected in diverse aquatic communities. When areas upslope from a stream
are changed enough that the quantity of organic debris that reaches a stream is signifi-
cantly changed (i.e., so much that it is too little or too much for the stream's dynamics
and the aquatic organisms), it can be detrimental to the aquatic system and be considered
a water quality problem. Removing trees from near the stream edge, harvesting older
trees on upslope areas, and burning that removes forest floor litter could all reduce inputs
of organic debris to the aquatic system and adversely affect stream ecology.
Retaining SMAs along streams is one step to take to ensure that the streams are provided
with sufficient inputs of organic debris. Leaving slash and other logging debris in a stream
could exceed the natural high limit of organic debris inputs for the stream's ecology and
adversely affecting the stream. Removing felled material from streams on a site where
changes have occurred that will reduce inputs of organic debris in the future could leave the
stream with less organic debris than the stream ecology is adapted to. Maintaining stream
water quality—which includes habitat diversity for aquatic life support—does not necessar-
ily imply reducing inputs of woody debris to a stream, therefore, but rather means not
altering the aquatic system to a degree in either direction (too much or too little) that stream
ecology is adversely affected. A fisheries biologist will be able to help with decisions on
what sizes and quantities of woody debris, if any, should be left in a stream to mimic
natural conditions. Table 3-10 compares the goals of two types of LWD projects. Further
information on the role and importance of LWD in streams and on placing LWD in streams
can be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Ecosystem Management and
Restoration Research Program (EMRRP). A paper issued under the program, Streambcmk
habitat enhancement with large woody debris (Fischenich and Morrow, 2000), can be
found on the Web at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/srl3.pdf.
+ Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to maintain its integrity.
Vegetation, including trees, should be left in the SMA to achieve the desired objective for
the area, such as maintain shading and bank stability and to provide adequate woody
debris to create habitat diversity and provide nutrients to surface waters. This provision
for leaving residual trees might be specified in various ways. For example, the Maine
Forestry Service specifies that no more than 40 percent of the total volume of timber
6 inches diameter breast height (DBH) and greater be removed in a 10-year period, and
that the trees removed be reasonably distributed within the SMA. Florida recommends
leaving a volume equal to or exceeding one-half the volume of a fully stocked stand. The
number of residual trees varies inversely with their average diameter. A shading specifi-
cation that is independent of the volume of timber might be necessary for streams where
temperature changes could alter aquatic habitat.
Table 3-10. Goals of Two Main Types of LWD Projects (Fischenich and Morrow, 2000)
LWD Project Goals
Category 1
Improve habitat by increasing LWD
quantities in a stream
Category 2
Alter flows to improve aquatic
habitat
3-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
for
(1) Follow preharvest planning (as described under the Management Measure for Preharvest Planning)
when constructing or reconstructing the roadway.
(2) Follow designs planned under the Management Measure for Preharvest Planning for road surfacing and
shaping.
(3) Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under the Management Measure for
Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation specifications. Match these
drainage structures with terrain features and with road surface and prism designs.
(4) Guard against the production of sediment when installing stream crossings.
(5) Protect surface waters from slash and debris material from roadway clearing.
(6) Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or other favorable practices on disturbed soils on unstable cuts,
fills, etc.
(7) Avoid constructing new roads in streamside management areas to the extent practicable.
Road construction is one of the largest potential sources of forest activity-produced
sediment (Megahan, 1980), and road and drainage crossing construction practices that
minimize sediment delivery to surface waters are essential for protecting water quality.
Water quality degradation resulting from forest roads is mostly attributable to sediment
loss during road construction, erosion that occurs within a few years after road construc-
tion, soil loss from heavy road use, and road failure during storm events that exceed the
road's design capacity. An early study of erosion from road construction concluded that
the amount of sediment produced by road construction is directly related to the percent of
area occupied by roads, whether a road is given a protective surface, and the amount of
protection provided to loose soils on back slopes and fill slopes (King, 1984) (Table
3-11). Best management practices related to these aspects of road construction, and for
stream crossing construction, are the subject of this management measure. Erosion and
water quality degradation are also problems associated with older, unmaintained roads,
and BMPs for road maintenance are the subject: of the next management: measure.
Construction
Road design and construction that are tailored to the topography and soils and that take
into consideration the overall drainage pattern in the watershed where the road is being
constructed can prevent road-related water quality problems. Lack of adequate consider-
ation of watershed and site characteristics, road system design, and construction tech-
niques appropriate to site circumstances can result in mass soil movements, extensive
surface erosion, and severe sedimentation in nearby water bodies. The effect that a forest
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-25
-------
Chapter 3C; Road Construction/Reconstruction
Table 3-11. Effects of Seweral Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield in (King, 1984)
Watershed
Area
207
181
364
154
70
213
in
(percent)
3,9
2,6
3.7
1.8
3.0
4.3
Treatment
Unsurfaced roads;
Untreated cut slope;
Untreated fill slope
Unsurfaced roads;
Untreated cut slope dry seeded
Surfaced roads;
Cut and fill slopes straw mulched and
seeded
Surfaced
Filter wlndrowed;
Cut and fill slopes straw mulched and
seeded
Surfaced roads;
Filter windrowed;
Cut and fill hydro-mulched and
seeded
Surfaced roads;
Filter windrowed;
Cut and fill slopes hydro-mulched and
seeded
Increase of Annual Sediment
Yield"
(percent)
156
130
93
53
25
19
s Measured in debris basins.
road network has on stream networks largely depends on the extent to which the road and
stream networks are interconnected. Road networks can be hydrologically connected to
stream networks where road surface runoff is delivered directly to stream channels at
stream crossings or via ditches or gullies that direct flow off of the road and then to a
stream, and where road cuts transform subsurface flow into surface flow in road ditches
or on road surfaces that delivers sediment and water to streams much more quickly than
without a road present and increases the risk of mass wasting (Jones and Grant, 1996;
Montgomery, 1994; Wemple et al., 1996). The combined effects of these drainage
network connections are increased sedimentation and peak flows that are higher and
arrive more quickly after storms. This in turn can lead to increased instream erosion and
stream channel changes. This effect is strongest in small watersheds (Jones et al., In press).
Site characteristics are first considered during preharvest planning, and it is important to
review the harvesting plan at the harvest site before construction begins to verify assump-
tions made during planning. On-site verification of information from topographic maps,
soil maps, and aerial photos is necessary to ensure that locations where roads are to be
cut Into slopes or built on steep slopes or where skid trails, landings, and equipment
maintenance areas are to be located are appropriate to the use. If an on-site visit indicates
that changes to road, skid trail, or landing locations can reduce the risk of erosion, the
project manager can make these changes prior to construction, and in some cases as the
project progresses.
Road drainage features tailored to the site and its conditions prevent water from pooling
or collecting on road surfaces and thereby prevent saturation of the road surface, which
can lead to rutting, road slumping, and channel washout. It is especially important: to
ensure that road drainage structures are well constructed and designed for use during
logging operations because the heavy vehicle use during harvesting creates a high poten-
tial for the contribution of large quantities of sediment to runoff.
3-26
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Some roads are temporary or seasonal use roads, and their construction should not
generally involve the high level of disturbance generated by the construction of perma-
nent, high-standard roads. However, temporary or low-standard roads still need to be
constructed and maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and many of the BMPs
discussed for this management measure are applicable to temporary road construction.
In a study in three headwater watersheds in the mountains of central Idaho, 70 percent of
sediment deposition from roads constructed on the watersheds, where the slope ranged
from 15 to 40 percent, occurred during the first year after construction, and one-fourth of
this deposition occurred during road construction (Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996). In this
study, sediment usually traveled less than 100 meters (in) from its source. The distance
that sediment traveled varied depending on its source: the distance traveled from fills,
rock drains, berm drains, and landings was between 4 m and 20 m, while that from cross
drains was 50 m. The maximum travel distance from some cross drains was more than
250 m. Cross drains have a larger source area from which runoff is collected, including
the road prism and upslope watershed area, and this accounted for more sediment being
deposited than from all other sources combined. These findings highlight the importance
of road placement, design, and construction in relation to watercourse location and the
installation of BMPs to control runoff sedimentation from roads.
Based on the findings of studies such as this, it is clear that erosion control practices need
to be applied while a road is being constructed, when soils are most susceptible to ero-
sion, to minimize soil loss to water bodies. Since sedimentation from roads often does not
occur incrementally and continuously, but in pulses during large rainstorms, it is impor-
tant that road, drainage structure, and stream crossing design take into consideration a
sufficiently large design storm that has a good chance of occurring during the life of the
project. Such a storm might be the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, or even 100-year, 12- to
24-hour return period storm. Sedimentation cannot be completely prevented during or
after road construction, but the process is certainly exacerbated if the road construction
and design are inappropriate for the site conditions or if the road drainage or stream
crossing structures are insufficient.
Several common practices minimize erosion during road construction. In general, it is
recommended that forest roads be constructed as a single lane for minimum width and
outsloped with minimal cut-and-fill, where conditions are suitable (Weaver and Hagans,
1984). These roads should cause the least disturbance and have lower maintenance costs.
Figure 3-6 illustrates various erosion and sediment control practices. Aspects of road
construction addressed by the BMPs discussed under this management measure are
introduced below. Further information is provided in the discussions of the individual
BMPs.
and Composition
The shape of a road is an important component of runoff control. Terminology related to
road construction and road shape is illustrated in Figure 3-7. Road drainage and runoff
control are obtained by shaping the road surface to be insloping, outsloping, or crowned
(Figure 3-8). Road surfaces need to have and maintain one of these shapes at all points to
ensure good drainage (Moll et al., 1997). Insloping roads can be particularly effective
where soils are highly erodible and directing runoff directly to the fill slope would be
detrimental. Outsloped roads tend to dissipate runoff more than insloped roads, which
concentrate runoff at cross drain locations, and are useful where erosion of the backfill or
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-27
-------
Earth cuts sloped to a stable angle of repose will
encourage natural erosion control with vegetation
Sediment traps are dug to collect sediment an
prevent its movement further downstream.
ontrol method is to
ic material.
The most economical sediment control method is to
use the forest floor litter as a fitter to trap sediment.
Slash debris pushed into the soil controls erosion
and sediment by reducing flow velocities
Revegetation is encouraged with stable slopes, ],
retaining organic material and seeding.
Silt fences are a short term measure
during construction until vegetation is establi
Protection or enhancement of fish spawning beds
requires particular attention when crossing a rapids
Rock or boulder rip rap prevents bank erosion
and scour under abutments or piers.
Figure 3-6. Mitigation techniques used for controlling erosion and sediment to protect water quality and fish habitat (Ontario MNR, 1988).
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Right-of-Way -
Figure 3-7. Illustration of road structure terms (Moll et al., 1987).
Note: Direction of Road Surface Runoff
Figure 2—Types of road surface shape.
Figure 3-8. Types of road surface shape (Moll et al., 1997).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-29
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Sediment Runoff Distance and
Quantity Vary with Source
Seventy percent of sediment deposition from
roads constructed on three headwater water-
sheds in the mountains of central Idaho, where
the slope ranged from 15 to 40 percent, occurred
during the first year after construction, and on-
fourth of this occurred during road construction.
Sediment generally traveled less than 100 m from
its source. Average sediment travel distances
from fills, rock drains, berm drains, and landings
were between 4 m and 20 m, while that from
cross drains was 50 m. The maximum travel
distance from some cross drains was more than
250m.
The larger source area for runoff from cross
drains, including he road prism and upslope
watershed areas, accounts for more sediment
deposited form them and for the sediment from
them traveling farther than from other sources.
(Source: Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996)
ditch soil might be a problem. Crowned roads are
particularly suited to two-lane roads and to steep
single-lane roads that have frequent cross drains or
ditches and ditch relief culverts (Moll et al., 1997).
Crowns, inslopes, and outslopes will quickly lose
effectiveness if not maintained frequently, due to
micro-ruts created by traffic when the road surface
is damp or wet.
The composition of a road surface can be chosen to
effectively control erosion from the road surface
and slopes. It is important to choose a road surface
that is suitable to the topography, slope, aspect,
soils, and intended use. Small, temporary, dry
season roads can be left unsurfaced and decommis-
sioned after use to minimize their impact to water
quality. Roads that will be used more intensively or
for long periods can have road surfaces formed
from native material, aggregates, asphalt, or other
suitable materials. Any of these surface composi-
tions can be shaped in one of the ways discussed
above. Surface protection of the roadbed and cut-
and-fill slopes with a suitable material can
• Minimize soil losses during storms
• Reduce frost heave erosion production
• Restrain downslope movement of soil slumps
• Minimize erosion from softened roadbeds
Numerous studies have been conducted and have demonstrated the potential of a suitable
road surface composition to control erosion and sedimentation from forest roads. Swift
(1985) found that applying 20 centimeters (cm) of crushed rock to forest roads in the
southern Appalachian mountains yielded sediment runoff of 0.06 ton/acre/inch of rainfall,
a significant reduction from the 1.475 ton/acre/inch of rainfall yielded by a road surface
covered by only 5 cm of crushed rock (Figure 3-9). In another study in the Appalachian
mountains, Kochenderfer and Helvey (1984) demonstrated that using 1-inch crusher-run
gravel or 3-inch clean gravel reduced erosion from road surfaces to less than one-half of
that from 3-inch crusher-run gravel, and to only 12 percent of the erosion rate measured
from an ungraveled road surface (Table 3-12). In a more recent study (Johnson and
Bronsdon, 1995), a surface of bituminous oil or 15 to 20 cm of gravel reduced erosion
rates by as much as 96 percent below that measured from unsurfaced roads (Figure 3-10).
In the same study, logging slash left on roads was also found to provide a protective layer
and reduced erosion by 75 to 87 percent compared to unsurfaced roads.
Properly shaping a road surface (i.e., insloped, outsloped, or crowned) might not suffice
to control drainage adequately, and drainage structures in addition to the relief culverts on
insloped and crowned roads might be necessary for drainage control (Moll et al., 1997).
Structures such as broad-based dips, turnouts, and cross drains can be used under such
conditions, and these BMPs are further discussed below. The proper choice of drainage
structure, in combination with the chosen surface shape, and effective installation of the
3-30
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
c
~o
c
o
o
c
(D
E
T>
0)
C/3
Bare Soil
5cm
Crushed
Rock
Grass
BMP
15cm 20cm
Crushed Crushed
Rock Rock
Figure 3-9. Comparison of sedimentation rates (as tons of sediment in
runoff per acre per inch of rainfall) from different forest
road surfaces (after Swift, 1984).
Table 3-12. Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments in Controlling Soil Losses in West Virginia
(adapted from Kechenderfer and Helvey, 1984)
Surface Treatment
Ungraveled
3-inch crusher-run gravel
1-inch crusher-run gravel
3-inch clean gravel
Average Annual Soil Losses
(tons/acre)3
44.4
11.4
5.5
5.4
' Six measurements taken over a 2-year period.
120% -i
100% -
80% -
60%
fc
o
c
OL
40% -
20% -
0%
Gravel
15cm
Gravel
20cm
Dust Oil Butuminous Logging
Oil Slash
BMP
Figure 3-10. Percent of reduction in sediment runoff from a forest road
surface with different treatments. Percent reduction in
erosion is the amount below that observed on an untreated
road (after Johnson and Bronsdon, 1995).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-31
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
drainage structures is crucial to minimizing erosion from roads and sedimentation in water
bodies. Improper or insufficient installation of road drainage structures is the cause of
many road failures, whereas proper installation of the correct structure can reduce erosion
potential, extend the useful life of a road, and decrease the need for road maintenance.
Slope Stabilization
Road cuts and fills can be a large source of sediment once a logging road is constructed.
Stabilizing back slopes and fill slopes as they are constructed is an important process in
minimizing erosion from these areas. Combined with graveling or otherwise surfacing the
road, establishing grass or using another form of slope stabilization can significantly
reduce soil loss from road construction. If constructing on an unstable slope is necessary,
as it sometimes is, consider consulting with an engineering geologist or geotechnical
engineer for recommended construction methods and to develop plans for the specific
road segment. Unstable slopes that threaten water quality should always be considered
unsuitable for road building (Weaver and Hagans, 1984).
Planting grass on cut-and-fill slopes of
new roads can effectively reduce erosion,
and placing forest floor litter or brush
barriers on downslopes in combination
with establishing grass is also an
effective means to reduce downslope
sediment transport (Tables 3-13 and
3-14). Grass-covered fill is generally
more effective than mulched fill in
reducing soil erosion from newly
constructed roads because of the roots
that hold the soil in place, which are
lacking with any other covering placed
on the soil. Because grass needs some
time to establish itself, a combination of
straw mulch with netting to hold it in
place can be used to cover a seeded area
and effectively reduce erosion during the
period while grass is growing. The
30
25 r- 1
o 20 ^
Q- ^^1
| 15 •
* 10 •
5 1
0 ^—
• Fill Slope
D Cut Slope
J^
• — 1 •=] • —
No Control Native Exotic Wood
Grass Grass Excelsoir
Species Species Erosion
Mat
BMP
Figure 3-11. Sediment yield from plots using various forms of ground
covering. Sediment yield is per plot area over a 6-month period;
plots measured 1.5 m x 3.1 m (after Grace et al., 1998).
mulch and netting provide immediate erosion control and promote growth of the grass.
Figure 3-11 shows the results of a study conducted by Grace and others (1998) to demon-
strate the erosion control capacities of different cut-and-fill slope stabilization BMPs on
forest roads. The results of several studies on different types of slope stabilization BMPs
are summarized in Table 3-15.
Table 3-13. Reduction in the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20 Feet Long by Grass and Forest Debris (Swift, 1986)
Type of Soil Protection
Degree of Soil Protection
Number of Deposits per
1,000 Feet of Road
Grassed fill, litter and brush burned
Bare fill, forest litter
Mulched fill, forest litter
Grassed fill, forest litter, no brush barrier
Grassed fill, forest litter, brush barrier
Low
High
13.9
9.9
8.1
6.9
4.5
3-32
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
3-14. Comparison of Downslope of Sediment from for Yarious and Conditions (Swift, 1988)
Comparisons
All
Barrier8
Brush barriers
No brush barrier
Drainage1*
Culvert
Outsloped without culvert
Unfinished roadbed with berm
Grass fill and forest litter0
With brush barrier
With culvert
Without culvert
Without brush barrier
With culvert
Without culvert
Sites
(no.)
88
26
62
21
56
11
46
16
4
12
30
7
23
Slope
(%)
46
46
47
40
47
57
40
39
20
45
41
37
42
Mean
71
47
81
80
63
95
45
34
37
32
51
58
49
Max
314
156
314
314
287
310
148
78
43
78
148
87
148
Min
2
3
2
30
2
25
2
3
30
3
2
30
2
a Examined the effectiveness of leaving brush barriers in place below road fills, rather than removing brush barriers.
b Compared roads where storm water was concentrated at a culvert pipe to outsloped roads without a culvert. The berm was constructed on
an unfinished roadbed to prevent downslope drainage.
"Compared effectiveness of brush barriers versus drainage (culvert) systems.
Table 3-15. Effectiweness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest (loads (adapted from Megahan, 1980,1987)
Stabilization
Measure
Hydro-mulch, straw mulch, and dry
seeding15
Tree planting
Wood chip mulch
Straw mulch
Excelsior mulch
Paper netting
Asphalt-straw mulch
Straw mulch, netting, and planted
Straw mulch and netting
Straw mulch
Terracing
Straw mulch
Wood chip mulch
Straw mulch
Grass and legume seeding
Gravel surface
Dust oil
Bituminous surfacing
Portion of
Treated
Fill
Fill slope
Fill
Fill slope
Fill
Fill
Fill slope
Fill slope
Fill
Cut slope
Cut slope
Cut slope
fills
Road fills
Road cuts
Surface
Surface
Surface
Percent in
Erosion*
24 to 58
50
61
72
92
93
97
98
99
32 to 47
86
97
61
72
71
70
85
99
Reference
King, 1984
Megahan, 1974b
Ohlander, 1964
Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966
Burroughs and King, 1985
Ohlander, 1964
Ohlander, 1964
Megahan, 1974b
Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966
King, 1984
Unpublished datac
Dyrness, 1970
Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966
Ohlander, 1964
Dyrness, 1970
Burroughs and King, 1985
Burroughs and King, 1985
Burroughs and King, 1985
8 Percent in erosion compared to similar, untreated sites,
b No difference in erosion reduction between these three treatments.
0 Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID, nd.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-33
-------
Chapter 3C; Road Construction/Reconstruction
The predominant source of
sediment from logging is from
the construction and
maintenance of access roads.
Construction, Fish Crossings, and Fish
Passage
Chapter 2 discusses how road construction and road use can cause sediment: to be deliv-
ered to streams, and it reviews the water quality and fish passage problems associated
with sediment and stream crossings. The quality of surface waters to support early life
stages of fish can be degraded by nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities as
well. Salmonids and other fish that nest on stream bottoms are very susceptible to sedi-
ment pollution due to the settling of sediment that can smother nests and deplete the
oxygen available to the eggs. The eggs, buried 1 to 3 feet deep in the gravel redd, rely on
a steady flow of clean, cold water to bring oxygen and remove waste products. In coastal
streams, eggs hatch in a month or so, depending on water temperatures and species of
fish. Eggs hatch into alevin and remain in the gravel another 30 days or so, living on the
nutrients in their yolk sacs. As they develop into fry, the yolk gets used up, and fry
emerge through spaces in the gravel to begin life in the stream. During the 60-day period
when the eggs and alevin are in (lie gravel, any shifts of the stream bottom can kill them,
Recent studies in streams on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington found that if more
than 13 percent fine sediment (< 0.85 rnm) intruded into the redd, no steelhead or coho
salmon eggs survived (McHenry et al., 1994). Chinook salmon are the most susceptible to
increased fine sediment, followed by coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout, respec-
tively (Lotspeich and Everest, 1983). The different tolerances to fine sediment is due to
the different head diameters of the fry of the species.
The redd is a depression in the gravel streambed where the eggs are laid, and the depres-
sion creates a Venturi effect, drawing water down into the gravel. If the water in the
stream above is full of fine sediment, the sediment is drawn down into the redd and
smother the eggs.
In a healthy stream, young salmon and trout hide in the interstitial spaces between
cobbles and boulders to avoid predation. In streams that become extremely cold in winter,
young steelhead may actually burrow into the streambed and spend the winter in flowing
water down within the gravel. The area of the stream where flowing water extends down
into the gravel is also extremely important for aquatic invertebrates, which supply most
of the food for young salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. If fine sediment is clogging
interstitial spaces between streambed gravel, juvenile salmonids lose their source of
cover and food.
During the year coho salmon spend in freshwater, they prefer pools. High sediment
concentrations in the water can cause pools to fill with sediment and reduce or destroy
essential coho rearing habitat. Case studies in southwest Oregon showed that streams
damaged by logging can also have significant problems with mortality of salmon eggs
and alevin (Nawa and Frissell, 1993). When streams are affected by high sediment
deposition, these formerly productive low-gradient reaches become wide and shallow and
recovery of fish habitat can take decades (Frissell, 1992).
A fishway is any structure or modification to a natural or artificial structure for the
purpose of fish passage. Five common conditions at stream crossing culverts create
migration barriers (WADOE, 1999):
• Excess drop at culvert outlet
3-34
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
• High velocity within culvert barrel
• Inadequate depth within culvert barrel
• Turbulence within the culvert
• Debris accumulation at culvert inlet
Figure 3-12 illustrates four of these conditions.
Barriers to fish passage can be complete, partial,
or temporal. Complete barriers block the use of
the upper watershed, often the most productive
spawning habitat in the watershed for migratory
species of fish. Partial barriers block smaller or
weaker fish of a population. Culverts are there-
fore designed to accommodate smaller or weaker
individuals of target species, including juvenile
fish. Temporal barriers block migration during
some part of the year. Fish passage can be
provided in streams that have wide ranges of
flow by providing multiple culverts (Figure
3-13). They can delay some fish from arriving at
upstream locations, which for some fish (anadro-
mous salmonids that survive a limited amount of
time in fresh water) can cause limited distribu-
tion or mortality (WADOE, 1999). The FishXing
Web site (http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/
index.html) provides software and learning
systems for fish passage through culverts.
Figure 1. Culvert conditions that block fish
passage (alter Evans and Johnston 1974).
A. Velocity too great,
B. Flow in thin stream over bottom,
C. No resting pool below culvert,
D. Jump too high.
Figure 3-12. Culvert conditions that block fish passage (Yee and
Roelofs, 1980).
Figure 3-13. Multiple culverts for fish passage in streams that have a wide range
of flows (Hyson et al., 1982).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-35
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Stream Crossing Considerations
• Whether fish use the channel at the crossing
site
• Whether the crossing will be temporary or
permanent
• The type of vehicles that will use the crossing
• The slope, configuration, and stability of the
natural hillslopes on either side of the chan-
nel
• The slope of the channel bed
• The orientation of the stream to the proposed
road
• The expected 50- and 100-year flood dis-
charge
• The amount and type of sediment and woody
debris that is in transport within the channel
• The installation and subsequent maintenance
costs for the crossing
• The expected frequency of use
• Permits and other legal requirements
(Source: Weaver and Hagans, 1984)
of fish passing through a culvert and
relationship of the flow to the timing
guidelines for culvert design to meet
1984; Baker and Votapka, 1990).
Barriers at culverts can result from improper initial
design or installation, or they can be the result of
channel degradation that leaves culvert bottoms
elevated above the downstream channel. Changes
in hydrology due to an extensive road network can
be a primary reason for channel degradation, and
older culverts that might have been adequate when
installed can become inadequate for fish passage
when channel degradation or land use changes
cause changes in stream channel hydrology (Baker
and Votapka, 1990; WADOE, 1999). When such
changes occur in a watershed, inspect culverts and,
if necessary, replaced them with ones that meet
actual specifications.
Other problems at culverts include their not
providing the roughness and variability of the
adjacent stream channel bottom, which can create
short distances of increased water velocity and
turbulence (WADOE, 1999). These problems
create barriers to the upstream migration of juvenile
fish. Fish will not travel upstream under high water
velocity conditions (Barber and Downs, 1996).
Water velocity in culverts is a complex issue,
involving the length of the culvert in relation to
fish capabilities, depth of water, icing and debris
flows, and design flows in relation to fish migra-
tion upstream or downstream. The size and species
the magnitude, duration, frequency, and seasonal
of fish movement have to be considered in setting
fish passage requirements (Ashton and Carlson,
The addition of baffles to a culvert to affect water velocity and turbulence is not generally
recommended because of the regular cleaning that becomes necessary. In addition, it has
been found that turbulence at the edge of a baffled culvert actually creates a blockage to
fish passage, and in higher-velocity culverts passage success can be higher in smooth pipe
(Bates, 1994; Powers, 1996).
Countersunk culverts are recommended where fish passage is desired. Installation of
multiple, parallel culverts in place of a larger single culvert is discouraged except in
special cases, such as to permit fish passage where flows vary widely (see Figure 3-9).
Countersunk culverts allow for natural downstream transport of sediment and a natural
stream bottom within the culvert (White, 1996).
Wetland Road Considerations
Sedimentation is also a concern when considering road construction through wetlands.
Because of the fragility of these ecosystems, where an alternative route exists, avoid
putting a forest access road through a wetland. If it's necessary to traverse a wetland,
3-36
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
implement the BMPs suggested by the state. In addition, if road construction or mainte-
nance involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or other waters of the
United States, section 404(f) requires the application of specific BMPs designed to
protect the aquatic environment. (More information on wetlands and forestry, including a
list of the aforementioned BMPs, is provided in Chapter 3, section J.)
Of
Many states have found roads to consistently be sources of sediment discharge to
streams. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources assessed BMP implementation and
effectiveness and found that roads were consistently the most: problematic with respect to
proper BMP implementation. Drainage ditches, culverts, and stream crossings were most
frequently the points of origin of stream sedimentation. The Virginia Department of
Forestry also found that water control structures on roads are often inadequately used and
applied. The Department found that water bars, rolling dips, and broad-based dips were
usually installed improperly. Water bars, for instance, were built using fill only, rather
than by cutting into the road bed and then using fill material to shape the bar. These
structures were often placed too infrequently and too far apart as the road grade in-
creased, and in some cases they were installed backwards, being angled uphill with the
outlet pointing upslope.
The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division, also
monitored BMP implementation and effectiveness and similarly found that the most
frequent departures from BMP implementation standards and sources of effects were
associated with providing adequate road surface drainage, routing road drainage through
adequate filtration zones before the runoff entered a stream, maintaining erosion control
structures, and providing energy dissipaters at drainage structure outlets. The division
also found that high-risk BMPs were more frequently not applied properly, and water
quality effects from them were common.
The Virginia Department of Forestry assessed BMP implementation and effectiveness in
1994 and concluded from the study that although improvement was needed in meeting
minimum standards of BMP implementation, properly implemented stream crossings (as
well as SMAs and preharvest plans) are crucial to protecting water quality. Where not
implemented properly, stream crossings are less effective than they could be. Improper
sizing, placement, and installation of culverts are the causes of most failures. Culverts
often were found to be too short for the intended roadbed width, and consequently they
became clogged or buried. Some culverts were placed improperly, and without correction
could have been rendered ineffective or swept away by storm water cutting through fill
material.
In general, poor BMP effectiveness can be due to many factors, including the following:
• A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins.
• A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs.
• A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs.
* The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and
can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been
completed.
• A lack of timely implementation and maintenance of BMPs.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-37
-------
Chapter 3C; Road Construction/Reconstruction
Construction and Crossing BMP
Costs of forestry BMPs for water quality protection are difficult to specify because the
need for and design of BMPs varies from site to site with changes in topography, soil, and
proximity to water, among other factors. However, with respect to road construction BMPs,
some generalizations can be made. In a study of the costs of various forestry practices in
the southeastern United States, practices associated with road construction were generally
found to be the most expensive, regardless of terrain, and the costs for broad-based dips
and water bars increased as slope increased (Lickwar, 1989) (Table 346). The proximity
of roads to watercourses also increases the cost: of road construction because of the
increased need to prevent sediment runoff from reaching the surface waters.
Unit cost comparisons for road surfacing practices (Swift, 1984a) revealed that grass is
the least expensive alternative at $272 per kilometer of road (1998 dollars) (Table 347).
Initial material costs alone, however, are misleading because a durable road surface can
endure several years of use, whereas a grassed or thinly graveled surface will generally
need regular maintenance and resurfacing. Grass and thin gravel coverings are also likely
to result in more erosion and sedimentation. Table 348 compares the cost of using a
single BMP (dry seeding alone) versus using multiple BMPs (seeding in conjunction with
plastic netting) to control erosion (Megahan, 1987).
Table 3-1B. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross iewenues) for ioad Construction (Lickwar, 1989)
Location
Practice Component
Stream crossings
dips
Water
Added road
Sites9
$45
$16,550
$12,225
$5,725
(0.01%)
(2.88%)
(2.13%)
(1.00%)
Sites0
$185
$10,101
$6,371
(0.03%)
(1.49%)
(0.94%)
Not provided
Fiat
$4,303
$4,649
$2,999
(0.33%)
(0.36%)
(0.24%)
Not provided
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars.
" Based on a 1,148-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $399,685. Slopes average over 9 percent.
b on a 1,104-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $473,182. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to 8 percent,
c Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $899,491. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to 3 percent.
Table 3-17. Cost of Grawei and ioad Surfaces (North Carolina, West Yirginia) (Swift, 1084a)
Surface
Grass
Crushed rock (5 cm)a
Crushed rock (15 cm)a
Large stone (20 cm)a
Quantity/km
28 kg Ky-31
14 kg rye
405 kg 10-1 0-10
900 kg lime
Labor and equipment
425 ton
1,275 ton
1,690 ton
Unit
$1.32/kg
$1.03/kg
$0.189/kg
$0.052/kg
$97.49/km
$7.34/ton
$7.34/ton
$8.22/ton
Total Cost/km
$36.90
$14.50
$76.89
$46.59
$97.49
$3,120
$9,361
$13,893
Note: All updated to 1998 dollars.
' Values in parentheses are thickness or depth of surfacing material.
Table 3-18. Costs of Erosion Control in Idaho (Megahan, 1987)
Measure
Cost ($/acre)
Dry seeding
Plastic netting over
$178
$8,124
3-38
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Construction
4- Follow the design developed during preharvest planning to minimize erosion by
properly timing and limiting ground disturbance operations.
Verify with site visits that information used during preharvest planning to develop road
layout and surfacing designs is accurate. Make any changes to road and road surface
construction designs that are necessary based on new information obtained during these
site visits.
4- During wad construction, operate equipment to minimize unintentional movement of
excavated material downslope.
4 Properly dispose of organic debris generated during road construction,
* Stack usable materials such as timber, pulpwood, and firewood in suitable locations
and use them to the extent possible. Organic debris can be used as mulch for erosion
control, piled and burned, chipped, scattered, place in windrows, or removed to
designated sites. Slash can be useful if placed as windrows along the base of the fill
slope. A windrow is created by piling logging debris and unmerchantable woody
vegetation in rows on the contour of (lie land. Arranged in this manner, the slash
material provides a barrier to overland flow, prevents the concentration of runoff,
and reduces erosion.
* Don't use organic debris as fill material for road construction since the organic
material eventually decomposes and causes fill failure.
• Perform any work in the stream channel by hand to the extent practicable. Machin-
ery can be used in the SMA as long as the desired SMA objective is not compro-
mised.
4- Prevent slash from entering streams and promptly remove slash that accidentally
enters streams to prevent problems related to slash accumulation.
To the extent possible, prevent slash from entering streams. If allowed to stay in streams,
it can cause flow or fish passage problems, or dissolved oxygen depression as it decom-
poses. Leave natural debris in stream channels, and remove only that slash that is contrib-
uted during road construction or harvesting. Large woody debris is an important source of
energy for aquatic organisms, especially in smaller headwater streams, and it creates
habitat diversity important: to aquatic invertebrates and young fish. It is important,
therefore, to inspect streams before any work is done near them and to attempt to leave
them in a condition similar to that prior to the work.
4 Compact the road base al the proper moisture content, surfacing, and grading to give
the designed road surface drainage shaping.
The predominant source of sediment associated with forest harvesting is the construction
and maintenance of access roads, which contribute as much as 90 percent of the total
eroded sediments (Appelbloom et al., 1998). The annual production of sediment from
roads can be as high as 100 tons per hectare (40.5 tons per acre) of road surface or more
(Grayson et al., 1993; Kockenderfer and Helvey, 1984). Management practices, including
gravel surfacing, proper road maintenance, and proper drainage control, can reduce
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-39
-------
Chapter 3C; Road Construction/Reconstruction
sediment loss. Gravel surfacing has to be of a sufficient depth (e.g., 15-20 cm). Improp-
erly maintained roads can produce up to 50 percent more sediment than properly main-
tained roads. Since roads can produce large quantities of sediment even when they are
well maintained, careful consideration of their placement and management is extremely
important to minimizing their effects on water quality.
4- When soil moisture is high, promptly suspend earthwork operations and weather-
proof the partially completed work.
Regulating traffic on logging roads during unfavorable weather is an important phase of
erosion control. Construction and logging under these conditions destroy drainage
structures, plug up culverts, and cause excessive rutting, thereby increasing the amount
and the cost of maintenance.
4- Consider geotextiles for use on any section of road requiring aggregate material-
lay ers for surfacing.
Geotextile is a synthetic permeable textile material used with soil, rock, or any other
geotechnical engineering-related materials (Wiest, 1998). Also known as geosynthetics,
geotextiles are associated with high-standard all-season roads, but can also be used in
low-standard logging roads. Geotextiles have three primary functions: drainage (filtra-
tion), soil separation (confinement), and soil reinforcement (load distribution). These
functions are performed separately or simultaneously, but not all functions are provided
by each type of gcotcxtile, so use care when making a purchase. Geotextiles reduce the
amount of aggregate needed, thus reducing the cost of the road (Wiest, 1998).
The location of a geotextile along a forest road does not affect installation procedures.
When installing geotextiles, proper procedure includes the following steps:
• Clear the subgradc of sharp objects, stumps, and debris.
• Grade the surface to provide proper drainage and cross-slope shaping.
• Unroll the geotextile on the subgrade. The amount of overlap depends on the load-
bearing capacity of the subgrade, and varies from 1.5 to 3 feet. Sewing may be
necessary if the geotextile is to provide reinforcement.
• Place and compact the aggregate fill. Depth of the aggregate is determined by
subgrade strength and the anticipated wheel loading (usually between 9 and 24
inches). It might be necessary to back-dump the aggregate onto the geotextile and
spread with a dozer or grader. The rock is feathered out, since pushing it onto the
site produces an uneven distribution of the aggregate. Spread the aggregate in the
same direction as the geotextile overlap to avoid separation.
• Compact the aggregate by conventional methods.
Streambanks and other slopes with light wave action can be stabilized by placing the
revetment material directly on top of the geotextile. Installing the geotextile underneath
the revetment material prevents the occurrence of scour which normally takes place along
strearnbanks behind BMPs such as rip-rap. To ensure that the geotextile stays in place,
toe it in at the top and bottom.
Geotextiles extend the service life of roads, increase their load-carrying capacity, and
reduce the incidence of ruts. These benefits are realized due to the textiles separating
aggregate structural layers from subgrade soils while allowing the passage of water.
3-40 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
4> Protect access points to the site that lead from a paved public right-of-way with
stone, wood chips, corduroy logs, wooden mats, or other material to prevent soil or
mud from being tracked onto the paved road,
This practice prevents tracking of sediment onto roadways, thereby preventing the
subsequent washoff of that sediment during storm events. When necessary, clean truck
wheels to remove sediment before entering a public right-of-way.
4> Use pioneer roads to reduce the amount of area disturbed and ensure the stability of
the area involved.
Pioneer roads are temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access
when building permanent roads. Confine pioneer roads to the construction limits of the
surveyed permanent roadway, and it is important that: pioneer roads be fitted with tempo-
rary drainage structures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and road deterioration.
4- If the use of borrow or gravel pits is needed during forest road construction, locate
rock quarries, gravel pits, and borrow pits outside SMAs and above the 50-year flood
level of any waters to minimize the adverse effects caused by the resulting sedimenta-
tion. Avoid excavating below the water table.
Gravel mining directly from streams causes a multitude of effects, including destruction
of fish spawning sites, turbidity, and sedimentation. During the construction and use of
rock quarries, gravel pits, or borrow pits, either divert runoff water onto the forest floor or
pass it through one or more settling basins. Revegetate and reclaim rock quarries, gravel
pits, spoil disposal areas, and borrow pits upon abandonment.
Surface Drainage Practices
Install surface drainage controls at intervals
that remove storm water from the roadbed
before the flow gains enough volume and
velocity to erode the surface. Avoid discharge
onto fill slopes unless the fill slope has been
adequately protected. Route discharge from
drainage structures onto the forest floor so
that water disperses and infiltrates. Methods
of road surface drainage include the following:
* Broad-based dips. A broad-based dip is a
gentle roll in the centerline profile of a road
that is designed to be a relatively permanent
and self-maintaining water diversion struc-
ture that can be traversed by any vehicle
(Figure 3-14). Outslope dips 3 per cent to
divert storm water off the roadbed and onto
the forest floor, where transported soil can be
trapped by forest litter. Use broad-based dips
on roads having a gradient of 10 percent or
less because on steeper grades they can be
difficult for loaded trucks to traverse
6-inch
minimum-
Numbers for illustrative purposes only. Dimensions will vary.
CUT
BERM
Figure 3-14. Broad-based dip installation, A broad-based dip Is a
portion of road to carrf water from the inside
to the outside onto natural ground (Minnesota
ONR, 1990).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-4
-------
Chapter 3C; Road Construction/Reconstruction
i
Road Surface
4%
4%
Crowned Fill Section
for low ground use
I
4%
I2ft
i
Crowned Turnpike Section
for low ground use where fill is unavailable
I
4%
Figure 3-15.
(Kochenderfer, 1995), Dips can be difficult to construct: on very rocky sections of
roads as well.
Road outsloping, Insloping, Crowning, and Grading. Water accumulation on road
surfaces can be minimized by grading and insloping or outsloping roadbeds
(Figure 3-15), This minimizes erosion and the potential for road failure. Outsloping
involves grading a road so that the entire width of the road slopes down the hill it is
cut into, and it is appropriate when fill slopes are stable and drainage won't flow
directly into stream channels. Outsloping the roadbed keeps water from flowing
next to and undermining the cutbank, and it is intended to spill water off the road in
small volumes along its length. Give the width of the road a 2 to 3 percent outslope.
In addition to outsloping the
roadbed, construct a short broad-
based dip to turn water off the
surface. The effectiveness of
outsloping is limited by roadbed
rutting during wet conditions.
Providing a berm on the outside
edge of an outsloped road during
construction, and until loose fill
material is protected by vegetation,
can eliminate erosion of the fill. A
continuous berrn (i.e., a low rnound
of soil or gravel built along the
edge of a road) along a roadside
can reduce total sediment loss by
an average of 99 percent over a
standard graded soil road surface
(Applebloom el al., 1998). Benns
need to have openings provided to
allow water to drain off the road
surface at appropriate locations
where a suitable infiltration or
sediment trap site is reached (Swift
and Burns, 1999). Construct berms
high enough to contain the storm
water, and wide enough and with a
coarse material to prevent their
erosion. Berms are also installed
over culvert crossings to prevent
runoff from draining directly into
streams. A graveled road surface
or a grassed strip on the edge of
the driving surface can reduce total
loss of sediment from roads by up
,..,,.,,,. . . ..... _. . , .. to 60 percent over a standard
If road profiles for drainage and stability. Choice of cross section *
on soil slope, and traffic graded soil road surface. Also,
relume. lines land contour and solid lines natural berms can form along the
indicate constructed road! (Wiest, 1888). edge of older roadbeds or at
*" Outslope Section
for use on moderate slopes for low
volume roads and stable soils
I
I
4-6%! ^-""
I
Inslope with Ditch Section
for use on steep slopes and areas with
fine textured soils
4%
4%.,-
Crowned and Ditched Section
for high volume roads on steep side slopes
I
indicates percent slope and direction of surface water flow
3-42
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
drainage locations on constructed berms over time and block drainage. Proper
maintenance, therefore, is necessary.
Insloped roads carry road surface water to a ditch along the cutbank. Ditch gradients of
between 2 and 8 percent usually perform best. Slopes greater than 8 percent give runoff
waters too much momentum and enough erosive force to carry excessive sediment and
debris for long distances, and slopes of less than 2 percent tend to cause water to drain too
slowly and do not provide the runoff with enough energy to move accumulated debris
with it. The ditch grade also depends on the soil type—nearer to 2 percent on less stable
soils and nearer to 8 percent on stable soils.
A crowned road surface is a combination of both an outsloped and insloped surface with
the high point (crown) at the center of the road (Moll et al., 1997). The crowned road
provides drainage to both sides of the roadway, and a drainage ditch is usually placed
next to the road on the insloped side. Properly spaced and sized culverts then direct the
runoff to an appropriate grassed buffer, detention basin,
or other sediment control structure.
• Relief culverts. Relief culverts move water from an
inside ditch to the outside edge of a road for disper-
sion. The culverts should protrude from both ends at
least 1 foot beyond the fill and be armored at inlets
to prevent undercutting and at outlets to prevent
erosion of fill or cut slopes (Figure 3-16).
Where the slope on the cutslope above a culvert is steep,
as is often the case because of the need to cut into the
slope to accommodate the culvert opening, soil erosion
above culverts and culvert plugging might be a problem.
Installing a riser pipe on the inlet end of a culvert with
holes or slits cut at a proper height to allow water to enter
(which depends on the amount of soil eroding and flow in
the ditch) can prevent plugging while allowing runoff
drainage. A ditch dam will reinforce the entrance of water
into the culvert through the riser holes (Firth, 1992).
hand
tamp
Figure 3-16. Design and installation of relief culvert
(Vermont DFPR, 1987).
Open-top or pole culverts. Open-top or pole culverts
are temporary drainage structures that are most useful for intercepting runoff flowing
down road surfaces (Figure 3-17). They can also be used as a substitute for pipe
culverts on roads of smaller operations, if properly built and maintained, but don't
use them for handling intermittent or live streams. Place open-top culverts at angles
across a road to provide gradient to the culvert and to ensure that no two wheels of a
vehicle hit it at once. For an open-top culvert to function properly, careful installa-
tion and regular maintenance are necessary. Open-top culverts are recommended for
ongoing operations only and are best removed upon completion of forestry activities
(Wiest, 1998). These culverts generally slope below the perpendicular to the road at
10 to 45 degrees. Additional maintenance can be necessary as the angle approaches
10 degrees because at this angle debris tends to accumulate; an angle of 30 to 45
degrees is usually recommended (Wiest, 1998).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-43
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Road Surface
8-in galvanized
steefspike
1-inch diameter galvanized pipe spacer with
1V2 -inch diameter galvanized washers
•*• Sin •*• ^Gravel Fill
Compacted
backfill
60d galvanized nails
3-in x 8-in treated
timber planks
3-inx 12-in treated
timber plank
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
Edge of Road
18-inch maximum
distance between
spacers
6-inches between end of
culvert and first spacer
Surface Flow
Downgrade
.10° minimum angle downgrade
/ for drainage
Riprap outfall to avoid
downwashing
TYPICAL PLAN VIEW
Figure 3-17. Details of installation of open-top and pole culverts (Wiest,
1998; Vermont DFPR, 1987).
Table 3-B.
Spacing of Turnouts
Road Grade
(percent)
2-5
6-IO
11-15
16-20
Spacing
(feet)
500-300
300-200
200-100
100
Source: Cooperative Extension Service Division of Agricultural Sciences
and Natural Resources, Oklahoma State University
Figure 3-18. Grading and spacing of road turnouts (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999).
Open-top culverts constructed of 8-inch or
10-inch pipe are useful as a supplemental
means of runoff control on steep sections
of roads where broad-based dips are
difficult to install and difficult for trucks
to traverse (Kockenderfer, 1995). They are
also useful on excessively rocky sections
of roads where broad-based dips are
difficult to construct. Rectangular open-
ings spaced evenly along the top of a
piece of pipe direct runoff into the pipe,
and unbroken spacings between the
openings provide structural integrity. The
culverts can be installed by hand and can
be removed and used elsewhere when a
road is decommissioned. Their trenches
are shallower than those for pole culverts.
Discharges from all types of culverts can
be controlled using plastic corrugated
culvert piping cut in half or, where
something that blends in with the sur-
roundings is desired, with riprap
(Kockenderfer, 1995). Diversions or in-
ditch dams can be placed in ditches to
ensure that flow in ditches is directed into
culverts and it does not bypass culverts
and continue to gain momentum and
erosive force.
• Ditches and turnouts. Use ditches only
where necessary to discharge water to
vegetated areas via turnouts (Fig-
ure 3-18). Turnouts should be
used wherever there is an
adequate, safe outlet site
where the water can infiltrate.
In most cases, the less water a
ditch carries and the more
frequently water is dis-
charged, the better. Construct
wide, gently sloping ditches,
especially in areas with highly
erodible soils. Slow the
velocity of water by installing
check dams, rock dams that
intercept water flow, along the
ditch or lining the ditch with
rocks. Check dams also trap
sediment and need to be
3-44
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
inspected for sediment build-up. Additionally, stabilize ditches with rock and/or
vegetation and protect outfalls with rock, brush barriers, live vegetation, or other
means. Roadside ditches need to be large enough to carry runoff from moderate
storms. A standard ditch used on secondary logging roads is a triangular section 45
cm deep, 90 cm wide on the roadway side, and 30 cm wide on the cutbank side. The
minimum ditch gradient is 0.5 percent, and 2 percent is preferred to ensure good
drainage. Runoff is diverted frequently to prevent erosion or overflow.
+ Install turnouts, wing ditches, and dips to disperse runoff and reduce the amount of
road surface drainage that flows directly into watercourses.
+ Install appropriate sediment control structures to trap suspended sediment trans-
ported by runoff and prevent its discharge into the aquatic environment.
Methods to trap sediment include the following:
• Sediment traps. Sediment traps are used downstream of erodible soil sites, such as
cuts and fills, to keep sediment from flowing downstream and entering water bodies
(Figure 3-19) (Ontario MNR, 1990). They are located close to the source of sedi-
ment and preferably in a low area. Use them for drainage areas of less than 5 acres.
Size sediment traps so that the expected sediment runoff fills them at about the time
that the disturbed area reestablishes vegetation. If sediment accumulates beyond this
time, periodic cleaning becomes necessary. Sediment traps are most effective at
removing large sediment particles.
• Brush barriers. Brush barriers are slash materials piled at the toe slope of a road or
at the outlets of culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars. Install brush barriers at the
toes of fills if the fills are located within 150 feet of a defined stream channel. Brush
barriers must have good contact with the ground and be constructed approximately
on the contour if they are to be effective in minimizing sediment runoff. Figure 3-20
shows the use of a brush barrier at the toe of fill. Proper installation is important
because if the brush barrier is not firmly anchored and embedded in the slope, brush
material can be ineffective
for sediment removal and
can detach to block ditches
or culverts. In addition to
use as brush barriers, slash
can be spread over exposed
mineral soils to reduce the
effect of precipitation events
and surface flow.
Silt fences. Silt fences are
temporary barriers used to
intercept sediment-laden
runoff from small areas.
They act as a strainer: silt
and sand are trapped on the
surface of the fence while
water passes through. They
usually consist of woven
geotextile filter fabric or
Figure 3-19. Sediment trap constructed to collect runoff from ditch along cutslope
(Ontario MNR, 1990).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-45
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Road fill
• Anchor log
straw bales. Install silt fences
before earthmoving operations
and place them as much along
the contour as possible
(Figure 3-21).
• Filter strips. Sediment control
is achieved by providing a
filter or buffer strip between
streams and construction
activities to use the natural
filtering capabilities of the
forest floor and litter (Fig-
ure 3-22). The Streamside
Management Area manage-
ment measure recommends the
presence of a filter or buffer
strip around all water bodies.
Filter strips are effective at
trapping sediment only when
the runoff entering them is
dispersed. Concentrated flows, such as from culverts, ditches, gullies, etc., entering
filter strips will tend to cut a path through the filter strip and render it ineffective.
Foresters with the USDA Forest Service working in the Allegheny National Forest in
Pennsylvania inspected numerous roads and streams to determine the minimum length of
filter strip between the two that was necessary for preventing sediment from reaching the
streams (USDA-FS, 1994, 1995). They found that no matter what the slope, filter strips
100 feet in length were the minimum necessary to prevent sedimentation; in more than a
few instances, filter strips as long as 200 feet were necessary. In a test of filtering capaci-
ties of roadside erosion control techniques in Tuskegee National Forest in Macon County,
Alabama, sediment fences retained 29 percent of runoff sediment and vegetative strips
I— Brush & slash
debris
Figure 3-20. Brush barrier placed at toe of fill to intercept runoff and sediment
(Ontario MNR, 1990).
Compacted
backfill
4"x4" trench
Figure 3-21. Silt fence installation (Wisconsin DNR, 1989).
3-46
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
retained 13.5 percent. Sediment below riprap
increased by 10 percent, indicating that riprap
has no ability to filter sediment from runoff.
These findings illustrate the importance of both
using guidelines developed for the area where
the harvest is to occur and inspecting points
where runoff is concentrated (e.g., culvert
outlets, turnouts) to see if sedimentation controls
are sufficient to protect streams. Slope, type of
vegetation, ground litter, and nature of flow
(channelized or overland) combine to determine
how effective filter strips are, and how wide they
must be. If sedimentation is found to be occur-
ring despite having installed BMPs according to
specifications additional sediment control BMPs
might be needed.
Road Slope Stabilization Practices
Figure 3-22. Protective filter strip maintained between road and
stream to trap sediment and provide shade and
streambank stability (Vermont DFPR, 1987).
+ Visit locations where roads are to be con-
structed on steep slopes or cut into hillsides to verify that these are the most favor-
able locations for the roads.
Aerial photos and topographic and soil maps can inaccurately represent actual conditions,
especially if these media are more than a few years old. Visiting a location where roads
are to be cut into slopes or built on steep slopes or where skid trails, landings, and
equipment maintenance areas are to be located is valuable for verifying that the informa-
tion used during planning is accurate. Such visits can also help in determining whether
roads can be located to pose less risk of erosion than the risk associated with the locations
originally chosen.
+ Use straw bales, straw mulch, grass seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control
and revegetation techniques to stabilize slopes and minimize erosion (Figure 3-23).
Straw bales and straw mulch are temporary measures used to protect freshly dis-
turbed soils and are effective when implemented and maintained until adequate
vegetation has established to prevent erosion.
+ Compact the fill to minimize erosion and ensure road stability.
During construction, fills or embankments are built up by gradual layering. Compact the
entire surface of each layer with a tractor or other construction equipment. If the road is
to be grassed, do not compact the final layer in order to provide an acceptable seedbed.
+ Revegetate or stabilize disturbed areas, especially at stream crossings.
Cutbanks and fill slopes along forest roads are often difficult to revegetate. Properly
condition slopes to provide a seedbed, including rolling embankments and scarifying cut
slopes. The rough soil surfaces provide niches in which seeds can lodge and germinate.
Seed as soon as it is feasible after the soil has been disturbed, preferably before it rains.
Early grassing and spreading of brush or erosion-resisting fabrics on exposed soils at
stream crossings are imperative. See the Revegetation of Disturbed Areas management
measure for a more detailed discussion.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-47
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Leave no gaps between bales -
Staked and entrenched
straw bale -
Runoff
4" deep trench
Drive stake in 8"
Stream Crossing
Practices
+ Based on information
obtained from site visits,
make any alterations to
the harvesting plan that
are necessary or prudent
to protect surface waters
from sedimentation or
other forms of pollution
and to ensure the ad-
equacy offish passage.
After preharvest planning
has been completed with the
aid of aerial photos and/or
topographic maps, site visits
can be conducted to verify
the information used to
determine the locations of
stream crossings. Photos
and maps record the land-
scape at a moment in time,
and changes might have
occurred since these media
were created. Land use
changes in the upper portion of the watershed in which harvesting occurs could have altered
streamflow, which in turn might have modified stream corridor characteristics. As a result,
alternative stream crossing locations might have to be found. Slopes might be inaccurately
represented on topographic maps, and therefore stream crossing approaches or roads near
streams might have to be relocated to avoid steep grades, or the width of SMAs might have
to be increased. Land use changes in the watershed that increase streamflow or changes in
weather patterns (such as numerous recent years of above-average rainfall) that affect
streamflow characteristics might call for larger culverts than those originally intended or a
switch from fords to culverts or from culverts to temporary bridges to ensure that fish can
pass and that stream crossings can adequately handle streamflow. Refer to Fish Passage
Practices later in this section for further information on constructing stream crossings that
ensure adequate fish passage.
+ Construct stream crossings to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
Erosion and sedimentation can be minimized by avoiding any operation of machinery in
water bodies. It is especially important to not work in or adjacent to live streams and water
channels during periods of high streamflow, intense rainfall, or migratory fish spawning.
Avoid stream crossings whenever practical alternatives are available. When it is necessary to
construct stream crossings, install as few of them as possible, select their locations carefully,
and select the most appropriate type of stream crossing for the particular site (Blinn et al.,
1999). Use existing stream crossings whenever this would affect water quality less than
Figure 3-23. Details of hay bale installation, used to prevent sediment from skid trails and
roads from entering surface waters (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999;
Vermont DFPR, 1987).
3-48
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
constructing a new one. Make crossings at the narrowest practical portion of a stream
and, if possible, cross at a right angle to the stream. Crossing at right angles reduces the
potential for sediment to be carried down the road and deposited into the stream during a
rain event. If the right angle crossing is too long it is likely to be ineffective. Crossing at
right angles is not always practical, particularly in gentle topography. Gentle topography
does not accelerate runoff into streams as steep angles do. If there is a gentle grade to a
stream, the installation of water turnouts and a broad-based dip on each side of the
crossing might suffice. This diverts the majority of the water that is runoff down the road.
Avoid sags in grades on stream crossings, as they can cause road runoff to enter the
stream (Swift and Burns, 1999). Road grade, whether up or down, should be maintained
over the length of the crossing and the runoff diverted from the road at the first feasible
location after the crossing.
Diverting a stream from its natural course is a potential problem when any stream cross-
ing is constructed. When the capacity of a culvert under a stream crossing is too small or
a culvert becomes plugged, flow is diverted around the culvert (Furniss et al., 1997). The
stream might maintain its natural course (flow across the road parallel to the culvert), or,
if the road has an inclining grade across the stream crossing in the direction of
streamflow or it slopes downward away from a stream crossing in at least one direction,
flow is diverted along the road for a distance until it reaches a low point, flows out of the
road, and finds a new course to rejoin the original stream course. If left unchecked, such
unintentional diversion can result in very large amounts of erosion and sedimentation and
long-term adverse effects to roads and aquatic habitats. Stream diversion can also be
caused by accumulations of snow and ice on the road that direct: water out of the channel.
Diversion potential is greatest on outsloped roads that redirect stream water down a road
instead of across it (Best et al., 1995).
Stream diversion is best avoided by properly sizing culverts based on streamflow, con-
structing crossings such that their grade rises away from the crossing at each approach,
inspecting stream crossings regularly after their construction, and maintaining roads and
stream crossings properly (Bohn, 1998). Eliminating the potential for stream diversion by
properly planning, installing, and maintaining roads and stream crossings is, in the long
term, much less expensive and straightforward than attempting to correct improper design
and installation after a stream crossing fails (Furniss ct al., 1997).
4- Install a stream crossing that is appropriate to the situation and conditions.
Determining the stream classification and the type of road to be constructed (e.g., tempo-
rary, seasonal, or permanent all-weather) is the first step in defining the type of stream
crossing to be installed (Weaver, 1994). Design stream crossings to minimize effect on
water quality, to handle peak runoff from flood waters, and to allow for adequate fish
passage (where fish could be seasonally present). There are three basic subcategories of
both permanent and temporary stream crossings: (1) bridges, (2) fords, and (3) culverts.
• Bridges. Temporary or portable bridges are being used increasingly because they can
be installed and removed with minimal site disturbance or water quality effect and
reused (Figure 3-24) (Taylor et al., 1999). Temporary stream crossings can be
constructed of poly vinyl chloride and high-density polyethylene pipe bundles, and
portable bridges are often constructed of steel (Blinn et al., 1999; Taylor et al.,
1999). Approaches on weak soils can be protected with logs, wood mats, wood
panels, or expanded metal grating placed over a woven geotextile.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-4
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Figure 3-24. Portable bridge for temporary stream crossing
(Indiana DNR, 1998).
• Fords. A ford is a low-water crossings that uses
existing or constructed stream bottoms to
support vehicles when crossing a stream
(Figure 3-25). A ford is an appropriate stream
crossing structure under the following circum-
stances (Wiest, 1998):
- The streambed has a firm rock or coarse
gravel bottom, and the approaches are low
and stable enough to support traffic.
- Traffic volume is low.
- Water depth is less than 3 feet.
- Ford will not prevent fish migration.
If log, coarse gravel, or gabion is used to create a
driving surface at a stream ford, install the crossing
flush with the streambed to minimize erosion and to
allow fish passage. Stabilize approaches to the ford
using nonerodible material that extends at least 50
feet from the ford on both sides of the stream
crossing.
Figure 3-25. A stream ford. Hard and stable approaches to a ford are
necessary (Indiana DNR, 1998).
The following is a common procedure for
crossing a small stream where a streambed is
not armored with bedrock or an otherwise
stable foundation:
- Place several inches of rock down
on the streambed. The rock size
depends on actual costs, haul
distance, and how much is to be
installed. Normally, 2 feet or more
of rock is installed.
- Place geotextiles over the rock.
Geotextile costs approximately
$550 per 1,000 square yards.
- Spread out approximately 1 foot of
gravel. The amount and size of
gravel varies with the conditions of
the stream crossing.
Unless they are very large, stream fords are often the least expensive stream crossing to
construct (Taylor et al., 1999). However, they can have greater effects on water quality
than other crossings because sediment is introduced during construction and vehicle
crossings. They also permit sediment-laden runoff to flow downslope directly into a
stream unless adequate runoff diversions are installed.
• Stream Crossing Culverts. Stream crossing culverts are placed on roads where a
semi-permanent or permanent stream crossing is necessary and to minimize
interference with streamflow and stream ecology. Culverts often need outlet and
3-50
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
inlet protection to keep water from scouring away supporting material and to keep
debris from plugging the culvert. Firmly anchor culverts and compact the earth at
least halfway up the side of the pipe to prevent water from leaking around it (Figure
3-26). Energy dissipaters, such as riprap and slash, can be useful for this if installed
at culvert outlets. If riprap is used for inlet protection, a layer of geotextile should be
placed behind the riprap to prevent erosion. Culvert spacing depends on rainfall
intensity, drainage area, topography, and amount of forest cover. Most state forestry
departments can provide recommendations for culvert pipe diameters.
According to Murphy and Miller (1997), culverts should be able to handle large flows—
at least the 50-year flood. The larger the drainage area leading to a culvert and the steeper
the topography, the larger the culvert needs to be to adequately handle the storm flow. If
culverts are not properly sized for site-specific factors, culvert blowouts and overtopping
can occur. Improper culvert sizing and spacing in Breitenbush, Oregon, led to severe road
damage after a storm, and the estimated cost for the additional culverts that would have
properly drained the watershed was $23,500, or 21 percent of the estimated $110,000 that
was necessary to restore the road after the storm (Copstead et al., 1998).
If possible, install arch culverts (Figure 3-4) to avoid disturbance to the stream bottom, or
place culverts within the natural streambed (Figure 3-27). Place the inlet on or below the
streambed to minimize flooding upstream and to facilitate fish passage. Align large
culverts with the natural course and gradient of the stream unless the inlet condition can
be improved and the erosion potential reduced with some channel improvement. Use
energy dissipators at the
downstream end of the
culverts to reduce the
erosion energy of emerg-
ing water.
• Design stream
crossings to fail
during very large
storm events.
Stream crossings cannot
be designed for the largest
possible storm that could
occur, and rarely but
eventually many streams
will carry flows that
exceed even the largest
stream crossings along it.
If stream crossings are not
designed to fail under
such circumstances, major
erosion can result. One of
the most important aspects
of designing a stream
crossing for failure is to
design the path that
excessive stream flow will
ROAD SURFACE
ROCK ARMORED
INLET
Water should drop
slightly as it enters
the culvert.
ROCK-FREE CULVERT BED
ROCK-ARMORED
OUTLET
ROAD SURFACE
At least one foot of cover
or one-third of diameter
for larger culverts.
'';-'•'•• •.'•'•• '','*" Tamp backfill material
.;'." at regular intervals.
Base and sidewall fill
•'•.' material should be
^•'"•";'.-; :.ry.::". compacted from finer
V-:.1;' soil particles.
?_ LEVEL OF NATURAL
STREAMBED
EXISTING GROUND
ROCK-FREE CULVERT BED
(GRAVEL OR SOIL]
Figure 3-26. Design and installation of pipe culvert at stream crossing (Montana State
University, 1991).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-51
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Intel set too deep increases
the risk of plugging.
Inlet not deep enough lets
water undercut culvert.
Outlet set too high undercuts
road fill and streambed.
follow (Furniss et al., 1997). Maximize the likelihood that the excessive
flow will follow the natural course of the stream. The following are
means to achieve this objective (Furniss et al., 1998):
- Locate stream crossings where the road grade rises away from
the crossing at each approach.
- Create a rolling grade where a stream is crossed on a climbing
road to prevent overflow from flowing down the road.
- Design stream crossings with the least amount fill possible and
construct fills with coarse material.
+ Construct bridges and install culverts during periods when
stream/low is low.
+ Do not perform excavation for a bridge or a large culvert inflowing
water. Divert the water around the work site during construction with
a cofferdam or stream diversion.
Figure 3-27. Proper installation of
culvert in the stream is
critical to preventing
plugging or undercut-
ting (Montana State
University, 1991).
Isolating the work site from the flow of water is necessary to minimize
the release of soil into the watercourse and to ensure a satisfactory
installation in a dry environment. Minimize environmental effects by
limiting the duration of construction and by establishing limits on the
quantity of surface area disturbed and the equipment to be used. Also,
operate when disturbance can most easily be controlled, and use erosion
and sediment controls such as silt fences and sediment catch basins. Only use diversions
where constructing the stream crossing structure without diverting the stream would
result in instream disturbance greater than the disturbance from diverting the stream.
Figure 3-28 portrays a procedure for installing a large culvert when excavation in the
channel of the stream would cause sedimentation and increase turbidity.
+ Protect embankments with mulch, riprap, masonry headwalls, or other retaining
structures.
Some form of reinforcement along stream banks at road stream crossings can reduce
sediment loss from these sites (Table 3-19). Soft protection, such as mulch or forest
debris, or hard protection, such as gravel or riprap, can be used to protect these vulner-
able locations.
+ Construct ice bridges in streams with low flow rates, thick ice, or dry channels
during winter. Ice bridges might not be appropriate on large water bodies or areas
prone to high spring flows.
Ice bridges can provide acceptable temporary access across streams during winter. Ice
bridges are made by pushing and packing snow into streams and applying water to freeze
the snow (Figure 3-29). Their use is limited to winter under continuous freezing condi-
tions. A permit might be necessary before an ice bridge crossing can be built, and opera-
tors can check this with the appropriate state agency prior to ice bridge construction.
The Minnesota Extension Service (1998) suggests the following when building an ice
bridge:
• Choose a period when night temperatures are below 0 °F.
3-52
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Natural Stream
Diversion Channel Excavated
Stream Diverted, Culvert Placed In Excavation
Embankment - Fill Placed Over Culvert
Completed Roadfill With Structural Place Arch Culverts.
Stream Back In Original Channel
Figure 3-28. Procedure for installing culvert when excavation in channel section of stream
could cause sediment movement and increase turbidity (Hynson et al., 1982).
Table 3-19. Sediment Loss Reduction from Reinforcement at Road Stream Crossings (Rothwell, 1983)
Quantity of Sediment
Lost
Embankment Reinforcement
with Mulch
566 kg/day/ha
No Reinforcement
2,297 kg/day/ha
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-53
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
Select crossing where approaches
ient
Packed snow over approaches to
avoid river bank disturbance
Build up ice thickness with
pumped water. Thicker ice
needed 50' each side of road
Select crossing
where flow
velocity is slow
Figure 3-29. Details of ice bridge construction for temporary stream crossing in
winter (Ontario MNR, 1990).
Make the approaches to the
ice bridge nearly level or
level.
Don't add brush or other
vegetation to the ice bridge.
Doing so weakens the
structure and can create a
dam when the bridge melts.
Let the surface freeze; then
repeat the construction
process until the crossing is
of the desired thickness and
width.
Make the bridge thick
enough to permit a level
approach.
• Also, make the ice thick enough to support the weight and speed of anticipated
traffic.
• Inspect the bridge often, because weather and water flow can affect its strength.
Properly constructed winter roads have provisions for adequate drainage during winter
weather warmups, and for the spring thaw. If a winter thaw occurs, expect to temporarily
shut down road travel. The thaw creates working conditions similar to a wet weather
event and causes erosion, severe soil compaction, rutting, and possibly vehicle damage.
Fish Passage Practices
+ On streams with spawning areas, avoid construction during egg incubation periods.
+ Design and construct stream crossings for fish passage according to site-specific
information on stream characteristics and the fish populations in the stream where
the passage is to be installed.
The types of structures recommended for use on forest roads as fish passage structures
are listed below in order of preference (WADOE, 1999). The choice and design of each is
determined by a number of factors, including sensitivity of the site to critical fish habi-
tats, engineering specifications, cost, and availability of materials.
1. Bridges—permanent, semipermanent, and temporary
2. Bottomless culverts or log culverts
3. Embedded metal culverts
4. Nonembedded culverts
5. Baffled culverts
Baffled culverts are the most complicated type of fish passage and are the most difficult
to design and construct.
3-54
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
To ensure safe fish passage can be provided without resulting in unacceptable effects on
existing fisheries habitat values, consider physical, hydrological, and biological factors to
determine whether a structure is acceptable for a site. Review the harvest plan and, based
on actual site conditions, make any changes necessary to ensure adequate fish passage.
Streamflow, bottom substrate, approach slopes, and soil types on either side of the stream
are some details from the harvest plan to verified at the site prior to constructing stream
crossings and installing culverts. The minimum site data for any proposed bridge or
major culvert include
• Cross section showing the high water mark and profile of water crossing.
• Description of water body bed materials.
• Presence or absence of and depth to bedrock.
• Water velocity and direction.
• Bankfull width and depth.
• Bottom channel width.
• Channel topography, including gradient for the site and reach.
• Assessment of natural sediment and debris loading and any other condition that
might influence the choice, design, and location of a structure.
• Existing improvements and resource values that might influence the structure.
Minimum biological data for successful stream crossing design include
• Species of fish that you'll want to safely pass
• Size of fish that will pass (life stage)
• Time of year in which fish passage occurs
• High and low design passage flows
The success of any fish passage structure depends very much on channel adjustments that
occur after construction of the stream crossing, so it is important to survey far enough
upstream and downstream to account for any possible channel conditions that might
affect the design and placement of the structure.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-55
-------
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction
3-56 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
for
(1) Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw periods on roads
not designed and constructed for these conditions.
(2) Evaluate the future need for a road and close roads that will not be needed. Leave closed roads and
drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand storms.
(3) Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure from lack of
maintenance.
(4) Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads and seasonal roads to
control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove all temporary stream crossings.
(5) Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance. Conduct maintenance practices, when
conditions warrant, including cleaning and replacement of deteriorated structures and erosion controls,
grading or seeding of road surfaces, and, in extreme cases, slope stabilization or removal of road fills
where necessary to maintain structural integrity.
(6) Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatement, so that chemical contaminants or pollutants are
not introduced into surface waters to the extent practicable.
(7) Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to reduce the likeli-
hood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill erosion will occur if the drainage
structures become obstructed.
The objective of this management measure is to ensure the management of existing roads
to maintain their stability and utility; to minimize erosion, polluted runoff from roads and
road structures, and sedimentation in water bodies; and to ensure that roads no longer
needed are properly closed and decommissioned so they pose minimal risk to water
quality.
Roads that are actively maintained reduce the potential for erosion to occur. Road drain-
age structures, road fills in stream channels, and road fills on steep slopes are of greatest
concern with respect: to water quality protection in road management. Roads actively
used for timber hauling usually need the most maintenance, and mainline roads typically
need more maintenance than spur roads. Regular road use by heavy trucks, especially at
stream crossings, creates a chronic source of sediment runoff to streams (Murphy and
Miller, 1997). It is important to inspect and repair roads prior to heavy use, especially
during wet or thawing ground conditions (Weaver and Hagans, 1984). Use of roads
during wet or thaw periods can result in excessive sediment loading to water bodies when
road surfaces become deeply rutted and drainage becomes impaired. The first rule of
maintaining a stable road surface is to minimize hauling and grading during wet weather
conditions, especially if the road is unsurfaced (Weaver and Hagans, 1984).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-57
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
Sound planning, design, and construction measures often reduce road maintenance needs
after construction. Roads constructed with a minimum width in stable terrain, and with
frequent grade reversals or dips, need minimum maintenance. Unfortunately, older roads
remain one of the greatest sources of sediment from managed forestlands. After harvest-
ing is complete, roads are often forgotten, and erosion problems might go unnoticed until
after severe resource damage has occurred.
Routine maintenance of road dips and road surfaces and quick response to drainage
problems can significantly reduce road deterioration and prevent the creation of ruts that
could channelize runoff (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988; Oregon Depart-
ment of Forestry 1981). Roads and drainage structures on all roads, including decommis-
sioned roads for as long as water quality effects might result from them, should be
inspected annually, at a minimum, prior to the beginning of the rainy season (Weaver and
Hagans, 1984). Also inspect and perform emergency maintenance during and following
peak storms.
In some locations, problems associated with altered surface drainage and diversion of
water from natural channels results in serious gully erosion or landslides. In western
Oregon, 41 out of the 104 landslides reported on private and state forestlands during the
winter of 1989-90 were associated with older (built before 1984) forest roads. These
landslides were related to both road drainage and original construction problems. Smaller
erosion features, such as gullies and deep ruts, are far more common than landslides and
very often are related to poor road drainage.
Sedimentation from roads can be reduced significantly if drainage structures are main-
tained to function properly. Culverts and ditches that are kept free of debris are less likely
to restrict water flow and fish passage. Routinely cleaning these structures can minimize
clogging and prevent flooding, gullying, and washout (Kochenderfer, 1970). Fish passage
was discussed in the last management measure as an issue of proper sizing and installa-
tion of culverts and other stream crossings, and it is equally important: to inspect culverts,
fords, and bridges on a regular basis to ensure that debris and sediment do not accumulate
and prevent fish migration. Undercutting of culvert entrances or exits can create vertical
barriers to fish passage, and debris buildup at the entrances of culverts or at trash racks
can prevent fish migration. If roads are no longer in use or won't be needed in the fore-
seeable future, removing drainage crossings and culverts where there is a risk of plugging
or failure from lack of maintenance is a precautionary measure. Where a road will be
used in the future, it is usually more economical to periodically maintain crossing and
drainage structures than not: to do so and to have to make extensive repairs after failure.
Road reconstruction provides the opportunity to upgrade and improve substandard and
old roads that are no longer used. After an on-site inspection of the entire route and
consideration of the economic and environmental costs of the reconstruction, a decision
about reopening a road can be made. Reconstruction might: be economically feasible for a
particular road but could entail unacceptable environmental costs. Roads where stream
crossings have been washed out or short, steep sections of road have been entirely lost to
progressive erosion or landsliding are examples of roads where the environmental costs
of reconstruction might be too high (Weaver, 1994). In such cases, it might be possible to
3-58 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
lessen the environmental damage incurred in reconstruction by rerouting the road around
problem areas with a section of new road. Factor overall project costs into the economic
and environmental costs of any rerouting to determine its feasibility, and do all road
reconstruction in a manner consistent with the Management Measure for Road Construc-
tion.
Washed-out stream crossings are the most common obstacle to effective road reconstruc-
tion. Initial improper sizing of drainage structures or their not being installed or main-
tained properly results in erosion at stream crossings. When reconstructing stream
crossings, it is important to follow the same design and installation procedures as are
used for new crossings.
Decommissioning
Proper closure, decommissioning, and obliteration are essential to preventing erosion and
sedimentation on roads and skid trails that are no longer needed or that have been aban-
doned (Swift and Burns, 1999). Road closure involves preventing access by placing gates
or other obstructions (such as mounds or earth) at road access points while maintaining
the road for future use. Roads that will no longer be used or that have remained unused
for many years may be decommissioned and obliterated. Decommissioning typically
involves stabilizing fills, removing stream crossings and culverts, recontouring slopes,
reestablishing original drainage patterns, and revegetating disturbed areas (Harr and
Nichols, 1993; Kochenderfer, 1970; Rothwell, 1978). Revegetating disturbed areas
protects the soil from rainfall and binds the soil, thereby reducing erosion and sedimenta-
tion and the potential for mass wasting in the future. Because closed roads and trails are
rarely inspected, it is important to leave them in as stable a condition as possible to
prevent erosion that could become a large problem before any damage is noticed
(Rothwell, 1978).
Road decommissioning can significantly reduce water quality effects from unused roads,
and road closure and decommissioning can help realize many objectives and purposes
(Harr and Nichols, 1993; Moll, 1996):
• Eliminate or discourage access to roads to reduce maintenance expenditures.
• Eliminate the potential for drainage structure failure and stream diversion.
• Reduce soil loss, embankment washout, mass wasting, failures, slides, slumps,
sedimentation, turbidity, and damage to fish habitat.
* Provide cover and organic matter to soil, and improve the quality of wildlife and fish
habitat.
• Enhance the visual qualities of road corridors and disturbed areas.
• Attempt to restore the natural pre-road hydrology to the site.
Of
Proper road maintenance has definite economic benefits. In one comparison of road
maintenance costs over time, maintenance costs on a road where BMPs were not installed
initially were 44 percent higher than costs on a road where BMPs were installed initially
(Dissmeyer and Frandsen, 1988) (Table 3-20).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-59
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
Table 3-20. Comparison of iepair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and Without BMPsa (Dissmefer and Frandsen, 1988}
Without
Equipment
Materials (gravel)
Work supervision
Repair per 3
Total over 20 b
$365
122
0
527
$2,137
of
Labor to construct terraces and water
diversions
Materials to revegetate
Cost of technical
Total cost over 20 years
$780
120
300
$1,200
IRR: 11.2%
PNV: $937
B/C ratio: 1.78 to 1.00 for road BMP Installation versus reconstruction/repair.
a BMPs include construction of terraces and water diversions, and seeding.
b Discounted at 4%.
In another economic study, the costs of various revegetation treatments and associated
technical services (e.g., planning and reviewing the project in the field) were compared to
the benefits over lime of the initial planning and BMP installation (Dissmeyer and Foster,
1987) (Table 3-21). Savings resulted from avoiding problem soils, wet areas, and unstable
slopes, and the analysis demonstrated that including soil and water resource management
(i.e., revegetating and technical services) in road planning and construction is more
economical over the long term.
As part of the Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project, Rygh (1990) examined the
costs of ripping and scarification using different techniques and specifically compared the
relative advantages of using track hoes for ripping and scarification versus using large
tractor-mounted rippers. Track hoes were found to be preferable to tractor-mounted
rippers for a variety of reasons, including the following:
3-21. of and of Treatments with (SE and
Foster, 1987)
Costs
Cost per kilometer ($)
Cost per kilometer for soil and technical ($)
Total cost of watershed treatment ($)
Benefits"
Savings in construction ($/km)
Savings in annual maintenance costs ($/km)
Benefit/cost (10-year period)
Treatment8
Mulch
511
89
600
446
267
4.4:1
With
Mulch
816
89
905
446
267
2.9:1
With
Mulch
1,006
89
1,095
446
267
2.4:1
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars.
aTreatments included fertilization and liming where needed.
b Cost savings were associated with soil and water resource management in the location and construction of forest roads by avoiding
problem soils, wet areas, and unstable slopes. Maintenance cost savings were derived from revegetating cut and fill slopes, which reduced
erosion, prolonging the time taken to fill ditch lines with sediment and reducing the frequency of ditch line reconstruction.
Source: Adapted by Dissmeyer and Foster from West, S,, and B.R, Thomas, 1982. of Skid Roads on Diameter, Height, and Volume
Growth in Douglas-Fir. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 45:629-632.
3-60
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
* A reduction in furrows and resulting concentrated runoff caused by tractors
• Improved control over the extent of scarification
• Increased versatility and maneuverability of track hoes
« Cost savings
The study concluded that the cost of ripping with track hoes ranged from $406 to $506
per mile compared to $686 per mile for ripping with D7 or D8 tractors (1998 dollars)
(Table 3-22),
Road decommissioning, however, can be expensive. The estimated cost for small roads
with gentle terrain and few stream crossings is approximately $22,500; for larger roads
with greater slope and larger and more stream crossings, the cost can equal or exceed
$282,000 (1998 dollars) (Glasgow, 1993).
Table 3-22. Comparatiwe Costs of Reclamation of Roads and iemowal of Stream Crossing Structures
(ID)(Rygh,
Method
Ripping/scarification
Ripping with D7 or D8 tractor
Scarifying with 08-mounted brush
Scarification to 6-inch depth and installation of water bars with track hoe
Ripping and with hoe
Ripping, scattering, and water bar installation with track hoe
Ripping with hoe
Cost
$1,053
$2,086
$549-$823
$1,013
$406-1506
4> Blade and reshape the wad to conserve existing surface material; to retain the
original, crowned, self-draining cross section; and to prevent or remove benns
(except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard
normal surface runoff.
Ruts and potholes can weaken road subgrade materials by channeling runoff and allowing
standing water to persist. Erosion from forest roads is a process associated with their
location, construction, and use, and erosion begins with the development of ruts and the
erosion of fine material from the road surface (Johnson and Bronsdon, 1995). Severe
rutting on a road can cause drivers to seek routes around the ruts and lead to traffic's
moving closer to riparian areas and stream channels, essentially widening a road and
magnifying the problem (Phillips, 1997). Natural berins can develop on regularly used
roads at undesirable locations and can trap runoff on the road instead of allowing it to
drain off at design locations. Natural berms can also develop from improper road grading
or gradual entrenchment of the road below the surrounding terrain (Swift and Burns,
1999). If serious road degradation due to rutting or other causes has occurred, the road can
be regraded, and periodic regrading of roads is usually necessary to fill in wheel ruts and
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-61
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
Debris Piles on
Road
20%
reshape roads. Regrading a road removes ruts, but it exposes more fine sediment that
continues to erode for some months after grading until a protective, coarser layer on the
road surface is developed. Serious rutting can indicate the need for a more durable surface.
+ Maintain road surfaces by mowing, patching, or resurfacing as necessary.
Annual roadbed mowing and periodic trimming of encroaching vegetation is usually
sufficient for grassed roadbeds carrying fewer than 20 to 30 vehicle trips per month.
+ Clear road inlet and outlet ditches, catch basins, culverts, and road-crossing struc-
tures of obstructions as necessary.
Avoid undercutting back slopes when cleaning silt and debris from roadside ditches.
Minimize machine cleaning of ditches during wet weather. Do not disturb vegetation
when removing debris or slide blockage from ditches. The outlet edges of broad-based
dips need to be cleaned of trapped sediment to eliminate mud holes and prevent the
bypass of storm water. The frequency of cleaning depends on traffic load.
Clear stream-crossing structures and their inlets of debris, slides, rocks, and other materi-
als before and after any heavy runoff period. Surveys by Copstead and Johansen (1998)
of the roads in the Detroit Ranger District after storm damage showed that plugged
culverts accounted for a greater percentage of damage to the roads than any other cause
(Figure 3-30). Culverts were plugged by stream bedload and woody debris. Many times a
small branch caught in the culvert inlet caused stream bedload to accumulate, eventually
burying the inlet. Undersized culverts accounted for 81 percent of the plugged culverts.
Although regular cleaning of road ditches and culvert inlets and outlets is important,
there are circumstances under which leaving accumulated debris in ditches is sometimes
called for to help prevent erosion. Some debris might
be left in ditches simply to interrupt the free flow of
runoff down the ditch, thus reducing the velocity of
the runoff and erosion as well.
Plugged
Culverts
28%
Road Surface
Erosion
19%
Figure 3-30. Road-related storm damage by type in the Detroit
Ranger District (Copstead and Johansen, 1998).
During road construction, the cut slope is often
undercut to provide the design flow capacity in
roadside ditches or to provide room for culvert
inlets, and undercut slopes are usually unstable.
Especially above culvert inlets, soil erosion on the
cut slope can lead to high maintenance costs. If,
based on experience gained after the road is con-
structed, the flow in the ditch is less than it was
designed for, leaving the accumulated debris in the
ditch can help stabilize the cut slope above it. If
debris has to be cleared out of a portion of ditch that
repeatedly fills with sediment to provide sufficient
volume for runoff flow, an option is to build a
permanent or temporary passage under the accumu-
lated debris and leave the debris to help stabilize the
slope above the ditch. A temporary underpass can be
3-62
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
constructed of two logs placed parallel with a gap between them and a third log on top, A
permanent underpass can be constructed much like a culvert (Firth, 1992).
4- Remove any debris that enters surface waters from a winter road or skid trail located
over surface walers before a thaw.
4 Return the spring following a harvest and build erosion harriers on any skid trails
that are steep enough to erode.
4 Abate dust problems during dry summer periods.
Excessive road dust during the summer is a condition that can threaten water quality.
Dust: can deliver large quantities of fine sediment to nearby stream channels. This fine
material can be especially damaging to fish and fish habitat. Seasonal summer roads need
almost the same amount of maintenance as permanent roads.
Dust control methods such as applying dust oil and watering during dry summer condi-
tions are almost always necessary during an intensive dry season to prevent excessive loss
of surface materials.
and Winter
4- Before winter, inspect and prepare all permanent, seasonal, and temporary roads for
the winter months.
Winterizing consists of maintenance and erosion control work needed to drain the road
surface (Weaver, 1994). Clean trash barriers, culvert inlet basins, and pipe inlets of
floatable debris and sediment accumulations. Clean ditches that are partially or entirely
plugged with soil and debris, and trim and remove heavy concentrations of vegetation
that impede flow. Gate and close seasonal and temporary roads to nonessenlial traffic.
Surface runoff problems caused by winter use of a bermed, unsurfaced road can cause
rutting. The ruts collect runoff and cause additional erosion of the road. Lack of
waterbars or rolling dips, together with the graded berm along the outside edge of the
road, keep surface runoff on the roadbed. Annual grading can produce an outside berm of
soil and rock that can be graded back onto the road surface.
Winter is a popular time to harvest wetlands or areas that are not accessible during wet
periods, and road structures that will have to be maintained during the winter can be
marked prior to snowfall. Snow accumulation could otherwise hide the BMPs.
^ On woodland roads "daylight" or remove trees to a width that permits full sunlight
to reach the ground.
The objective of road "daylighting" is to have sunlight dry the road so that it is less
susceptible to erosion and damage from vehicle traffic, Daylighting also promotes the
establishment of protective vegetative cover on road fillslopes and cutslopes and vegeta-
tion for wildlife. Vegetation clearing to promote daylighting needs to be managed so that
slope integrity is not compromised. Daylighting should also be coordinated with wildlife
specialists so that openings that might be detrimental to certain wildlife species, such as
neotropical migratory birds, are not created.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-63
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
Crossing and Structure
4 When temporary? stream crossings are no longer needed, and as soon as possible
upon completion of operations, remove culverts and log crossings to maintain
adequate stream/low. Restore channels to pre-project size and shape by removing all
fill materials used in the temporary crossing.
Failure or plugging of abandoned temporary crossing structures can result in greatly
increased sedimentation and turbidity in the stream, as well as channel blowout.
4 Replace open-lop culverts with cross drains (water bars, dips, or ditches) to control
and divert runoff from road surfaces.
Open-top culverts are for temporary drainage of ongoing operations. It is important to
replace them with more permanent drainage structures to ensure adequate drainage and
reduce erosion potential prior to establishment of vegetation on the roadbed. It is recom-
mended that open-top culverts be used for ongoing operations only and that they be
removed upon completion of activities (Wiest, 1998).
4- During and after logging activities, ensure that all culverts and ditches are open and
functional.
Culvert plugging is common in woodland streams (Flanagan and Furniss, 1997). The risk
of culvert plugging is greatest where small culverts have been installed on wide streams.
Channel width controls the size of debris that can be transported in a stream, and culverts
with a diameter that is less than the width of the stream are prone to block and accumu-
late woody debris. Another configuration that leads to debris trapping is increasing
channel width toward a culvert inlet. Woody debris, transported in a lengthwise position
down a stream, can rotate to a position perpendicular to the channel where the channel
widens and block the culvert inlet. Hand, shovel, and chainsaw work can remedy almost
all culvert maintenance needs (Weaver and Hagans, 1984). Heavy machinery and equip-
ment is usually unnecessary to keep culverts clean.
Where culvert and ditch plugging is a problem, assess the cause of the problem and
develop a strategy to correct it (see Roads Analysis in the Management Measure for
Preharvest Planning, subsection 3 A). Corrective measures might include installation of a
new culvert, trimming dead wood from overhanging vegetation, or performing regularly
scheduled maintenance.
Decommissioning, Obliteration, and Closure
4 Decommission or obliterate roads that are no longer needed (see Road Decommis-
sioning in this section).
When a road is not needed for harvesting, forest management activities, or recreation, it
can be decommissioned. Effective decommissioning reduces actual and potential erosion
from the road and saves maintenance costs. Typically, a road is decommissioned by
removing temporary stream crossings, installing water bars to minimize erosive surface
runoff flows, and planting stream crossings and the road surface with vegetation to retail
soil. If decommissioning is properly done, an area previously occupied by a forest: road
blends into the surrounding landscape naturally, erodes no more than an undisturbed site,
3-64 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
and provides wildlife habitat. Decommissioned roads are generally left in a state such
that they can be opened and used again in the future should the need arise.
More than 120 miles of roads have been decommissioned in the Targhee National Forest
in Idaho (USDA-FS, 1997). Roads in riparian areas were particularly targeted for decom-
missioning. Decommissioning the roads involved seeding with grasses and adding water
bars to prevent erosion. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, existing road surfaces are ripped to a
depth of 12 to 18 inches, the surface is seeded, and pine needle mulch is spread on top to
prevent erosion and encourage good establishment of vegetation. The road prism and
drainage features are left in place to prevent erosion and soil runoff while the vegetation
establishes itself. Roads decommissioned by the U.S. Forest Service in Region 8 are
similarly seeded to create linear wildlife open areas that provide forage and edge vegeta-
tion. The U.S. Forest Service in Region 4, where the Targhee National Forest is located,
found that public acceptance of the road decommissioning was enhanced by adding turn-
arounds and parking areas at the closure gates.
Road obliteration goes further than road decommissioning by returning a forest road to
its natural drainage characteristics and topography to the extent possible. It is a suitable
goal for roads that will not be used in the future. Road obliteration aims to eliminate
alterations in drainage patterns created by a road system and the potential for drainage
structure failure and stream diversion, and to reestablish drainage connectivity that might
have been interrupted by the presence of the road (Moll, 1996).
Stabilizing areas disturbed by road construction and use is another major goal of road
obliteration. Disturbed slopes, road cuts and fills, and areas to which drainage will be
directed after the obliteration is terminated are areas that need to be stabilized. In some
cases, artificial means to stabilize slopes might be necessary until vegetation has become
established.
Road obliteration can lead to improvements in fisheries habitat where sediment runoff
from old forest roads enters streams. The practice was used in a watershed in northwest
Washington as part of watershed rehabilitation to improve fisheries habitats and water
quality and to reduce flood hazards. On unused, 30- to 40-year-old, largely impassable
roads and landings, fills were stabilized, stream crossings were removed, slopes were
recontoured, and drainage patterns were reestablished at an average cost of $3,950 per
kilometer (with a range of $1,500 to $7,500 per kilometer) (1998 dollars). Costs were
lowest where little earthmoving was involved, more where a lot of brush had to be
cleared away and sidecast material had to be pulled upslope, and highest where fills were
removed at stream crossings and landings. Afterward, however, the obliterated roads and
landings sustained much less damage from storms than unused roads that were not
obliterated (Hair and Nichols, 1993).
Road obliteration in the Redwood National Park demonstrated that the following mea-
sures are effective for restoring hydrology and habitat (Belous, 1984, cited in NCASI,
2000): stream crossing removal, road outsloping, straw mulch placement, tree planting on
road alignments and stream crossings, and waterbars. Soil decompaction and terrain
recontouring wee found to be important first steps in successful road obliteration. Topsoil
replacement significantly aided vegetation establishment.
4- Wherever possible, completely close roads to travel and restrict access by unautho-
rized persons by using gates or other barriers (Figure 3-31).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-65
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
depends on soil type and slope. Table 3-23 presents the
Oregon Department of Forestry's suggested guidelines
for water bar spacing. In other states with different
climates, topographies, and soil types, recommended
spacing might differ from these guidelines; contact the
state forestry department for assistance. Divert water
flow off the water bar onto rocks, slash, vegetation,
duff, or other less erodible material and avoid diverting
it directly to streams or bare areas. Outslope closed
road surfaces to disperse runoff and prevent closed
roads from routing water to streams.
+ Revegetate disturbed surfaces to provide erosion
control and stabilize the road surface and banks.
Refer to the Management Measure for Revegetation of
Disturbed Areas for a more detailed discussion of this
practice.
+ Periodically inspect closed roads to ensure that
vegetational stabilization measures are operating
as planned and that drainage structures are
operational. Conduct reseeding and drainage
structure maintenance as needed.
Figure 3-33. Broad-based dips reduce the potential for
erosion (Indiana DNR, 1998).
Table 3-23. Example of Recommended Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope (Oregon Department of Forestry, 1979a)
Road Grade
(percent)
2
4
6
8
10
12
15
20
25+
Soil Type
Granitic or Sandy
900
600
500
400
300
200
150
150
100
Shale or Gravel
1,000
1,000
1,000
900
800
700
500
300
200
Clay
1,000
800
600
500
400
400
300
200
150
Note: Distances (in feet) are approximate and are varied to take advantage of natural features.
Recommendations of spacing will vary with soil type, climate, and topography. Consult your state forester.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-67
-------
Chapter 3D: Road Management
3-68 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
3E:
The timber harvesting management measure consists of implementing the following:
(1) Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations determined under the Preharvest Planning Management
Measure, subject to adjustments made based on preharvest on-site inspections.
(2) Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent practicable. Disperse landing
drainage over sideslopes.
(3) Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope failures. Protect landing
surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings outside streamside management areas.
(4) Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging debris and slash material.
(5) Use appropriate areas for petroleum storage, draining, and dispensing, and vehicle maintenance. Estab-
lish procedures to contain and treat spills that could occur during these activities. Recycle or properly
dispose of all waste materials.
For cable yarding:
(1) Limit yarding corridor gouge or soil plowing by properly locating cable yarding landings.
(2) Locate corridors for streamside management areas according to the guidelines of the Management
Measure for Streamside Management Areas.
For groundskidding:
(1) To the extent practicable, do not operate groundskidding equipment within streamside management
areas except at stream crossings. In streamside management areas, fell and endline trees in a manner
that avoids sedimentation.
(2) Use improved stream crossings for skid trails that cross flowing drainages. Construct skid trails to
disperse runoff and with adequate drainage structures.
(3) On steep slopes, use cable systems rather than groundskidding where groundskidding could cause
excessive sedimentation.
The goal of this management measure is to minimize the likelihood of water quality
effects resulting from timber harvesting. This goal can be accomplished by taking precau-
tions to control erosion and sedimentation during harvesting operations and by storing,
handling, and disposing of petroleum products and vehicle maintenance products in an
environmentally safe manner,
Reducing effects on soils and water quality from harvesting begins in the preharvest
planning stage, when a system of roads, landings, and skid trails is planned, Preharvest
planning, as described in the Preharvest Planning Management Measure, is performed to
minimize the amount of disturbed area, which makes it easier to rehabilitate the site after
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-69
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
the operation is complete; locate roads on stable soils to minimize erosion and at a safe
distance from streams; build stream crossings at the locations where they cause the least
amount of instream disturbance and hydrological change; and limit disturbance to
sensitive areas. Thoroughly review the Preharvest Planning Management Measure before
incorporating the practices in this management measure into a harvesting plan. The
practices in that management measure can serve as a guide for reducing soil disturbance
and water quality effects during harvesting. Having a harvesting plan reviewed by a
professional forester before starting any aspect of harvesting or road building is strongly
recommended. The forester might be able to offer ideas specific to the planned harvest on
how environmental damage and operational costs can be reduced.
Do an additional review of the harvesting plan in conjunction with a site visit to verify
that the information used during planning is still valid. Aerial photos and topographic and
soil maps can inaccurately represent actual conditions, especially if these media are more
than a few years old. Before construction begins, verify that the soils and slopes where
landings and skid trails are to be located are suitable to the use and that equipment:
maintenance or chemical handling areas are appropriately located. As the harvest
progresses, make any alterations to the harvesting plan necessary to protect soils and
water quality.
Conducting a harvest with attention paid to the potential for soil disturbance from the
operation can result in significantly less water quality impairment than conducting a
harvest with little or no attention paid to the potential for environmental damage. For
instance, skid trails that are parallel to the slope of the land have far more potential to
yield sediment-laden runoff than skid roads that run along the contour. Similarly, prac-
tices that minimize soil compaction on and prevent or disperse runoff from landings and
loading decks can be implemented to reduce the potential for sediment-laden runoff and
to minimize sediment delivery to surface waters. Incorporating these and other erosion
reduction practices into a harvesting plan, conducting an on-site inspection during the
planning stage before harvesting or road construction begins to ensure that the practices
chosen are appropriate to the site, and properly implementing and maintaining the prac-
tices can significantly decrease water quality effects.
Spill prevention and containment procedures are necessary to prevent petroleum products
from entering surface waters. Chemicals and petroleum products spilled in harvest areas
can be transported great distances if they enter areas of concentrated runoff, and therefore
can adversely affect water quality far from where they are spilled. Designating appropri-
ate areas for the storage and handling of petroleum products and protecting these areas
from precipitation can minimize the water quality effects that could result from spills or
leakage.
Many studies have evaluated and compared the effects of different timber harvest tech-
niques on soil loss (erosion), soil compaction, and overall ground disturbance associated
with various harvesting techniques. The data presented in Tables 3-24 through 3-28 were
compiled from many studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada. Some
of the data presented in the table should be considered as older data that were based on
operations conducted prior to current understanding and concern for water quality
protection. The studies examined different harvesting systems (e.g., clear-cuts, selective
harvesting) using a variety of techniques (e.g., cable yarding, skidding). Local factors
such as climate, soil type, and topography affected the results of each study. The major
3-70 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
Table 3-24. Soil Disturbance from for Alteraatiwe Methods of Timber Harwesting (Megahan, 1980)
System
Tractor;
Tractor — clear-cut (BC)
Tractor — (CA)
Tractor — selection (ID)
Tractor — group selection (ID)
Tractor and helicopter —
fire salvage (WA)
Tractor and cable —
fire salvage (WA)
Ground Cable:
Jammer — group selection (ID)
Jammer — clear-cut (BC)
High-lead — clear-cut (BC)
High-lead — clear-cut (OR)
High-lead — clear-cut (OR)
High-lead — clear-cut (OR)
High-lead — clear-cut (OR)
Skyline:
Skyline — clear-cut (OR)
Skyline — clear-cut (BC)
Aerial:
Helicopter — clear-cut
Percent of Logged Area Bared
Roads
30.0
2.7
2,2
1.0
4.5
16.9
25-30
8,0
14.0
6.2
3,0
6,0
6.0
2.0
1,0
1.2
Skid
and
Landings
—
5.7
6.8
6.7
0.4
—
—
—
—
3.6
1.0
1.0
—
—
—
—
Total
30.0
8.4
9.0
7.7
4.9
16.9
25-30
8.0
14.0
9.8
4.0
7.0
6.0
2.0
1.0
1.2
Reference
Smith, 1979
Rice, 1961
Haupt and Kldd, 1965
Haupt and Kidd, 1965
Klock, 1975
Klock, 1975
and Kidd, 1972
Smith, 1979
Smith, 1979
Silen and Gratkowski, 1953
Brown and Krygier, 1971
Brown and Krygier, 1971
Fredriksen, 1970
Binkley, 1965
Smith, 1979
Binkley3
' Estimated by Virgil W. Binkley, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Portland, OR, nd.
conclusions of these studies regarding the relative effects of different timber harvesting
techniques on soil erosion, summarized below, are shared among the studies and enable
cross-geographic comparison:
« Aerial and skyline cable techniques are far less damaging than other yarding tech-
niques.
• Tractor, jammer, and high-lead cable methods result in significantly more soil
disturbance and compaction than skyline and aerial techniques.
* Skyline yarding serves far more area per mile of road than skidding.
Although skidding can be damaging, areas disturbed by skidding operations can be
rehabilitated without a net economic loss to the landowner. An analysis of the costs and
benefits of rehabilitating skid trails in the southeastern United States by planting different
species of trees indicated that the benefit/cost ratios of using shortleaf pine, hardwood
pine, and hardwoods were 5.1:1, 2.8:1, and 1.3:1, respectively. Shortleaf pine yielded the
highest benefit for costs incurred (Dissineyer and Foster, 1986).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-71
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
Table 3-25. Soil Disturbance from Logging If Alternatiwe Harwesting Methods (Megahan, 1980)
of
Tractor:
Tractor — clear-cut
Tractor — clear-cut
Tractor — fire
Tractor on snow — fire
Tractor — clear-cut
Tractor — selection
Ground Cable:
Skyline:
Aerial:
-
High-lead — fire
High-lead — clear-cut
High-lead — clear-cut
High-lead — clear-cut
Jammer— clear-cut
Grapple — clear-cut
Skyline — clear-cut
Skyline — clear-cut
Skyline — clear-cut
Skyline — clear-cut
Skyline — fire salvage
Balloon — clear-cut
Helicopter — fire salvage
Helicopter— clear-cut
Location
E.WA
W.WA
E.WA
E.WA
BC
E. WA, OR
E. WA, OR
E.WA
W.OR
W.OR
BC
BC
BC
W.OR
E.WA
BC
W.OR
E.WA
W.OR
E.WA
ID
(%)
29.4
26.1
36.2
9.9
7.0
15.5
20.9
32.0
14.1
12.1
6.0
5.0
1.0
12.1
11.1
7.0
6.4
2.8
6.0
0.7
5.0
Reference
Wooldridge, 1960
Steinbrenner and 1955
Klock,a 1975
Kloek,8 1975
Smith, 1979
Garrison and Rummel,
Garrison and Rummel,
Klock,8 1975
Dyrness, 1965
Ruth, 1967
Smith, 1979
Smith, 1979
Smith, 1979
Dyrness, 1965
Wooldridge, 1960
Smith, 1979
Ruth, 1967
Klock,8 1975
Dyrness"
Klock,a 1975
Clayton (in press)
1951
1951
' Disturbance shown is classified as severe,
b C.T. Dymess, unpublished data on file, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Corvallis, OR, nd.
Of
After a 1994 study of BMP implementation and effectiveness, the Virginia Department of
Forestry concluded that harvesters often failed to seed bare soil with adequate ground
cover. The department determined that ground cover of 70 percent or more is effective,
while many sites studied had ground cover on only 0 to 35 percent of bare soil. The
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (1998) also studied the effectiveness of erosion
control BMPs and concluded that the construction and proper placement of such BMPs
before harvesting is essential for protecting water quality. The Agency also found that
regularly maintaining BMPs increased the longevity of their effectiveness.
In general, poor BMP effectiveness can be due to many factors, including
• A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins.
• A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs.
3-72
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
Table 3-26. Relatiwe Effects of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and Compaction in Pacific Northwest Clear-cuts (Oi,
WA, ID)
Yarding Method
Tractor
High-lead
Skyline
Balloon
Bare Soil {%)
35
15
12
6
Soil (%)
26
9
3
2
Water Quality Effects
Greater
Lesser
3-27. Percent of Land Area bf Logging Operations (Southwest MS) (after and Sirois,
Operational
Cable corridors or skid trails
Landings
Spur
Water Quality Effects
Cable Skyline
(% Land Affected)
9.2
4.1
2.6
Lesser
Groundskldding
(% Land Affected)
21.4
6.4
3.5
Greater
Ore
Les
ater
ser
Table 3-28. Skidding/Yarding Method Comparison (after Patric, 1980)
Harvesting
Wheeled skidder
Jammer
High-lead
Skyline
per Mile of
20
31
40
80
Water Quality Effects
Greater
Lesser
« A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs,
* The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and
can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been
completed.
« A lack of timely BMP maintenance,
4- Based on information obtained from site visits, make any alterations to the harvesting
plan thai are necessary or prudent lo protect soils from erosion and surface waters
from sedimentation or other forms of pollution.
+ Fell trees away from watercourses whenever possible, keeping logging debris from
the channel, except where debris placement is specifically prescribed for fish or
wildlife habitat.
4- Immediately remove any tree accidentally felled in a waterway.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-73
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
•t- Remove unwanted slash from water bodies and place it above the normal high water
line or flood level to prevent downstream transport.
As discussed in Chapter 2 and in Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas,
streams have natural amounts of organic debris (e.g., fallen leaves, twigs, limbs, and
trees), and the amount varies with season, tree falls, storms, and so forth. Aquatic organ-
isms are adapted to the presence of and variability in the quantity of organic debris in
streams. Large woody debris, or LWD, affects channel morphology, provides structure
and complexity to aquatic and terrestrial organism habitats, and is a source of nutrients
for aquatic organisms. When the quantity of LWD and organic debris in general that
reaches a stream is changed, either to too much or too little, it can be detrimental to the
aquatic system's ecology and ability to support life. Removing excessive slash from a
stream helps maintain water flow and avoids the addition of excessive nutrients. In
instances where the addition of organic debris—especially LWD—to a stream is desir-
able, an appropriate amount may be left in stream channels or on stream banks. Slash left
in streams adds nutrients, regulates stream temperature, and traps fine sediments where
these effects are desirable (Jackson, 2000). Consult with a fisheries biologist or the state
forestry or ecology department for specific guidance for your area.
Leave pieces of large woody debris in place during stream cleaning to preserve channel
integrity and maintain stream productivity. Indiscriminate removal of large woody debris
can adversely affect channel stability. Figure 3-34 presents one way to determine debris
stability. State forestry or ecology departments can help with such determinations for
particular regions and stream types.
Where desirable, leave slash on the harvest site and distribute it to provide good
ground cover and minimize erosion after the limber harvest,
Leaving slash on disturbed soils can help reduce erosion until new vegetative growth is
established. The quantity of slash to leave depends on the erodibility of the soil, though
leaving an amount that provides 40 to 60 percent ground cover for soils that have low to
high erodibility, respectively, is recommended. Leaving slash on the ground significantly
reduces erosion potential. It also keeps the nutrients contained in the slash material on the
site for incorporation into the soil and new vegetative growth.
for Landings
••> Make landings no larger than necessary to safely and efficiently store logs and load
trucks.
•t- Install drainage and erosion control structures as necessary.
A slight slope on landings facilitates drainage. Also, adequate drainage on approach roads
prevents road drainage water from entering the landing area.
^ Do not exceed a 5 percent slope on landing surfaces and shape them lo promote
efficient drainage.
4- Do not exceed 40 percent slope on landing fills and do not incorporate woody or
organic debris into fills.
+ If landings are lo be used during wet periods, pro led Ihe surfaces with a suitable
material such as a wooden mat or gravel.
3-74 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
Install drainage struc-
tures-such as water bars,
culverts, and ditches-on
landings to avoid sedi-
mentation. Disperse
landing drainage over
side slopes. Provide
filtration or settling if
water is concentrated in a
ditch.
Upon completion of a
harvest, clean up, re-
grade, and revegetate
landings.
• Upon abandonment,
minimize erosion on
landings by adequately
ditching or mulching
with forest litter.
• Establish a herbaceous
cover on areas that will
be used again in re-
peated cutting cycles,
and restock landings
that will not be reused.
• If necessary, install
water bars for drainage
control.
Is debris anchored or buried in the streambed or bark
at one or both ends or along the upstream face?
Is debris longer than
10.0m?
Is debris greater than
50 cm in diameter?
Is debris longer
than 5.0 m?
Is debris braced on the downstream side by boulders,
bedrock, or stable pieces of debris?
Figure 3-34. General large woody debris stability guide based on Salmon Creek, Washing-
ton (after Bilby, 1984).
• Landings should be
ripped to break up compacted soil layers and allow water infiltration. This will also
aid in the establishment of new vegetation.
• Runoff on and from landings should be dispersed with waterbars or dips.
* Locate landings for cable yarding where slope profiles provide favorable deflection
conditions so that yarding equipment does not cause yarding corridor gouge or soil
plowing, which can concentrate drainage or cause slope instability.
+ Locate cable yarding corridors for streamside management areas according to the
Streamside Management Areas management measure. Avoid disturbing major chan-
nel banks in SMAs with yarded logs.
Ground Skidding Practices
* Skid uphill to log landings whenever possible. Skid with ends of logs raised to reduce
rutting and gouging.
This practice disperses water on skid trails away from the landing. Skidding uphill lets
water from trails flow onto progressively less-disturbed areas as it moves downslope,
reducing erosion hazard. Skidding downhill concentrates surface runoff on lower slopes
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-75
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
along skid trails, resulting in significant erosion and sedimentation hazard. If skidding
downhill, provide adequate drainage on approach trails so that drainage does not enter the
landing.
^ Skid along the contour (perpendicular to the slope), and avoid skidding on slopes
greater than 40 percent.
Following the contour reduces soil erosion and encourages revegetation. If skidding has
to be done parallel to the slope, skid uphill, taking care to break the grade periodically,
Avoid skid trail layouts that concentrate runoff into draws, ephemeral drainages, or
watercourses and avoid skidding up or down ephemeral drainages. Use endlining to
winch logs out of SMAs or directionally fell trees so tops extend out of SMAs and trees
can be skidded without operating equipment in SMAs. In SMAs, endline trees carefully
to avoid soil plowing or gouge.
Suspend ground skidding during wet periods, when excessive rutting and churning of the
soil begins, or when runoff from skid trails is turbid and no longer infiltrates within a
short distance from the skid trail. Further limitation of ground skidding of logs, or use of
cable yarding, might be needed on slopes where there are sensitive soils and/or during
wet periods.
Retire skid trails by installing water bars or other erosion control and drainage devices,
removing culverts, and revegetating.
• After logging, obliterate and stabilize all skid trails by mulching and reseeding.
• Build cross drains on abandoned skid trails to protect stream channels or side slopes
in addition to mulching and seeding.
* Restore stream channels by removing temporary skid trail crossings.
« Distribute logging slash throughout skid trails to supplement water bars and seeding
to reduce erosion on skid trails.
Yarding
•t- Use cabling systems or other systems when ground skidding would expose excess
mineral soil and induce erosion and sedimentation.
* Use high-lead cable or skyline cable systems on slopes greater than 40 percent.
« To avoid soil disturbance from sidewash, use high-lead cable yarding on average-
profile slopes of less than 15 percent.
•t- Avoid cable yarding in or across watercourses.
When cable yarding across streams cannot be avoided, use full suspension to minimize
damage to channel banks and vegetation in the SMA. Cut or clear cableways across
SMAs where SMAs must be crossed. This will reduce the damage to trees remaining and
prevent trees next to the stream channel from being uprooted.
4- Yard logs uphill rather than downhill,
When yarding uphill, log decks are placed on ridges or hilltops rather than in low-lying
areas. This approach results in less soil disturbance for two reasons: (1) lifting the logs
3-76 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
reduces their weight on the ground and thus the amount of friction and ground scouring,
and (2) yard trails radiate outward from the elevated position of the log deck, dispersing
runoff in numerous directions from the deck.
Downhill yarding does the opposite. The full weight of the logs is transferred to the
ground, and runoff from all of the yard trails is directed downslope to the log deck,
concentrating the erosive effect of rain. If yarding uphill is not possible, soil disturbance
can be minimized during downhill yarding by suspending logs from a pulley system so
that the logs are lifted partially or completely off the ground.
The amount of soil disturbance caused by yarding depends on the slope of the area, the
volume yarded, the size of the logs, and the logging system. Megahan (1980) ranked
yarding techniques (from greatest effect to lowest effect) based on percent area disturbed
as follows: tractor (21 percent average), ground cable (21 percent, one study), high-lead
(16 percent average), skyline (8 percent average), jammer in clear-cut (5 percent, one
study), and aerial techniques (4 percent average). Aerial and skyline cable techniques are
far less damaging than other yarding techniques.
The amount of road needed for
different yarding techniques varies
considerably (Sidle, 1980). Skyline
techniques use the least amount of
road area, with only 2 to 3.5
percent of the land area in roads.
Tractor and single-drum jammer
techniques use the greatest amount
of road area (10 to 15 percent and
18 to 24 percent of total area,
respectively). High-lead cable
techniques fall in the middle, with
6 to 10 percent of the land used for
roads. Compared to the skyline and
aerial techniques, tractor, jammer,
and high-lead cable methods result
in significantly higher amounts of
disturbed soil (Megahan, 1980).
Figure 3-35 shows a typical cable
yarding operation (OSHA, 1999).
GUYLINES -..
\ X
CORNER BLOCK & STRAP
TAIL BLOCK & STRAP
Figure 3-35. Typical cable yarding operation (OSHA, 1999).
Other Yarding Methods
4 Horse logging
Horse logging can be a viable alternative to mechanized logging for small harvests or for
sensitive environmental areas of a larger harvest. Horses give a lot of control for logging
in partial cuts because logs are cut to log length, not left at tree length, and this improves
maneuverability around trees that are left in place. This maneuverability combined with
the narrower path needed by horses compared to a skidder means that fewer trees have to
be removed solely for access. Soil is compacted and disturbed less with horse logging
than with a skidder because a horse weighs about 1,600 pounds compared to a rubber-
tired skidder that weighs about 10,000 pounds.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-77
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
+ Helicopter yarding
Helicopter yarding is a practical and environmentally friendly alternative yarding ap-
proach for use on public and private timberlands where other yarding systems would be
physically, economically, or environmentally infeasible. According to the Helicopter
Logging Association (1998), the benefits of helicopter timber harvesting include:
• Minimum damage is caused to the following:
- The soil layer. Very little vehicular traffic is associated with the method.
- Water resources. There is a negligible increase in stream turbidity compared to
conventional yarding methods.
- Riparian areas.
- Wildlife habitat.
• Damage to retained trees is reduced. Fewer trees are felled per acre and ground-
based skidders are absent.
• Road density is lower. A combined helicopter and tractor logging approach can
reduce road density by approximately half compared to conventional tractor meth-
ods. Environmental damage is thus reduced, and forest access points are fewer.
+ Shovel harvesting.
Shovel harvesting is more widely used in the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest and
the wetland areas of the Southeast than in other parts of the United States (Aust, Virginia
Tech, personal communication, 2000). The process of shovel harvesting involves a shovel
logger moving in lines parallel to a road, picking up logs that have been felled by a
logger and lifting debris out of gullies as it moves forward. The shoveler starts at the
nearest access point and moves logs until they are within reach of a road, where they can
be retrieved (Figure 3-36) (Humboldt
State University, 1999).
/=! i I ^iii>ll<^
I /IJI1 I " ""
Figure 3-36. Common pattern of shovel logging operations (Humboldt State
University, 1999)
Shovel logging is considered an envi-
ronmentally friendly means to harvest
timber. Operations require fewer people
and fewer access roads, produce no skid
trails, reduce ground disturbance in
environmentally sensitive areas such as
wetlands, and disturb SMAs less than
any conventional logging method. Table
3-29 compares the costs of various
yarding methods.
+ Balloon harvesting.
Balloon harvesting involves using hot
air or helium balloons to remove logs
from a harvest site for loading on trucks
(Figure 3-37). Because the logs are
lifted off the ground and taken to a log
landing, they are not dragged up or
down a slope and disturbance to the
3-78
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
Table 3-29. Costs Associated with Various Methods of Yarding
Yarding Method
Cable Yarding
Helicopter Yarding
Shovel Harvesting
Cost Range
$90 to $135/ac, depending on yarding distance,
• Clear-cutting costs $50 to $60/mbf
• Thinning costs $200/mbf
crew size, and size of landing.
$3,000 to $3,500/hr; or
$180to$300/mbf
$175to$285/mbf
$25.00 to $83.84/hr
BALLOON
YARDER
ground is reduced. In
areas where road con-
struction is expensive,
balloon harvesting can
save money and protect
the environment because
of the smaller number of
roads and skid trails
needed. The environmen-
tal benefits realized from
balloon harvesting are
similar to those associated
with helicopter yarding.
Additionally, balloon
harvesting permits access
to wet sites such as
wetlands and steep slopes
where ground skidding
would not be feasible
because of the potential
for environmental damage or the cost of road construction (Aust, Virginia Tech, personal
communication, 2000).
Winter Harvesting
Winter harvesting is a component of several state timber removal programs. In winter
frozen ground provides conditions that do not exist during other times of the year for
timber harvest activities and an opportunity for low-impact logging (Logan and Clinch,
1991). Areas where winter road construction and harvesting are particularly advantageous
include wetlands (see Chapter 3, section J, Management Measure for Wetlands Forest
Management of this document for a discussion of BMPs specifically for wetland harvest-
ing), sensitive riparian areas, and sites where erosion and soil compaction would be
expected to be a serious problem during nonfrozen conditions.
BMP guidelines for warmer months apply during winter harvesting as well. Additional
practices that can be implemented to ensure the protection of water quality include the
following (Logan and Clinch, 1991; North Dakota Forestry Service, 1999):
Figure 3-37. Balloon harvesting practices on a steep slope (OSHA, 1999).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-79
-------
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting
+ Consult with operators experienced in winter logging techniques.
4 Compact skid trail snow before skidding logs.
Compacting the snow prevents damage to soils that are still wet or not completely frozen.
4 Avoid steeper areas where frozen skid trails may be subject to erosion the following
spring.
4- Before felling in wet, unfrozen soil areas, use tractors or slddders lo compact Ihe
snow on skid trails. Avoid steep areas where frozen skid trails might be subject to
erosion the following spring.
Petroleum
4- Service equipment where spilled fuel or oil will not reach watercourses, and drain all
petroleum products and radiator water into containers.
4- Dispose of wastes and containers in accordance with proper waste disposal proce-
dures.
Do not leave waste oil, filters, grease cartridges, and other petroleum-contaminated
materials as refuse in the forest.
4- Take precautions to prevent leakage and spills.
Ensure that fuel trucks and pickup-mounted fuel tanks do not have leaks. Use and main-
tain seepage pits or other confinement measures to prevent diesel oil, fuel oil, or other
liquids from running into streams or important aquifers, and use drip collectors on oil-
transporting vehicles.
4 Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spill containment and
cleanup, and notification of proper authorities.
Have materials for absorbing spills easily accessible, and collect wastes for proper
disposal.
3-80 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
3F:
for
Confine on-site potential NFS pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation and the regeneration of
forest stands. The components of the management measure for site preparation and regeneration are:
(1) Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site conditions.
(2) Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation activities on the contour of
sloping terrain.
(3) Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in streamside management
areas.
(4) Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material.
(5) Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment used begins to cause excessive soil disturbance
that will increase erosion.
(6) Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMAs to control movement of the material during
high-runoff conditions.
(7) Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. Conduct bedding
in sloping areas on the contour.
(8) Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting.
Regeneration of harvested forestlands is important not only in terms of restocking a
valuable resource, but also in terms of minimizing erosion and runoff from disturbed soils
that could degrade water quality. Vegetative cover on disturbed soils reduces raindrop
impact and slows storm runoff, and the roots of vegetation stabilize soils by holding them
in place and aiding their aggregation. Both of these factors decrease erosion.
Harvesters and landowners can follow certain practices to protect the soil and aid tree
regeneration. For instance, leaving the forest floor litter layer intact during site prepara-
tion operations minimizes soil disturbance and detachment, maintains infiltration, and
slows runoff. These factors in turn reduce erosion and sedimentation after site preparation
is completed. It is especially important to leave the forest floor litter layer intact in areas
that have steep slopes, or credible soils, or where the prepared site is located near a water
body, all of which increase the risk of erosion, landslides, and degraded water quality.
Site preparation methods such as herbicide application and prescribed burning cause less
disturbance to the soil surface than mechanical practices and can be considered where
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-81
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
mechanical site preparation could pose a threat to water quality. Drum chopping, a form
of mechanical site preparation, normally results in less soil exposure than other mechani-
cal methods. The intensity of a prescribed burn in part determines whether use of the
method will pose a threat to water quality.
Natural regeneration, hand planting, and direct seeding are other methods that can be
used to minimize soil disturbance, especially on steep slopes with erodible soils. Me-
chanical planting with machines that scrape or plow the soil surface can produce erosion
rills, increasing surface runoff and erosion and decreasing site productivity.
Data in Figures 3-38 to 3-42 compare sediment loss or erosion rates for numerous site
preparation methods. Many of the data are site-specific, so site characteristics and
experimental conditions are mentioned (when available) in the text below and regional
locations are noted on the figures.
Ballard (2000) reviewed the effects of forest management on forest soils. Mechanical site
preparation, he noted, both has benefits and causes problems. Nutrient depletion is one
adverse effect. A study in northern British Columbia concluded that 500 kg N/ha were
removed on a large area that had been bladed, raked, and piled for burning. Conducting
research on intensively-managed loblolly pine plantations in the Piedmont region of
North Carolina, Piatek and Allen (2000) found the following nutrient removal rates from
sites that received different methods of site preparation: Shear-pile-disk, 591 kg N/ha and
34 kg P/ha; stem-only harvest, 57 kg N/ha and 5 kg P/ha; chop and burn, 46 kg N/ha and
0 kg P/ha. Piatek and Allen (2000) also found that the nutrients removed during site
preparation had no observable effect on foliage production when measured 15 years after
planting on the site.
Beasley (1979) studied the relative soil disturbance effects of site preparation following
clear-cutting on three small watersheds in the hilly northern coastal plain of Mississippi
and Arkansas (Figure 3-38). Slopes in the three watersheds were mostly 30 percent or
more. One site was single drum-
chopped and burned; another was
sheared and windrowed (windrows
were burned); and a third was
sheared, windrowed, and bedded to
contour. The control watershed was
instrumented and left uncut. Soil
exposure was 37 percent on the
chopped site, 53 percent on the
sheared and windrowed site, and 69
percent on the bedded site. A
temporary cover crop of clover was
sown after site preparation to
protect the soil from rainfall impact
and erosion. Increases in soil
erosion and sediment production
were similar for all three treatments
in the first year after site prepara-
tion. Decreases in these processes
D Deposited
D Suspended
a Tola I
Treatment and Year
Figure 3-38. Deposited, suspended, and total sediment losses in experimental
watersheds during water years 1976 and 1977 for various site
preparation techniques (Mississippi, Arkansas) (after Beasley, 1979).
were noted during the second year
on all sites. During the second year,
3-82
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
the clover and other vegetation
covered 85 to 95 percent of the
surface of each site and effectively
decreased sediment production.
Golden and others (1984) summa-
rized studies on erosion rates from
site preparation (Figure 3-39). The
rates reflect soil movement mea-
sured at the bottom of a slope, not
the quantity of sediment actually
reaching streams. Therefore, the
numbers estimate the worst-case
erosion if a stream is located
directly at the toe of a slope with no
intervening vegetation. Rates are
averages for 3- to 4-year recovery
periods.
Chop
DS. Coast. Plain(5)
QBIackland Prairie(2)
DS. Piedmont(5)
DSandMtn.(l)
• Ridge &Valley(1)
Ridge & Valleyd)
Sand Mln.(1)
S. Piedmont(5)
Blackland Prairie(2)
S- Coast. Plain(5)
Treatment
Figure 3-39. Predicted erosion rates using various site preparation techniques for
physiographic regions in the southeastern United States (after Golden
et al., 1984). Numbers in parentheses indicate number of predictions
for the region.
Dissmeyer (1980) showed that
discing produced more than twice
the erosion rate of any other
method (Figure 3-40). Bulldozing,
shearing, and sometimes grazing were associated with relatively high rates of erosion,
and chopping or chopping and burning produced moderate erosion rates. Logging also
produced moderate erosion rates in this study when the effect of skid and spur roads was
included. The lowest rate of erosion was associated with burning.
Beasley and Granillo (1985) com-
pared storm flow and sediment losses
from mechanically and chemically
prepared sites in southwest Arkansas
over a 4-year period. Mechanical
preparation (clear-cutting followed
by shearing, windrowing, and
replanting with pine seedlings)
increased sediment losses in the first
2 years after treatment. A subsequent
decline in sediment losses in the
mechanically prepared watersheds
was attributed to rapid growth of
ground cover. Windrowing brush into
ephemeral drainages and leaving it
unburned effectively minimized soil
losses by trapping sediment on the
site and reducing channel scouring.
Chemical site preparation (using
herbicides) had no significant effect
on sediment losses.
• Flatwoods(7)
DSand Hills(5)
DS. Coast. Plain(9)
0S. Piedmont(9)
Q S. Appalachians (3)
DSilty Uplands(6)
"Ouachita Mtn.(7)
Ouachita Mtn.(7)
S. Appalacians{3)
S. Coast. Plain(9)
Flatwoods(7)
Treatment
Figure 3-40. Erosion rates for site preparation practices in selected land resource
areas in the Southeast (after Dissmeyer, 1980). Numbers in parenthe-
ses indicate the number of sites in the region.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-83
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
2500
"TO 2000
.c
15>
iS 1500
CD
1 1000
£
500
0
J
Gffl
; ||
: •
= H
«dffi
SB
n
ffff
m
m
m
racrgm
ffl Sheared and
wind rowed
• Chopped
D Undisturbed
Suspended Bedload Total
Sediment Loss Area
Figure 3-41. Sediment loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,
to August 31,1981 (TX) (after Blackburn et al., 1982).
ra
.c
15)
CD
E
D Undisturbed
DChopped
• Sheared and
windrowned
Nutrient Type
Blackburn and others (1982)
studied water quality changes
associated with two site preparation
methods in Texas. Figure 3-41
shows that shearing and windrow-
ing (which exposed 59 percent of
the soil) produced 400 times more
sediment loading than chopping
(which exposed 16 percent of the
soil) during site preparation in this
study. The authors also found that
total nitrogen losses from sheared
and windrowed watersheds were
nearly 20 times greater than those
from undisturbed watersheds and
three times greater than those from
chopped watersheds (Figure 3-42).
Mechanical Site
Preparation in Wetlands
Under certain circumstances, a
permit is needed for mechanical
forestry site preparation activities
when used for the establishment of
pine plantations in the Southeast.
EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers recently issued a memo-
randum to clarify the applicability
of forested wetlands BMPs to these
circumstances. Refer to the Wet-
lands Forest Management Measure
for a discussion of permitting
requirements in forested wetlands.
Figure 3-42. Nutrient loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1 to
August 31,1981 (TX) (after Blackburn et al., 1982).
Benefits of Site Preparation Practices
Three studies summarized here compare the costs and benefits of different site prepara-
tion methods. Dissmeyer and Foster (1987) estimated the long-term costs and benefits of
light and heavy site preparation in the Southeast. They concluded that light site prepara-
tion would yield more wood production and a higher internal rate of return on investment
(Table 3-30). Heavy site preparation methods involve a greater initial investment than
light site preparation methods but did not yield more wood per unit area.
3-84
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
Table 3-30. Analfsis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site Productiwity In the Southeast (Dissmefer and
Foster, 188?)
Year
Silviculture
Treatment
1984 Site Prep/Tree Planting
1999 Thinning
2010 Thinning
2020 Final Harvest
Present Net Value (at 4%)
Internal Rate of Return
Light Site Preparation"
Per
Hectare6
$297
$252
$256
$2,422
$623
12.4%d
Wood Produced
64.2 pulpwood
22.3 saw timber
33.3 pulpwood
133.5 saw timber
15.2 pulpwood
Site Preparation"
Per
Hectare*
$420
$180
$331
$2,071
$304
10.1%
46.0 pulpwood
5.3 saw timber
22.0 pulpwood
11 2.3 saw timber
22.0 pulpwood
• Light site preparation includes chop and light bum or chop with herbicides, and reduces soil exposure and erosion.
11 Heavy site preparation includes bulldozing or windrowing or shearing and windrowing, and increases erosion and sediment y ields over those for light site preparation.
= 1984 dollars.
d Based on 4% inflation rate assumed.
Source: Adapted from Patterson, 1984. Dollars in Your Dirt. Alabama's Treasured Forests. Spring: 20-21
Dissmeyer (1.986) analyzed the economic benefits of controlling erosion during site
preparation. Site preparation methods that increased soil exposure, displacement, and
compaction increased site preparation costs and erosion from the site prepared (Table
3-31) and decreased timber production. Using light site preparation techniques such as a
single chop and burn reduced erosion, increased timber production on the site, and cost
less per unit area treated than more intensive site preparation methods. Heavy site prepa-
ration techniques such as shearing and windrowing removed nutrients, compacted soil,
increased erosion and site preparation costs, and resulted in a lower present net value of
timber.
The U.S. Forest Service (1987) examined the costs of three alternatives to slash treat-
ment: (1) broadcast burn and protection of streamside management zones, (2) yarding of
unmerchantable material (YUM) of 15 inches in diameter or more, and (3) YUM of
Table 3-31. Site Preparation Comparison (¥A, SC, 1C) (Dissmefer, 1988)
Treatment
No site preparation
Burn only
Single chop and bum
Double chop and bum
Single shear and burn
Shear twice and bum
Rootrake and disk and burn
Rootrake and burn
Treatment Cost (I/acre)
$59
$67
$119
$178
$216
$253
$253
$253
Erosion Index3
1.0
1.1
2.3
3.0
4.3
5.1
16.0
16.0
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars
8 The index is an expression of relative erosion potential resulting from each treatment.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-85
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
8 inches in diameter or more (Table 3-32), The two YUM alternatives cost approximately
$625-$!,ISO/acre, in comparison to broadcast burning at $l,300/acre (1998 dollars). In
addition, the YUM alternatives protected highly credible soils from direct rainfall and
runoff effects, reduced fire hazards, resulted in meeting air and water quality standards,
and allowed for the rapid establishment of seedlings on clear-cut areas,
Table 3-32. Comparison of Costs for Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM) is. Broadcast Burning (OK) (USDA-FS, 1987}
Activity
burn
SMA protection
YUM, fell hardwood, lop and
Planting cost
Totals
Burn and
SBA
HIA
$143/acre
$1,291/acre
YUM 15" in
and No Burn
N/A
N/A
$438/acre
$187/acre
$624/acre
YU1 8" in Diameter
and No Burn
N/A
N/A
$1,004/acre
$172/aere
$1,177/acre
Note: All updated to 1998 dollars.
Site
•t- Do not conduct mechanical site preparation, except for drum chopping, on slopes
greater than 30 percent.
On sloping terrain greater than 10 percent, or on highly erosive soils, operate mechanical
site preparation equipment on the contour.
•t- Do not conduct mechanical site preparation in SMAs.
4 Do not place slash in perennial or intermittent drainages, and remove any slash that
accidentally enters drainages.
Slash can clog the channel and cause alterations in drainage configuration and increases
in sedimentation. Extra organic material can lower the dissolved oxygen content of the
stream. Slash also allows silt to accumulate in the drainage and to be carried into the
stream during storm events.
4 Provide SMAs of sufficient width to protect streams from sedimentation by the 10-
year storm,
4- Locale windrows a safe distance from drainages to avoid material movement into the
drainages during high-runoff conditions.
Locating windrows above the 50-year floodplain usually prevents windrowed material
from entering flood waters.
4 Avoid mechanical sile preparation operations during periods of saturated soil
conditions, which might cause rutting and accelerate soil erosion.
4 Minimize soil movement when shearing, piling, or raking.
3-8
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
4- Minimize incorporation of soil material into windrows and piles during their con-
struction.
This can be accomplished by using a rake or, if using a blade is unavoidable, keeping the
blade above the soil surface and removing only the slash. This helps retain nutrient-rich
topsoil, which promotes rapid site recovery and tree growth and increases the effective-
ness of the windrow in minimizing sedimentation,
4- Distribute seedlings evenly across the site.
4- Order seedlings well in advance of planting time to ensure their availability.
4 Hand plant highly erodible sites, steep slopes, and lands adjacent to stream channels
(SMAs).
4 Operate planting machines along the contour to avoid ditch formation.
* Ensure that soil conditions (slope, moisture conditions, etc.) are suitable for ma-
chine operation.
• Close slits or drilling furrows periodically to avoid channeling flow.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-87
-------
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration
3-88 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
for
Prescribe fire for hazardous fuel reduction and control or suppression of wildfire in a manner that reduces
potential nonpoint source pollution of surface waters:
(1) Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedimentation due to the combined effect of partial or full
removal of canopy and removal of ground fuels, litter layer and duff.
(2) Prescriptions for wildland fire use should protect against excessive erosion or sedimentation to the extent
practicable.
(3) All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and wildfire, should be stabilized with water bars and/or other
appropriate techniques if needed to control excessive sedimentation or erosion of the fireline.
(4) Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NFS pollution of watercourses, while
recognizing the safety and operational priorities of fighting wildfires.
The goal of this management measure is to minimize nonpoint source pollution and
erosion resulting from prescribed fire used for site preparation, fuel hazard reduction, and
activities associated with wildfire control or suppression. Studies have shown that pre-
scribed burning, if carefully planned and done using appropriate BMPs, has no signifi-
cant effect on water quality (South Carolina Forestry Commission, 2000).
Prescribed burning reduces hazardous fuels. Where tree species are ecologically depen-
dent on fire for regeneration or maintenance of healthy stands, fire is an essential forest
management tool. Particularly in the interior west and much of the south, ecosystems
developed in the presence of frequently-occurring, low-intensity ground fires. Returning
these stands to a structure that more closely resembles that which occurred under these
frequent fire regimes requires the use of prescribed fire. Because fire suppression has
contributed to increased levels of fuels, wildland fires occurring in these areas burn quite
hot and consume a lot of material (live and dead).
The severity of burning and the proportion of the watershed burned are the major factors
that affect the influence of prescribed burning on streamflow and water quality. Fires that
burn severely on steep slopes close to streams and that remove most of the forest: floor
and litter down to the mineral soil are most likely to adversely affect water quality. The
amount of erosion following a fire depends on
* The amount of ground cover remaining on the soil
• The steepness of the slope
• The time, amount, and intensity of subsequent rainfall
* The severity of fire
* The erodibility of the soil and soil type
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-89
-------
Chapter 3G: Fire Management
* How rapidly a site revegetates
• The type of vegetation
Periodic, low-intensity prescribed fires usually have little effect on water quality, and
revegetation of burned areas reduces sediment yield from prescribed burning and wildfires.
Of
Costs associated with prescribed fire depend on the size of the fire crew, the amount of
heavy equipment needed at the site to control the burn, the areal extent and intensity of
the burn, and the topography of the area being burned. Table 3-33 provides a range of
costs associated with prescribed burning (Hansit, personal communication, 2000;
Holburg, personal communication, 2000).
Table 3-33. Range of Prescribed Fire Costs
Topography
Mountainous
Flat land
$50 to $100 per acre
$3 to $60 per acre
$200 to $400 per acre
$75 to $300 per acre
a Hansit, personal communication, 2000; Holburg, personal communication, 2000,
Fire
4- Plan burning to take into account weather, time of year, and fuel conditions so that
these help achieve the desired results and minimize effects on water quality.
Evaluate ground conditions to control the pattern and timing of the burn.
4 Execute the prescribed bum with an agency-qualified crew and bum boss.
•t- Do not conduct intense prescribed fire for site preparation in the SMA.
4 Do not pile and burn far slash removal purposes in the SMA.
4 Avoid construction of fire lines in the SMA.
4- Avoid conditions thai require extensive blading of fire lines by heavy equipment when
planning burns.
4 Use handlines, firebreaks, and hose lays to minimize blading of fire lines.
•t- Avoid burning on steep slopes in high-erosion-hazard areas or areas that have highly
erodible soils.
Prescribed Fire in
4 Whenever possible, conduct burns in wetlands in a, manner that does not completely
remove the organic layer of the forest floor.
Prescribed burns conducted in wetlands have the potential to be the most severe due to
the increased fuels available. Conduct the fire to minimize the potential to increase
surface runoff and soil erosion.
3-90 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3G: Fire Management
4 When conducting prescribed fire to regenerate fire-dependent species, such as aspen,
minimize consumption of the organic layer and openings in the vegetation to that
which is necessary to obtain adequate regeneration.
+ Do not construct firelines thai could drain wetlands.
4 Avoid intense burning.
Intense burning can accelerate erosion by consuming more organic cover than desired.
Wildfire Practices
Wildfire can change erosion rates on the burned area in two ways. First, fire eliminates
vegetative soil cover. Second, chemical changes in the soil following fire may create an
increased resistance to water infiltration in the upper soil layer, and this can increase
surface runoff and sheet erosion (Elliot et al., 1998). The magnitude of these effects
depends on how hot a fire burns, slope, vegetation type, and soil resistance to erosion.
Erosion following fire is greatest where a fire has burned most severely and the fire is
followed by a strong storm, a year of moderately high rainfall, or a spring with a large
volume of snowmelt.
4> Whenever possible leave a 300-foot buffer on both sides of a -waterway when using
aerially applied fire relardants. If necessary to apply retardant within the 300-foot
zone, used the application method that will most accurately keep the retardant from
entering the stream.
The U.S. Forest Service will stop purchasing fire retardant chemicals that contain sodium
ferrocyanide. A recent study revealed that mixtures with the chemical can decompose to
produce amounts of cyanide that exceed EPA water quality guidelines for freshwater
organisms.
4- Do not clean application equipment in watercourses or locations that drain into
watercourses.
4> Close water wells and temporary water catchments excavated for wildfire-suppres-
sion activities as soon as practical following fire control.
4- During wildfire emergencies, firelines, road construction, and stream crossings are
unrestricted by BMPs when necessary for health and safety of firefighters and the
public and protection of resources from greater damage due to wildfire. However, use
BMPs whenever possible and begin remediation as soon as possible after the emer-
gency is controlled.
Fireline
Fireline construction is an integral part of both wildfire suppression and preparation for
prescribed burning. Because of the possibility of water quality degradation following
fireline construction, however, precautions are necessary to ensure that water quality is not
impaired when firelines are constructed (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, 1993). Eireline construction involves removing all organic material to expose
mineral soil, and this can result in excessive erosion and water quality degradation. In
wetland systems, firelines can function as drainage corridors, resulting in excessive drain-
age and converting a wetland to a non-wetland system. Implementation of one or more of
the following practices can minimize water quality effects from fireline construction.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-91
-------
Chapter 3G: Fire Management
+ Use natural or in-place barriers (e.g., roads, streams, and lakes) to minimize the
need for fireline construction in situations where artificial construction offirelines
could result in excessive erosion and sedimentation.
+ Avoid placing firelines through sensitive areas such as wetlands, marshes, prairies,
and savannas unless absolutely necessary.
+ When crossing water bodies with plowing equipment, raise the plow to prevent
connecting the fireline directly to the water body. Water bodies can be used as
firelines to avoid unnecessarily disturbing riparian zones.
+ Construct firelines with the minimum disturbance possible that still allows for safe
and effective firefighting, for instance handline rather than cat line when possible.
+ Construct firelines in a manner that minimizes erosion and sedimentation and
prevents runoff from directly entering watercourses.
+ Avoid constructing firelines in SMAs. When necessary to construct line in SMAs, use
appropriate strategies following direction in Land Management Plans for protection
of resources
+ Minimize construction of fireline straight up and down hill. Balance location of
fireline with potential for larger fire consuming greater amounts of material.
The following minimum impact suppression techniques (MIST) for firelines are recom-
mended to minimize water quality impacts (http://www.nps.gov/crmo/firemp/
crmofmp_aj .htm).
• Minimize fireline construction by taking advantage of natural barriers, rock out-
crops, trails, roads, streams, and other existing fuel breaks.
• Construct firelines to be as narrow as necessary to halt the spread of the fire and
place then to avoid impacts to water resources.
• Leave unburned material within the final line.
• Minimize clearing and scraping.
• Flag the route to the fire from the nearest trail or road to minimize off-road travel
and soil disturbance.
Fireline Rehabilitation
+ Where possible, use alternatives to plowed lines such as harrowing, foam lines, wet
lines, or permanent grass.
+ Get cover on the site as soon as possible after the fire is out to maintain erosion
control measures on firelines.
+ Revegetate firelines with native species.
+ Install grades, ditches, and water bars as soon as it is safe to begin rehabilitation work.
+ Install water bars on any fireline running up and down the slope, and direct runoff
onto a filter strip or sideslope, not into a drainage.
3-92 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
3H: OF
for of
Reduce erosion and sedimentation by rapid revegetation of areas disturbed by harvesting operations or road
construction:
(1) Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after completion of the earth-disturbing
activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishment of vegetative cover.
(2) Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful vegetation establishment for
the region or area.
(3) Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on priority areas such as disturbed areas in SMAs or the steep-
est areas of disturbance (e.g., on roads, landings, or skid trails) near drainages.
Revegetating disturbed areas restabilizes the soil in these areas, reduces erosion, and
helps to prevent sediment and pollutants associated with sediment (such as phosphorus
and nitrogen) from entering into nearby surface waters. Vegetation controls soil erosion
by dissipating the impact force of raindrops, reducing the velocity of surface runoff,
trapping dry sediment and preventing it from moving farther downslope, stabilizing the
soil with roots, and contributing organic matter to the soil, which increases soil infiltra-
tion rates.
Nutrient and soil losses to streams and lakes are reduced by revegetating harvested,
burned, or other disturbed areas. In some cases, planting early to establish erosion
protection quickly and then again later to provide more permanent protection is necessary
and advisable to prevent excessive erosion,
Good ground cover is key to reducing erosion. Good ground cover is defined as living
plants within 5 feet of the ground and litter or duff with a depth of 2 inches or more
(Kuehn and Cobourn, 1989).
Of
The effectiveness of revegetation for controlling erosion, particularly on steep slopes and
road fills, depends on protecting the slope until vegetative growth can take hold and grow
enough to serve as a soil stabilizer. Straw mulch and netting are common ways to protect
a newly seeded and fertilized slope. Adding straw mulch can reduce erosion by one-
eighth to one-half. Adding netting with mulch can reduce erosion by nearly 100 percent
to negligible levels (Figure 3-43) (Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966).
Megahan (1987) estimated that the cost of seeding with plastic netting placed over the
seeded area (approximately $8,200 per acre) is almost 50 times more than the cost of dry
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-93
-------
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
100
90-
'"' '"•
£ 70-
o 60-
°- 50-
c 40-
2 20-
LU
10-
n
fj
1
•J
17
k
P
=B
^J
i
k
i
|_,
£J
fa
k
m
33-,
3J
A/
t
5
:
Ls
-
^
- :
— :
^jL
80 157 200 255
J
^
D Group A
D Group C
-f
322
Cumulative Elapsed Time (days)
Group A: seed, fertilizer
Group B: seed, mulch, fert lizer
Group C: seed, fert lizer, mu ch, netting
seeding alone (approximately $180 per
acre). Other cost estimates related to
practices for forest regeneration are
presented in Tables 3-34 to 3-36.
Dubensky (1991) estimated the eco-
nomic effect of regeneration practices on
the overall cost of a harvesting operation
(Table 3-34). Lickwar (1989) compared
revegetation costs for disturbed areas of
various slope gradients in the Southeast
(Table 3-35). Minnesota's Stewardship
Incentives Program estimated the costs
of reestablishing permanent vegetation
with native and introduced grasses
(Table 3-36).
Figure 3-43. Comparison of the effectiveness of seed, fertilizer, mulch, and
netting in controlling cumulative erosion from treated plots on a
steep road fill in Idaho (after Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966).
Table 3-34. Economic Effect of Implementation of Proposed Management Measures on Road
Construction and Maintenance (Dubensky, 1991)a
Management Practice
Fiber for road and landing construction/maintenance
Ripping, shaping, and seeding log decks
Seeding firelines or rough logging roads
Construction and seeding of water bars
Construction of rolling dips on roads
Increased Cost
$5.00/ton
$214/deck
$24/100 ft
$15 each
$24 each
All costs updated to 1998 dollars
" Public comment information provided by the American Paper Institute and the National Forest Products
Association.
Table 3-35. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed, Fertilizer, and Mulch (1987 Dollars) (Lickwar,
1989)
Practice Component
Steep Sites8
Moderate Sites"
Flat Sitesc
Seed, fertilizer, and mulch
$19,950
(3.41%)
$18,438
(2.72%)
$17,590
(1.36%)
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars.
a Based on a 1,148-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $399,685. Slopes average over 9 percent.
b Based on a 1,104-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $473,182. Slopes ranged from 4 percent to 8 percent.
c Based on a 1,832-acre forest and gross harvest revenues of $899,491. Slopes ranged from 0 percent to 3 percent.
3-94
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Table 3-36. for (1991 (Minnesota DNR, 1991)
Practice
Establishment of permanent vegetative cover
(includes seedbed preparation, fertilizer, chemicals and
application, seed, and seeding as prescribed in the plan)
Introduced
Native
Cost8
$96/acre
$176/acre
Note: All costs updated to 1998 dollars.
8 The costs shown represent the total cost of the practice. Calculations were made by dividing the maximum
Federal cost share by 0.75 to obtain the total cost.
4- Use mixtures of seeds adapted to the site, and avoid the use of invasive species.
Choose annuals to allow natural revegetation of native understory plants, and select
species that have adequate soil-binding properties.
The selection of appropriate grasses and legumes is important for vegetation establish-
ment. Grasses vary as to climatic adaptability, soil chemistry, and plant growth character-
istics. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service technical guides at the statewide
level are excellent sources of information about seeding mixtures and planting prescrip-
tions. The U.S. Forest Service, state foresters, and county extension agents can also
provide helpful suggestions.
Using native species is both important and practical, and plenty of hardy native species
are usually available. Nonnative species can outcompete and eliminate native vegetation,
and the use of nonnative species often results in increased maintenance activities and
expense.
Seeding rates (e.g., pounds per 1,000 square feet) are generally recommended for indi-
vidual seed varieties and seed mixtures. Following such recommendations usually
provides adequate cover and soil protection, whereas overseeding can create seedling
overcrowding and subsequent failure.
4> On steep slopes, use native woody plants planted in rows, cordons, or wattles.
These species may be established more effectively than grass and are preferable for
binding soils.
4- Seed as soon as practicable after soil disturbance, preferably before rain, to increase
the chance of successful vegetation establishment.
Timing depends on the species to be planted and the schedule of operations, which
determines when protection is needed.
4- Mulch as needed to hold seed, retard rainfall impact, and preserve soil moisture.
Critical, first-year mulch applications provide the necessary ground cover to curb erosion
and aid plant establishment. Various materials, including straw, bark, and wood chips, can
be used to temporarily stabilize fill slopes and other disturbed areas and to improve
conditions for germination immediately after construction. In most cases, mulching is
done together with seeding and planting to establish stable banks. Both the type and the
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-95
-------
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
240 & 375 t/a stone(a)
135 t/a stone(a)
7 t/a woodchips(a)
4 t/a woodchips
60 t/a stone
2.3 t/a straw
70 t/a gravel
15 t/astone(a)
2 t/a woodchips(a)
2 t/a Portland cement
No mulch(a)
10 20 30
Soil Loss (ton/acre)
40
50
(a) Based on one replication. Other treatments based on average of two replications.
t/a = ton per acre
Soil Type'. 6" silt loam topsoil underlain by compacted calcareous till.
Slopes. Uniform 20 percent
Rainfall Rate: Simulated rainfall at rate of 2.5"/hr for 1 hr the first
day, followed by two 30-minute applications the second day.
Figure 3-44. Soil losses from a 35-foot-long slope (after Hynson et al.,
1972).
amount of mulch applied vary considerably
between regions and depend on the extent of
the erosion potential and the available materi-
als (Hynson et al., 1982). Figure 3-44 summa-
rizes the effectiveness of various types of
mulch (including Portland cement) for reduc-
ing erosion.
+ Fertilize according to site-specific
conditions.
Fertilization is often necessary for successful
grass establishment because road construction
commonly results in the removal or burial of
fertile topsoil. To determine fertilizer formula-
tions, it is best to compare available nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in the soils
to be treated with the requirements of the
species to be sown. It might be necessary to
refertilize periodically after vegetation estab-
lishment to maintain growth and erosion
control capabilities. Fertilizer and other
chemical management techniques are covered
in depth in section 31 of the document.
+ Use biosolids as an alternative to commercial fertilizers.
Biosolids is the name given to the solid material remaining after raw sewage has been
treated. Biosolids can be used for forest regeneration efforts as a viable alternative to
using commercial fertilizers. Biosolids are rich in nitrogen, as well as other nutrients
essential for plant growth, including phosphorus, zinc, boron, manganese, and chromium
(King County, Washington, 1999). The nutrients in biosolids are mostly in an organic
form, so the biosolids act like a slow-release fertilizer, releasing only 15-20 percent of
their nutrients during the first year after an application (Meyers, 1998). They also have a
high content of organic matter, which increases soil infiltration rates and helps improve
the ability of the soil to retain water, making it available for trees during dry periods.
Biosolids can increase the growth rate of trees growing on relatively infertile soils to
match that of trees growing on fertile soils.
Biosolids that are applied to the forest are delivered to the forest as a semisolid product
with a content of approximately 20 percent solids and 80 percent water. The biosolids can
be dispersed using a device that propels them aerially over an area, or they can be applied
using a high-pressure hose. From a single point, they can be spread to a 250-foot radius
or more across young tree growth and to a 60-foot radius in thinned timber stands.
The application rate (in ton/acre) of biosolids can be determined based on the nitrogen
content of the biosolids. Specific amounts of nitrogen can be specified for each area to be
treated based on soil testing and the nutrient requirements of the species involved. In the
Northwest, application rates vary from 3 dry ton/acre of biosolids for timber to 7 dry ton/
acre for young plantations, which corresponds to 150 to 350 pounds of plant-available
nitrogen per acre (King County, Washington, 1999).
3-96
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
Streams and other water bodies are protected during biosolids applications by 33-foot
buffer areas that are not fertilized. States regulate the use and application of biosolids,
and obtaining a permit is usually necessary before biosolids may be used.
The potential for long-term effects from metals and pathogens in biosolids has been
raised as a concern, but biosolids that meet EPA and state standards pose very little
environmental threat (USEPA, 1994).
4> Protect seeded areas from grazing and vehicle damage until plants are well estab-
lished.
4- Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessary repairs and reseed within
the planting season.
4> During non-growing seasons, apply interim surface stabilization methods to control
surface erosion.
Possible methods include mulching (without seeding) and installation of commercially
produced matting and blankets. Alternative methods for planting and seeding include
hand operations, the use of a wide variety of mechanical seeders, and hydroseeding.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-97
-------
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas
3-98 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
31:
Use chemicals when necessary for forest management in accordance with the following to reduce nonpoint
source pollution effects due to the movement of forest chemicals off-site during and after application:
(1) Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed applicators according to the registered
use, with special consideration given to effects to nearby surface waters.
(2) Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect, fungus, or herbaceous
species.
(3) Prior to applications of pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading process and the calibra-
tion of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather conditions, the spray area, and buffer areas for
surface waters.
(4) Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for aerial applica-
tions.)
(5) Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface waters to the appropriate
state agency. Develop an effective spill contingency plan to contain spills.
Chemicals used in forest management are generally pesticides (insecticides, herbicides,
and fungicides) and fertilizers. Since pesticides can be toxic, they have to be mixed,
transported, loaded, and applied correctly and their containers disposed of properly to
prevent potential nonpoint source pollution. Since fertilizers can also be toxic or can shift
the ecosystem's energy dynamics, depending on the exposure and concentration, it is
important that they be handled and applied properly.
Pesticides and fertilizers are occasionally used in forestry to reduce mortality of and favor
desired tree species and improve forest production. Many forest stands or sites never
receive chemical treatment, and for those that do receive treatment, typically no more
than two or three applications are made during an entire tree rotation (40 to 120 years).
Even though few applications are made, forestry chemicals can enter surface waters and
precautions can be taken to prevent water contamination.
A number of studies conducted before 1990 demonstrate the importance of following
current state and federal guidelines for forest chemical applications for protecting surface
waters and groundwater. Norris and others (1991) compiled information from multiple
studies that evaluated the peak concentrations of herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers
in soils, lakes, and streams (see Table 3-37). These studies were conducted from 1967 to
1987. Norris (1968) found that application of 2,4-D to marshy areas led to higher-than-
normal levels of stream contamination. When ephemeral streams were treated, residue
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-99
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
levels of hexazinone and picloram greatly increased with storm-generated flow.
Glyphosate was aerially applied (3.3 kg/hectare) to an 8-hectare forest ecosystem in the
Oregon Coast Range. The study area contained two ponds and a small perennial stream.
All were unbuffered and received direct application of the herbicide. Glyphosate residues
were detected for 55 days after application with peak stream concentrations of 0.27 ing/L.
It was demonstrated that the concentration of insecticides in streams was significantly
greater when the chemicals were applied without a buffer strip to protect the watercourse.
When streams were unbuffered, the peak concentrations of malathion ranged from 0.037
to 0.042 mg/L, When buffers were provided, however, the concentrations of malathion
3-37. Concentrations of Forest in Soils, and After Application (Morris et al., 1991)
Chemicals3
and Systemb
Application
(kg/hectare)
Concentration
(mg/L or mg/kg*)
Peak
Time to Non-
Time Intenral0
Sourced
Herbicides
2,4-0
Marsh
2,4-D BE
Built pond
Water
Sediment
Aquatic plants
2,4-D AS
Reservoir
Picloram
Runoff
Runoff
Ephemeral stream
Stream
Hexazinone
Stream (GA)
Forest (GA)
Liter
Soil
Ephemeral
stream
Perennial
Atrazine
Stream
Built
Water
Sediments
Triclopyr
Pasture (OR)
Glyphosate
Water
Dalapon
Field irrigation
water
2.24
2.24
23.0
2.8
0.37
1.88
1.68
3.0
3.34
3.3
0.001-0.13
0.09
3.0
8.0*
3.6
0.078
0.038
0.32
0.044
0.177*
0.108*
0.514
0.442
0.42
0.50
0.50*
0.50*
0.095*
0.27
0.023-3.65
1.0
0.2
4.0*
0.4-0.6*
206*
8*
0
<0.01*
<0.01*
0.02
0.05
0.005
0.9*
0.25*
0.09
<0.01
<0.01
85 d
180 d
13+ d
82-1 82 d
7d
82 d
13d
157 d
3-4 m
60+ d
90 d
3d
3d
17d
14 d
56 d
4d
56 d
5.5 h
3d
Sevh
1-168 he
182 d
915 d
17
17,18
1
7
19
23
9
3
11
14
16
10
20
15
5
3-100
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
Table 3-37. (continued)
Chemicals3
System"
Application
Rate
(kg/hectare)
Concentration
(mg/L or mg/kg*)
Peak Subsequent
Time
Interval0
Time to Non-
detection
Sourced
Insecticides
Malathion
Streams
Unbuffered
Buffered
Carbaryl
Streams & ponds
(E)
Streams, unbuffered
(PNW)
Water
Brooks with buffer
Rivers with buffer
Streams, unbuffered
Ponds
Water
Sediment
Acephate
Streams
Pond sediment & fish
0.91
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.56
0.037-0.042
0-0.017
0-0.03
0.005-0.011
0.026-0.042
0.001-0.008
0.000-0.002
0.016
0.254
<0.01-5.0*f
0.003-0.961
0.113-0.135
0.013-0.065
1 d
14d
48 h
1 00-400 d
24
24
24
8
22
22
22
6
4
21
Fertilizers
Urea
Urea-N
Forest stream (OR)
Dollar Cr (WA)
NrV-N
Forest stream (OR)
Tahuya Cr (WA)
NO3+-N
Forest stream (OR)
Elochoman R (WA)
224
0.39
44.4
<0.10
1.4
0.168
4.0
0.39
48 h
12
13
12
13
12
13
2,4-D BE = 2,4-D butoxyethanol ester; 2,4-D AS = 2,4-D amine salt + ester.
E = eastern USA; Cr = Creak; GA = Georgia; PNW = Pacific Northwest; OR = Oregon; R = River;
WA = Washington; buffer = wooded riparian strip.
d = day; h = hours; m = months; sev h = several hours. Intervals are times from application to measurement of peak or subzquent concentration, whichever Is
the last measurement indicated.
1 = Birmingham and Colman (1985); 2 = Bocsor and O'Connor (1975); 3 = Davis et al. (1968); 4 = Flavell et al. (1977); 5 = Frank et al. (1970); 8 = Gibbs et al.
(1984); 7 = Hoeppel and Westerdahl (1983); 8 = Hulbert (1978); 9 = Johnson (1980); 10 = yaiepBode (1972); 11 = Mayack et ai. (1982); 12 = Moore (1970);
13 = Moore (1975b); 14 = Neary et ai. (1983); 15 = Newton et al. (1984); 16 = M. Newton (Oregon State University, personal eommuneation, 1967); 17 =
Morris (1967); 18 = Morris (1968); 19 = Norris (1969); 20 = Norris et al. (1987); 21 = Rabeni and Stanley (1979); 22 = Stanley and Trial (1980); 23 = Suffling et
al. (1974); 24 = Tracy et al. (1977),
Normally less than 48 h.
One extreme case: 23.8 mg/kg peak concentration, 16 months to nondetection.
were reduced to levels that ranged from undetectable to 0.01.7 mg/L. The peak concentra-
tions of carbaryl ranged from 0.000 to 0.0008 mg/L when watercourses were protected
with a buffer, but they increased to 0.016 mg/L when watercourses were unbuffered.
Moore (1971), as cited in Norris et al. (1991), compared nitrogen loss from a watershed
treated with 224 kg urea-N per hectare to nitrogen loss from an untreated watershed. The
study demonstrated that the loss of nitrogen from the fertilized watershed was 28.02
kg/hectare whereas the loss of nitrogen from the unfertilized watershed was only 2.15
kg/hectare (Table 3-38).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-101
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
Table 3-38. Nitrogen from Two Subwatersheds in the Umpqua Experimental Watershed (OR) (Morris et a!,, 1991)
Locus or
Watershed 2 (treated)
Watershed 4 (untreated)
Net loss (2-4)
Percent of total
Urea-N
0.65
0.02
0.63
2.44
Absolute (kg/hectare)
0.28 27.09
0.06 2.07
0.22
Proportional
0.85 96.71
Total
28.02
2.15
25.87
100.00
Riekerk and others (1989) found that the greatest risk to water quality from pesticide
application in forestry operations occurred from aerial application because of drift, wash-
off, and erosion processes. They found that aerial applications of herbicides resulted in
surface runoff concentrations roughly 3.5 times greater than those for application on the
ground.
The Riekerk and others (1989) study results also suggested that tree injection application
methods would be considered the least hazardous for water pollution, but would also be
the most labor-intensive. Hand application of herbicides usually poses little or no threat
to water quality in areas where there is no potential for herbicides to wash into water-
courses through gullies. Providing buffer areas around streams and water bodies can
effectively eliminate adverse water quality effects from forestry chemicals.
Megahan (1980) summarized data on changes in water quality following the fertilization
of various forest stands with urea. The major observations from this research are summa-
rized below:
« Increases in the concentration of urea-N ranged from very low to a maximum of
44 ppm, with the highest concentrations attributed to direct application to water
surfaces.
« Higher concentrations occurred in areas where buffer strips were not left beside
stream banks.
• Chemical concentrations of urea and its by-products tended to be relatively short-
lived due to transport downstream, assimilation by aquatic organisms, or adsorption
by stream sediments.
Based on his review, Megahan concluded that the effects of fertilizer application in
forested areas could be significantly reduced by avoiding application techniques that
could result in direct deposition into the water body and by maintaining a buffer area
along the stream bank. Other researchers have presented information supporting
Megahan's conclusions (Hetherington, 1985; Malueg et al., 1972).
Of
The cost of chemical management depends on the method of application (Table 3-39).
Generally, chemicals are applied by hand, from an airplane or helicopter (aerial spray), or
mechanically. When forest chemicals are applied mechanically, it is most common to use
a boom sprayer.
3-102 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
Table 3-39. Average Costs for Chemical Management (Hansit, 2000; Holburg, 2000)
Application Practice
Hand application
Aerial application
Average Cost
$100/acre
$55-$70/acre
Best Management Practices
+ For aerial spray applications, mark and maintain a buffer area of appropriate width
around all watercourses and water bodies to avoid drift or accidental application of
chemicals directly to surface waters (Figure 3-45).
Buffer width is determined by taking into considerations the altitude of application,
weather conditions, and drop size distribution (Ice and Teske, 2000). Careful and precise
marking of application areas for aerial applications helps avoid accidental contamination
of open waters.
Models are available to help the forest manager calculate pesticide application details.
The Spray Drift Task Force, in collaboration with EPA and USDA, co-developed
AgDRIFT, a new model, to provide estimates of spray drift deposition under different
pesticide application and meteorological conditions (see www.agdrift.com). The Forest
Service Cramer-Barry-Grim (FSCBG) spray dispersion model analyzes data on aircraft,
loo*
Figure 3-45. Establish buffer zones of appropriate width during aerial applications of forest chemicals
to protect water quality, people, and animals (Washington State DNR, 1997).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-103
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
meteorology, pesticides, and target areas to predict deposition and drift (see
www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology). A personal computer version of the model is
available that combines and implements mathematical models to assist forest managers in
planning and implementing aerial spray operations.
+ Apply pesticides and fertilizers during favorable atmospheric conditions.
Do not apply pesticides when wind conditions increase the likelihood of significant drift.
It is also best to avoid pesticide application when temperatures are high or relative
humidity is low because these conditions influence the rate of evaporation and enhance
losses of volatile pesticides.
+ Ensure that pesticide users abide by the current pesticide label, which might specify
whether users be trained and certified in the proper use of the pesticide; allowable
use rates; safe handling, storage, and disposal requirements; and whether the
pesticide may be used only under the provisions of an approved State Pesticide
Management Plan.
Consistency between management measures and practices for pesticides and those in the
approved State Pesticide Management Plan helps ensure consistency in the method and
means of use.
+ Locate mixing and loading areas, and clean all mixing and loading equipment
thoroughly after each use, where pesticide residues will not enter streams or other
water bodies.
+ Dispose of pesticide wastes and containers according to state and federal laws.
+ Take precautions to prevent leaks and spills.
+ Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spill containment and
cleanup, and notification of proper authorities.
Maintain an adequate spill and cleaning kit that includes the following:
• Detergent or soap.
• Hand cleaner and water.
• Activated charcoal, adsorptive clay, vermiculite, kitty litter, sawdust, or other
adsorptive materials.
• Lime or bleach to neutralize pesticides in emergency situations.
• Tools such as a shovel, broom, and dustpan and containers for disposal.
• Proper protective clothing.
+ Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible.
This practice reduces potential nutrient leaching to groundwater, and it increases the
availability of nutrients for plant uptake.
+ Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching.
+ Base fertilizer type and application rate on soil and/or foliar analysis.
Conduct foliar analysis approximately once per year to diagnose nutrient toxicities or
deficiencies and to determine the correct fertilization program to follow. Foliar analysis is
3-104 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
the process whereby leaves from trees are dried, ground, and chemically analyzed for
their nutrient content. Compare the results of foliar analysis to available nitrogen, phos-
phorus, potassium, and sulphur in the soils to be treated and to the requirements of the
species.
4- Consider the use of pesticides as only one part of an overall program to control pest
problems.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies have been developed to control forest pests
without total reliance on chemical pesticides. The IPM approach uses all available
techniques, including chemical and noncheinical. An extensive knowledge of both the
pest and the ecology of the affected environment is necessary for IPM to be effective.
4 Base selection of pesticide on site factors and pesticide characteristics.
These factors include vegetation height, target pest, adsorption (attachment) to soil
organic matter, persistence or half-life, toxicity, and type of formulation.
4- Check all application equipment carefully, particularly for leaking hoses and connec-
tions and plugged or worn nozzles. Calibrate spray equipment periodically to
achieve uniform pesticide distribution and rate.
4- Always use pesticides in accordance with label instructions, and adhere to all federal
and stale policies and regulations governing pesticide use.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-105
-------
Chapter 31: Forest Chemical Management
3-106 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
3J:
for
Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities (including harvesting; road design, construc-
tion, and maintenance; site preparation and regeneration; and chemical management) to adequately protect
the aquatic functions of forested wetlands.
Forested wetlands provide many beneficial functions that need to be protected. Among
these are floodflow alteration, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, provi-
sion of important habitat for fish and wildlife, and provision of timber products. The
extent of wetlands (including forested wetlands) in the continental United States has
declined greatly in the past 40 years because of conversion to other land uses. There are
currently approximately 100 million acres of wetlands in the 48 contiguous states, or
about one-half of their extent at the time of European settlement. Although the rate of
wetlands loss has slowed in recent years, the United States continues to sustain a net loss
of approximately 58,000 acres per year. Forestry activities are the third leading cause of
wetlands loss-behind urban development and agriculture-and accounted for 23 percent of
wetland losses from 1986 to 1997 (Dahl, 2000), Given the historic and ongoing losses, it
is critical that additional effects to wetlands be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent possible,
Potential effects of forestry operations in wetlands include the following:
« Loss and/or degradation due to discharges of dredged or fill material,
« Sediment production from road construction and use and equipment operation
resulting in wetlands filling.
• Drainage alteration as a result of improper road construction and ditching. An
excellent discussion of the relationship between forest roads and drainage is con-
tained in the U.S. Forest Service document Water/Road Interaction Technology
Series (USDA-FS, 1998b).
« Stream obstruction caused by failure to remove logging debris.
* Soil compaction caused by operation of logging vehicles during flooding periods or
wet weather. Skid trails, haul roads, and log landings are areas where compaction is
most severe.
« Contamination from improper application or use of pesticides.
« Loss of integrity of whole wetland landscapes (and the functions they serve) as a
cumulative effect of incremental losses of small wetland tracts.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-107
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
Potential adverse effects associated with road construction and maintenance in forested
wetlands are alteration of drainage and flow patterns, increased erosion and sedimenta-
tion, habitat loss and degradation, and damage to existing timber stands. In an effort to
prevent these potential adverse effects, section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires the
use of appropriate BMPs for road construction and maintenance in wetlands so that flow
and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics are not impaired (see
text below).
Harvest planning and selection of the right harvest system are essential in achieving the
management objectives of timber production, ensuring stand establishment, and avoiding
adverse effects on water quality and wetland functions and values. The potential effects
of reproduction methods and cutting practices on wetlands include changes in water
quality, water quantity, temperature, nutrient cycling, and aquatic habitat. Streams can
also become blocked with logging debris if SMAs are not properly maintained or if
appropriate practices are not employed in SMAs.
Site preparation includes but is not limited to the use of prescribed fire, chemicals, and/or
mechanical site preparation. Extensive site preparation on bottoms where frequent
flooding occurs can cause excessive erosion and stream sedimentation. The degree of
acceptable site preparation is governed by the amount and frequency of flooding, soil
type, and species suitability and is dependent on the regeneration method used.
in
Section 404 establishes a program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps and EPA jointly adminis-
ter the program. The Corps administers the day-to-day program, including permit deci-
sions and jurisdictional determinations; develops policy and guidance; and enforces
Section 404 provisions. EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in
evaluating permit applications; determines the scope of geographic jurisdiction; and
approves and oversees state assumption. EPA also identifies activities that are exempt,
enforces Section 404 provisions, and has the authority to elevate and/or veto Corps
permit decisions. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies have important advisory roles.
Section 404(1) exempts normal forestry activities (for example, bedding, seeding, harvest-
ing, and minor drainage) that are part of an established, ongoing forestry operation. A
forest operation ceases to be "established" when the area in which it was conducted has
been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrologi-
cal regime are necessary to resume operations (40 CFR Part 232.3(c)(l)(ii)(B)). This
exemption does not apply to activities mat represent a new use of the wetland and that
would result in a reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circulation of waters of the
United States, including wetlands. In addition, Section 404(f) provides an exemption of
discharges of dredged or fill material for the purpose of constructing or maintaining
forest roads, where such roads are constructed or maintained in accordance with BMPs to
assure that the flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics
of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the reach of the navigable waters is not
reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise mini-
mized. Following are the section 404(f) regulations pertaining to forestry activities,
including the BMPs for forest road construction or maintenance.
3-108 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
of Federal Regulations, Title 40, 232.3: Activities Not
Requiring a 404 Permit
Except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any discharge of dredged or
fill material that may result from any of the activities described in paragraph (c) of this
section is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this part.
(a) If any discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from the activities listed in
paragraph (c) of this section contains any toxic pollutant listed under section 307 of
the Act, such discharge shall be subject to any applicable toxic effluent standard or
prohibition, and shall require a section 404 permit.
(b) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States incidental to
any of the activities identified in paragraph (c) of this section must have a permit if it is
part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of the United Stales
into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters
of the United States may be impaired or the reach of such waters reduced. Where the
proposed discharge will result in significant discernible alterations to flow or circula-
tion, the presumption is that flow or circulation may be impaired by such alteration.
Note: For example, a permit will be required for the conversion of a cypress swamp
to some other use or the conversion of a wetland from silvicultural to agricultural use
when there is a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States
in conjunction with construction of dikes, drainage ditches or other works or struc-
tures used to effect such conversion. A conversion of section 404 wetland to a non-
wetland is a change in use of an area of waters of the U.S. A discharge which elevates
the bottom of waters of the United States without converting it to dry land does not
thereby reduce the reach of, but may alter the flow or circulation of, waters of the
United States.
(c) The following activities are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, except as
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section:
(6) Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving
mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained in accordance with
best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and circulation patterns and
chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the United States are not impaired,
that the reach of the waters of the United States is not reduced, and that any adverse
effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. The BMPs which must
be applied to satisfy this provision include the following baseline provisions:
(i) Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for
mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the
United States shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total
length consistent with the purpose of specific farming, silvicultural or mining
operations, and local topographic and climatic conditions;
(ii) All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams
or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water
bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States;
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-109
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
(in) The road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the
restriction of expected flood flows;
(iv) The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion during
and following construction;
(v) Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to con-
struct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of
trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within the waters of the
United States (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral bound-
aries of the fill itself;
(vi) In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the
waters of the United States shall be kept to a minimum;
(vii) The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt
the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the
water body;
(viii) Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible;
(ix) The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threat-
ened or endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act, or
adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species;
(x) Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning
areas, and wetlands shall be avoided if practical alternatives exist;
(xi) The discharge shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply
intake;
(xii) The discharge shall not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production;
(xiii) The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic-
River System;
(xiv) The discharge of material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic
pollutants in toxic amounts; and
(xv) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its
original elevation.
Wetland Harvesting
4- Conduct forest harvesting according to prehan>est planning designs and locations.
Planning and close supervision of harvesting operations are needed to protect site integ-
rity and enhance regeneration. Harvesting without regard to season, soil type, or type of
equipment can damage the site productivity; retard regeneration; cause excessive rutting,
churning, and puddling of saturated soils; and increase erosion and sedimentation of
streams. Harvesting without regard to other activities occurring in the watershed can
cause unacceptable cumulative effects.
•t- Establish a streamside management area (SMA) adjacent to natural perennial
streams, lakes, ponds, and other standing water in the forested wetland following the
components of the SMA management measure.
3-110 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
4> Select the harvesting method to minimize soil disturbance and hydrologic effects on
the wetland.
In seasonally flooded wetlands, a guideline is to use conventional skidder logging that
employs equipment with low-ground-pressure tires, cable logging, or aerial logging.
Comparisons of cable logging and helicopter logging have concluded that helicopter
operations cause less site disturbance, are more economical, and provide greater yield.
Table 3-40 presents one set of harvesting system recommendations by type of forested
wetland (Florida Division of Forestry, 1988). Another alternative is to conduct harvesting
during winter months when the ground is frozen (see below).
4* Use ullrawide, high-flotation tires on logging trucks and skidders lo reduce soil
compaction and erosion.
Using dual-tired skidders and high-floatation tires for log hauling reduces soil damage,
soil compaction, surface runoff, and sedimentation (Aust et al., 1994).
4* When ground skidding, use low-ground-pressure tires or tracked machines and
confine skidding to a few primary skid trails to minimize site disturbance, soil
compaction, and rutting. Adjust tire pressure on skidders during wet weather or when
conducting forested wetland harvesting (Aust, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, personal communication, 1999).
Table 3-40. Recommended bf Forested Site" (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, 1988)
Conventional with or or High
Type Conventional Controlled Accessb Flotation Boom
Flowing Water
Mineral Soil
Alluvial River Bottom B A C C
Organic Soil
Black River Bottom B A C C
Branch Bottom A° B C C
Cypress Strand B A A A
Muck Swamp C A A A
Nonflowing Water
Soil
Wet Hammock B A C C
Organic Soil
Cypress Dome B A A A
Peat Swamp C A A A
Note: A= recommended; B = recommended when dry; C = not recommended.
3 Recommendations include cost considerations
b Preplanned and designated skid trails and access roads.
c Log from the hill (high ground).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-111
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
Research conducted by Randy Foltz of the Intermountain Research Station in the Lowell
Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest, Oregon (1994), addressed the use of
variable tire pressure as a BMP for forest roads. His study showed that by reducing the
tire pressure on logging trucks from their highway inflation of 90 psi to between 30 and
70 psi, sediment runoff was reduced on average by 67 percent. The percentage reduction
in sediment runoff was directly correlated with the rainfall quantity and traffic volume.
•t- When soils become saturated, suspend ground skidding harvesting operations. Use of
ground skidding equipment during excessively wet periods can result in unnecessary
site disturbance and equipment damage.
and Construction
4- Locate, design, and construct forest roads according to preharvest planning.
Forestry activities in wetlands are often subject to municipal, county, state, and federal
regulations. Therefore, sufficient time should be set aside to obtain all necessary permits.
Improperly located, designed, or constructed forest roads can cause changes in hydrology,
accelerate erosion, reduce or degrade fisheries habitat, and destroy or damage existing
stands of timber.
4- Use temporary roads in forested wetlands.
A temporary road in a wetland needs to provide adequate cross-road drainage at all
natural drainageways. Temporary drainage structures include culverts, bridges, and
porous material such as corduroy or chunkwood.
Construct permanent roads only to serve large and frequently used areas, as approaches to
watercourse crossings, or to provide access for long-term fire protection. Use the mini-
mum design standard necessary for reasonable safety and the anticipated traffic volume.
Various temporary wetland crossing options are compared in Table 3-41.
Blade the surface of a wetland to be as flat as possible prior to constructing a temporary
road (Hislop and Moll, 1996, cited in Blinn et al., 1998). Do not disturb the root mat in
any wetland that has grass mounds or other uneven vegetation. Any temporary wetland
crossing is enhanced by using a root or slash mat to provide additional support to the
equipment.
•t- Construct fill mads only when absolutely necessary! for access since fill roads have
the potential to restrict natural flow patterns.
Where construction of fill roads is necessary, use a permeable fill material (such as gravel
or crushed rock) for at least the first layer of fill. The use of pervious materials helps
maintain the natural flow regimes of subsurface water. Figure 3-46 demonstrates the
different effects of impervious and pervious road fills on wetland hydrology. Permeable
fill material is not a substitute for using bridges where needed or for installing adequately
spaced culverts at all natural drainageways. Use this practice in conjunction with cross
drainage structures to ensure that natural wetland flows are maintained (i.e., so that fill
docs not become clogged by sediment and obstruct flows).
•t- Provide adequate cross drainage to maintain the natural surface and subsurface flow
of the wetland.
3-112 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
Table 3-41. Temporarf Wetland Crossing Options (Blinn, 1998)
Crossing
Option
Description
Application
Cost
Wood
Individual cants that are strung together
using two 3/16-inch galvanized
to make a single-layer crossing.
Wet mineral or sandy soils or existing
road beds. Wood are not
recommended for undisturbed or
very weak clay soils. They require a
relatively level surface with up to 4
percent, a fairly straight alignment, and no
cross slope.
Approximately
$170 to initially
construct a
10'x 12'mat
Wood Planks/
Panels
Wood planks or panels are constructed
using lumber planking to create a two-
layer crossing. Parallel runners are laid
down on each side where the vehicle's
tires will and then lumber is nailed
perpendicular to runners.
Most wetland soils, if properly. The
surface width needed depends on the soil
strength. Wood plank require a
relatively level surface with grades up to 4
percent, a fairly straight alignment, and no
slope.
Approximately
$150 to initially
construct an
8'x 12'wood
plank
Wood
Wood-pallet crossing mats are sturdy,
commercially available, multllayered
variation of a three-layer wood pallet
(used for shipping or storage) that has
specifically for traffic.
Most wetland soils, if appropriately.
The require a relatively surface with
grades up to 4 percent, a fairly straight
alignment, and no cross slope. Most
for hauling or forwarding
operations.
Approximately
$350 for a
commercial
8'x 16' pallet
Bridge
Decking
The decking of a timber bridge can be
used to cross a small wetland area.
Most wetland soils, if properly. Easy
to install and remove. Require a relatively
ground surface.
Approximately
$6,000 for a
30'x12'
bridge
Expanded
Metal Grating
Metal grating is relatively light and the
surface is rough enough to provide some
traction. Built by hand-placing the grating
in the wheel paths.
Most shallow wetland soils, sandy soils, or
on an existing road. It Is not
recommended for undisturbed or
very clay soils. Performance is
enhanced where there is an adequate root
or slash mat to provide additional support.
Approximately
$100 for a
4' x 8'
PVCor
HOPE Pipe
and Plastic
Road
A PVC and HOPE pipe mat is constructed
using 4-Inch diameter PVC or HOPE
that are tightly connected using
galvanized cables. Plastic are
similar to mats that they are
not built to the transition of tires
between the firm soil and the road.
Most wetland soils, if sized properly. Mat
width on soil strength.
Require a relatively level surface with
grades up to 4 percent, a fairly straight
alignment, and no cross slope.
Approximately
$200 for a
4'x 12' pipe
mat.
Plastic
that is 8' x 40'
costs
approximately
$2,000
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-113
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
Table 3-41. (continued)
Crossing
Option
Description
Application
Cost
Tire Mats
A tire mat or panel of tires created by
interconnecting tire sidewalls with
corrosion-resistant Tire
are also used in some designs. Mats of
varying length and width can be created.
Most wet mineral soils with different
designs for distinct soils and situations.
Tire require a relatively surface
with grades up to 5 percent, a fairly
straight alignment, and no cross slope.
Approximately
$300 for a
5'x10' mat
Corduroy
Corduroy is a crossing made of brush,
small logs cut from low-value and
noncommercial on-site, or mill
that are laid perpendicular or parallel to the
direction of travel.
Most wetland soils. Corduroy crossings
require a relatively level surface with
up to 4 percent, a fairly straight
alignment, and no cross slope.
Low
Pole Rails
When attempting to support skidding or
forwarding machinery equipped with high
flotation or dual tires, one or more straight
hardwood poles cut from on-site trees can
be laid to the direction of
below each wheel.
Skidding and felling machinery equipped
with wide, high-flotation and
across small mineral soil wetlands. Should
only be used on relatively level surface
with up to 4 percent, a fairly
straight alignment, and no cross slope.
Low
Wood
Aggregate
Wood particles ranging in from chips
to chunks can provide cohesion and
support on soft soils. Wood aggregate is
in the way as gravel,
that it is lighter and temporary due to
natural deterioration.
The traffic capability of most wet soils can
be improved substantially with the
application of wood aggregate. Can be
on a variety of grades, alignments,
and cross slopes.
Competitive
with local
sources of
fill.
Equipment
with Wide
Tires, Duals,
Bodies, or
Tire Tracks
These mobility options provide a method
for increasing the contact
the equipment and the soil so that the
machine's weight is spread over a larger
surface
Many wetland soils. Performance is
enhanced in where there is
adequate root or slash mat to provide
additional support to the equipment.
Wide tires
may more
than $4,000
each, tire
may
cost
approximately
$7,000 for a
set of two
tracks.
Central Tire
Inflation
(CTl)
CTI is a low-ground-pressure option
currently for use on hauling vehicles only,
but will likely be on other
equipment in the future.
Many wetland soils. The reduced tire
pressure, when used with radial ply tires,
in a larger tire "footprint," which
reduces the vehicle pressure applied to
the ground.
Cost depends
on the number
of
retrofitted.
18 axles =
$16,000
3-114
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
This can be accomplished through
adequate sizing and spacing of
water crossing structures, proper
choice of the type of crossing
structure, and installation of
drainage structures at a depth
adequate to pass subsurface flow.
Designed and constructed accord-
ing to these considerations helps
ensure that bridges, culverts, and
other structures do not perceptibly
diminish or increase the duration,
direction, or magnitude of the
minimum, peak, or mean flow of
water on either side of the struc-
ture.
+ Construct roads at natural
ground level to minimize the
potential to restrict flowing
water.
Float the access road fill on the
natural root mat. If the conse-
quences of the natural root mats'
failing are serious, use reinforce-
ment materials such as geotextile
fabric, geo-grid mats, or log
corduroy. Figure 3-47 depicts a
cross section of the practice of
floating the road. Protect the root
mat beneath the roadway from
equipment damage by diverting
through traffic to the edge of the
right-of-way, shear-blading stumps
instead of grubbing, and using
special wide-pad equipment. Also,
protect the root mat from damage
or puncture by using fill material
that does not contain large rocks or
boulders.
Material Displaced
by Fill
Ground Water
Forced to the Surface
Roadfill:•; ::•
'•'••• for: V;.;:'
Causeway; •::
"7 7 / / / /Bed/ock/ //////
(a) Impervious roadfill section
Direction of
flrnund Water Flnv\<
(b) Pervious roadfill section
Figure 3-46. Comparison of impervious (a) and pervious (b) roadfill sections.
Impervious roadfill consolidates natural material and restricts ground-
water flow. Pervious roadfill allows movement of groundwater through it
and minimizes flow changes (adapted from Thronson, 1979).
+ Discharges of dredged or fill
material into wetlands or other
waters of the United States
must comply with CWA section 404 (see text above).
Practices for Crossing Wetlands in Winter
Winter provides an opportunity to cross wetlands with little effect. Roads are often
constructed across wetlands in winter to take advantage of frozen ground.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-115
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
. Natural root mat
, Granular fill
— Log reinforcement
Figure 3-47. Elements of a road crossing through a swamp wetland, cross section
(Ontario MNR, 1990).
+ The following are recom-
mendations for crossing
wetlands in winter, for all
wetland types (Minnesota
Division of Forestry, 1995):
• If permanent structures
are to be used, follow
BMP installation guide-
lines for permanent roads.
• Select the shortest practi-
cal route to minimize
potential problems with
drifting snow and cross-
ing of open water.
• Avoid crossing open
water or active springs. If
crossing is unavoidable,
temporary crossings are
preferred over permanent
crossings. These can be
ice bridges, temporarily
installed bridges, or
timber mats.
• Avoid using soil fill.
• Install structures that block water flow so that they can be easily removed prior to
the spring thaw. Remove these structures during a winter thaw.
• Use planking, timber mats, or other support alternatives to improve the capability of
the road to support heavy traffic. If removal would cause more damage than leaving
them in place, these structures can be left as permanent sections on frozen roads.
Avoid clearing practices that result in berms of soil or organic material, which can
disrupt normal water flow in wetlands.
• Do not operate machinery during a winter thaw. Resume operations only when
conditions are adequate to support equipment.
• Remove temporary fills and structures to the extent practical when no longer
needed.
• Install buffer strips near open water.
• Anchor temporary structures at one end only to allow them to move aside during
high-water flows.
+ To avoid excessive damage, equipment operations are best avoided on any portion of
a road where ruts are deeper than 6 inches below the water surface for a continuous
distance of more than 100 yards (Wiest, 1998).
Wetland Site Preparation and Regeneration Practices
+ Select a regeneration method that meets the site characteristics and management
objectives.
3-116
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
Choice of regeneration method has a major influence on the stand composition and
structure and on the forestry practices to be applied over the life of the stand. Natural
regeneration may be achieved by clear-cutting the existing stand and relying on regenera-
tion from seed from adjacent stands, the cut trees, or stumps and from root sprouts
(coppice). Successful regeneration depends on recognizing the site type and its character-
istics, evaluating the stocking and species composition in relation to stand age and site
capability, planning regeneration options, and using sound harvesting methods. Schedule
harvest during the dormant season to take advantage of seed sources and to favor coppice
regeneration. Harvest trees at a stump height of 12 inches or less when practical to
encourage vigorous coppice regeneration. Artificial regeneration may be accomplished
by planting of seedlings or direct seeding. Table 3-42 presents an example of regeneration
system recommendations (Georgia Forestry Association, 1990).
4- Conduct mechanized site preparation and planting of sloping areas on the contour,
+ To reduce disturbance, conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during
dry periods of the year.
The degree of acceptable site preparation depends on the amount and frequency of
flooding, the soil type, and the species suitability.
•t> Minimize soil degradation by limiting operations on saturated soils.
Fire
Site preparation burns in wetlands are often the most severe (hottest) and have the most
potential to increase surface runoff and soil erosion.
Table 3-42. Recommended iegeneration Sfstems bf Forested Wetland Tfpe (Georgia Forestrf Association, 1990)
Regeneration
Type
Flood Plains, Terraces, Bottomland
River
Red River
Branch Bottoms
Piedmont Bottoms
Muck Swamps
Wet Flats
Pine Hammocks & Savannahs
Pocosins or
Cypress Strands
Cypress Domes: Peat Swamps
Peat Swamps
Cypress Domes
Gulfs, Coves, Lower Slopes
Clear-cut
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Group
Selection
B
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
C
B
Shelter
Wood
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
Tree
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
Artificial Regeneration
Site
Prep.b
D
D
D
D
D
A
B
D
C
D
C
Plant
C
B
C
B
C
A
B
C
C
C
B
Direct
Seed
C
B
C
B
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
Note: A = highly effective; B = effective; C = less effective; D = not recommended.
tree cuts are not recommended on first of floodplains, and bottomland.
b Mechanical site preparation to convert wetlands to pine plantation is regulated by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and a permit may be required for site preparation to
convert some of the wetlands identified in the table, i.e., floodplains, bottomlands, pocosins, bays, cypress stands, peat swamps, cypress domes.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-117
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
+ Conduct site preparation burns in a manner such that they do not completely remove
the organic layer from the forest floor.
•t- Do not construct firelines for site preparation that will drain wetlands.
Chemical
4- Where feasible and applicable, apply herbicides by injection to individual stems.
•t- For chemical and aerial fertilizer applications, maintain and mark a buffer area
around all surface water to avoid drift or accidental direct application.
Avoid application of pesticides with toxicity to aquatic life, especially aerial applications,
Aerial applications generally require a buffer from water, agricultural lands, and homes.
Motorized ground applications require a buffer from water. The first pass of each applica-
tion is be made parallel to the buffer zone. A buffer is not necessary for hand applica-
tions; however, hand-applied forest chemicals have to be applied to specific targets, and
chemicals need to be prevented from entering the water. Before any application of a
chemical, consult state laws and regulations for chemical application for proper buffer
establishment. Have a person licensed in chemical application perform all work (Wash-
ington State DNR, 1997).
4- Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible.
This practice reduces the potential of the nutrients leaching to groundwater, and it
Increases the availability of nutrients for plant uptake.
•t- Apply fertilizers when leaching will be minimized.
4- Base fertilizer type and application rale on soil and/or foliar analysis.
To determine fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare available nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, and sulphur in the soils to be treated with the requirements of the species to be
sown.
of to
the
Mechanical Preparation Activities CWA 404
Under certain circumstances, a CWA section 404 permit is required for mechanical
silvicultural site preparation activities in wetlands. In 1995, EPA and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers issued a memorandum to clarify the applicability of section 404 to
mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in the Southeast.
The memorandum (particularly the descriptions of wetlands, activities, and BMPs in the
memorandum) focuses on the southeastern United States. However, the guidance In the
memorandum is generally applicable when addressing mechanical silvicultural site
preparation activities in wetlands elsewhere in the country.
The memorandum clarifies the applicability of forested wetlands BMPs to silvicultural
site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast.
Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities conducted in accordance with the
3-118 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
BMPs discussed below, which are designed to minimize effects to the aquatic ecosystem,
will not require a Clean Water Act section 404 permit. These BMPs further recognize that
certain wetlands should not be subject to unpermitted mechanical silvicultural site
preparation activities because of the adverse nature of potential effects associated with
these activities on these sites.
EPA and the Corps will continue to work closely with state forestry agencies to promote
the implementation of consistent and effective BMPs that facilitate sound silvicultural
practices. In those states where no BMPs specific to mechanical silvicultural site prepara-
tion activities in forested wetlands are currently in place, EPA and the Corps will coordi-
nate with those states to develop BMPs. In the interim, mechanical silvicultural site
preparation activities conducted in accordance with the memorandum will not require a
section 404 permit.
Circumstances in Which Mechanical Preparation Activities
a 404 Permit
Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities can have measurable and significant
effects on aquatic ecosystems when conducted in wetlands that are permanently flooded,
intermittently exposed, or semipermanently flooded, and in certain additional wetland
communities that exhibit aquatic functions and values that are more susceptible to effects
from these activities. For the wetland types identified below, mechanical silvicultural site
preparation activities require a permit so that individual proposals can be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis for site preparation and potential associated environmental effects.
A permit will be required in the following areas unless they have been so altered through
past practices (including the installation and continuous maintenance of water manage-
ment structures) as to no longer exhibit the distinguishing characteristics described below
(see Circumstances in which Mechanical Silvicultural Site Preparation Activities Do Not
Require a Permit below). Of course, discharges incidental to activities in any wetlands
that convert waters of the United States to non-waters always require authorization under
Clean Water Act section 404.
Permanently flooded wetlands, intenniltently exposed wetlands, and semipermanently
flooded wetlands. Permanently flooded wetland systems are characterized by water that
covers the land surface throughout the year in all years. Intermittently exposed wetlands
are characterized by surface water that is present throughout the year except in years of
extreme drought. Semipermanently flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water
that persists throughout the growing season in most years and, even when surface water is
absent, a water table usually at or very near the land surface. Examples of these wetlands
include cypress-gum swamps, muck and peat swamps, and cypress strands/domes.
Riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands. These are seasonally flooded (or wetter)
bottomland hardwood wetlands within the first or second bottoms of the floodplains of
river systems. Site-specific characteristics of hydrology, soils, and vegetation and the
presence of the alluvial features mentioned in the memorandum determine the boundary
of riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands. National Wetlands Inventory maps provide a
useful reference for the general location of these wetlands on the landscape.
While cedar swamps. These wetlands are greater than 1 acre in headwaters and greater
than 5 acres elsewhere. They are underlain by peat of greater than 1 meter and vegetated
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-119
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
by natural white cedar representing more than 50 percent of the basal area, where the
total basal area for all tree species is 60 square feet or greater.
Carolina bay wetlands. These are oriented, elliptical depressions with a sand rim that are
either underlain by clay-based soils and vegetated by cypress or underlain by peat of
greater than 0,5 meter and typically vegetated with an overstory of red, sweet, and
loblolly bays.
Nonriverine forest wetlands. The wetlands in this group are rare, high-quality wet forests,
with mature vegetation, located on the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Their hydrology is
dominated by high water tables. Two forest community types fall into this group:
(1) nonriverine wet hardwood forests, poorly drained mineral soil interstream flats
(comprising 10 or more contiguous acres), typically on the margins of large peatland
areas, seasonally flooded or saturated by high water tables, with vegetation dominated
(greater than 50 percent of basal area per acre) by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak,
or laurel oak alone or in combination, and (2) nonriverine swamp forests, very poorly
drained flats (comprising 5 or more contiguous acres), with organic soils or mineral soils
with high organic content, seasonally to frequently flooded or saturated by high water
tables, with vegetation dominated by bald cypress, pond cypress, swamp tupelo, water
tupelo, or Atlantic white cedar alone or in combination.
Low pocosin wetlands. These are the central, deepest parts of domed peatlands on poorly
drained interstream flats, underlain by peat soils greater than I meter, typically vegetated
by a dense layer of short shrubs.
Wei marl fores Is. These are hardwood forest wetlands underlain with poorly drained,
marl-derived, high-pH soils.
Tidal freshwater marshes. These wetlands are regularly or irregularly flooded by fresh
water. They have dense herbaceous vegetation and occur on the margins of estuaries or
drowned rivers or creeks.
Maritime grasslands, shrub swamps, and swamp forests. These are barrier island wet-
lands in dune swales and flats, underlain by wet mucky or sandy soils. They are vegetated
by wetland herbs, shrubs, and trees.
in Which Site Do
Not Require a Section 404 Permit
Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in wetlands that are seasonally
flooded, intermittently flooded, temporarily flooded, or saturated or are in existing pine
plantations and other silvicultural sites (except as listed above) do not require a permit if
conducted according to the BMPs listed below in Best Management Practices. Of course,
silvicultural practices conducted in uplands never require a Clean Water Act section 404
permit (see Code of Federal Regulations text above).
Seasonally flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water that is present for ex-
tended periods, especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the
season in most years. (When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the
surface.) Intermittently flooded wetland systems are characterized by substrate that is
usually exposed and the presence of surface water for variable periods without detectable
seasonable periodicity. Temporarily flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water
3-120 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
that is present for brief periods during the growing season, but also by a water table that
usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Saturated wetlands are
characterized by substrate that is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the
growing season, but also by the absence of surface water most of the time. Examples
typical of these wetlands include pine flatwoods, pond pine woodlands, and wet flats
(e.g., certain pine/hardwood forests).
Best Management Practices
The BMPs below are from a joint EPA and Corps of Engineers Memorandum to the Field
(see below) on the application of BMPs to mechanical silvicultural site preparation
activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast. The guidance is,
however, generally applicable to mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in
wetlands elsewhere in the country. Every state in the Southeast has developed BMPs for
forestry to protect water quality, and most have also developed specific BMPs for for-
ested wetlands.
The BMPs listed here are the minimum to be applied for mechanical silvicultural site
preparation activities in forested wetlands where these activities do not require a permit
(see Memorandum to the Field below). In circumstances where a permit is required,
BMPs specifically required for the individual operation will be detailed in the permit.
The BMPs below were developed because silvicultural practices have the potential to
result in effects on an aquatic ecosystem. Mechanical silvicultural site preparation
activities have the potential to cause effects such as soil compaction, turbidity, erosion,
and hydrologic modifications if the activities are not effectively controlled by BMPs.
+ Position shear blades or rakes at or near the soil surface and windrow, pile, and
otherwise move logs and logging debris by methods that minimize dragging or
pushing through the soil to minimize soil disturbance associated with shearing,
raking, and moving trees, stumps, brush, and other unwanted vegetation.
+ Conduct activities in such a manner as to avoid excessive soil compaction and
maintain soil tilth.
+ Arrange windrows in such a manner as to limit erosion, overland flow, and runoff.
+ Prevent disposal or storage of logs or logging debris in SMAs.
+ Maintain the natural contour of the site and ensure that activities do not immediately
or gradually convert the wetland to a non-wetland.
+ Conduct activities with appropriate water management mechanisms to minimize off-
site water quality effects.
The full text of the memorandum is available on the Internet at .
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-121
-------
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement
3-122 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CHAPTER 4:
USING MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO
PREVENT AND SOLVE NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN WATERSHEDS
Management measures and associated management practices applied at harvest sites and
along roads provide essential control of erosion and sedimentation, and it is important
that all management measures and management practices applicable to a harvest site or
road be applied to limit as much as possible the amount of soil erosion and the potential
for water pollution that can result from forest harvesting activities.
The watershed perspective enables the practitioner to go beyond the effects from a single
harvest area or individual road to consider all activities occurring within the watershed
that could affect water resources. Each activity can have its own effect on water quality,
and the watershed perspective views the effects due to harvesting and road construction
within the context of the overall effects of forestry activities together with other activities
such as recreational uses and conversions of land use. It is the collective effects of all of
these activities that determine how water quality is affected, and these cumulative effects
on water quality wouldn't normally be recognized if the effects arising from individual
harvesting activities are considered alone.
Research has determined that the use of BMPs on forestland results in smaller increases
in nutrients and suspended sediment load after logging than when BMPs are not used.
This points to the need for a watershed approach to water quality management, and such
an approach within the context of forest harvesting and road construction and use im-
plies, at a minimum, the following:
• Applying management measures and management practices that are appropriate not
only to the harvest site, but that take into consideration the current state of water
quality in receiving waters, given all that is happening in the watershed, and the
effect that forestry activities could have.
« The foreseeable future needs to be considered as well. Some effects of harvesting
and road building can last beyond the duration of a harvest or the completion of road
construction, and if other activities that could effect water quality are planned in the
watershed in the timeframe during which those effects are expected to continue,
mitigation of these long-term effects might be necessary.
* Maintenance of older roads built with outdated management practices (those dating
from the 1950s to the mid-1970s), which can be significant sources of sediment, is
an essential part of forested watershed management. Long-term management plans
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-1
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
for forest roads include their inventory, maintenance, and closure; and closure of
unused, unneeded, and high-erosion-risk roads.
Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a single stream or other water resource.
Watersheds are defined solely by drainage areas and not by land ownership or political
boundaries.
Since 1991, the USRPA has promoted the watershed protection approach as a holistic
framework for addressing complex pollution problems such as those from nonpoint
sources. The watershed protection approach is a comprehensive planning process that
considers all natural resources in the watershed, as well as social, cultural, and economic
factors. The process tailors workable solutions to ecosystem needs through participation
and leadership of stakeholders.
Although watershed approaches may vary in terms of specific objectives, priorities,
elements, timing, and resources, all should be based on the following guiding principles.
* Partnerships, People affected by management decisions are involved throughout and
help shape key decisions. Cooperative partnerships among federal, state, and local
agencies and non-governmental organizations with interests in the watershed are
formed. This approach ensures that environmental objectives are well integrated
with those for economic stability and other social/cultural goals of the area. It also
builds support for action among those individuals who are economically dependent
upon the natural resources of the area.
* Geographic focus. Resource management activities are coordinated and directed
within specific geographic areas, usually defined by watershed boundaries, areas
overlaying or recharging groundwater, or a combination of both.
« Sound management techniques based on strong science and data. Collectively,
watershed stakeholders employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an
iterative decision-making process. Typically, this includes:
- Assessment and characterization of the natural resources in the watershed and
the people who depend upon them.
- Goal setting and identification of environmental objectives based on the condi-
tion or vulnerability of resources and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem and the
people.
- Identification of priority problems.
- Development of specific management options and action plans.
- Implementation, evaluation, and revision of plans as needed.
Operating and coordinating programs on a watershed basis makes good sense for envi-
ronmental, financial, social, and administrative reasons. For example, by jointly review-
ing the results of assessment efforts for drinking water protection, pollution control, fish
and wildlife habitat protection, and other resource protection programs, managers from
all levels of government can better understand the cumulative effects of various human
activities and determine the most critical problems within each watershed. Using this
information to set priorities for action allows public and private managers from all levels
to allocate limited financial and human resources to address the most critical needs.
4-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
Establishing environmental indicators helps guide activities toward solving those high-
priority problems and measuring success.
The final result of the watershed planning process is a plan that is a clear description of
resource problems. Goals to be attained, and identification of sources for technical,
educational, and funding assistance needed. The successful plan provides a basis for
seeking support and for maximizing the benefits of that support.
The watershed approach is a useful mechanism for managing the resources within a
defined geographical boundary, and it provides a basis for cumulative effects assessment
as well. Though it is not a formal analytical framework for the evaluation of cumulative
effects, the watershed approach shares with cumulative effects assessment (CEA) a
consideration of all relevant activities and influences. Furthermore, a watershed is a
natural geographic boundary for the analysis of cumulative effects on water quality
because the influences of upstream activities can create a cumulative effect on down-
stream water quality.
Definition
Current environmental regulations provide at least two definitions of cumulative effects
(CEs):
Cumulative effect is the effect on the environment which results from the
incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reason-
ably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-
federal) undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from
individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period
oftime(40CFR 1508.7).
Cumulative effects are the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable
to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill
material. Although the effect of a particular discharge may constitute a minor
change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can
result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the
productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems (40 CFR 230.1.1).
CEs can be very difficult to quantify and assess, and they are best understood by focusing
on the mechanisms by which watershed processes are affected (Reid, 1993). Watershed
processes are affected when a land use activity causes a change in the production and
transport of one or more watershed products (water, sediment, organic material, chemi-
cals, or heat). Most land use activities affect only one of four aspects of the environ-
ment—vegetation, soils, topography, or chemicals—and other watershed changes result
from initial effects on these. Understanding CEs within a watershed context involves:
(1) understanding how specific land uses affect vegetation, soils, topography, or chemi-
cals; (2) determining to what extent these changes affect watershed processes; and
(3) understanding how changes to vegetation, soils, topography, chemicals, and water-
shed processes affect particular resources and values.
Cumulative effects can be additive or synergistic (MacDonald, 2000). Additive effects are
those in which each land use activity creates a discrete effect on an individual resource or
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
value and the total effect: is the sum of the individual effects, Synergistic effects are those
in which the combined effect of individual activities on a resource or value are greater
than the sum of their individual effects. Synergistic effects can occur through the interac-
tion of different chemicals or types of effects on a single resource. Many times with
Synergistic effects, each effect is analyzed and determined to individually not be detri-
mental to a particular resource, but the combined or cumulative effect of the three activi-
ties do create a significant impact on a resource.
Assessment of CEs should also take into account whether they are on-site or off-site. On-
site CEs can occur if a change persists long enough for later activities to affect the same
resource or for the effects of off-site activities to be transported to the site of the change.
The temporal dimension of on-site CEs is important to their assessment, while (lie spatial
dimension is limited to the original site of the effect. Off-site CEs occur when a land use
activity causes a change in a watershed process such that effects are created at a location
other than where the original land use activity occurred. Off-site CEs occur when water-
shed processes are altered long enough for the off-site effects to accumulate over time;
when watershed processes are affected at multiple sites in a watershed and the watershed
products that are affected are transported to the same site, or when an off-site effect
interacts with an on-site effect. Both the temporal and spatial dimension of off-site CEs
are important to consider when analyzing them.
The Importance of Considering and Analyzing Cumulative
Cumulative effects are of concern with respect to forest roads; forest road construction,
use, and maintenance; and forest harvesting because the changes that can occur in
watershed processes following these activities can persist for many years. This persis-
tence increases the potential for cumulative effects to occur.
Traditionally, effect assessment has evaluated the likely effects of single actions on the
environment. But single areas and ecosystems are often affected by more than single
actions or projects. The collective effect of numerous small actions can cause serious
degradation, though the effects of each small action by itself might be undetectable. Even
after an area or ecosystem has been degraded, an analysis of the effects of an additional
action might conclude that there would be only minor or no significant effect. An analysis
of the additive effect of the single additional action—the cumulative effects—however,
might conclude that the action could be detrimental (USEPA, 1992). Cumulative effects
analysis also differs from many types of traditional environmental assessment in the need
to predict the consequences of "reasonably foreseeable future actions."
The importance of cumulative effects assessment, then, lies in the difference between
traditional effect assessment and cumulative effects assessment. Traditional effect assess-
ment is performed with respect to the proposed disturbance, whereas cumulative effects
assessment is performed with respect to valued environmental functions (USEPA, 1992).
An assessment of an action might have little to no detectable significant effect in terms of
pollutant additions or habitat loss, as determined by traditional effect assessment, but
might have a clearly disturbing effect on ecosystem functioning as determined by cumu-
lative effects assessment. As more habitat is lost or fragmented and pollutants are gener-
ated, environmental stewardship demands that we pay more attention to the collective
effects of our actions on ecosystems and their functioning and place less stress on the
absolute quantities of pollutants that are generated or habitat lost as a result of each
action. Cumulative effects assessment is the means to do this.
4-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
Problems in Cumulative
Cumulative effects analysis, as conceived, is a powerful approach to assessing the overall
effect of our actions on the environment and of managing those actions such that species
and ecosystems continue to function properly. Unfortunately, many practical problems
are associated with performing a cumulative effects analysis, including the following:
• Because total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments calculate all point source
and non-point source pollution for a watershed, a TMDL is essentially a cumulative
effects analysis. Agencies responsible for implementing TMDL's have been hesitant
to do so because of limitations in personnel, water quality data, and understanding of
watershed dynamics. There is also a lack of available methodologies for tracking
pollutants such as clean sediment (MacDonald, 2000).
« Ecosystems are complex and our knowledge of their workings is still limited, yet
cumulative effects assessment involves identification of the ecosystem components
of relevance that will be the focus of the cumulative effects analysis (Berg et al.,
1996).
* The boundaries for cumulative effects assessment might be different from those
relevant to other analyses, such as nonpoint source pollution or TMDL assessment.
A single watershed might be appropriate for assessing nonpoint source pollution, but
many watersheds might be involved in cumulative effects analysis for effects on
forest conservation (Berg et al., 1996).
• Current guidelines published by the CEQ (1997) do not explicitly address natural
processes, spatial variability, and temporal variability within project areas. Natural
variability and rates of recovery can affect prediction and detection of cumulative
impacts (MacDonald, 2000).
« Effects from individual projects often last for no longer than one human generation,
whereas the time frame for changes in ecosystem processes that are the focus of
cumulative effects assessment is typically an order of magnitude longer (Berg et: al.,
1996).
* The effects of most management activities diminish over time, and so then does the
magnitude of possible cumulative effects. This leads to a problem of temporal scale
related to determining the magnitude of human-induced cumulative effects relative
to natural variability over a long time lag (MacDonald, 1997).
• The scale of cumulative effects analysis is very different from that used for tradi-
tional effect: assessment, and effects due to individual projects might be undetectable
using the analytical methods necessary for cumulative effects assessment. For
instance, patterns on the landscape, such as whether 10,000 hectares are contiguous
or not, are relevant for cumulative effects analysis; a small clear-cut, important at the
local scale, might not appear in an analysis at a scale of thousands of hectares (Berg
et al., 1996).
• When working at the scale necessary for cumulative effects assessment, areas that
contain fragmented jurisdictions with multiple-agency oversight, differences in
regulatory structure between jurisdictions and agencies, and conflicting interests and
mandates are involved (Berg et al., 1996).
* To adequately assess the future consequences of multiple perturbations in a water-
shed, the status of ecosystem recovery from past perturbations must be estimated.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
Complexity of the analysis increases because recovery times for various components
in a system are not necessarily identical, and knowledge is often inadequate to
quantify recovery rates. For instance, "recovery" of stream flow magnitude and rate
after timber harvest is largely a function of the rate of revegetation of the watershed.
Sediment produced by roads associated with the timber harvest will typically take
much longer to move through stream channels and "recover" to pre-road levels.
Understanding of both types of recovery is needed and they cannot be substituted for
each other.
Within the context of forestry activities and forested watersheds, the following difficulties
are encountered when attempting to assess cumulative effects (Reid, 1993):
« The effects of forest management activities on streamflow has been studied exten-
sively, yet it remains difficult to determine what effects a management activity will
have on a stream because hydrologic response varies greatly with basin size, flow
magnitude, season, climate, geology, and type and intensity of forest management
activity. The results of studies done in one basin are therefore difficult to extrapolate
to other basins. It can be important to determine whether forestry activities will have
effects on watershed processes because of the potential consequences if the effects
are substantial enough, but such a determination can be costly. It can also be costly,
however, to take measures to prevent watershed effects from forestry activities when
such effects might not materialize.
• Variability in storm intensity and runoff processes limit the ability to detect human-
induced effects on streamflow. Even with years of monitoring data, it can be difficult
to distinguish between human-induced effects and natural variability in watershed
processes. The process of determining cause and effect is complicated by the fact
that different activities can cause similar responses and one activity might not
always elicit the same response.
« The dynamics of natural forest communities must be understood to interpret or
predict the effects of changes, and natural disturbance frequencies, patterns, charac-
teristics, recovery rates; these are not well understood. Monitoring would be a useful
tool to increase our understanding of these dynamics, but the sequences of changes
that can lead to CEs, or the combinations of changes that can lead to CEs are varied
and can take long periods of time to take effect (e.g., 50 years). Monitoring these
effects is often not possible due to the time frame involved.
« If a system responds incrementally, changes can be easily identified; but many
changes, such as landslides or floods, do not occur incrementally. Instead, changes,
such as loss of vegetation water storage and increased soil compaction, might be
relatively benign and accumulate until some event, such as a 50-year storm, triggers
a substantial response. These thresholds at which substantial and important CEs
occur often cannot be predicted, and knowledge of them is based on studying them
after they occur.
« The rate of recovery from land use depends on the type of land use and on the
watershed processes that are affected.
4-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
to
Four general approaches for predicting cumulative effects include the use of analytical
models, assessments of previous management activities, use of a collection of procedures
that address specific anticipated impacts, and use of a checklist to indicate what cumula-
tive effects might be expected to occur because of a land use activity. Models can be used
to predict changes to physical or biological aspects of a watershed, or to predict the
magnitude of change in a watershed process or characteristic that might trigger a particu-
lar type of impact (Reid, 1993). Models are useful because the cumulative effects of
repeated timber harvests in a watershed could be estimated or monitored experimentally
only in a study lasting several centuries (Ziemer and Lisle, 1991). While modeling does
represent a simplification of nature and depends on a modeler's skill, modeling results
can represent average conditions and explore the effects of large spatial and temporal
scales. They can also be useful for conducting "what if" analyses, where the effects of
different sequences of harvesting or precipitation events, for example, are explored. This
characteristic of models contrasts sharply with monitoring studies, in which the unique
sequence of events that occurs during a monitoring distorts the results.
Many models have been developed for specific locations and cannot easily be applied to
other areas. The limitations of the models are stated in user's guides or instructions for
use, but the models, nevertheless, are often put into general use regardless of whether the
assumptions of the model are valid for a particular application or whether the methods of
the model have been tested and validated (Reid, 1993). Many models are meant to be
used to predict particular impacts, yet their methods are used to test for the likelihood of
a variety of other possible impacts for which the method was not developed. Used
properly, however, models can shed light on the importance of processes and variables to
watershed behavior and treatment effects, but have limited value for precisely predicting
watershed behavior (Reid, 1993). A large amount of data generally is required for model-
ing, and its acquisition can involve intensive monitoring. Data analysis also can be
complex, and these factors have kept the use of models very limited (MacDonald, 1997).
Slightly less complicated than modeling would be an analysis involving a broad-scale
assessment of previous management activities. Such a method would use one or more
management indices to assess the relative likelihood of a cumulative effect, rattier than
explicitly modeling cause-and-effect (MacDonald, 1997). The EPA Synoptic Approach
and the Washington Stale Watershed Analysis Method (described below) are examples of
this level of analysis.
Another approach for assessing cumulative effects consists of a collection of procedures
used to evaluate a variety of impacts. A relevant subset of impacts is generally consid-
ered. This approach provides flexibility in determining what impacts will be considered,
but it provides no guidance on determining which impacts should be evaluated (Reid,
1993). The Water Resources Evaluation of Non-point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS)
(described below) method is an example of a procedure-based approach.
A third general approach consists of a checklist of items to consider during an assess-
ment. A checklist provides guidance in determining what impacts to evaluate but does not
provide methods for doing so (Reid, 1993). Checklists are useful for (1) identifying
which issues to look at in more detail, (2) helping to ensure that a range of issues are
considered, (3) providing a simple means to address the issue of cumulative effects
assessment. Disadvantages associated with checklists include the strictly qualitative
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4- 7
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
nature of the assessments, their lack of repeatability, and their lack of documentation
(MacDonald, 1997). 'Die California Department of Forestry questionnaire (described
below) is an example of a checklist assessment method.
Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and a workable approach should be a
combination of these separate approaches. For example, a checklist or expert system
could be used to guide users through a decision tree to identify the impacts to be consid-
ered, and then a set of procedures could be selected to address them (Reid, 1993). Model-
ing could be employed to assess the sensitivities of the watershed to various treatment
scenarios.
Five techniques that have been developed for assessing cumulative effects are described
below.
1. EPA The Synoptic Approach
The Synoptic Approach was developed by EPA for the evaluation of cumulative effects
on wetlands for section 404 permit review. It does not provide a precise, quantitative
assessment of cumulative effects, but is used to rate cumulative effects on resources of
interest (Berg et al., 1996). The Synoptic Approach has two major steps—definition of
the synoptic indices and selection of landscape indicators.
Four synoptic indices are used for assessing cumulative effects and relative risk—
function, value, functional loss, and replacement potential. The function index refers to
the total amount of a particular function a wetland provides within a landscape subunit
without consideration of the ecological or social benefits of that function. Landscape
elements function within landscapes through physical, chemical, and biological processes
to provide habitat, cleanse water, prevent flooding, and perform other functions. The
value index refers to the value of ecological functions with respect to public welfare.
Tangible benefits (e.g., hunting, camping, timber, carbon dioxide sequestration) and
intangible benefits (e.g., aesthetic, existence value) can both be included, as well as
future value as the future benefit of the functions performed. Note that the value index
does not represent economic value since market factors are not considered. The func-
tional loss index represents cumulative effects on a particular valued function that have
occurred within a landscape subunit. A complete loss, where an ecosystem element is
changed into something else entirely, is a conversion. A partial loss, where ecosystem
element type is the same but functioning is altered, is degradation. In the course of a
cumulative effects assessment, future loss is considered per the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1508.7). Functional loss depends on the characteristics
of a particular effect, including the type of effect; its magnitude, timing, and duration;
and ecosystem resistance, or the sensitivity of the ecosystem element to disturbance. The
replacement potential index represents the ability to replace an ecosystem element and its
valued functions. Functional replacement through ecological restoration or natural
recovery are both considered. Protection of ecosystem elements and functions is critical
for risk reduction if their replacement potential is judged to be low (USEPA, 1992).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
Landscape indicators arc first-order approximations that represent some particular
synoptic index. Quantifying specific synoptic indices for large landscape subunits would
be difficult if not impossible, so the Synoptic Approach uses landscape indicators of
actual functions, values, and effects (USEPA, 1992).
As an example, a particular management concern might be nonpoint source sediment
loading to streams. Nonpoint source sediment loading would then be the synoptic index
used in the Synoptic Approach. Since it would be difficult to quantify this over a large
area, total area harvested might be chosen as a landscape indicator for forest harvesting.
Total harvested area would be the data used to determine cumulative nonpoint source
sediment loading effects on the area of concern.
The Synoptic Approach is an ecologically based framework in which locally relevant
information and best professional judgment are combined to address cumulative effects.
It is not, however, meant to be used to assess the cumulative effects of specific actions.
Rather, it is really meant to be used to augment site-specific review processes and to
improve best professional judgment. It is probably most effectively used at extremely
large landscape scales, such as the state level (Berg et al., 1996). The approach is valu-
able because it is flexible enough to cover a broad spectrum of management objectives
and constraints—the specific synoptic indices and landscape indicators used in an
application can be chosen based on the particular goals and constraints of the assess-
ment—and it certainly need not be limited to assessing effects on wetlands. The process
allows managers to weigh the need for precision against the constraints of time, money,
and information (USEPA, 1992).
2. Washington
The Washington State Watershed Analysis method is used to develop forest plans for
individual watersheds based on current scientific understanding of the significant links
between physical and biological processes and management activities. The first step in
use of the method is screening a watershed to qualitatively define and assess areas of
sensitivity to environmental change within the watershed. If any area is found to be
sensitive, then the area and the causal mechanism must be addressed by a management
plan appropriate to the problem. The management plan will define more precisely the
potential effects of management actions and management alternatives. The method uses
separate assessment modules for mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrologic change,
riparian function, stream channel assessment, fish habitat, water supply/public works, and
routing through the fluvial system (Berg et al., 1996).
The Washington State Watershed Analysis process is a collaborative one that involves
both scientists and managers, and its products generally are area-specific management
prescriptions and monitoring recommendations (Berg et al., 1996).
3. of Nonpoint Silvicultural
(WRENSS)
The WRENSS is a process-based approach to evaluating timber management impacts
(Reid, 1993). It consists of a series of procedures for evaluating separate impacts, though
it is not intended specifically to address CEs. The original focus of the method was water
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
quality and consideration of the effects of timber management: and roads. While its
procedures do not address resources other than water quality, it would be possible to add
additional methods to evaluate impacts on particular resources and to assess the effects of
other land uses. Use of the method can be complex and time consuming.
The method is based on computer simulation modeling that delivers graphs and tables as
results that are used to estimate changes in evapotranspiration, flow duration, and soil
moisture from different logging plans. Temperature changes are incorporated using a
separate model, the Brown model, and sediment modules include methods for estimating
surface erosion, ditch erosion, landsliding, earth/flow activity, sediment yield, and channel
stability.
Application of the method to CE analysis would require the identification of likely
environmental changes generated by a project, likely downstream impacts, and the
mechanisms generating them.
4. California of Forestry
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection developed a questionnaire for
use by registered professional foresters to assess potential cumulative watershed effects
(CWE) from timber management. Completion of the questionnaire involves a four-step
process: (1) perform a resource inventory in the assessment area; (2) judge whether the
planned timber operation is likely to produce changes to each of those resources;
(3) identify the effects of past or future projects; and (4) judge whether significant
cumulative effects are likely from the proposed operation. Onsitc and downstream
beneficial uses, existing channel conditions, and adverse effects from past projects are
identified and listed during the first step. The area for analysis is one of manageable size
relative to the timber harvest—usually an order 3 or 4 watershed. During the assessment,
the user rates the magnitude of a variety of potential effects from the proposed and future
projects, and combined past, present, and future projects. The assessment serves as an
indicator of need for further review.
Responding to the questionnaire relies on the qualitative observations and professional
judgment of the person filling out the forms. The questionnaire is designed to be used
within the time constraints of the development of timber harvest plans and serves prima-
rily as a checklist to be certain that all important issues have been considered. Its strength
lies in its flexibility: the checklist: can be easily altered to accommodate a wide variety of
situations and harvesting conditions.
The California Department of Forestry questionnaire addresses a wide variety of uses and
effects and includes many that are not related to water quality, e.g., recreational, aes-
thetic, biological, and traffic uses and values, but it provides only qualitative results. The
questionnaire is the only CWE evaluation method that uses an assessment of more than
one type of effect: from more than one type of mechanism, and it is one of few that
incorporates an evaluation of effects that accumulate due to past, present, and future
actions (Berg et al., 1996).
5. to Cumulative
MacDonald (2000), put forth a conceptual process for assessing cumulative effects. The
process is an attempt: to overcome some of the problems with other approaches to cumu-
lative effects analysis (CEA), including problems in defining key issues, specifying the
4-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
appropriate spatial and temporal scales, and determining the numerous interactions and
indirect effects to analyze. The assessment is broken down into three phases: scoping,
analysis, and management.
* The scoping phase is further broken down into steps in which the issues, resources,
time scale, spatial scale, risk, and assessment effort are identified for the cumulative
effects analysis. The analysis phase is likewise subdivided into five substeps.
• In the analysis phase researchers identify and analyze cause-and-effect mechanisms;
natural variability and resource condition; past, present and future activities; relative
impacts of past, present and future activities; and validity and sensitivity of the
overall cumulative effects analysis.
« The management phase identifies possibilities for mitigation and restoration, as well
as key data gaps and monitoring needs.
Figure 4-1 illustrates MacDonald's process for assessing cumulative effects.
(0
"i
m
CO
I0-
f* 41%
« 2
o) 2
g«E
CO
Identify and
magnitude of
to resources, and of effort.
Identify key relationships.
variability and
conditions.
and
and their impacts.
Predict cumulative and
their validity.
the to modify
to their impacts, for
planning, and for
Identify gaps, and monitoring
needs.
Figure 4-1. iepresentation of MacDonald's for eumulatiwe effects (after
MacDonald, 2000).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidelines for
performing CEA (CEQ, 1997). The CEQ methodology is broken down into three groups
of steps that are designed to be integrated into three components of an environmental
impact assessment (EIA). The EIA components relevant to CEA are scoping, describing
the affected environment, and determining the environmental consequences.
• In the scoping component of an EIA, the CEA steps are to identify significant issues
and define assessment goals; establish spatial boundaries of the CEA; establish
temporal scale of the CEA; and identify other activities that affect natural and
human communities.
• The affected environment component of the EA should incorporate the following
CEA steps: characterize the resources, ecosystems and human communities and their
resilience to stress; define stresses and regulatory thresholds for measuring stresses;
and define baseline conditions for the area defined in the CEA.
• The environmental consequences component of the EIA should identify CEA cause-
and-effect relationships between human activities and resources; determine the
significance of cumulative effects; develop alternatives to minimize or mitigate
significant cumulative effects; monitor cumulative effects and adapt management
accordingly.
CEQ lists seven primary methods to develop baseline data and analytical models for
cumulative effects analysis (CEA):
• Questionnaires, interviews, and panels to gather initial information
• Checklists to review important activities that may contribute to cumulative effects
• Matrices to tally cumulative effects
• Networks and system diagrams to qualitatively analyze effects of multiple activities
on multiple resources in the analysis
• Modeling to quantify the cause-and-effect relationships within the CEA
• Trends analysis to use baseline data to extrapolate future cumulative effects
• Overlay mapping (GIS) to perform spatial analysis and identify areas of high and
low impact.
Appendices to the CEQ report provide examples of each method and how it is might be
used in CEA. The report is available on the World Wide Web at .
The MacDonald (2000) and CEQ (1997) guidelines share many similar components. The
spatial and temporal boundaries of the CEA are defined first, along with the resources
that will be impacted by cumulative effects. Detailed analysis of cause-and-effect rela-
tionships follows, and baseline data is developed to describe present conditions. Both
methods include monitoring and mitigation steps toward the end of the process.
MacDonald's framework differs from the CEQ methodology by including natural vari-
ability in systems, consideration of past and future activities, sensitivity analysis of
predictive models, and an up-front determination on the level of effort that is appropriate
for the assessment. MacDonald's refinements help address some of the hurdles to CEA
implementation that have hampered past efforts.
4-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpolnt Source Pollution Problems In Watersheds
An
The Umalilia National Forest, located in the Blue Mountains of southeast Washington
and northeast Oregon, covers 1.4 million acres of diverse landscapes and plant communi-
ties (USDA-FS, 1999), The forest has some mountainous terrain, but mostly consists of
V-shaped valleys separated by narrow ridges or plateaus. The landscape also includes
heavily timbered slopes, grassland ridges and benches, and bold granite outcroppings.
Elevations range from 1,600 to 8,000 feet above sea level.
The Forest is administered by the Forest Supervisors Office in Pendleton, Oregon, along
with four Ranger Districts located in Pomeroy and Walla Walla, Washington, and Ukiah
and Heppner, Oregon. The actual on the ground management of the forest resources is
accomplished at the Ranger District level by the District Ranger and staff, while the
Forest Supervisor oversees management and administration. The Forest is challenged
daily with protecting both the productivity and the aesthetic values of the land. Managing
to provide many resources, benefiting many people "for the long run" is the key principle
guiding the Umatilla Management Team.
Because water from the Blue Mountains is important for so many uses, proper manage-
ment of the watersheds in the Umatilla National Forest is strongly emphasized. The goals
of the watershed management program are as follows:
* To maintain streams that are cold, clean, and free of excessive sediments and
human-caused pollution.
« To keep stream banks, channels, wetlands, and adjacent floodplains healthy.
« To restore damaged lands to their previous, productive condition.
« To maintain near-natural amounts of runoff water.
The Umatilla National Forest Plan includes important direction for achieving these goals.
The plan envisions a basic three-point program for managing forest watersheds:
1. Inventory
Proper management of a forest watershed demands a good understanding of basic compo-
nents—soil, water, climate, and vegetation. Managers at the Umatilla National Forest
upgrade the resource information base for the forest by conducting the following invento-
ries and surveys:
- Soil
• Water
* Fishery resources
« Potential watershed improvement projects
« Riparian zones (areas adjacent: to streams and lakes)
These watershed surveys provide vital information for improving the management of
surface water resources.
2. Apply
The Umatilla National Forest has developed "best management practices"—policies,
standards, and methods of operation designed to reduce harmful effects on water while
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-13
-------
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds
still allowing use of other resources. Maintaining stream surface shading to prevent fish-
bearing waters from overheating during the summer is an example of general practices
applied throughout the forest. Others are developed specifically for a particular activity.
Forest managers work together in the project planning stages to identify the nature and
risk of potential hazards to water resources. As a result, projects can be modified to avoid
problem areas and reduce water resource damage.
The forest's watershed management program emphasizes the prevention of problems
before they occur. However, it is sometimes necessary to treat watershed problems
resulting from past practices. Such treatments might include restoring wet meadows,
recontouring gullied lands, or stabilizing eroding stream banks.
Recently, a program to control and treat the acidic wastewater draining into a forest:
stream where salmon and steelhead spawn was begun in the Umatilla National Forest.
These wastes, produced by abandoned gold mines, are now treated in man-made bogs,
where toxic metals and other harmful substances are filtered out. Initial results have
shown a dramatic recovery in water quality.
3. Monitor and
An extensive water-monitoring program has been developed for the Umatilla National
Forest. It measures success in achieving the goal of maintaining healthy and abundant
water resources. Monitoring stations are strategically placed at forest management
projects to measure
• Stream flow
• Water temperature
• Suspended sediment and turbidity
• Shape and condition of stream channels and riparian areas
« Precipitation, snow pack and oilier climatic factors
« The soil's ability to infiltrate and hold precipitation
« Physical, chemical and biological components of water quality
These measurements provide a better understanding of how management activities affect
water resources and whether our efforts are effective in maintaining high water quality.
4-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
CHAPTER 5: MONITORING
AND TRACKING TECHNIQUES
This chapter discusses monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of forestry
management measures. For the most part, such monitoring is done either for research
purposes or to assess compliance with regulatory requirements or recommendations.
Therefore, it is usually the domain of universities or government agencies and this
chapter is directed primarily at state agencies responsible for compliance with forestry
regulations, nonpoint source pollution control regulations, or voluntary forest practice
programs. Owners and managers of large forestland tracts are encouraged to work with
state officials to develop a means of monitoring the implementation of BMPs on their
lands to assess whether they are installed and maintained adequately so that they will
protect water quality effectively, regardless of whether the state's program mandates
forest practice implementation or encourages voluntary implementation.
Overview
Designing and legally implementing a state program of management practices for forest
harvests and forest road construction cannot protect water quality unless the BMPs are
implemented by those who actually harvest the timber or manage the land to be har-
vested. Monitoring the implementation of BMPs is a crucial element: of any BMP pro-
gram. Monitoring provides feedback on whether management practices are implemented
per the specifications required or recommended by state and federal governments, on
how the forestry practice program is received by harvesters and landowners, and on
forestry practice design and use standards and specifications so they can be refined to be
more useful and more effective.
Many states have implemented programs to monitor the implementation of forestry
practices at harvest sites in conjunction with the passage of forest practice legislation or
after a state has established a set of forestry practice recommendations. The end of this
chapter provides information about some of these programs. Fewer states monitor the
effectiveness of management practices at protecting water quality as part of their BMP
implementation monitoring programs. However, even a limited amount of effectiveness
monitoring, such as under controlled conditions during experimental harvests, is impor-
tant to ensure that BMP design specifications and standards are adequate to protect water
quality and soils. Once it is determined that BMPs that: are installed according to stan-
dards and specifications are actually effective, it can be acceptable to monitor only the
implementation of BMPs to ensure that they are properly installed, the assumption being
that if they are installed adequately, then they effectively protect water quality and forest
resources. Such an approach is often necessary because of the difficulty and cost in
measuring water quality directly and confounding factors such as upstream pollution
sources. Without the initial information that adequately installed BMPs are effective,
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-1
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
though, little can be said about the degree of water quality and forest: resource protection
attained by adequately installing BMPs.
The most fundamental step in the development of a monitoring plan is to define the goals
and objectives, or purpose, of the monitoring program. In general, monitoring goals are
broad statements such as "to measure changes in fish spawning habitat" or "to measure
nutrient loading to streams adjacent to harvest sites." Monitoring programs can be
grouped according to the following general statements of purpose or expected outcomes:
« Describe status and trend
• Describe and rank existing and emerging problems
« Design management and regulatory programs
« Evaluate program effectiveness
• Respond to emergencies
• Evaluate the implementation of best management practices
• Evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices
• Validate a proposed water quality model
• Perform research
Unlike monitoring goals, monitoring objectives are more specific statements that can be
used to add detail, including geographic scale, measurement variables, sampling meth-
ods, and sample size, to the monitoring design. Detailed monitoring program objectives
enable the designer of the program to define precisely what data will be gathered in order
to meet the management goals. Vague or inaccurate statements of objectives lead to
program designs that provide too little or too much data, thereby either failing to meet
management needs or costing too much.
Numerous guidance documents have been developed, or are in development, to assist
resource managers in developing and implementing monitoring programs that address all
aspects of monitoring design. Appendix A in Monitoring Guidance for Determining the
Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997) presents a review of more than
40 monitoring guidances for both point and nonpoint source pollution. These guidances
discuss virtually every aspect of nonpoint source pollution monitoring, including moni-
toring program design and objectives, sample types and sampling methods, chemical and
physical water quality variables, biological monitoring, data analysis and management,
and quality assurance and quality control.
Once the monitoring goals and objectives have been established, existing data and
constraints are considered. A thorough review of literature pertaining to water quality
studies previously conducted in the geographic region of interest can help determine
whether existing data provide sufficient information to address the monitoring goals and
what data gaps exist.
Identification of project: constraints address financial, staffing, and temporal elements.
Clear and detailed information is obtained on the time frame within which management
decisions need to be made, the amounts and types of data that is to be collected, the level
of effort needed to collect the necessary data, and equipment and personnel needed to
5-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
conduct the monitoring. From this information it can be determined whether available
personnel and budget are sufficient to Implement or expand the monitoring program.
As with monitoring program design, the level of monitoring that will be conducted is
largely determined when goals and objectives are set for a monitoring program, although
there is some flexibility for achieving most monitoring objectives.
The overall scale of a monitoring program has two components—a temporal scale and a
geographic scale. The temporal scale is the amount of time required to accomplish the
program objectives. It can vary from an afternoon to many years. The geographic scale
can also vary from quite small, such as plots along a single stream reach, to very large,
such as an entire river basin. The temporal and geographic scales, like a program's design
and monitoring level, are primarily determined by the program's objectives.
If the main objective is to determine the current biological condition of a stream, sam-
pling at a few stations in a stream reach over 1 or 2 days might suffice. Similarly, if the
monitoring objective is to determine the presence or absence of a nonpoint source effect,
a synoptic survey might be conducted in a few select locations. If the objective is to
determine the effectiveness of a watershed forest management program for improving
water quality conditions in streams, however, monitoring subwatersheds for 5 years or
longer might be necessary. If the objective is to calibrate or verify a model, very Intensive
sampling might be necessary.
Depending on the objectives of the monitoring program, it might be necessary to monitor
only the water body with the water quality problem or it might be necessary to include
areas that have contributed to the problem in the past, areas containing suspected sources
of the problem, or a combination of these areas. A monitoring program conducted on a
watershed scale will include a decision about the watershed's size. The effective size of a
watershed is influenced by drainage patterns, stream order, stream permanence, climate,
number of landowners in the area, homogeneity of land uses, watershed geology, and
geomorphology. Each factor is important because each has an influence on stream
characteristics, although no direct relationship exists.
There is no formula for determining appropriate geographic and temporal scales for any
particular monitoring program. Rather, once the objectives of the monitoring program
have been determined, a combined analysis of them and any background information on
the water quality problem(s) being addressed will make it clear what overall monitoring
scale is necessary to reach the objectives.
Other factors that can be considered to determine appropriate temporal and geographic
scales include the type of water resource being monitored and the complexity of the
nonpoint source problem. Some of the constraints mentioned earlier, such as the avail-
ability of resources (staff and money) and the time frame within which managers need
monitoring Information, will also contribute to determination of the scale of the monitor-
ing program.
For additional details regarding nonpoint source monitoring techniques, including
chemical and biological monitoring, refer to Monitoring Guidance for Determining the
Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997). This technical document
focuses on monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management practices, but also
includes approximately 300 references and summaries of more than 40 other monitoring
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-3
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
guides. In addition, Chapter 8 of EPA's management measures guidance for section 6217
contains a detailed discussion of monitoring (USEPA, 1993).
The implementation of management measures and BMPs should be tracked to determine
the extent to which the measures are implemented on harvest sites or throughout a
watershed. Data on BMP implementation and trends in BMP implementation can be used
to address the following goals:
• Determine the extent to which BMPs are implemented in accordance with relevant
standards and specifications.
* Determine whether there has been a change from previous years in the extent to
which BMPs are being implemented.
• Establish a baseline from which decisions can be made regarding the need for
additional incentives for implementation of BMPs.
• Determine the extent to which BMPs are properly maintained and operated.
* Measure the success of voluntary BMP implementation programs.
• Determine how and why BMP use varies from one geographic area to another.
• Support workload and costing analyses for landowner assistance or regulatory
programs.
Methods to assess the implementation of management measures are a key focus of the
technical assistance to be provided by EPA and NOAA under CZARA section 6217.
Implementation assessments can be done on several scales. Site-specific assessments can
be used to assess individual management practices or management measures, and water-
shed assessments can be used to look at the cumulative effects of implementing multiple
management measures. With regard to "site-specific" assessments, it is important to
assess individual management practices at the appropriate scale for the practice of
interest. For example, to assess the implementation of management measures or manage-
ment practices for forest roads at harvest sites, only the roads at timber harvesting sites
would need to be inspected. In this example, the scale would be a timber harvest area and
the sites would be active and inactive roads at the harvest areas. To assess implementation
of management measures and practices at streamside management areas, the proper scale
might be a harvest area larger than 10 acres and the sites could be areas encompassed by
buffer areas for 200-meter stretches of stream. For site preparation and forest regenera-
tion, the scale and site might be an entire harvest site. Site-specific measurements can
then be used to extrapolate to a watershed or statewide assessment.
Sampling design, approaches to conducting the evaluation, data analysis techniques, and
ways to present evaluation results are described in EPA's Techniques for Tracking,
Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation ofNonpoint Source Control Measures—
Forestry? (USEPA, 1997a), from which much of the text for this chapter has been bor-
rowed. Chapter 8 of EPA's management measures guidance for section 6217 contains a
detailed discussion of techniques and procedures to assess implementation, operation,
and maintenance of management measures (USEPA, 1.993).
5-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
By tracking management measures and water quality simultaneously, analysts gain the
information necessary to evaluate the performance of the management measures imple-
mented. Management measure tracking provides information on whether pollution
controls are being implemented, operated, and maintained adequately. Only with such
information is it possible to draw conclusions from water quality monitoring data about
the effectiveness of management practices.
A major challenge in attempting to relate implementation of management measures to
water quality changes is determining the appropriate land management attributes to track.
For example, simply counting the number of management measures implemented in a
watershed has little chance of being useful in statistical analyses to relate water quality to
land treatment since the count only remotely relates (i.e., a mechanism is lacking) to the
measured water quality parameter (e.g., cobble embeddedness). Land treatment monitor-
ing that relates directly to the pollutants or effects monitored at the water quality station
is most useful. For example, the spacing of water bars relative to slope might be a more
useful parameter to track than the number of miles of road constructed. Since the effect
of management measures on water quality might not be immediate or implementation
might not be sustained, information on other relevant watershed activities (e.g., urbaniza-
tion, wildfire frequency and extent) is essential for the final analysis.
Management practice effectiveness has not been well documented on a watershed scale,
particularly for watersheds with mixed land uses. Studies of management practice
effectiveness have been done at the plot and field scales where specific treatments are
used and compared to a control situation. Extrapolations from these data and studies
using nonpoint source pollution models constitute most of the information available on a
watershed scale. Actual data collection and management practice effectiveness determi-
nation on a watershed scale is more complex and, because of natural variability, it
requires long periods of monitoring before management practice implementation so that
a statistical minimum detectable change level can be established. The minimum detect-
able change is the minimum measurable change in a water quality parameter over time
that is statistically significant, and it is a function of statistical tests, the number of
samples taken per year, the number of years of monitoring, and the variates and
covariates used in the analyses. Dissmeyer (1994) provides detailed information on
monitoring forestry BMPs to evaluate their effectiveness in meeting water quality goals.
An approach for watershed monitoring of management practice effectiveness, and the
problems associated with the approach and with such studies in general, is discussed in
Park and others (1994).
Appropriately collected water quality information can be evaluated with trend analysis to
determine whether pollutant loads have been reduced or whether water quality has
improved. Valid statistical associations drawn between implementation and water quality
data can be used to indicate the following:
* Whether management measures have been successful in improving water quality in
a watershed or recharge area.
« The need for additional management measures to meet water quality objectives in
the watershed or recharge area.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-5
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
Greater detail regarding methods to evaluate the effectiveness of land treatment efforts is
provided in EPA's nonpoint source monitoring guidance (USEPA, 1997) and management
measures guidance for section 6217 (USEPA, 1993).
Of
Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service reviewed state BMP implementation and
monitoring programs and the results from those programs in 1994. At the time, twenty-
one states were assessing BMP effectiveness. They found that the states had generally
concluded that carefully developed and applied BMPs can prevent serious deterioration
of water quality, and that most water quality problems were associated with poor BMP
implementation. Water quality monitoring was determined to be essential to understand-
ing the relationship between land disturbance and water quality, as it leads to improved
understanding of the interaction of soils and topography with BMP implementation. BMP
guidelines can be reassessed continually to make them more cost effective, and the more
they can be specified, used, monitored, and fine tuned for specific circumstances, the
more cost-effectively they can be used to protect water quality.
Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are commonly thought of as procedures
used in the laboratory to ensure that all analytical measurements made are accurate. But
QA and QC extend beyond the laboratory and are essential components of all phases and
all activities within each phase of a nonpoint source monitoring project.
Definitions of Quality and Quality Control
Quality assurance is an integrated management system designed to ensure that a product
or service meets defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. Quality
assurance activities involve planning quality control, quality assessment, reporting, and
quality improvement.
Quality control is the overall system of technical activities designed to measure quality
and limit error in a product or service. A quality control program manages quality so that
data meet the needs of the user as expressed in a quality assurance project plan.
Quality control procedures include the collection and analysis of blank, duplicate, and
spiked samples and standard reference materials to ensure the integrity of analyses, as
well as regular inspection of equipment to ensure it is operating properly. Quality assur-
ance activities are more managerial in nature and include assignment of roles and respon-
sibilities to project staff, staff training, development of data quality objectives, data
validation, and laboratory audits. Such procedures and activities are planned and executed
by diverse organizations through carefully designed quality management programs that
reflect the importance of the work and the degree of confidence needed in the quality of
the results.
of Quality and Quality Control Programs
Although the value of a QA/QC program might seem questionable while a project is
under way, its value will be quite clear after a project is completed. If the objectives of
5-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
the project were used to design an appropriate data collection and analysis plan, all QA/
QC procedures were followed for all project activities, and accurate and complete records
were kept throughout the project, the data and information collected from the project
should be adequate to support a choice from among alternative courses of action. In
addition, the course of action chosen should be defensible based on the data and informa-
tion collected. Development and implementation of a QA/QC program can require up to
10 to 20 percent of project resources (Cross-Smiecinski and Stetzenback, 1994), but this
cost can be recaptured in lower overall costs due to the project's being well planned and
executed. Likely problems are anticipated and accounted for before they arise, eliminat-
ing the need to spend countless hours and dollars resampling, reanalyzing data, or
mentally reconstructing portions of the project to determine where an error was intro-
duced. QA/QC procedures and activities are cost-effective measures used to determine
how to allocate project energies and resources toward improving the quality of research
and the usefulness of project results.
EPA Quality Policy
EPA has established a QA/QC program to ensure that data used in research and monitor-
ing projects are of known and documented quality to satisfy project objectives. The use of
different methodologies, lack of data comparability, unknown data quality, and poor
coordination of sampling and analysis efforts can delay the progress of a project or render
the data and information collected from it insufficient for decision making. QA/QC
practices are best used as an integral part of the development, design, and implementation
of a nonpoint source monitoring project to minimize or eliminate these problems.
Additional information on QA/QC can be found in Chapter 5 of EPA's nonpoint source
monitoring guide (USEPA, 1.997) and in EPA documents on QA/QC.
Of
of the Audits
In general, state audits of harvest sites or other types of forestry operations have as their
primary objectives to assess compliance with BMP implementation guidelines and/or the
effectiveness of BMPs at preventing soil erosion and protecting water quality. Addition-
ally, because the process of collecting BMP implementation and effectiveness informa-
tion lends itself well to the collection of related information that can be quite useful to a
state forestry department, states also collect information that will help them to
« Identify problem areas where additional landowner training and education is needed
to improve BMP implementation.
• Determine which BMP implementation standards and specifications need revision.
• Identify necessary improvements in the BMP monitoring program.
Information on landowner training is easily gathered during the audits if the landowner
on whose property a harvest was done is present during the audit or contacted as part of
the audit. Landowners can be contacted before the audit in most instances to obtain
permission to enter their property, and they can be asked to be present either during the
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5- 7
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
audit, when they can perhaps offer valuable information about the harvest, or after an
audit during a discussion of the results.
Analysis of BMP implementation standards and specifications can be done effectively
during an audit, or during an analysis of audit results after an annual audit has been
completed, by comparing the implementation and effectiveness information gathered
during the audit with state implementation specifications. For example, specifications
may call for a recommended maximum distance between culverts on forest roads of a
given slope. During the audits it might be noticed that, even where these specifications
have been adhered to, erosion is unacceptable. It may then be recommended to lower the
maximum distance, or it might be noticed that excessive erosion is related to a particular
soil type, and a shorter distance might be recommended where this soil type occurs.
Audits can provide valuable information about the monitoring program, too. It might be
discovered during the course of audits that instances of particular types of effects to soils
or water resources are increasing over the years. Or it might be recognized that certain
forestry operations (e.g., prescribed burning or site preparation) might not be accounted
for in the audits adequately enough to draw conclusions about effects to water resources.
Information collected during the audits can be used to adjust the monitoring program to
actual information needs.
Audits conducted by some states serve specific objectives beyond assessments of BMP
implementation and effectiveness. A good example is South Carolina, which has designed
the data collection aspect of its BMP implementation survey to permit the state to deter-
mine the effect of a number of variables on compliance with BMP standards. The vari-
ables investigated include
• Physiographic region in which the harvest occurred
• Occurrence of a stream on the harvest site
• Percent slope at the harvest site
• Type of terrain at the harvest site
• Category to which the landowner belonged
• Use of cost share assistance for the harvest
• Landowner's familiarity with state BMPs
• Use of a site preparation contract
• Written requirement for the use of BMPs
• Involvement of a forester in the prescription and supervision of site preparation
• Size of the area being site-prepared for reforestation
Criteria to Choose the Audit
States use a number of criteria to select sites for inclusion in BMP audits. Generally, the
criteria exclude from the audits those sites where BMPs of interest would not likely have
been used, where the types of effects of interest (e.g., impacts to water quality) would be
difficult to detect or nonexistent, and sites where detecting whether BMPs had been
implemented would be difficult due to changes in site characteristics since their imple-
mentation. Other criteria ensure that sites from different topographic or vegetative
community areas or administrative jurisdictions (e.g., counties or state forest service
regions) are included in the audits.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
The use of criteria result in a biased sample of audit sites, and thus the conclusions from
the audits cannot be used to draw conclusions about all harvest sites in a state. But
complete random sampling of harvest sites would limit the usefulness of the results more
than biasing the selection of sites by the use of criteria. Not limiting the sites chosen for
the audits would result in the inclusion of sites where harvests had occurred many years
previously and physical evidence of BMP implementation would be undetectable, sites in
areas where BMPs of interest (such as those related to SMAs) would not have been used,
and would possibly result in not including portions of the state of interest to the state
forestry agency. Therefore, it is important to use criteria to ensure that audit sites provide
the information of interest.
The following are some of the criteria used in state audits.
Distribution
Generally, an entire state is included in an audit by choosing a minimum number of sites
per county. A minimum of one site per county is a common criterion, though if timber
harvesting is limited to certain areas, a state might include only those counties in which
timber was harvested during the time period of interest (see second criterion). The
geographical distribution of audit sites might be related to the quantity of timber har-
vested in a county by ensuring that the latter is proportional to the number of sites chosen
for the county. Depending on the purpose of the audit, some other potential site selection
criteria are
• Sites within a specific watershed.
• The geographic distribution of audit sites reflects the distribution of timber harvest
ownership group.
« All physiographic regions of the state are represented.
Time Since
The timber harvest or other management activity of interest (e.g., site preparation, road
construction) is to have occurred within a specific period of time, typically 1 to 2 years,
prior to the audit. There are two good reasons to conduct audits as soon as possible after a
harvest. First, the longer the delay between a harvest and an audit, the more difficult it
will be to determine the adequacy of BMP implementation. With the passage of time
natural vegetation growth can hide evidence of the adequacy of soil conservation mea-
sures, storms can obliterate evidence of the adequacy of erosion control methods, and the
like. Second, most erosion and sedimentation caused by a harvest activity occurs during
and shortly after the harvest, and the longer the time between a harvest and an audit of the
harvest, the less likely it is that the audit results will be able to help correct BMP imple-
mentation problems and, therefore, minimize water quality impacts. Ideally, BMP imple-
mentation and effectiveness audits should occur during harvest-related activity.
Minimum
Audit sites are generally no less than 5 to 10 acres, which ensures that BMP use would
have been called for. A minimum volume of harvested timber is another way of ensuring
the same.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-9
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
Proximity to
Most states insist that harvest sites have a stream (perennial or intermittent), lake, wet-
land, or pond of a certain size on or near them. The criterion might be that the water-
course is on the audit site, especially if a primary goal of the audit is to assess implemen-
tation of SMA rules or guidelines, or within 200 to 500 feet of the audit site if water
quality effects of harvest operations are of particular concern. States that are interested in
overall BMP implementation might not care that audit sites be associated with surface
waters.
of Ownership
Inclusion of all ownership groups (private nonindustrial, industrial, federal, state, and
local) can be a criterion for choosing sites, though generally audit sites are not specifi-
cally chosen to represent the ownership groups. If all ownership groups are to be in-
cluded, states might use this criterion only if a minimum number of sites per ownership
group is not reached using the other criteria. When this happens, sites from the over-
represented ownership group or groups are randomly deselected and sites from the under-
represented group are randomly selected from those of the desired ownership group.
Randomness
Although, as stated above, simple randomness is not an overriding concern in the design
of BMP audits, many states do ensure that once the criteria are met, sites are then selected
randomly, resulting in a stratified random sampling design.
Focus: and BMP
Surveys are geared toward investigating either BMP implementation or BMP effective-
ness or both of these. The nature of the forestry activity at any given site that is investi-
gated determines which BMPs are appropriate for implementation at the site or required
to be used, depending on whether BMP use is mandatory or voluntary. Sites are generally
rated based on the BMPs that should have been used at the site. If a timber harvest plan
was prepared prior to the harvest, or a road construction plan prepared prior to construc-
tion of a road and BMPs were included in the plan(s), then the survey might investigate
whether the BMPs included in the plan were actually implemented,
Number of
The number of sites investigated varies widely and depends on survey design, amount of
silviculture activity in the state, and availability of resources (staff and money). If the
results of the survey are to be analyzed statistically, then the number of sites investigated
must be sufficient for this purpose. See EPA's Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and
Reporting the Implementation ofNonpoint Source Control Measures—Forestry (USEPA,
1997a) for guidance on selecting a sufficient number of sites for statistical analysis
purposes. A difficulty for many states is ensuring that the number of harvest sites
inspected is adequate to draw meaningful conclusions about overall BMP
implementation. The number of sites harvested within the audit timeframe (e.g., 2 years
if the audit includes sites harvested within the 2 years prior to the audit) is often not
known. Many states do not require preharvcst notification, or that a landowner inform the
state department of forestry that a harvest will occur and where it will occur. Without this
5-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
information, a state cannot know with certainty what percentage of harvest sites are
included in an audit and finding sites to audit can be a difficult, costly, time-consuming
task. Even if a state has a policy of voluntary implementation of its forestry BMPs or
guidelines, simply requiring that landowners report to the state department of forestry
when and where a harvest will occur and the acreage to be harvested, the state's ability to
audit BMP implementation in a timely manner, track BMP implementation trends, assist
landowners with proper BMP implementation, and maintain accurate statistics about
forestry activity in the state can be greatly improved.
Number of BMPs
The number of BMPs investigated at each site varies depending on the objectives of the
survey and the number and types of BMPs recommended or required by the state. Sur-
veys that target specific types of operations or locations, such as road construction or
SMAs, generally involve investigations of fewer BMPs than surveys to assess the use of
BMPs for all aspects of forest harvesting, from temporary road construction to site
preparation for reforestation.
of the
An investigation "team" can range from one person to a team of 5 to 7 people with
different specialties. Again, the composition of the survey team depends on the objectives
of the survey. If BMP implementation is the only thing being investigated, then a state
forester alone might be capable of conducting the survey. If, on the other hand, soil
characteristics, erosion hazard, improvements in road construction techniques, water
quality effects, or other more complex issues are also being investigated, then a team of
individuals that represent the appropriate disciplines is generally used.
When one person conducts the surveys, generally the person is a state forester who is
familiar with BMP standards for both implementation and effectiveness. When teams are
used for the surveys, the state forester is accompanied by one or more specialists that
represent fields such as watershed science, soil science, wildlife biology, hydrology,
fisheries, and road engineering. Separate organizations might also be represented, such as
environmental or conservation organizations and the logging industry. Where possible,
the survey team is accompanied by the landowner on whose property the survey is being
conducted, the logger who conducted the harvest, and the state forester who prepared the
harvest plan, if applicable. Examples of who might be included on an audit "team" are
« A county or state forester
* A watershed specialist
« A forestry industry representative
« A member of the environmental community
« A nonindustrial private landowner
* A member of a local or regional planning and development board
• A wildlife biologist
• A hydrologist
• A soil conservationist or soil scientist
• A fisheries biology
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-11
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
* A road engineer
• A logging professional
BMP and
The implementation of individual BMPs is rated in one of two ways. A scale of imple-
mentation, usually from 0 to 5 or 0 to 3, is used to rate not only whether a BMP was
implemented but also the quality of implementation. Alternatively, BMPs are rated
simply as having been implemented, not implemented, or not applicable to the particular
site.
Generally, all BMPs applicable to a site are rated individually and the site then receives
an overall BMP implementation rating. The latter rating might be made using one of the
two rating systems mentioned above or using a 3-tiered rating system of excellent,
adequate, or inadequate. The overall site rating is usually derived as an average of the
individual BMP ratings at the site. Low ratings for overall BMP implementation—for
example zero to two on a O-to-5 scale, zero on a O-to-3 scale, and inadequate on a 3-tiered
rating system—are indications that follow-up with the landowner or harvester is neces-
sary or that further education and training might be helpful.
Even when only BMP implementation is being assessed, BMP effectiveness is often rated
on a qualitative basis as an onsite assessment of whether, in the case of a low score or
inadequate BMP implementation, there was a resultant risk to water quality. Risks to
water quality are generally rated as simply being present or not. If it is apparent that
water quality was affected by inadequate BMP implementation, this is also noted.
When more than one team is responsible for the assessments and where teams are com-
posed of many people, assessment: training or a rnock assessment is performed prior to
the actual assessments to establish a degree of consistency in the ratings among members
and teams. Assessments of adequacy of BMP implementation and risk to water quality
can involve many subjective judgements, and going through a mock assessment prior to
the actual assessments gives all team members a chance to discuss what constitutes
adequate or proper implementation for the different BMPs. In addition, in many states,
after a site assessment and while the assessment team is still on the site the team gathers
to discuss the ratings of the individual team members and to arrive at an overall site
rating. If any discrepancies or differences of opinion cannot be settled through discussion
alone, the individual BMPs are revisited.
Audit
Successful implementation of BMPs by landowners and harvesters, as indicated by audits
with high compliance rates, depends on many factors, such as whether a state's BMP
program is mandatory or voluntary, how long a state has had a BMP program, how long a
state has been monitoring BMP implementation, and the effectiveness of a state's educa-
tion and training outreach program for BMP implementation.
Results of many state audits for BMP implementation and effectiveness indicate that
BMPs are being implemented and, where implemented, they are effective in protecting
soil from erosion and water quality. Results are generally reported in one of two ways: an
overall compliance rate, in which all ratings for compliance with individual BMPs or
groups of BMPs are averaged into a single number, and compliance rates for individual
5-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
BMPs or groups of BMPs, A group of BMPs might: be all those required for SMAs, for
instance.
An overall compliance rate can be misleading because it is essentially an average of
averages. That is, an overall compliance rate is generally obtained by averaging the
compliance ratings for separate groups of BMPs, and then those averages are averaged.
Instances where such a rating would be misleading include where most groups of BMPs
are rated to have high compliance while one important group of BMPs, say those for
SMAs or stream crossings, has a much lower compliance rate. The compliance informa-
tion for the latter group is lost in the overall compliance rating. Of course, a low overall
compliance rating, caused by low compliance ratings for many groups of BMPs, can hide
a high compliance rating for another group of BMPs as well. Similarly, a single or a few
high or low ratings for individual BMPs within a group of BMPs can be hidden by
averaging together the compliance ratings for a whole group of BMPs. Generally, states
gain far more information useful to them and to the public for improving and reporting
BMP compliance if ratings for individual BMPs are kept separate. Trend analyses for
implementation of individual BMPs are also much more meaningful than reports of
changes in overall compliance for BMPs from one audit to the next. Of course, it is very
important to keep data relevant to the effectiveness of individual BMPs, such as that on
the slopes of roads where failure occurs or the amount of cover retained in SMAs where
sediment reaches streams, separate for each BMP so that improvements can be made to
state BMP specifications.
EPA Recommendations for Forestry Practice Audits
Implement a preharvcst notification system to assist in selecting an adequate and unbi-
ased sampling population of harvest sites, to reduce the cost of site selection, and to help
determine, prior to a site visit, that selected sites meet many of the selection criteria such
as time since harvest and size of harvest.
If feasible, conduct audits soon after harvests are completed so that improvements can be
made to BMPs found to be inadequately implemented and the water quality impacts of
those BMPs can be minimized.
Ensure that harvest sites are chosen randomly. Stratification based on desired characteris-
tics of sites is perfectly acceptable, but if this is done then sampling within the strata
must be random to ensure the validity of results.
If the geographic extent of an audit includes a critical watershed, create a separate
statistically valid sample population for the watershed and do not group information from
harvests within the watershed with information from other harvests. It is important to
maintain separate information for watersheds that have been designated "critical" and to
sample them separately if the information obtained is to be related to and useful for
programs instituted to protect: the watersheds.
Have a clearly defined process for or means of determining whether a BMP implementa-
tion is acceptable or not. Audits may be conducted with teams of experts or by individu-
als working at different harvest sites. The subjectivity of BMP ratings can be reduced and
their objectivity increased by clearly defining what standards and quality of implementa-
tion constitute each rating level in the rating scale being used. Auditors well trained to
recognize these standards and quality criteria will provide the most: objective, consistent,
meaningful, and comparable ratings.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-13
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
Ensure that BMP implementation according to state standards reflects protection of water
quality by collecting data that is sufficient to determine the effectiveness of BMPs under
specific circumstances, such as different soil types, topographies, and rainfall patterns.
Modify state standards if the data collected indicate that existing standards are insuffi-
cient under certain circumstances.
If forest practice implementation or effectiveness ratings are to be grouped for reporting
purposes, maintain separate groupings for functionally different BMPs. For instance,
create separate group ratings for road erosion BMPs, stream crossing BMPs, SMA
BMPs, etc., so that an average compliance rating will not hide important information
about which BMPs are not being implemented adequately.
Volunteer Water Monitoring
The information presented below is available from the USEPA Web site (http://
www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/startmon.html) and as a published brochure
(United States Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water (4503F), Washington,
DC 20460; EPA 841-B-98-002; July 1998).
Volunteer water monitoring is monitoring done by local citizens rather than agency
personnel. In every state, volunteers monitor the condition of streams, rivers, lakes,
reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and wells. Volunteers who monitor are
people who want to help protect a stream, lake, bay or wetland near where they live,
work, or play. Their efforts are of particular value in providing quality data and building
stewardship of local waters.
Volunteers make visual observations of habitat, land uses, best management practices
used to protect soil and water resources; and the impacts of storms; measure the physical
and chemical characteristics of waters; and assess the abundance and diversity of living
creatures-aquatic insects, plants, fish, birds, and other wildlife. Volunteers also clean up
garbage-strewn waters, count and catalog beach debris, and become involved in restoring
degraded habitats. The number, variety, and complexity of these projects are continually
on the rise.
Volunteer monitoring programs are organized and supported in many different ways.
Projects may be entirely independent or may be associated with state, interstate, local, or
federal agencies; with environmental organizations; or with schools and universities.
Financial support may come from government grants, partnerships with business, endow-
ments, independent fundraising efforts, corporate donations, membership dues, or a
combination of these sources.
Many volunteer groups collect data that supplements the information collected by state
and local resource management or planning agencies. These agencies might use the data
to
• Evaluate the success of best management practices designed to mitigate problems.
• Screen water for potential problems, for further study or for restoration efforts.
• Establish baseline conditions or trends for waters that would otherwise go
unmonitored.
In general, a volunteer monitoring program should work cooperatively with state and
local agencies in developing and coordinating its technical components. To ensure that its
5-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
data are used, the monitoring program also develops a strong quality assurance project
plan that governs how volunteers are trained, how samples are collected and analyzed,
and how information is stored and disseminated.
By educating volunteers and the community about the value of local waters, the kinds of
pollution threatening them, and how individual and collective actions can help solve
specific problems, volunteer monitoring programs can
• Make the connection between watershed health and our individual and collective
behaviors (cumulative impacts).
• Build bridges among various agencies, businesses, and organizations.
• Create a constituency for local waters that promotes personal and community
stewardship and cooperation.
Information on volunteer monitoring efforts locally and nationwide can be found through
USEPA. The National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs,
published by USEPA, provides information on existing groups around the country and the
kinds of monitoring taking place. In addition, USEPA's Adopt Your Watershed site on the
World Wide Web (http://www.epa.gov/adopt/) provides information on active volunteer
groups on a watershed basis.
Local or state environmental protection, natural resource, parks, or fish and game agen-
cies might also be good sources of information. Even if the agency does not sponsor a
volunteer program, it might be aware of other programs or groups that are active. Other
potential sponsors or sources of information include
• Local community-based groups such as civic or watershed associations, garden
clubs, universities, and activist organizations
• Chapters of national environmental organizations
• Regional offices of federal agencies such as USEPA, the US Department of
Agriculture's Extension Service, the U.S. Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
Volunteer Monitoring Resources
USEPA supports volunteer monitoring by sponsoring national conferences, publishing
methods manuals, producing a nationwide directory of volunteer programs, and funding a
national newsletter, The Volunteer Monitor. Volunteer coordinators in the 10 EPA Re-
gional offices provide some technical assistance for local programs and help coordinate
regionwide conferences. The Regions are also responsible for grants to the states that can
be used, in part, to support volunteer monitoring programs that help assess nonpoint
sources of pollution or that serve to educate the public about nonpoint source issues.
Some USEPA resources on the World Wide Web
Volunteer Monitoring Homepage http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/
Monitoring Water Quality Homepage http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/
Surf Your Watershed http://www.epa.gov/surf/
Adopt Your Watershed http://www.epa.gov/adopt/
Index of Watershed Indicators http://www.epa.gov/iwi/
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-15
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
Documents on volunteer monitoring published by USEPA are listed below. Copies can be
obtained by contacting the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA (4503F), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460,
National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs, Fifth
Edition. EPA 841-B-98-009, November 1998.
Proceedings of the Fifth National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA
841-R-97-007, October 1997.
Proceedings of the Fourth National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference.
EPA 841/R-94-003, February 1995.
Proceedings of the Third National Citizen's Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA
841/R-92-004, September 1992.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 842-B-93-004, December 1993.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002, December 1991.
Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA 841-B-96-003,
September 1996.
Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 841-B-97-003, November 1997.
Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010, August
1990.
The Volunteer Monitor, published semiannual!y, is the national newsletter of volunteer
water monitoring. The newsletter facilitates the exchange of ideas, monitoring methods,
and practical advice among volunteer monitoring groups across the country. Subscrip-
tions are free. Address all correspondence to Eleanor Ely, Editor, 1318 Masonic Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94117; phone 415/255-8049; fax 415/255-0199.
U.S.
The USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region has published Investigating Water
Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Pro-
gram (BMPEP) User's Guide (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002). The guide
continues an effort begun in 1992 to monitor and evaluate BMP implementation and
effectiveness (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 1992). The Best Management
Practices Evaluation Program, or BMPEP, was developed to facilitate evaluation of BMPs
through the generation and analysis of data to assess the efficacy of the Region's water
quality program, and identify program shortcomings and initiate corrective actions
(USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002).
There are three types of BMP evaluations, Administrative, In-Channcl, and On-Site.
Individuals or teams of reviewers conduct the evaluations using Forest Service forms.
Administrative Evaluations involve assessing all BMPs for a project, including proce-
dural BMPs (such as the Timber Sale Planning Process). In-Channel Evaluations assess
the effectiveness of a set of BMPs applied to a project area for protecting beneficial uses
5-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
of water. ATI BMPs prescribed for a project for water quality protection are evaluated by
establishing study sites to assess effects on beneficial uses over time. On-Site Evaluations
involve assessing both the implementation and effectiveness of specific practices (indi-
vidual or groups of similar BMPs). The BMPs are assessed at the site of implementation
and evaluated relative to attainment of each BMP's stated objectives.
For in-channel evaluations, sites are selected on the basis of their being representative of
management activities common to the forest being evaluated (e.g., timber, mineral
extraction, developed recreation, range use) and located in watersheds that are representa-
tive of the forests' dominant landforms and geologic types. Streams selected for project
evaluation have a suitable control (or comparison stream) nearby or have established
desired future condition criteria that can serve as the basis of comparison. A monitoring
plan is also developed for each in-channel evaluation. The monitoring plan describes the
location, beneficial uses to be protected, evaluation objectives, data collection parameters
and methods, timing/frequency and duration of collection, analytical techniques, and the
decision criteria to be used to determine whether the beneficial uses were protected. A
follow-up investigation is conducted when data from an in-channel evaluation indicates
that beneficial use protection objectives were not met and to identify causes of nonpoint
source degradation.
On-site evaluations focus on the implementation and effectiveness of individual BMPs
applied on project sites. These evaluations are essentially used to answer the implementa-
tion question "Did we do what: we said we were going to do to protect water quality?"
and the effectiveness question "How well did we protect water quality?" There are 29
different evaluation procedures, each designed to assess a specific BMP or set of closely
related BMPs. For example, one procedure evaluates SMAs; another evaluates grazing;
and another evaluates recreational facilities. Each evaluation procedure has its own form
where ratings and comments are recorded, and each form has an electronic counterpart in
database software. The evaluations are completed by those persons responsible for the
execution of the practices being evaluated. For example, a Range Conservationist or
Resource Officer would conduct the on-site evaluation of grazing, a Sale Administrator or
Planner would conduct the evaluation of SMAs, and an Engineer would conduct the
evaluation of road drainage control.
Sites to be evaluated are either selected randomly or selected. Randomly identified sites
allow for drawing statistical conclusions on the implementation and effectiveness of
BMPs. Random sites are picked from a pool of projects that meet specified criteria.
Selected sites are identified in various ways, such as from a monitoring plan prescribed in
an EA, EIS or LMP; as part of a routine site visit; as part of a follow-up evaluation to an
in-channel evaluation to discover sources of problems; or selected for a particular reason
specific to local needs. Note that for statistical analysis, only randomly identified sites are
used to develop statistical inferences. Selected sites are clearly identified and kept
separate from the random sites during data storage and analysis.
When problems in implementation are discovered during an audit, the probable cause and
recommended corrective actions to prevent recurrence are noted. Reviewer comments are
extremely valuable in this regard. Effectiveness evaluations are made using specific
indicators of the success of the BMPs observed or measured on-sitc. When effectiveness
problems are noted, observers comment on the extent, duration, and magnitude of effects
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-17
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
on beneficial uses. In addition to describing the effects, observers use the following
system to rate the effects:
Extent:
Pollutant has been mobilized off-site, but does not reach the stream channel; effects
are evident near the site of the activity,
Pollutant has been mobilized off-site and reaches the stream channel; effects are
evident at the stream reach scale (<20 channel widths downstream).
Pollutant has been mobilized off-site and reaches the stream channel; effects are
evident at the drainage scale (>20 channel widths downstream), effects typically
extending downstream and are expressed in larger order channels.
Duration:
• The pollutant or its effects dissipate within a very short (<5 day) period; they are
typically associated with a single activity or precipitation event.
« The pollutant or its effects are observable for an intermediate (<1 season) duration;
effects are typically expressed intermittently during high flow or precipitation
events, dissipating to near background levels by the next wet season.
* The pollutant or its effects are observable for a long (>1 season) duration; effects are
typically chronic and persist beyond the next wet season.
Magnitude:
• Effects to beneficial uses insignificant with no measurable water quality impair-
ment; pollutant may be visible, but not likely delectable by compared measurements
above and below the site.
• Effects to beneficial uses are minor with measurable water quality impacts the
pollutant or its effects may be measurable up to the reach scale, but: with no likely
effect on biological or economic values.
• Effects to beneficial uses are significant with measurable water quality impacts
resulting in degradation to biological or economic values.
The User's Guide (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002) includes detailed instruc-
tions for completing each of the 29 on-site evaluation procedures. Included for each
procedure is information on developing the sample pool; selecting evaluation sites;
timing the evaluation; filling in the form; and the method used to do the observations,
measurements, and recording for all the implementation and effectiveness criteria. Also
included are hypothetical examples of a completed form for each procedure.
Important Points to About the BMPEP
Effectiveness criteria focus on site-specific indicators, which in most cases represent
potential effects to water quality rather than actual effects. For example, rill erosion
observed on a road would be listed as poor effectiveness, though any sediment from the
erosion site that does reach a stream might have anywhere from a negligible to serious
effect.
Observations could indicate that a BMP has been implemented but was not effective.
Such results are useful as they indicate shortcomings of BMPs, that a BMP might be
5-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
inappropriate for a particular area, or that: the BMP was implemented poorly. Some form
of improvement to the BMP Is definitely needed in such a case.
BMPs with a high number of comments about the effects on water quality (potential or
real) and/or high ratings of "implemented-not effective" are often those implemented
close to water courses. Because of the greater potential of practices near water courses to
affect water quality, it is prudent to prescribe conservative BMPs in these locations to
provide adequate water quality protection.
It is important for foresters in a particular area to review the specific results from that
area and not to rely solely a the regional summary that is generated from the individual
evaluations. A BMP found to be effective in one area is not guaranteed have the same
effectiveness whenever and wherever it is applied. Forest-specific results are more
indicative of the changes that can be made to improve BMP effectiveness in a particular
locality.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-19
-------
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques
5-20 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
REFERENCES
Adams, P.W., and J.O, Ringer. 1994. The effects of timber harvesting & forest roads on
water quantity & quality in the Pacific northwest: Summary & annotated bibliogra-
phy. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. April.
Adams, T., and D. Hook. 1993. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of forestry
best management practices on harvested sites in South Carolina. Monitoring Report
Number BMP-]. South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, South Carolina.
March.
Alabama Forestry Commission. 1989. Water Quality Management Guidelines and Best
Management Practices far Alabama Wetlands.
Alden, A.M., C.R. Blinn, P.V. Ellefson, and P.O. Nordin. 1996. Timber harvester percep-
tions of benefits and costs of applying water quality best management practices in
Minnesota. Draft. Staff Paper Series Number 1.08, University of Minnesota, College
of Natural Resources and the Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Forest
Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. March.
APA. 1995. Statewide model logger training and education program. American Pulp-
wood Association Inc., Washington, DC. April.
Appelbloom, T.W., G.M. Chescheir, R.W. Skaggs, and D.L. Hesterberg. 1998. Evaluating
management practices for reducing sediment production from forest roads. Presented
at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Orlando, Florida, July 12-16.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Arthur, M.A., G.B. Coltharp, D.L. Brown. 1998. Effects of best management practices on
forest slreamwater quality in eastern Kentucky. JAWRA 34(3):481-495.
Ashton, W.S., and Carlson, R.F. Determination of Seasonal, Frequency and Durational
Aspects of Streamflow with Regard to Fish Passage Through Roadway Drainage
Structures. Fairbanks, Alaska:Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska,
Fairbanks, 99701. AK-RD-85-06:1-51, 1984.
Aust, W.M. 1994. Best management practices for forested wetlands in the southern
appalacian region. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77:457-468.
Aust, W. Michael, Professor of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity, Blacksburg, Virginia. 1999. Personnel communication, March 25, 1999.
Aust, W.M., R.M. Shaffer, and J.A. Burger. 1996. Benefits and costs of forestry best
management practices in Virginia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(l):23-29.
Baker, M.B. 1990. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report
RM-191, pp. 31-42.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-1
-------
References
Baker, C.O., and RE. Votapka. 1990, Fish Passage Through Culverts, San Ditnas,
CA:USDA, Forest Service Technology and Development Center. FHWA-FL-90-
006:1-67.
Ballard, T.M. 2000. Impacts of forest management on northern forest soils. Forest
Ecology and Management 133:37-42.
Barber, M.E., and R.C. Downs. 1996. Investigation of Culvert Hydraulics Related to
Juvenile Fish Passage. Pullman,Washington:Washington State Transportation Center
(TRAC), Washington State University. WA-RD-388.1:1-54.
Bates, K. 1994. Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific Salmon. Olympia, Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Working Paper.
Beasley, R.S. 1979. Intensive Site Preparation and Sediment Loss on Steep Watersheds in
the Gulf Coast Plain. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 43(3):412-417.
Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1985. Water Yields and Sediment Losses from Chemical
and Mechanical Site Preparation. In Forestry and Water Qualify - A Mid-South
Symposium, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, pp. 106-116.
Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1988. Sediment and Water Yields from Managed Forests
on Flat Coastal Plain Soils. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(2):361-366.
Beasley, R.S., E.L. Miller, and S.C. Gough. 1984. Forest Road Erosion in the Ouachita
Mountains. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceeding, June 5-7, 1984, ed. P. A.
Peters and J. Luckok, pp.203-213. West Virginia University.
Belt, G.H., J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design afforest riparian buffer strips for
Ihe protection of waler quality: Analysis of scientific literature. Report No. 8. Idaho
Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. June.
Berg, N.H., K.B. Roby, and B.J. McGurk. 1996. Cumulative watershed effects: Applica-
bility of available methodologies to the Sierra Nevada. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. Ill, Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and
Background Information. University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and
Wildland Resources.
Berglund, E.R. 1978. Seeding to Control Erosion Along Forest Roads. Oregon State
University Extension Service, Extension Circular 885.
Best, D.W., H.W. Kelsey, D.K. Hagans, and M. Alpert. 1995. Role of fluvial hillslope
erosion and road construction in the sediment budget of Garret Creek, Humbolt
County, California. In K.M. Nolan, H.M. Kelsey, and D.C. Marron (eds), Geomor-
phic Processes and Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern
California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454.
Bethlahmy, N., and W.J. Kidd, Jr. 1966. Controlling Soil Movement from Steep Road
Fills. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-45.
Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of Woody Debris May Affect Stream Channel Stability.
Journal of Forestry, 609-613.
Birch, T.W. 1996a. Private Forest-land Owners of the United States, 1994. Resource
Bulletin NE-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. August.
fi-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Birch, T.W, 1996b. Private Forest-land Owners of the Northern United States, 1994.
Resource Bulletin NE-136. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
eastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. November.
Birch, T.W. 1997a. Private Forest-land Owners of the Western United States, 1994.
Resource Bulletin NE-137. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
eastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. March.
Birch, T.W. 1997b. Private Forest-land Owners of the Southern United States, 1994.
Resource Bulletin NE-138. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North-
eastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. March.
Biswell, H.H., and A.M. Schultz. 1957. Surface Runoff and Erosion as Related to Pre-
scribed Burning. Journal of Forestry, 55:372-374.
Blackburn, W.H., M.G. DcHavcn, and R.W. Knight. 1982. Forest Site Preparation and
Water Quality in Texas. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Environmen-
tally Sound Water and Soil Management, ASCE, Orlando, Florida, July 20-23, 1982,
ed. E.G. Kruse, C.R. Burdick, and Y.A. Yousef, pp. 57-66.
Blinn, C., R. Dahlman, L. Hislop, and M. Thompson. 1998. Temporary stream and
wetland crossing options for forest management, NC-202. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Bonn, A.B. 1998. Designing forest stream crossings using bank/nil dimensions and the
computer, and the computer program XSPRO. Kootenai National Forest, Montana.
Bolstad, P.V., and W.T. Swank. 1997. Cumulative impacts of landuse on water quality in a
southern Appalachian watershed. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 33(3):519-533.
Brazier, J.R., and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control.
Oregon State University School of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis,
OR, Research Paper 15.
Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerance in young Pacific salmon, genus Oncorhynchus.
J. Fish. Res. Board of Canada 9(6):265-323.
Brown, L., and P.B. Moyle. Eel River Survey: Final Report. Performed under contract to
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of
California at Davis.
Brown, G.W. 1972. Logging and Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest. In Watersheds
in Transition Symposium Proceedings, Urbana, IL, pp. 330-334. American Water
Resources Association.
Brown, G.W. 1974. Fish Habitat. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report
PNW-24, pp. E1-E15.
Brown, G.W. 1985. Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution from Silvicultural Operations:
What We Know and Don't Know. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution,
pp. 332-333. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clearcutting on Stream Temperature.
Water Resources Research 6(4):1133-1140.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-3
-------
References
Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1971. Clear-cut Logging and Sediment Production in the
Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 7(5): 1189-1199.
Brown, T.C., and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of management on water quality in North
American forests. General Technical Report RM-248. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort
Collins, Colorado. June.
Cafferata, P.H., and T.E. Spittler. 1998. Logging impacts of the 1970's vs. the 1990's in
the Caspar Creek watershed. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture Forest Service.
Cannon, S. 2002. Post-wildfire landslide hazards. U.S. Geological Survey, National
Landslide Hazards Program, . Viewed June 23.
Carr, W.W., and T.M. Ballard. 1980. Hydroseeding Forest Roadsides in British Columbia
for Erosion Control. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35(l):33-35.
Carraway, B., L. Clendenen, and D. Work. 1999. Voluntary Compliance with Forestry
Best Management Practices in East Texas. Texas Forest Service.
CDF. 1991. California Forest Practice Rules. California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection.
CDF. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site. California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection.
Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and
watershed processes. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid
fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205.
Clairain, E.J., and B.A. Kleiss. 1989. Functions and Values of Bottomland Hardwood
Forests Along the Cache River, Arkansas: Implications for Management. In Proceed-
ings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Or-
lando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-
50, pp. 27-33.
Clayton, J.L. 1981. Soil Disturbance Caused by Clearcutting and Helicopter Yarding in
the Idaho Batholith. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-305.
Coats, R.N., and TO. Miller. 1981. Cumulative Silvicultural Impacts on Watersheds: A
Hydrologic and Regulatory Dilemma. Environmental Management 5(2):147-160.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 232: 404 Program Definitions; Exempt Activi-
ties Not Requiring 404 Permits; Sec. 232.3-Activities not requiring permits.
Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Forestry Committee. 1990. A
Practical Guide for Protecting Water Quality While Harvesting Forest Products.
R-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Conner, W.H., and J.W. Day, Jr. 1989. Response of Coastal Wetland Forests to Human
and Natural Changes in the Environment With Emphasis on Hydrology. In Proceed-
ings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Or-
lando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-
50, pp. 34-43.
Copstead, R. 1997. Water/Road Interacion Series: Summary of Historic and Legal
Context for Water/Road Interaction. USDA Forest Service, Water/Road Interaction
Technology Series, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center, Sam Dimas,
California. December.
Copstead, R., and D. Johansen. 1998. Water/Road Interacion Series: Examples from
Three Flood Assessment Sites in Western Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Water/Road
Interaction Technology Series, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center,
Sam Dimas, California.
Corbett, E.S., and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on Municipal
Watersheds. In Conference on Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Recon-
ciling Conflicting Uses, April 16-18, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 187-190.
Coweeta. 1999. Coweeta Long-Term Ecological Research World Wide Web Site.
. Viewed July 7.
CRIS. 1999. Current Research Information System (CRIS), U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture World Wide Web page, . Viewed June 12.
Crumrine, J.P. 1977. Best Management Practices for the Production of Forest Products
and Water Quality. In "208" Symposium on Non-Point Sources of Pollution from
Forested Land, ed. G.M. Aubertin, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, pp.
267-274.
Cubbage, F.W., W.C. Siegel, and P.M. Lickwar. 1989. State Water Quality Laws and
Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forest Lands in the South. In
Water: Laws and Management, ed. F.E. Davis, pp. 8A-29 to 8A-37. American Water
Resources Association.
Cullen, J.B. 1998. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting
Operations in New Hampshire, Resource Manual. New Hampshire Department of
Resources and Economic Development, Division of Forests and Lands, Forest
Information and Planning Bureau.
Curtis, J.G., D.W. Pelren, D.B. George, VD. Adams, and J.B. Layzer. 1990. Effectiveness
of Best Management Practices in Preventing Degradation of Streams Caused by
Silvicultural Activities in Pickett State Forest, Tennessee. Tennessee Technological
University, Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water Re-
sources.
CWP. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection web site, . Accessed
December 20.
Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to
1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-5
-------
References
Delaware Forestry Association. 1982, Forestry Best Management Practices for Delaware,
Dcsbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal
Zone, A Summary Review and Bibliography, Coastal Resources Center Technical
Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography,
Narragansett, Rhode Island. July.
Dickerson, B.P. 1975. Storm/lows and Erosion after Tree-Length Skidding on Coastal
Plains Soils. Transactions of the ASAE, 18:867-868,872.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1980. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities and
Conditions in the Southeast. In U.S. Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the
80s? Proceedings, Richmond, VA, June 19-20, 1980, pp. 42-49. Water Pollution
Control Federation.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1986. Economic impacts of erosion control in forests. In Proceedings of
the Southern Forestry Symposium, November 19-21, 1985, Atlanta, GA, ed. S.
Carpenter, Oklahoma State University Agricultural Conference Series, pp. 262-287.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Prac-
tices in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. Miscellaneous Publication 1520.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia.
July.
Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of
the Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina.
September.
Dissmeyer, G.E., and B. Foster. 1987. Some Economic Benefits of Protecting Water
Quality. In Managing Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish: A Proceedings. USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report SO-65, pp. 6-11.
Dissmeyer, G.E., and B.B. Foster. 1990. Economics of forest soil resource managment. In
Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils: Seventh North American Forest Soils Confer-
ence. University of British Columbia, Facilty of Forestry Publication, Vancouver,
British Columbia, pp. 515-525.
Dissmeyer, G.E., E.R. Frandsen, R. Solomon, K.L. Roth, M.P. Goggin, S.R. Miles, and
B.B. Foster. 1987. Soil and Water Resource Management: A Cost or a Benefit?
Approaches to Watershed Economics through Examples. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. December.
Dissmeyer, G.E. and E. Frandsen. 1988. The Economics of Silvicullural Best Manage-
ment Practices, American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. pp. 77-86.
Dissmeyer, G.E., and R. Miller. 1991. A Status Report on the Implementation of the
Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Program in the Southern States.
Dissmeyer, G.E., and R.F. Stump. 1978. Predicted Erosion Rales for Forest Management
Activities in the Southeast. USDA Forest Service.
Doolittle, G.B. 1990. The Use of Expert Assessment in Developing Management Plans for
Environmentally Sensitive Wetlands: Updating A Case Study in Champion
International's Western Florida Region. Best Management Practices for Forested
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Wetlands: Concerns, Assessment, Regulation and Research. NCASI Technical
Bulletin No. 583, pp. 66-70.
Dorn, R, Forester, USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot Nation Forest, personal com-
munication, January 13, 2000.
Douglass, J.F., and W.T. Swank. 1975. Effects of Management Practices on Water
Quality and Quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. In: Munici-
pal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings, USDA Forestry Service.
General Technical Report NE-13, pp. 1-13.
Dubensky, M.M. 1991. Public comment information provided by the American Paper
Institute and National Forest Products Association.
Dubois, M., W.F. Watson, T.J. Straka, and K.L. Belli. 1991. Costs and cost trends for
forestry practices in the South. Forest Fanner 50(3):26-32.
Dunford, E.G. 1962. Logging Methods in Relation to Stream Flow and Erosion. In Fifth
World Forestry! Congress 1960 Proceedings, 3:1703-1708.
Dykstra, D.P., and Froehlich, FLA, 1976a. Costs of Stream Protection During Timber
Harvest. Journal of Forestry! 74(10):684-687.
Dykstra, D.P., and H.A. Froehlich. 1976b. Stream protection: What does it cost? In
Loggers Handbook, Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, OR.
Dyrness, C.T. 1963. Effects of Burning on Soil. In Symposium on Forest Watershed
Management, Society of American Foresters and Oregon State University,
March 25-28, 1963, pp. 291-304.
Dyrness, C.T. 1967. Mass Soil Movements in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest.
USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Research Paper PNW-42.
Dyrness, C.T. 1970. Stabilization of Newly Constructed Road Backslopes by Mulch and
Grass-Legume Treatments. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. PNW-123.
Eaglin, G.S., and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of logging and roads on substrate and trout
in streams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North American Journal
of Fisheries Management 13: 844-846.
Ellefson, P.V., A.S. Cheng, and R.J Moulton. 1995. Regulation of private forestry prac-
tices by state governments. Station Bulletin 605-1995. University of Minnesota,
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ellefson, P.V., andP.D. Miles. 1984. Economic Implications of Managing Nonpoint
Forest Sources of Water Pollutants: A Midwestern Perspective. In Mountain Logging
Symposium Proceedings, June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia University, ed. P.A. Peters
and J. Luchok, pp. 107-119.
Ellefson, P.V., and R.E. Weible. 1980. Economic Impact of Prescribing Forest Practices
to Improve Water Quality;: A Minnesota Case Study Minnesota. Forestry Research
Notes.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-7
-------
References
Erman, B.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of Streamside Buffer Strips
for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. California Water Resources Center, University of
California, Davis, CA.
Eschner, A.R., and J. Larmoyeux. 1963. Logging and Trout: Four Experimental Forest
Practices and their Effect on Water Quality. Progress in Fish Culture, 25:59-67.
Essig, D.A. 1991. Implementation of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs in the
United States, Report of Survey Results. National Association of State Foresters.
Everst, F.H., and W.R. Meehan. 1981. Forest Management and Anadromous Fish Habitat
Productivity. In Transactions of the 46th North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, pp. 521-530. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC.
Federal Register. 1993. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs; Final Rule 58 FR 45008
August 25, 1993.
Feller, M.C. 1981. Effects of Clearcutting and Slash Burning on Stream Temperature in
Southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 17(5):863-866.
Feller, M.C. 1989. Effects of Forest Herbicide Applications on Streamwater Chemistry in
Southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 25(3):607-616.
Firth, J. 1992. Sediment reduction in road maintenance. In Ecosystem Road Management,
USDA Forest Service, Technology & Development Program, San Dimas Technology
and Development Center, San Dimas, California. April.
Fischenich, J.C., and J.V. Morrow, Jr. 2000. Streambank Habitat Enhancement with Large
Woody Debris. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restora-
tion Research Program. May.
Flanagan, S., and M.J. Furniss. 1997. Field Indicators of Inlet Controlled Road Stream
Crossing Capacity. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. USDA Forest
Service, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center, Sam Dimas, California.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry and
Florida Forestry Association. 1988. Management Guidelines for Forested Wetlands in
Florida.
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 1993. Silviculture Best
Management Practices. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services,
Division of Forestry.
Florida DEP 1997. Biological assessment of the effectiveness of forestry best manage-
ment practices. Okaloosa, Gadsen, Taylor and Clay counties, sampled winter of 1996
and 1997. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Laboratories,
Division of Administrative and Technical Services. December.
Foltz, R.B. 1994. Reducing tire pressure reduces sediment. USDA Forest Service, Inter-
mountain Research Station. Moscow, Idaho, .
Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects.
Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231.
R-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Fortunate, N,, P, Heffernan, K. Snager, and C. Tootell. 1998. The 1998 forestry BMP
audits report. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry
Division, Missoula, Montana,
Prayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, andF.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and Trends of
Wetlands and Deep-water Habitats in the Conterminous United States, 1950's to
1970's. Colorado State University Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Fort
Collins, CO.
Fredriksen, R.L., and R.N. Ross. 1974. Timber Production and Water Quality — Progress
in Planning for the Bull Run, Portland Oregon's Municipal Watershed. In Proceed-
ings of the Society of American Foresters, pp. 168-186.
Fredriksen, R.L., D.G, Moore, and L,A. Norris, 1973, The Impact of Timber Harvest,
Fertilization, and Herbicide Treatment on Streamwater Quality in Western Oregon
and Washington. In Forest Soils and Forest Land Management, Proceedings of the
Fourth North American Forest Soils Conference, ed. B. Bernier and C.H. Winget,
pp. 283-313.
Frissell, C.A. 1992. Cumulative effects of land use on salmonid habitat on southwest
Oregon streams. Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.
Fryer, J.L., K.S. Pilcher, J.E. Sanders, J. Rohovcc, J.L. Zinn, W.J. Groberg and R.H.
McCoy. 1976. Temperature, infectious diseases, and the immune response of salmo-
nid fish. Funded by U.S. EPA Research Services. EPA-600/3-76-21. 70 p.
Froehlich, H.A. 1973. Natural and man-caused slash in headwater streams. Loggers
Handbook, Pacific Logging Congress, Vol. XXXIII.
Furniss, M.J., M. Love, and A.S. Flanagan. 1997. Water/road interaction: Diversion
potential at road-stream crossings. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Technology and Development Program,
Washington, DC.
Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance.
Influences of Forest and Range land Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their
Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 297-324.
Furniss, M.J., T.S. Ledwith, M.A. Love, B.C. McFadin, and S.A. Flanagan. 1998. Re-
sponse of road-stream crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, and
northern California. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Technology and Development Program, Washing-
ton, DC. September.
Gambles, B., Forester, Mead Paper Company, personal communication, January 13,
2000.
Gardner, R.B. 1967. Major Environmental Factors That Affect the Location, Design, and
Construction of Stabilized Forest Roads. Loggers Handbook, vol. 27. Pacific Logging
Congress, Portland, OR.
Georgia Forestry Association, Wetlands Committee. 1990. Best Management Practices
for Forested Wetlands in Georgia.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-9
-------
References
Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999. Georgia's best management practices for forestry.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Forestry Commission. January.
Gibson, H.E., and C.J. Biller. 1975. A Second Look at Cable Logging in the Appala-
chians. Journal of Forestry 73(10):649-653.
Glasgow, C. 1993. Six Rivers National Forest: watershed management and road restora-
tion. In Riparian management: Common threads and shared interests. A western
regional conference on river management strategies, February 4-6, Albuquerque, New
Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-226. Pp. 195-197.
Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Kush, and J.M. Bradley. 1984. Forestry Activities and
Water Quality in Alabama: Effects, Recommended Practices, and an Erosion-Classi-
fied System. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 555.
Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L. Childers, N.C. Leibowitz,
S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, I). Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J.M. Visser. 1990.
Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. Can we manage cumulative
impacts? Bioscience 40(8):588-600.
Grace, J.M., III. 1998. Sediment export from forest road turn-outs: A study design and
preliminary results. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting,
Orlando, Florida, July 12-15.
Grayson, R.B., S.R. Haydon, M.D.A. Jayasuriya, and B.L. Finlayson. 1993. Water quality
in mountain ash forests—separating the impacts of roads from those of logging
operations. .1. of Hydrology 150:459-480.
Greene, J.L., and W.C. Siegel. 1994. The status and impact of stale and local regulation
on private timber supply. General Technical Report RM-255. USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
September.
Groberg, W.J., R.H. McCoy, K.S. Pilcher and J.L. Fryer. 1978. Relation of water tempera-
ture to infections of coho salmon, chinook salmon and steelhead trout with
Aeromonas salmonicida and A. hydrophila. J. Fish. Res. Board of Canada 35(1): 1-7.
Groberg, W.J., J.S. Rohovec, and J.L. Fryer. 1983. The effects of water temperature on
infection and antibody formation induced by Vibrio anguillarum in juvenile coho
salmon. /. World Mariculture 14:240-248.
Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes (eds). 2001. Forest Roads: A
Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Corvallis, Oregon. May.
Hall, J.D., G.W. Brown, and R.L. Lantz. 1987. The Alsea Watershed Study - A Retrospec-
tive. In Managing Oregon's Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI
Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 35-40.
Hamilton, R.A. undated. Forest*A*Syst. National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Program,
Madison, Wisconsin.
Hansit, K., Forester, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry,
personal communication, January 14, 2000.
R-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Harr, R.D., and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats:
A northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18(4): 18-22.
Hartman, G., J.C. Scrivener, L.B. Holtby, andL. Powell. 1987. Some Effects of Different
Streamside Treatments on Physical Conditions and Fish Population Processes in
Carnation Creek, A Coastal Rain Forest Stream in British Columbia. In Streamside
Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, ed. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy.
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp. 330-372.
Haussman, R.F., and E.W. Pruett. 1978. Permanent Logging Roads for Better Woodlot
Management. USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Eastern Region.
Henly, R. 1992. Updated cost study of small landowner timber harvesting plans. FRRAP
Staff. June.
Henly, R.K., and P.V. Ellefson. 1987. State-administered Forestry Programs: Current
Status and Prospects for Expansion. Renewable Resources Journal 5(4): 19.
Hetherington, E.D. 1985. Streamflow Nitrogen Loss Following Forest Fertilization in a
Southern Vancouver Island Watershed. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research
Hockman-Wert, D. undated. Landslide Research: How Much is Enough? Logging and
Landslides: A Clear-cut Controversy, http://www.wildfirenews.com/forests/forest/
research.html. Viewed July 2002.
Holburg, M., Forester, Virginia Department of Forestry, personal communication, January
14, 2000.
Hornbeck, J.W., and K.G. Reinhart. 1964. Water Quality and Soil Erosion as Affected by
Logging in Steep Terrain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 19(l):23-27.
Hornbeck, J.W., C.W. Martin, and C.T. Smith. 1986. Protecting Forest Streams During
Whole-Tree Harvesting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 3:97-100.
Huff, J.L., and E.L. Deal. 1982. Forestry and Water Quality in North Carolina. North
Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University.
Hulet, B., Forester, USDA, Forest Service, Forest Development, Mt. Baker National
Forest., personal communication, January 31, 2000.
Humboldt State University. 1999. Shovel logging 2000. World Wide Web site. . Viewed July 28.
Hynson, J., P. Adamus, S. Tibbetts, and R. Darnell. 1982. Handbook for Protection of
Fish and Wildlife from Construction of Farm and Forest Roads. U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service. FWS/OBS-82/18.
Ice, G. 1985. The Status of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs. In Perspectives on
Nonpoint Source Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 223-226.
Illinois Department of Conservation. 1990. Forestry Development Cost-Share Program.
Illinois Administrative Code, Title 17, Chapter I, subcapter d, Part 1536.
Indiana DNR. 1998. Logging and forestry BMP'sfor water quality in Indiana. Field
Guide. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. January.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-11
-------
References
Jackson, C.R. 2000. Integrated headwater stream riparian management study progress
report #4. Prepared for the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Jenson, L., Forest Engineer, USDA, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, personal
communication, January 18, 2000.
Johnson, D., and D. Ernst. 1997. Indiana's Forestry Best Management Practices 1996-97
BMP Implementation Study Report and Findings.
Johnson, R.C., and R.K. Bronsdon. 1995. Erosion of forest roads. Agricultural Engineer
50(4):22-27.
Jones, D. 2000. Implementation Monitoring of Forestry Best Management Practices for
Harvesting and Site Preparation in South Carolina 1997-1999. Best Management
Practices Monitoring Report BMP-4. South Carolina Forestry Commission, Colum-
bia, South Carolina. February.
Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small
and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4):959-
974.
Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. In press. A perspective on road
effects on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks.
Conservation Biology.
Keim, R.F., and S.H. Schoenholtz. 1999. Functions and effectiveness of silvicultural
streamside management zones in loessial bluff forests. Forest Ecology and Manage-
ment 118:197-209.
Ketcheson, G.L., and W.F. Megahan. 1996. Sediment production and downslope sediment
transport from forest roads in granitic watersheds. Research Paper INT-RP-486. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. May.
King, J.G. 1984. Ongoing Studies in Horse Creek on Water Quality and Water Yield.
NCASI Technical Bulletin 435, pp. 28-35.
King County, Washington. 1999. Fertilizing Forests with Biosolids. Department of
Natural Resources. Internet site .
Viewed February 16, 2000.
Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians. USDA
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper NE-158.
Kockenderfer, J.N. 1995. Using open-top pipe culverts to control surface water on steep
road grades. General Technical Report NE-194. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. March.
Kochenderfer, J.N., and J.D. Helvey. 1984. Soil Losses from a "Minimum-Standard"
Truck Road Constructed in the Appalachians. In Mountain Logging Symposium
Proceedings, June 5-7, ed. PA. Peters and J. Luckok, West Virginia University.
Kochenderfer, J.N., and G.W. Wendel. 1980. Costs and Environmental Impacts of Har-
vesting Timber in Appalachia with a Truck-mounted Crane. USDA Forest Service
Research Paper NE-456.
R-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Kochenderfer, J.N., G.W. Wendel, and H.C. Smith. 1984. Cost of and Soil Loss on
"Minimum-Standard" Forest Truck Roads Constructed in the Central Appalachians.
USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper
NE-544.
Kuehn, M.H., and J. Cobourn. 1989. Summary Report for the 1988 Cumulative Watershed
Effects Analyses on the Eldorado National Forest - Final Draft.
Kundt, J.F., and T. Hall. 1988. Streamside Forests: The Vital Beneficial Resource. Univer-
sity of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Lantz, R.L. 1971. Guidelines for Stream Protection in Logging Operations. Oregon State
Game Commission.
Larse, R.W. 1971. Prevention and Control of Erosion and Stream Sedimentation from
Forest Roads. In Proceedings of the Symposium of Forest Land Uses and the Stream
Environment, pp. 76-83. Oregon State University.
Leith, T. 2002. Man with a Plan. In Perspectives On Line. The Magazine of the College of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. North Carolina State University, Spring.
.
Leyba, P., Forest Engineer, USDA, Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, personal
communication, January 18, 2000.
Lickwar, P.M. 1989. Estimating the Costs of Water Quality Protection on Private Forest-
lands in the South. Master's thesis submitted to the University of Georgia.
Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher, and R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects
of Forest Cutting and Herbicide Treatment on Nutrient Budgets in the Hubbard
Brook Watershed-Ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 40(l):23-47.
Logan, B., B. Clinch. 1991. Montana Forestry BMP's, Forest Stewardship Guidelines for
Water Quality. Montana Department of State Lands, Missoula, Montana.
Lotspeich, F.B., and F.H. Everest. 1981. A new method for reporting and interpreting
textural composition of spawning gravel. Research note PNW-369. USDA Forest
Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Corvalis, OR.
Louisiana Forestry Association. 1988. Recommended Forestry Best Management Prac-
tices for Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices for
Controlling Nonpoint-Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 41(1):164-167.
Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for
Controlling Nonpoint Pollution from Silvicultural Operations. Water Resources
Bulletin 26(l):41-52.
MacDonald, L.H. 1997. Analyzing cumulative effects: Issues and guidelines. Draft.
November 7.
MacDonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and
constraints. Environ. Management 26(3):299-315.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-13
-------
References
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to
Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and
Alaska. EPA/910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,
Seattle, Washington. May.
Mader, S.F., W.M. Aust, and R. Lea. 1989. Changes in Functional Values of a Forested
Wetland Following Timber Harvesting Practices. In Proceedings of the Symposium:
The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14,
1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 149-154.
Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1991. Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook for Maine Timber Harvesting Operations: Besl Management Practices.
Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1998. Information obtained from
Internet site.
Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1999. The impact of timber harvest-
ing on nonpoinl source pollution. Report to the 119th Maine legislature, Joint Stand-
ing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Maine Department of
Conservation, Maine Forest Service. January 15.
Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 2002. 2000-2001 Maine Forest
Service Report on Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness in
Maine. Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Augusta, Maine. March.
Malueg, K.W., C.F. Powers, and D.F. Krawczyk. 1972. Effects of Aerial Forest Fertiliza-
tion with Urea Pellets on Nitrogen Levels in a Mountain Stream. Northwest Science
46:52-58.
Maryland Department of the Environment. Undated. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Guidelines for Forest Harvest Operations in Maryland.
Marzac, D., Forester, Georgia Pacific Corporation, personal communication, January 14,
2000.
McClurkin, D.C., P.D. Duffy, and N.S. Nelson. 1987. Changes in Forest Floor and Water
Quality Following Thinning and Clearcutting of 20-year-old Pine. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Quality 16(3):237-291.
McGurk, B.J., and D.R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent road area as a measure of cumulative
effect of logging. Environ. Manage. 19(4):609-621.
McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill, andE. Currence. 1994. Spawning Gravel Quality, Water-
shed Characteristics and Early Life History Survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead
in Five North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe, Port
Angeles, WA. and Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA. Funded by Washington State Dept.
of Ecology (205 J grant).
Mcllroy, A. 2001. Mercury levels tied to logging practices. Clear-cut forests fingered in
study. Globe and Mail, March 12.
McMinn, J.W. 1984. Soil Disturbance by Fuelwood Harvesting with a Conventional
Ground System and a Cable Miniyarder in Mountain Hardwood Stands. In Mountain
Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. PA. Peters and J. Luchok, June 5-7, 1984.
West Virginia University, pp. 93-98.
R-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
McNulty, S.G., and G. Sun. 1998. The development and use of best practices in forest
watersheds using GIS and simulation models. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on comprehensive watershed management. International Research and
Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, Beijing, China, September 7-10. Pp.
391-398.
Megahan, W.F. 1980. Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry Activities in the Western
United States: Results of Recent Research and Research Needs. In U.S. Forestry and
Water Quality: What Course in the 80s?, Proceedings of the Water Pollution Control
Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 92-151.
Megahan, W.F. 1981. Effects of Silvicultural Practices on Erosion and Sedimentation in
the Interior West—A Case for Sediment Budgeting. In Interior West Watershed
Management Symposium Proceedings, ed. D.M Baumgartner. Washington State
University, Cooperative Extension, pp. 169-182.
Megahan, W.F. 1983. Appendix C: Guidelines for Reducing Negative Impacts of Log-
ging. In Tropical Watersheds: Hydrologic and Soils Response to Major Uses or
Conversions, ed. L.S. Hamilton and P.N. King. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp.
143-154.
Megahan, W.F. 1986. Recent Studies on Erosion and Its Control on Forest Lands in the
United States.
Megahan, W.F. 1987. Effects of Forest Roads on Watershed Function in Mountainous
Areas. In Environmental Geotechnics and Problematic Soils and Rocks, ed.
Balasubramaniam et al. pp. 335-348.
Mersereau, R.C., and C.T. Dyrness. 1972. Accelerated Mass Wasting after Logging and
Slash Burning in Western Oregon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 27:112-114.
Miller, J.H., and D.L. Sirois. 1986. Soil Disturbance by Skyline Yarding vs. Skidding in a
Loamy Hill Forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50(6): 1579-1583.
Mills, K., and J. Hinkle (eds.). 2001. Forestry, Landslides, and Public Safety. Landslides
and Public Safety Project Team. Prepared for the Oregon Board of Forestry. June.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1989. Water Quality
in Forest Management, "Best Management Practices in Minnesota."
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1991. Minnesota
Forest Stewardship Program.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Protecting Water Quality and Wet-
lands in Forest Management, Best Management Practices in Minnesota. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 1999. Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources:
Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines for Landowners, Loggers and
Resource Managers. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 2000. Information obtained from Internet site,
http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/forest/private/mgmtasst.htm.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-15
-------
References
Mississippi Forestry Commission, 1989. Mississippi's Best Management: Practices
Handbook.
Moll, J., R. Copstead, and D. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. In Water/
Road Interaction Technology Series, USDA Forest Service, Sam Dimas Technology
and Development Center, Sarn Dimas, California.
Montana State University. 1991. Montana forestry BMPs. Montana State University
Extension Service. July.
Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability.
Water Resources Research 30: 1925-1932.
Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames, and T.P. Quinn.
1996. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning
on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Sciences 53: 1061-1070.
Moore, D.G. 1975. Impact of Forest Fertilization on Water Quality in the Douglass Fir
Region—A Summary of Monitoring Studies. In Proceeding Forestry Issues in Urban
America, New York, NY, September 22-26, 1974. Society of American Foresters.
Morman, D. 1993. Riparian rule effectiveness study. Oregon Department of Forestry,
Forest Practices Program. March.
Murphy, M.L., and A.M. Miller. 1997. Alaska timber harvest and fish habitat. In Fresh-
waters of Alaska. Ecological Synthesis. Pp. 229-263.
Murphy, M.L., K.V. Koski, J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, D. Kirchhofer, and J.F. Thedinga.
1984. Role of Large Organic Debris as Winter Habitat for Juvenile Salmonids in
Alaska Streams. In Western Proceedings of the 64th Annual Conference of the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Victoria, British Columbia, July
16-19, 1984, pp.251-262.
Narvcr, D.W. 1971. Effects of Logging Debris on Fish Production. In Forest Land Uses
and Stream Environment, ed. J.T. Krygier and J.D. Hall, School of Forestry and
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, October 19-21, pp.
100-111.
Nawa, R.K., and C.A. Frissell. 1993. Measuring scour and fill of gravel stream beds with
scour chains and sliding bead monitors. No. American J. of Fisheries Management
13: 634-639.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of
control and mitigation measures far silvicultural operations. Unpublished draft
Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C. National Council for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc.
Neary, D.G. 1985. Fate of Pesticides in Florida's Forests: An Overview of Potential
Impacts in Water Quality. In Proceedings Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida,
pp. 18-24.
Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush, I.E. Douglass, and R.L. Todd. 1985. Picloram Movement in an
Appalachian Hardwood Forest Watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality
14(4):585-591.
R-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Neary, D.G., W.T. Swank, and H. Riekerk. 1989. An Overview of Nonpoint Source
Pollution in the Southern United States. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested
Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14, 1988, Orlando, FL. USDA Forest
Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 1-7.
Norris, L.A. 1968. Stream contamination by herbicides after fall rains on forest land.
Western Society of Weed Scientist Research Program Report, 33-34.
Norris, L.A., and D.G. Moore. 1971. The Entry and Fate of Forest Chemicals in Streams.
In Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment - Symposium Proceedings, ed. J.T
Krygier and J.D. Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, pp. 138-158.
Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. Influences of Forest
and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American
Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 207-296.
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices
Manual. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
North Dakota Forestry Service. 1999. Forestry Best Management Practices. Molberg
Forestry Center, Bottineau, North Dakota.
North Dakota State University. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site.
Nutter, W.L., and J.W. Gaskin. 1989. Role of Streamside Management Zones in Control-
ling Discharges to Wetlands. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wet-
lands of the Southern United States, July, 12-14, 1988, Orlando, Florida. USDA
Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 81-84.
Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Undated. BMP's for Erosion Control on Logging
Jobs. Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Technical Advisory Committee.
Ohio Forestry Association. 1999. Certified Logging Company Program. (select Services>Ohio Master Logging Company Program).
Olsen, E.D. 1987. A Case Study of the Economic Impact of Proposed Forest Practices
Rules Regarding Stream Buffer Strips on Private Lands in the Oregon Coast Range.
In Managing Oregon's Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI Techni-
cal Bulletin No. 514, pp. 52-57.
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1988. Environmental Guidelines for Access
Roads and Water Crossings. Queen's Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979a. Waterbars. Forest Practices Notes No. 1. Oregon
Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979b. Reforestation. Forest Practices Notes No. 2.
Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1981. Road Maintenance. Forest Practices Notes No. 4.
Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1982. Ditch Relief Culverts. Forest Practices Notes
No. 5. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-17
-------
References
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1991. Forest Practices Rules, Eastern Oregon Region.
Oregon Department of Forestry, Forestry Practices Section, Salem, OR.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997. Information obtained from Internet site.
Oregon Department of Forestry. 2002. Executive Summary. Technical Report 15. Oregon
Department of Forestry Best Management Practices Compliance Monitoring Project,
Forest Practices Monitoring Program. April.
OSHA, Department of Labor. 1999. World Wide Web site, .
Viewed July 17.
Pacific Southwest Region. 1998. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program annual
report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region,
San Francisco, California. April.
Page, C.P., and A.W. Lindenmuth, Jr. 1971. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Vegetation and
Sediment in Oak-Mountain Mahogany Chaparral. Journal of Forestry 69:800-805.
Pardo, R. 1980. What is Forestry's Contribution to Nonpoint Source Pollution? In U.S.
Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? Proceedings of the Water
Pollution Control Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 31-41.
Park, S.W., S. Mostaghimi, R.A. Cooke, and PW. McClellan. 1994. BMP impacts on
watershed runoff, sediment, and nutrient yields. Water Resources Bulletin
30(6):1011-1023.
Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry 74(10):671-677.
Patric, J.H. 1980. Effects of Wood Products Harvest on Forest Soil and Water Relations.
Journal of Environmental Quality 9(1):73-80.
Patric, J.H. 1984. Some Environmental Effects of Cable Logging in the Eastern Hard-
woods. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. PA. Peters and J. Luchok,
June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia University, pp. 99-106.
Pennsylvania Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation. 1990. Erosion and Sediment
Pollution Control Program Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.
Pettit, C. 2000. West Kootenay landslide reports, . Accessed 24 February 2003.
Phillips, M.J. 1997. Forestry best management practices for wetlands in Minnesota. In
Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Chapter 28.
Phillips, M.J., L.W. Swift, Jr., and C.R. Blinn. Best management practices for riparian
areas. In E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, C.A. Dolloff (eds.), Riparian management in
forests of the continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
Florida. Pp. 273-286.
Piatek, K.B., and H.L. Allen. 2000. Site preparation effects on foliar N and P use,
retranslocation, and transfer to litter in 15-year old Pinus taeda. Forest Ecology and
Management 129:143-152.
R-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Pope, P.E. 1978, Forestry and Water Quality: Pollution Control Practices, Forestry and
Natural Resources, FNR 88, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Services.
Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z. Zhu, D.W, MacCleery. 1994. Forest resources
of the United Stales, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234 (Revised). USDA
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
Colorado.
Powers, P.D. Culvert Hydraulics Related to Upstream Juvenile Salmon Passage. Wash-
ington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program: 1-15, 1996.
Reid, L.M. 1.993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. USDA Forest Service,
Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report GTR-141, 118 pp.
Reid, L.M. 1998. Cumulative watershed effects: Caspar Creek and beyond. In: Ziemer,
R.R., Technical Coordinator, Proceedings of the conference on coastal watersheds:
the Caspar Creek stoty, Ukiali, California, May 6. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Albany, California. Pp. 1.17-1.27.
Rice, R.M., J.S. Rothacher, and W.F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional Consequences of Timber
Harvesting: An Appraisal. In Watersheds in Transition Symposium Proceedings,
AWRA, Urbana, IL, pp. 321-329.
Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston, and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water
Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling (Hydraulic Systems, Pine Litter, USA). Science
215:661-663.
Riekerk, H. 1983. Environmental Impacts of Intensive Silviculture in Florida. In
/. U.F.R.O. Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productivity. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical
Report PNW-163, pp. 264-271.
Riekerk, H. 1983. Impacts of Silviculture on Flatwoods Runoff, Water Quality, and
Nutrient Budgets. Water Resources Bulletin 19(1):73-80.
Riekerk, H. 1985. Water Quality Effects of Pine Flatwoods Silviculture. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 40(3): 306-309.
Riekerk, H. 1989. Forest Fertilizer and Runoff-Water Quality. In Soil and Crop Science
Society of Florida Proceedings, September 20-22, 1988, Marco Island, FL, Vol. 48,
pp. 99-102.
Riekerk, H., D.G. Neary, and W.J. Swank. 1.989. The Magnitude of Upland Silviculture
Nonpoint Source Pollution in the South. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested
Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14, Orlando, FL, pp. 8-18.
Robben, J., and L. Dent. 2002. Final Report. Technical Report 15. Oregon Department of
Forestry Best Management Practices Compliance Monitoring Project, Forest Prac-
tices Monitoring Program. April.
Rothwell, R.L. 1978. Watershed Management Guidelines for Logging and Road Con-
struction in Alberta. Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre,
Alberta, Canada. Information Report NOR-X-208.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-19
-------
References
Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and Sediment Control at Road-Stream Crossings (For-
estry). The Forestry Chronicle 59(2):62-66.
Rygh, J. 1990. Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project Final Report. Payette
National Forest.
Salazar, D.J. and F.W. Cubbage. 1990. Regulating Private Forestry in the West and South.
Journal of Forestry 88(1): 14-19.
Sanders, J.E., K.S. Pilcher, and J.L. Fryer. 1978. Relation of water tmperature to bacterial
kidney disease in coho salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. /. Fish. Res.
Board of Canada 35(1): 8-11.
Schmid, D., Forester, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Lands and Forests, personal communication, February 8, 2000.
Sedell, J., M. Sharpe, D.D. Apple, M. Copenhagen, and M. Furniss. 2000. Water & the
Forest Service. FS-660. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington
DC. January.
Sidle, R.C. 1980. Impacts of Forest Practices on Surface Erosion. Pacific Northwest
Extension Publication PNW-195, Oregon State Univ. Extension Service.
Sidle, R.C. 1989. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices on Erosion and Sedimentation.
In Forestry on the Frontier Proceedings of the 1989 Society of American Foresters,
September 24-27, Spokane, WA, pp. 108-112.
Smith, W.B., J.S. Visage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. 2001. Forest Resources of the
United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central
Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
South Carolina Forestry Commission. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site.
Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitski. 1996. An ecosystem
approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Corp, Corvalis,
OR. Funded by National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NMFS, Portland, OR.
Stednick, J.D., L.N. Tripp, and R.J. McDonald. 1982. Slash Burning Effects on Soil and
Water Chemistry in Southeastern Alaska. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
37(2):126-128.
Stone, E. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest on Soils and Water. Report of the
President's Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment, Arlington, VA, pp. 427-
467.
Stuart, G., 1996. Instructor's Guide Eastern Forest Wetland & Streamside Forest Man-
agement. National Wetlands Conservation Alliance,
-------
References
Swank, W.T., L.W. Swift, Jr., and I.E. Douglass. 1988. Streamflow Changes Associated
with Forest Cutting, Species Conversions and Natural Disturbances. In Forest
Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Chapter 22, ed. W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley,
Jr., pp.297-312. Springer-Vcrlag, New York, NY.
Swartley, W.A. 2002. Forestry BMP Implementation Survey, North Carolina Division of
Forest Resources. February.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984a. Gravel and Grass Surfacing Reduces Soil Loss from Mountain
Roads. Forest Science 30(3):657-670.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984b. Soil Losses from Roadbeds and Cut and Fill Slopes in the South-
ern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry? 8(4):209-215.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appala-
chians. In Foreslry^ and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium, May 8-9, 1985,
Little Rock, AR, ed. E.G. Blackmon, pp. 141-151. University of Arkansas Coopera-
tive Extension.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter Strip Widths for Forest Roads in the Southern Appalachians.
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10(l):27-34.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest Access Roads: Design, Maintenance, and Soil Loss. In
Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Chapter 23, ed. W.T. Swank and D.A.
Crossley, Jr., pp. 313-324. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
Swift, L.W., Jr., and R.G. Bums. 1999. Trie Three Rs of Roads: Redesign, Reconstruc-
tion, and Restoration. Journal of Forestry 97(8):40-44.
Taylor, L., Forest Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest,
personal communication, January 28, 2000.
Tennessee DOA. (undated) 1996 BMP Implementation Survey Report. Tennessee Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forestry Division.
Tennessee DOA. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site.
Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry. 1990. Best Management
Practices for Protection of the Forested Wetlands of Tennessee.
Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 1996. 1996 BMP Implemen-
tation Survey Report. Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry.
Texas Forestry Association. 1989. Texas Best Management Practices for Silviculture.
Toliver, J.R., and B.D. Jackson. 1989. Recommended Silvicultural Practices in Southern
Wetland Forests. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the
Southern United Stales, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service
General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 72-77'.
Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. Mclntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal
refugia and stream habitat associations of Chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon.
Ecological Applications 9: 301-319.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-21
-------
References
Trimble, G.R., and S. Weitzman. 1953. Soil Erosion on Logging Roads. Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings 17:152-154.
Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. In press. Review of ecological effects of roads on
terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology.
University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1998. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
can prevent or minimize the impact of forestry activities on rivers, lakes, streams,
groundwater, wetlands, and visual quality. Forest Management Practices Fact Sheet
Crossing Options Series #4. .
USDA-FS. 1994. Sedimentation concerns from Forest Roads 133, 149, and 468 into two
tributaries ofE. Br. Tionesta Cr. Unpublished research report. USDA Forest Service,
Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Pennsylvania. March 17.
USDA-FS. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring of the filter strip between FR 375, Hastings
Run, and the tributary to Hastings Run. Unpublished research report. USDA Forest
Service, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Pennsylvania. January 17.
*USDA-FS. 1997. Ecosystem Road Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, California.
November.
USDA-FS. 1998. Best Management Practice Evaluation Program (BMPEP). U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
*USDA-FS. 1998. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San
Dimas, California.
USDA-FS. 1999. USDA Forest Service Internet Site: .
USDA-FS, Pacific Region. 1992. Investigating water quality in the Pacific Southwest
Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California.
USDOI, USDA. 2004. Progress reported on implementing President Bush's Healthy
Forests Initiative. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC. Fact sheet. March.
USEPA. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S., U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1991. Pesticides and Ground-water Strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1992. A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment. A proposed meth-
odology. EPA/600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Research and Development, Washington, DC. October.
USEPA. 1992. Economic analysis of coastal nonpoint source pollution controls: Forestry.
Draft. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. June.
R-22 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
USEPA. 1992a. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution, Final Report to Congress on
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (1989). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-506/9-90.
USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint
Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. January.
USEPA. 1994. Land Application of Sewage Sludge. A Guide for Land Appliers on the
Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40
CFR Part 503. EPA/831-B-93-002b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC. December.
USEPA. 1995. Watershed protection: A project focus. EPA841-R-95-003. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. August.
USEPA. 1996. Watershed approach framework. EPA840-S-96-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. June.
USEPA. 1997. Memorandum to the Field—Corps and EPA Regulatory Program Chiefs,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, .
USEPA. 1997. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint
Source Controls. EPA841-B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC. September.
*USEPA. 1997. Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation
of Nonpoint Source Control Measures—Forestry. EPA841-B-97-001. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA841-F-
00-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
June.
USEPA. undated a. Ohio CWSRF provides loans for riparian zone conservation. Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Activity Update, . Accessed December 24, 2002.
USEPA. 2002a. Facimile transmittal from Stephanie von Feck, USEPA. Fax dated
December 24, 2002.
USEPA. 2002b. Ohio's restoration sponsor program integrates point source & nonpoint
source projects. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Activity Update. June. . Accessed December 24, 2002.
VANR. 1998. Water quality monitoring and aquatic bioassessment related to logging
practices in the Dowsville Brook, Shepard Brook and Mill Brook watersheds. Ver-
mont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation,
Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section. October.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-23
-------
References
Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. 1987. Acceptable Management
Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont.
Virginia Department of Forestry, (undated). Forestry Best Management Practices for
Water Quality in Virginia.
Virginia DOF. 1994. Best management practice implementation and effectiveness. 1994.
Virginia Department of Forestry, Forest Resources and Utilization Branch,
Charlottesville, Virginia. February.
Virginia DOF. 1998. Conclusions suggested by water quality monitoring near private
timber harvests: 1989-1996, Executive Summary. Virginia Department of Forestry,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Virginia DOF. 2001. BMP Effort, Implementation, and Effectiveness Field Audit. Virginia
Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, Virginia. November.
Vowell, J., and T. Gilpin. 1998. Silviculture Best Management Practices 1997 Compli-
ance Survey Report. Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. July.
Vowell, J., and R. Lima. 2002. Results of Florida's 2001 Silviculture BMP Compliance
Survey. Florida Division of Forestry, Tallahassee, Florida. March.
Warring, M., Virginia Department of Forestry. 1999. Personnel communication. July 19,
1999.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1996. Water Quality Standards for Aquatic
Life. Wash. Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1998. Preliminary Draft Evaluation Standards
for Protection of Aquatic Life in Washington Surface Waters. Wash. Dept. of Ecology,
Olympia, WA. January 1998.
Washington Department of Ecology. 1999. Forest Practices Code - Stream Crossing for
Fish Streams Guidebook: 1.2 Types of Fish Passage Structures. March.
Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1988. Washington Forest Practices Rules and
Regulations. Washington Annotated Code, Title 222; Forest: Practices Board Manual,
and Forest Practices Act.
Washington DOE. 1994. Effectiveness of forest road and timber harvest best management
practices with respect to sediment-related water quality impacts. Interim Report No.
2. Ecology Publication No. 94-67. TFW-WQ8-94-001. Washington State Department
of Ecology, Timber, Fish, and Wildlife. May.
Washington State DNR. 1997. Information obtained from Internet site.
*Weaver, W.E., and D.K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for forest and ranch roads. Prepared
for Mendicino County Resource Conservation District, Ukiah, California. June.
Weitzman, S., and G.R. Trimble, Jr. 1952. Skid-road Erosion Can Be Reduced. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation 7:122-124.
R-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
References
Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E, Grant. 1996, Channel network extension by logging
roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195-
1207.
White, D. Hydraulic Performance of Countersunk Culverts in Oregon. Oregon State
University. 1-95, 1996. Master of Science.
Whitman, R. 1989. Clean Water or Multiple Use? Best Management Practices for Water
Quality Control in the National Forests. Ecology Law Quarterly 16:909-966.
*Wiest, R. 1998. A Landowner's Guide to 'Building Forest Access Roads. NA-TP-06-98.
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Radnor, Pennsyl-
vania. July.
Willingham, P.W. 1989. Wetlands Harvesting Scott Paper Company. In Proceedings of the
Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida,
July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 63-66.
Wilbrecht, S., Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry, personal communication, Janu-
ary 15,2000.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Forest Practice Guidelines for
Wisconsin. Bureau of Forestry, Madison, WI. PUBL-FR-064-89.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Wisconsin Forest Management
Guidelines. PUB-FR-226 2003. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Divi-
sion of Forestry, Madison, Wisconsin. October.
Yee, C.S., and T.D. Roelofs. 1980. Planning Forest Roads to Protect Salmonid Habitat.
USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-109.
Yoder, B., Forester, USDA, Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, personal
communication, January 20, 2000.
Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest Management and Sediment Production in the South—A Review.
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 4(l):27-36.
Zedaker, S., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1999. Personnel commu-
nication. August 2, 1999.
Ziemer, R.R., J. Lewis, R. M. Rice, and T. E. Lisle. 1991. Modeling the cumulative
watershed effects of forest management strategies. Journal of Environmental Quality
20(1): 36-42.
Ziemer, R.R., and T.E. Lisle. 1998. Hydrology. Chapter 3 in: Naiman, R.J., and R.E.
Bilby, eds.. River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal
Ecoregion. Pages 43-68. Springer-Verlag, N.Y.
Readers are encouraged to contact their state department of forestry! for information
pertaining to BMPs for forestry in their state and region. In addition, some of the
above guidances that represent a synthesis of current information are recommended
for further reading and are marked with an asterisk (*).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-25
-------
References
R-26 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
GLOSSARY
Access road: A temporary or permanent road over which timber is transported from a
loading site to a public road. Also known as a haul road.
Alignment: The horizontal route or direction of an access road.
Autochthonous: Derived from outside a system, such as leaves of terrestrial plants that
fall into a stream.
Angle of repose: The maximum slope or angle at which a material, such as soil or loose
rock, remains stable (stable angle).
Apron: Erosion protection placed on the streambed in an area of high flow velocity, such
as downstream from a culvert.
Autochthonous: Derived from within a system, such as organic matter in a stream
resulting from photosynthesis by aquatic plants.
Bedding: A site preparation technique whereby a small ridge of surface soil is formed to
provide an elevated planting or seed bed. It is used primarily in wet areas to improve
drainage and aeration for seeding.
Berm: A low earth fill constructed in the path of flowing water to divert its direction, or
constructed to act: as a counterweight beside the road fill to reduce the risk of foundation
failure (buttress).
Borrow pit: An excavation site outside the limits of construction that provides necessary
material, such as fill material for embankments.
Broad-based dip: A surface drainage structure specifically designed to drain water from
an access road while vehicles maintain normal travel speeds.
Brush barrier: A sediment control structure created of slash materials piled at the toe
slope of a road or at the outlets of culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars.
Buck: To saw felled trees into predetermined lengths.
Buffer area: A designated area around a stream or waterbody of sufficient width to
minimize entrance of forestry chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, and fire retardants) into
the waterbody.
Cable logging: A system of transporting logs from stump to landing by means of steel
cables and winch. This method is usually preferred on steep slopes, wet areas, and
credible soils where tractor logging cannot be carried out effectively.
Check dam: A small dam constructed in a gully to decrease the flow velocity, minimize
channel scour, and promote deposition of sediment.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-1
-------
Glossary
Chopping: A mechanical treatment whereby vegetation is concentrated near the ground
and incorporated into the soil to facilitate burning or seedling establishment.
Clearcutting: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are harvested within
a specified area in one operation to create an even-aged stand.
Contour: An imaginary line on the surface of the earth connecting points of the same
elevation. A line drawn on a map connecting the points of the same elevation.
Crown: A convex road surface that allows runoff to drain to either side of the road prism.
Culvert: A metal, wooden, plastic, or concrete conduit through which surface water can
flow under or across roads.
Cumulative effect: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental
impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such action.
Cut-and-fill: Earth-moving process that entails excavating part of an area and using the
excavated material for adjacent embankments or fill areas.
DBH: Diameter at breast height; the average diameter (outside the bark) of a tree 4.5 feet
above mean ground level.
Disking (harrowing): A mechanical method of scarifying the soil to reduce competing
vegetation and to prepare a site to be seeded or planted.
Diversion: A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across or at
the bottom of a slope for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.
Drainage structure: Any device or land form constructed to intercept and/or aid surface
water drainage.
Duff: The accumulation of needles, leaves, and decaying matter on the forest floor.
Ephemeral drainage: A natural channel that carries water only during and immediately
following rainstorms and whose channel bottom is seldom below the local water table.
Sometimes referred to as a dry wash.
Felling: The process of cutting down standing trees.
Fill slope: The surface formed where earth is deposited to build a road or trail.
Firebreak: Naturally occurring or man-made barrier to the spread of fire.
Fire line: A barrier used to stop the spread of fire constructed by removing fuel or
rendering fuel inflammable by use of fire retardants.
Foam line: A type of fire line that incorporates the use of fire-resistant foam material in
lieu of, or in addition to, plowing or harrowing.
Ford: Submerged stream crossing where the traffic surface is reinforced to bear intended
traffic.
Forest filter strip: Area between a stream and construction activities that achieves
sediment control by using the natural filtering capabilities of the forest floor and litter.
G-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Glossary
Forwarding: The operation of moving timber products from the stump to a landing for
further transport.
Geotextlle: A product used as a soil reinforcement agent and as a filter medium. It is
made of synthetic fibers manufactured in a woven or loose nonwoven manner to form a
blanket-like product.
Grade (gradient): The slope of a road or trail expressed as a percentage of change in
elevation per unit of distance traveled.
Harrowing (disking): A mechanical means to scarify the soil to reduce competing
vegetation and to prepare a site to be seeded.
Harvesting: The felling, skidding, processing, loading, and transporting of forest prod-
ucts.
Haul road: See access road.
Intermittent stream: A stream that flows only during the wet periods of the year or in
response to snow melt and flows in a well-defined channel. The channel bottom may be
periodically above or below the local water table.
Landing (log deck): A place in or near the forest where logs are gathered for further
processing, sorting, or transport.
Leaching: Downward movement of a soluble material through the soil as a result of
water movement.
Logging debris (slash): The unwanted, unutilized, and generally unmerchantable
accumulation of woody material, such as large limbs, tops, cull logs, and stumps, that
remains as forest residue after timber harvesting.
Merchantable: Forest products suitable for marketing under local economic conditions.
With respect to a single tree, it means the parts of the bole or stem suitable for sale.
Mineral soil: Soil that contains less than 20 percent organic matter (by weight) and
contains rock less than 2 inches in maximum dimension.
Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue or other materials covering the land
surface that conserves moisture, holds soil in place, aids in establishing plant cover, and
minimizes temperature fluctuations.
Mulching: Providing any loose covering for exposed forest soils, such as grass, straw,
bark, or wood fibers, to help control erosion and protect exposed soil.
Muskeg: A type of bog that has developed over thousands of years in depressions, on flat
areas, and on gentle to steep slopes. These bogs have poorly drained, acidic, organic soils
supporting vegetation that can be (1) predominantly sphagnum moss; (2) herbaceous
plants, sedges, and rushes; (3) predominantly sedges and rushes; or (4) a combination of
sphagnum moss and herbaceous plants. These bogs may have some shrub and stunted
conifers, but not enough to classify them as forested lands.
Ordinary high water mark: An elevation that marks the boundary of a lake, marsh, or
slreambed. It is the highest level at which the water has remained long enough to leave its
mark on the landscape. Typically, it is the point where the natural vegetation changes
from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-3
-------
Glossary
Organic debris: Particles of vegetation or other biological material that can degrade
water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen and by releasing organic solutes during
leaching.
Outslope: To shape the road surface to cause runoff to flow toward the outside shoulder.
Patch cutting method: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are har-
vested over a specified area at one time.
Perennial stream: A watercourse that Hows throughout a majority of the year in a well-
defined channel and whose bottom (in rainfall dominant regimes) is below the local water
table throughout most of the year.
Persistence: The relative ability of a pesticide to remain active over a period of time.
Pioneer roads: Temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access
when building permanent roads.
Prescribed burning: Skillful application of fire to natural fuels that allows confinement
of the fire to a predetermined area and at the same time produces certain planned ben-
efits.
Raking: A mechanical method of removing stumps, roots, and slash from a future
planting site.
Regeneration: The process of replacing older trees removed by harvest or disaster with
young trees.
Residual trees: Live trees left standing after the completion of harvesting.
Right-of-way: The cleared area along the road alignment that contains the roadbed,
ditches, road slopes, and back slopes.
Riprap: Rock or other large aggregate that is placed to protect streambanks, bridge
abutments, or other erodible sites from runoff or wave action.
Rut: A depression in access roads made by continuous passage of logging vehicles.
Salvage harvest: Removal of trees that are dead, damaged, or imminently threatened
with death or damage in order to use the wood before it is rendered valueless by natural
decay agents.
Sanitation harvest: Removal of trees that are under attack by or highly susceptible to
insect and disease agents in order to check the spread of such agents.
Scarification: The process of removing the forest floor or mixing it with the mineral soil
by mechanical action preparatory to natural or direct seeding or the planting of tree
seedlings.
Scour: Soil erosion when it occurs underwater, as in the case of a streambed.
Seed bed: The soil prepared by natural or artificial means to promote the germination of
seeds and the growth of seedlings.
Seed tree method: Removal of the mature timber in one cutting, except for a limited
number of seed trees left singly or in small groups.
G-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Glossary
Selection method: An uneven-aged silvicultural system in which mature trees are
removed, individually or in small groups, from a given tract of forestland over regular
intervals of time.
Shearing: A site preparation method that involves the cutting of brush, trees, or other
vegetation at ground level using tractors equipped with angles or V-shaped cutting blades.
Shelterwood method: Removal of the mature timber in a series of cuttings that extend
over a relatively short portion of the rotation in order to encourage the establishment of
essentially even-aged reproduction under the partial shelter of seed trees.
Slit fence: A temporary barrier used to intercept sediment-laden runoff from small areas.
Silvicultural system: A process, following accepted silvicultural principles, whereby the
tree species constituting forests are tended, harvested, and replaced. Usually defined by,
but not limited to, the method of regeneration.
Site preparation: A silvicultural activity to remove unwanted vegetation and other
material, and to cultivate or prepare the soil for regeneration.
Skid: Short-distance moving of logs or felled trees from the stump to a point of loading.
Skid trail: A temporary, nonstructural pathway over forest soil used to drag felled trees
or logs to the landing. Skid trails may either be constructed or simply develop due to use
depending on the terrain.
Slash: See logging debris.
Slope: Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, measured as a numerical
ratio, as a percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal
distance (run) and the second number is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is
a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane,
with a 90 degree slope being vertical (maximum) and a 45 degree slope being a 1:1 slope.
Stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrange-
ment of age classes, and condition to be a homogeneous and distinguishable unit.
Streamside management area (SMA): A designated area that: consists of the stream
itself and an adjacent area of varying width where management practices that might
affect water quality, fish, or oilier aquatic resources are modified. The SMA is not an area
of exclusion, but an area of closely managed activity. It is an area that acts as an effective
filter and absorptive zone for sediments; maintains shade; protects aquatic and terrestrial
riparian habitats; protects channels and streambanks; and promotes floodplain stability.
Tread: Load-bearing surface of a trail or road.
Turnout: A drainage ditch that drains water away from roads and road ditches.
Water bar: A diversion ditch and/or hump installed across a trail or road to divert runoff
from the surface before the flow gains enough volume and velocity to cause soil move-
ment and erosion, and deposit: the runoff into a dispersion area. Water bars are most
frequently used on retired roads, trails, and landings.
Watercourse: A definite channel with bed and banks within which concentrated water
flows continuously, frequently or infrequently.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-5
-------
Glossary
Windrow: Logging debris and unmerchantable woody vegetation that has been piled in
rows to decompose or to be burned; or the act of constructing these piles.
Yarding: Method of transport from harvest area to storage landing.
6-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
APPENDIX A:
EPA FORESTRY RESOURCES
Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific
Northwest and Alaska. EPA910991001.
The above document is available from U.S. EPA Public Information Center - S1043,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; phone 206-553-1200, fax 206-553-1049.
Summary of current state nonpoint source control practices for forestry. EPA841S93001.
Water quality effects and nonpoint source control for forestry: An annotated bibliogra-
phy. EPA841B93005.
Nonpoint pointers: Managing nonpoint source pollution from forestry, pointer no. 8.
EPA841F96004H.
Techniques for tracking, evaluating, and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source
control measures: Forestry. EPA841B97009.
Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best management practices in meeting water
quality goals or standards (bound copy). EPA84IB94005B.
The above publications are out of print, but can be viewed on the Web from the
following link: http://www.epa.gov/clariton/clhtml/pubtitleOW.html.
Facts about silvicultural activities in wetlands. EPA904F91100.
The above is available from U.S. EPA, Region 4, Library, 345 Courtland Street, N.E.,
Atlanta, GA 30365; phone 404-347-4216.
Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best management practices in meeting water
quality goals or standards (3-hole punch). EPA841B94005A.
EPA Nonpoint Source News-Notes: published by EPA quarterly and available on the
Internet. Occasionally has articles of interest to foresters and forest land owners.
Articles from the Nonpoint Source News-Notes series can be obtained from the
Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes/. Forestry-related articles have
included:
• Scientist Links Nutrient Runoff with Forest Defoliation (No. 51, April/May
1998)
• New Management Policies Proposed for National Forest Road System (No. 52,
July/August 1998)
• Urban Forests Decline; Runoff Increases in Puget Sound Area (No. 53,
September/October 1998)
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry A-1
-------
Appendix A: EPA Forestry Resources
• Working Buffer Strips Provide Profit and Protection (No. 54, November 1998)
• Report Lists Communities Suffering Flood Losses (No. 54, November 1998)
• Watershed Management Helps Lake Quality (No. 54, November 1998)
• Applying a Watershed Model to Reduce Nonpoint Source Runoff (No. 56,
February/March 1999)
• Texas Forest Service Teaches Loggers about BMPs and Water Quality (No. 56,
February/March 1999)
• Nine Salmon Listed in Urban Pacific Northwest (No. 57, May 1999)
• Riparian Forest Wildlife Guidelines for Landowners and Loggers (No. 58,
July 1999)
• Getting Started With TMDLs (No. 59, November 1999)
Other EPA publications related to forests and forestry can be found at the EPA publica-
tions Web site by searching on "forest" or "forestry": http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/.
Resources for Non-Industrial Private Forest
(NIPF) Landowners:
The Sustainable Forestry Partnership has a web page devoted to Nonindustrial Private
Forest Landowners: http://sfp.cas.psu.edu/nipf.htm.
USDA Forest Service—List of Publications,
Resources
The USDA Forest Service, Washington Office and regional offices have a number of
publications and other resources related to forestry. Lists of available publications, some
of which are available electronically, and ordering information can be viewed at the
Internet sites of the respective offices. Access to the Washington, DC office and the
regional office Internet sites can be gained through the Internet site for publications for
the USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/.
The documents of the Water-Road Interaction Technology Series, published by the U.S.
Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, California,
are available at: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road.
Other resources that will be of interest to forestland owners and that are available elec-
tronically include:
• FishXing (software and learning system for fish passage through culverts):
http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing
• Forest Service Roads Analysis Process:
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/DOCSroad-analysis.shtml
• Forest Roads Science Synthesis:
http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/science.pdf
A-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
APPENDIX B:
SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013
U.S. Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Public Affairs Office
18th and C Streets, NW
Washington, DC 20240
U.S. Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, Virginia 22092
U.S. Forest Service
Office of Information
Room 3238
P.O. Box 2417
Washington, DC 20013
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Climatic Center
Federal Building
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
(Attn: Publications)
American Forest Institute
1619 Massachusetts Aye,, NW
Washington, DC 20036
American Forests
P.O. Box 2000
Washington, DC 20013-2000
Association of Consulting Foresters of America
5400 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 300
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
International Society of Arboriculture
P.O. Box 71
5 Lincoln Square
Urbana, Illinois 61801
International Society of Arboriculture
P.O. Box GG
6 Dunlap Court
Savoy, Illinois 61874
National Arbor Day Foundation
100 Arbor Avenue
Nebraska City, Nebraska 68410
National Arborist Association
P.O.Box 1094
Amherst, New Hampshire 030314094
National Association of State Foresters
Hall of the States, #526
444 North Capital Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
National Urban Forest Council
c/o American Forests
P.O. Box 2000
Washington, DC 20013
Soil and Water Conservation Society
7515 Northeast Ankney Road
Ankney, Iowa 50021-9764
American Sod Producers Association, Inc.
9th and Minnesota Streets
Hastings, Nebraska 68901
The TPM Practitioner
P.O. Box 7414
Berkeley, California 94707
510-524-2567
Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
3-1
-------
Appendix B: Sources of Technical Assistance
Pesticide Hot Line (Autovon 584-3773)
U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency
Pest Management and Pesticide
Monitoring Division
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005
The Internet site of the National Association of State
Foresters, http://www.stateforesters.org/, has links to
many forestry resources, including:
• State Forestry Statistics
• State Forester Directory
• State Forester Home Pages
• State and Private Forestry Programs
• Other Forestry Links
6-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
APPENDIX C: FOREST MANAGEMENT
CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS
Certification
In the past 10 years, forest management monitoring has been extended beyond an evalua-
tion of whether best management practices have been implemented according to state or
federal specifications for the protection of habitat values and water quality to encompass
ecological, social, and economic values. Independent organizations offer certification of
forest management and forest products to forestry operations managed according to an
internationally accepted set of criteria for sustainable forest management (Crossley,
1996). The principles and criteria of sustainable forestry are general enough to be appli-
cable to tropical, temperate, and boreal forests, but the standards used to certify indi-
vidual operations are sufficiently site- and region-specific for critical evaluation of
individual forests and forestry operations.
To be certified, forest management must adhere to principles of resource sustainability,
ecosystem maintenance, and economic and socioeconomic viability. Resource
sustainability means that harvesting is conducted such that the forest remains productive on
a yearly basis. Large scale clear-cutting, for instance, such that the forest would have to
remain idle and unproductive for many years, would generally not be acceptable. Ecosys-
tem maintenance means that the ecological processes operating in a forest continue to
operate without interruption and the forest's biodiversity is maintained. The principle
implies that harvesting does not fundamentally alter the nature of the forest. Economic and
socioeconomic viability incorporate the two previous principles and imply that forest
operations are sufficiently profitable to sustain operations from year to year and that social
benefits provided by a forest, such as existence and recreational value, are also maintained
over the long term. Economic and socioeconomic viability are incentives for local people to
sustain the ecosystem and resources of the forest (Evans, 1996).
Development of guidelines for sustainable forest management began with the Interna-
tional Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). In 1989 the ITTO Council requested that
"best practice" guidelines for sustainable management of natural tropical forests be
developed. Soon afterward, global efforts to define and implement "sustainable forest
management" began with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Develop-
ment (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Non-binding "Forest Principles"
were endorsed by more than 170 countries attending that conference, though many
attending countries hoped that a binding "Forests Convention," similar to those for
biodiversity and ozone layer protection, would be endorsed. Since Rio, dozens of fora,
groups, and processes have been developed to define and evaluate sustainable forest
management.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-1
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
The movement to evaluate forest management and forest products based on principles of
sustainable management is an expansion of focus as more knowledge is gained about
forest ecological processes and the impacts, both local and global, of poorly managed
forests on ecological systems and, consequently, on human economic and social systems.
The expansion is similar to the natural expansion of EPA's focus in the realm of water
pollution control from point sources of pollution to nonpoint sources of pollution to the
present focus on watershed processes. Progress gained in overcoming one problem (e.g.,
point sources of water pollution) highlight the impacts of other problems (e.g., nonpoint
sources of water pollution) and the search for overcoming these problems naturally
expands to encompass the new problems that are highlighted. As more sources of impact
are recognized, the focus must expand to encompass them. Thus, while water pollution
control has become focused on watershed processes and activities occurring within
watersheds, forest management is naturally expanding to encompass the processes
dependent on the forest (i.e., ecological, social, and economic) and which can be severely
limited by poor management.
Two steps are involved in certifying wood products. First, forest management is certified
as sustainable according to an evaluation based on accepted principles of sustainable
forest management. Various organizations refer to this certification process as forest
certification, forest management auditing, or timber certification. Evaluations are always
conducted by a third, independent party. The second step is wood-product certification, or
forest product labeling. Again, a third party follows the harvested wood through the
manufacturing and product development processes, a "chain-of-custody" inspection
process, to certify and label the products created from wood harvested from a "sustain-
able" forestry operation. Both types of certification are currently carried out by both tor-
profit companies and not-for-profit organizations that are predominantly based in the
United States and the United Kingdom.
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accredits regional groups to certify forest opera-
tions. Well known examples of FSC-accredited groups are Scientific Certification Sys-
tems (SCS) and the Rainforest Alliance's Smart Wood Program (Evans, 1996). These
groups and others not associated with FSC are active in the United States and their
evaluation processes are described below.
The Forest Stewardship Council was formed in 1993 and is a nonprofit organization
registered in Mexico. FSC strives to serve as a global foundation for the development of
region-specific forest-management standards with its Principles and Criteria for Forest
Management, Independent certification bodies, accredited by the FSC in the application
of these standards, conduct impartial, detailed assessments of forest operations at the
request of landowners. If the forest operations are found to be in confomiance with FSC
standards, a certificate is issued, enabling the landowner to bring product to market as
"certified wood" and to use FSC trademark logo. In 1996 the FSC accredited the
SmartWood Program, Scientific Certification System (SCS), the SGS Forestry
QUALIFOR Programme (based in the United Kingdom), and the Soil Association for
worldwide forest management and chain-of-custody certification.
The FSC-U.S. Working Group, Inc., is the U.S. arm of the FSC. FSC-U.S. partners are
businesses (wood product distributors such as Home Depot, timber producers such as
C-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
Seven Islands Land Company, and certification bodies), foundations, and non-govern-
mental organizations (NGO). Currently there are 40 NGO partners, including the
Consumer's Choice Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of The Earth.
Programs accredited under the FSC provide two types of service, forest management
certification and chain-of-custody certification. For forest management certification, a
third party evaluation of a forest management operation is conducted in conformity with
FSC principles-specific environmental, social, and economic standards. Certification
enables an organization to guarantee that its product or service conforms to FSC stan-
dards, which could affect product marketability.
To certify a forest management operation, the certification body studies the forest man-
agement system and policies and visits the operation for an evaluation. A certified
operation must be monitored annually to ensure that the standards of forest stewardship
are maintained throughout the period of certification.
The FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship emerged out of a desire to
provide market rewards through the labeling of forest products with a distinct logo
derived from lands recognized for "exemplary" forest management. The principles and
criteria apply to all tropical, temperate, and boreal forests and must be incorporated into
the evaluation systems and standards of all certification organizations seeking accredita-
tion by FSC. More detailed standards may be prepared at national and local levels.
Principle No. 6 in the FSC criteria relates to environmental impact. It does not specify
BMPs, but requires the certified body to maintain, enhance, or restore ecological func-
tions and values; protect and record representative samples of existing ecosystems within
the landscape; and prepare written documentation on controlling erosion, minimizing
forest damage, and protecting water resources.
Many regional standards and policies require that certified bodies meet or exceed the
specifications listed in state forest practices:
• 6.5 (Appalachian Region): Harvesting, road construction and other mechanical
operations shall meet or exceed state Best Management Practices, whether voluntary
or mandatory, and other applicable water quality regulations. In advance of these
activities, planning shall be done to minimize damage to the soil, water and forest
resources from these activities. A written description of the operational plan, demon-
strating how damage will be minimized, shall be incorporated into the management
plan or harvesting contract as appropriate.
« 6.5.1 (Southeast Region): Harvesting, road construction, and other mechanical
operations shall be designed to meet or exceed state best management practices and
applicable water quality regulations.
(US)
The Forest Conservation Program (FCP) was established by Scientific Certification
Systems (SCS) in 1991 as a certification program for sustainable forestry. SCS has
certified forests in California (Collins Pine Almanor Forest), Pennsylvania (Collins
Pennsylvania Forest), Wisconsin (Menominee Forest), and Mexico.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-3
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
The FCP uses an evaluation process based on the program elements mentioned above:
resource sustainability, ecosystem maintenance, and economic and socioeconomic
viability. Each program element is evaluated according to a set of criteria that best
represents appropriate benchmarks of sustainable forest management in the region of
interest. Timber resource sustainability is evaluated based on criteria relating to how
fully-stocked stands are, growing conditions, age and/or size class distribution (even-aged
management or uneven-aged management), and whether management allows for sus-
tained yearly harvests and avoids idle years.
The forest ecosystem maintenance element is evaluated based on criteria relating to
whether non-timber resource values are a part of management and the extent to which
natural ecosystem conditions and processes are altered by harvests. The economic and
socioeconomic element is concerned with the overall economic viability of forest opera-
tions and the socioeconomic impacts of operations on harvesters and the local community.
The FCP program is designed to provide a quantitative and qualitative approach to
certification. Forest evaluations are based on five sources of information. The landowner;
investigations of information related to harvesting operations (e.g. timber inventory data,
timber management plans, business management plans, and employee records); field
sampling (e.g., wildlife surveys); field reviews; and interviews with employees, contrac-
tors, and individuals and organizations from the community.
SCS provides two levels of recognition under the FCP program, "Well-managed" and
"State-of-the-Art Well-managed." Well-managed forests meet FCP standards for sustain-
able management as described below. "Statc-of-thc-Art Well-managed" forests rank in
the top 10 percent of all forests evaluated under the FCP program.
Evaluations are conducted by an evaluation team that consists of persons with expertise
in relevant disciplines, such as forestry, wildlife biology, ecology, and economics. Per-
sons with local or regional expertise are incorporated into evaluation teams and all
evaluations are peer reviewed. Periodic monitoring of the forest after initial evaluation,
lasting 1 to 3 years, is required as part of certification. Evaluation criteria are selected and
weighted to account for regional circumstances.
Each criterion is given a ranking from I to 100 based on its perceived importance to
sustainable management of the particular forest. Forest management is then scored by the
evaluation team according to the chosen criteria. Sixty points on a normalized 100-point
scale is the "failure threshold" for each criterion. Forests that receive 60 points or more in
all three categories are designated "Well-managed." Forests among the top 10 percent of
all SCS-rated forests are given the "State-of-the-Art" designation. The designation given
to the forest management operation is also applied to products from wood harvested from
the certified forest.
The program is practical and feasible for forest managers to implement because standards
of what constitutes good performance and what leads to failure to attain certification for
each criterion are clearly described and adaptable for local or regional circumstances.
The credibility of the certification process depends largely on the strength of the evalua-
tion team (Evans, 1996).
C-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
— (US)
The Rainforest Alliance established Smart Wood as the first independent forestry certifi-
cation program in the world in 1990. The program initially focused on tropical forests but
is now used to certify forests of all types. Forests have been certified in Java, Honduras,
Mexico, Brazil, and Papua New Guinea. The Smart Wood program is similar to the FCP.
Under the program, long-term management data is used to demonstrate that a forest can
be classified as a "sustainable source". Without long-term data but with demonstration
that management has a commitment to sustainability, a forest can be classified as "well-
managed".
Smart Wood companies are companies that: handle Smart Wood-certified products.
Category 1 companies sell products made exclusively from Smart Wood forests, and
Category 2 companies sell products made from a mix of certified and noncertified
sources. Products from Smart Wood companies carry one of these designations.
Smart Wood certification is based on three broad principles:
• All operations maintain ecosystem functions, including watershed stability and
conservation of biological resources.
* Planning and implementation incorporate sustained yield production for all forest
products.
• Management activities have a positive impact on local communities.
Smart Wood is developing detailed regional standards with the assistance of local special-
ists (Evans, 1996).
(SFI)
of &
Association
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of
the forest, pulp, and paper, paperboard, and wood products industry. AF&PA represents
approximately 138 member companies and licensees controlling 84 percent of paper
production, 50 percent of solid wood production, and 90 percent of the industrial timber-
land in the United States.
AF&PA member companies, as a condition of membership, must commit to conduct: their
business in accordance with the principles and objectives of the Sustainable Forestry
InitiativeSM program, instituted in October 1994.
The SFISM program is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and perfor-
mance measures that integrates the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the
protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. It is based on the premise that
responsible environmental practices and sound business practices can be integrated to the
benefit of landowners, shareholders, customers and the people they serve.
Professional foresters, conservationists and scientists developed the SFI program. They
were inspired by the concept of sustainability that evolved from the 1987 report of the
World Commission on Environment and Development and was subsequently adopted by
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-5
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The original 1994 SFI Principles and Imple-
mentation Guidelines were modified and implemented to become the industry "Standard"
in 1999, The standards will continue to be updated periodically to reflect new informa-
tion concerning forest management and social changes.
SFI State Implementation Committees have formed in 32 states to bring industry repre-
sentatives together with other stakeholders to support logger-training programs and
provide outreach to nonindustrial private landowners and opportunities for public in-
volvement.
In a response to public pressure to broaden the SFI program to include nonmember
participation in the SFI, a licensee program has been developed. To date, more than 1.5
million acres have been added to the SFI program through licensee agreements, increas-
ing the total forest acres enrolled in the SFI program to 56.5 million acres.
Member companies and licensees are required to submit annual reports to AF&PA
describing progress in implementing the SFI program. Since its inception, member
companies of AF&PA have invested more than $247 million on research related to
wildlife, biodiversity, ecosystem management and the environment. By 1998 more than
30,000 independent loggers and foresters completed training in sustainable forestry with
an additional 20,000 completing partial training. In addition, SFI participants and profes-
sional loggers have distributed information regarding the SFT program to approximately
242,000 landowners across the country since 1994.
of in
Independent certification programs provide a framework of broad principles and core
criteria against which forest management can be assessed. Similar to state forestry
programs for best management practice monitoring, forest management under the certifi-
cation programs is evaluated with field sampling, examinations of documents, and
interviews with staff and local stakeholders. Evaluation teams are interdisciplinary and
knowledgeable of local conditions, and certification is based on scores for identifiable
management actions.
Although many certification programs are international in scope and focus, the flexibility
to tailor the evaluation to local circumstances is built into the process, so the programs
have credibility and can be practically implemented on a local level. Furthermore, the
framework of the certification process is a practical forest management tool as the
internationally accepted criteria on which evaluations are based provide guidance to
forest managers for managing operations for sustainability.
The credibility of the process depends on the expertise of the evaluation team. Persons with
local expertise must be used for evaluations in order for the certification process to be
placed within a local context, and a local context is absolutely necessary because of the
complex inclusion of social, economic, and ecological dimensions in the certification
process. This complexity can lead to inconsistencies in evaluations and certifications, but
some certification programs, notably the Smart Wood Program, are providing regional,
national, and international consistency with the development of regional-specific standards.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
A separate approach, the Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forest Manage-
ment Project (CSA SFM), is based on developing a preferred future condition that meets
society's goals, developing an action plan to move toward the future condition, monitor-
ing progress toward achieving that condition, and correcting one's course of action based
on monitoring results. An essential element missing from this approach, and an element
that makes the FCP and Smart Wood programs so powerful, is a set of clear criteria that
define sustainable forest management. In the CSA SFM approach, this definition is left
for local stakeholders to define. The result is a lack of consistency from operation to
operation and certification to certification (Fvans, 1996).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-7
-------
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
APPENDIX D: NONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE
FOREST (NIPF) MANAGEMENT
The approximately 10 million nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners in the United
States include individuals, partnerships, estates, trusts, clubs, tribes, corporations, and
associations (Pennsylvania State University, 2000). NIPF owners control 261 million
acres of timberland and 58 percent of the commercial forests in the United States. More
than two-thirds of timberland east of the Mississippi River is in NIPF ownership, whereas
the majority of timberland in the West is in public ownership. NIPFs protect watersheds,
provide wildlife habitat, offer scenic beauty, and supply 49 percent of the timber har-
vested in the United States (USDA-FS, 1992).
Many NIPF owners are not fully aware of the potential economic value of properly-
managed timberland. Some are unaware of how to properly manage their timber re-
sources (Pennsylvania State University, 2000). Proper management might be secondary
to avoiding annual property taxes and capital gains taxes for some owners. Some other
owners who do not plan properly for the inheritance their timberland might lose owner-
ship upon their death, and still others, unaware of either management techniques or the
economic value of the land, might decide to convert the land to other uses, such as
development or agriculture. Owners who view harvesting of the timber on their land as a
one-time capital gain may not be aware of the long-term economic and environmental
benefits of sustainable timberland management. Andrew Egan of West Virginia Univer-
sity and Stephan Jones of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System studied NIPF
owners and timberland management, and found that landowners with knowledge of
forests and forestry are more likely to manage their forests in a sustainable manner
(Pennsylvania State University, 2000).
Forest*A *Syst, by Rick Hamilton, extension forestry specialist with the Department of
Forestry, North Carolina State University, is a self-assessment guide directed at encourag-
ing forest owners to manage their forests for recreation and aesthetics, wildlife, and
timber production, while protecting water quality. The guide discusses steps in develop-
ing a forest management plan and strongly recommends the assistance of a professional
forester in this process. Major topics are site preparation, natural regeneration, artificial
seeding, tree planting, weed control, and fertilization in young and middle-age stands;
harvesting the mature forest; managing for wildlife habitat; enhancing the visual appear-
ance of the site; improving recreational opportunities; and using management practices to
protect water quality. A Forest*A*Syst guide for western North Carolina has been devel-
oped from the national Forest*A*Syst prototype developed by Mr. Hamilton. A similar
guide is available for eastern North Carolina. Other states' programs have spun off from
the national version, as well, including Tennessee and Alaska, Georgia (in process), New
England (developing a Forest*A*Syst model for the region), and Kentucky and Hawaii (in
process) (Leith, 2002). For additional information on distribution of the publication and
support for adapting it to state and local conditions, contact Rick Hamilton at
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-1
-------
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
(919) 515-5574 or by e-mail (hamilton@cfr.crf.ncsu.edu) or contact Larry Biles, USDA-
CSREES (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service), Washington,
DC, at (202) 401-4926.
Proper implementation of forestry management measures can maintain fish and wildlife
habitat, clean water, biological diversity, aesthetics, and a buffer from urban sprawl. To
maintain these values, it is recommended that NIPF landowners follow the guidance of
the management measures for forestry to protect water quality set forth in this guidance.
Because some of the management measures and BMPs mentioned in the guidance,
however, are more relevant to state, federal, and industrial timberland owners, this
appendix is provided to focus on certain aspects of planning and managing timberlands
that are especially intended to assist NIPF owners in addressing BMP implementation
and forest management.
Individual landowners are encouraged to use this guidance to manage and protect water
quality on their private forestland. If you have turned directly to this appendix, thinking
perhaps that the main sections of the guidance are meant for state agencies and industrial
landowners, please take the time to review the rest of the document, especially Section 3.
The management measures and practices described in the guidance are applicable to all
forest landowners, whether 10 acres or 10,000 acres are being managed. Some of the
management measures will be more applicable to some forest management goals than
others, but the concepts contained in them are equally relevant to water quality protection
in all managed forests where trees are harvested.
Preharvest Planning:
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Preharvest Planning. Complete discussions of these and other
management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3A. Additional
management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this
listing.
Harvest Planning Practices
+ Use topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, geologic maps, and rainfall
intensity charts to augment site reconnaissance to lay out and map harvest units.
Identify and mark, as needed:
+ Consider potential water quality and habitat impacts when selecting the silvicultural
system as even-aged (clear-cut, seed tree, or shelterwood) or uneven-aged (group or
individual selection). The yarding system, site preparation method, and any pesti-
cides that will be used should also be addressed in preharvest planning. As part of
this practice the potential impacts from and extent of roads needed for each silvicul-
tural system should be considered.
+ In high-erosion-hazard areas, trained specialists (geologist, soil scientist,
geotechnical engineer, wild land hydrologist) should identify sites that have high risk
of landslides or that might become unstable after harvest. These specialists can
recommend specific practices to reduce the likelihood of erosion hazards and protect
water quality.
D-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
Road System Planning Practices
+ Preplan skid trail and landing locations on stable soils and avoid steep gradients,
landslide-prone areas, high-erosion-hazard areas, and poor-drainage areas.
+ Identify areas that will require the least modification for use as log landings and use
them to reduce the potential for soil disturbance. Use topographic maps and aerial
photographs to locate these areas.
+ Plot feasible routes and locations on an aerial photograph or topographic map to
assist in the final determination of road locations.
+ Design roads and skid trails to follow the natural topography and contour, minimiz-
ing alteration of natural features.
+ In moderately sloping terrain, plan for road grades of less than 10 percent, with an
optimal grade of between 3 percent and 5 percent. In steep terrain, short sections of
road at steeper grades can be used if the grade is broken at regular intervals. Vary
road grades frequently to reduce culvert and road drainage ditch flows, road surface
erosion, and concentrated culvert discharges.
+ Plan to surface most forest roads, and select a road surface material suitable for the
intended road use.
+ Lay out roads, skid trails, and harvest units to minimize the number of stream cross-
ings.
+ To minimize soil disturbance and road damage, plan to suspend operations when
soils are highly saturated. Damage to forested slopes can also be minimized by not
operating logging equipment when soils are saturated, during wet weather, or when
the ground is thawing.
+ Select waterway opening sizes to minimize the risk of washout during the expected
life of the structure. Opening size will vary depending on the drainage area of the
watershed where the stream-crossing structure is to be placed.
Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF
landowner
+ Locate property lines.
The location of property lines might restrict the use of the best access locations. If
significant environmental impact (e.g., erosion, water body sedimentation, numerous
stream crossing) could be avoided by crossing adjacent property to provide access,
consider negotiating or purchasing a right-of-way from the owner of the property.
The USDA Forest Service has produced a document titled A Landowner's Guide to
Building Forest Access Roads (Wiest, 1998). This document, along with the assistance of
a consulting forest engineer, provides support in road planning and location. To receive a
copy of this document, contact the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and
Private Forestry, in Radnor, Pennsylvania, (610) 975-4017, or order a copy from the web
site at .
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-3
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
+ Inventory the property,
Managing timbcrland requires knowledge of what is on the property. Conduct an inven-
tory to identify features of the land such as streams, steep slopes, eroding or credible
soils, roads and trails, and sensitive wildlife habitats. Aerial photos can be useful for an
inventory, but if they are not available for the property, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map(s) of the area can be used to locate these resources and create a perma-
nent: record of them on a map. USGS quadrangle maps show contour lines (steepness of
the terrain), existing roads, waterbodies, springs, and buildings. They cost approximately
$5 per map and are available for all of the United States.
^ Develop a forest management plan,
Before harvesting operations begin, develop a forest management plan that contains
goals, objectives, possible alternatives to harvesting, future planning, and the trade-offs
that accompany altering the land. Contact the state department of forestry or cooperative
extension service for information on forest harvesting BMPs and their implementation. A
logging company is often the primary source of information regarding forestry and
nonpoint source pollution control for NIPF owners, and only by first becoming familiar
with the various BMPs can the NIPF landowner be assured that a contractor is choosing
and implementing BMPs properly.
The use of a consulting forester or state forester is extremely helpful when developing a
forest management plan. The forester can assist with all aspects of forest management
and harvest, including the layout of roads and logging decks, BMP implementation,
stream protection, and the proper use of chemical. The forester can also educate the NIPF
owner about topics such as watershed protection and sustainable forest management.
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Streamside Management Areas. Complete discussions of these
and oilier management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3B.
• Minimize disturbances that would expose the mineral soil of the SMA forest floor.
Do not operate skidders or other heavy machinery in the SMA.
« Locate all landings, portable sawmills, and roads outside the SMA.
« Restrict mechanical site preparation in the SMA, and encourage natural revegeta-
tion, seeding, and hand planting.
• Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the SMA. Establish buffers for pesticide
application for all flowing streams.
• Directionally fell trees away from streams to prevent logging slash and organic
debris from entering the water body. If slash and debris are in the stream as a result:
of harvesting practices, remove them immediately.
• Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to maintain its integrity.
D-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Road Construction and Reconstruction. Complete discussions of
these and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3C.
Surface Construction
4 Follow the design developed during preharvest planning to minimize erosion by
properly timing and limiting ground disturbance operations.
4- Properly dispose of organic debris generated during road construction.
4 Prevent slash from entering streams and promptly remove slash that accidentally
enters streams to prevent problems related to slash accumulation.
Surface Drainage Practices
4 Install surface drainage controls at intervals that remove storm water from the
roadbed before the flow gains enough volume and velocity to erode the surface.
Route discharge from drainage structures onto the forest floor so that water will
disperse and infiltrate. Methods of road surface drainage include the following:
4 Install turnouts, wing ditches, and dips to disperse runoff and reduce the amount of
road surface drainage that flows directly into watercourses.
4 Install appropriate sediment control structures to trap suspended sediment trans-
ported by runoff and prevent its discharge into the aquatic environment.
4 Use straw bales, straw mulch, grass-seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control
and revegetation techniques to complete the construction project. These methods are
used to protect freshly disturbed soils until vegetation is established.
4 Revegetale or stabilize disturbed areas, especially al stream crossings.
Crossing
4 Construct stream crossings to minimize erosion and sedimentation.
4 Install a stream crossing thai is appropriate lo the situation and conditions.
Fish
4 On streams with important spawning areas, avoid construction during egg incubation
periods.
4 Design and construct stream crossings for fish passage according to site-specific
information on stream characteristics and the fish populations in the stream where
the passage will be installed.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-5
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
Section 319 requires states to
assess nonpoint source
pollution and implement
management programs, and it
authorizes EPA to provide
grants to assist state nonpoint
source pollution control
programs.
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Road Management. Complete discussions of these and other
management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3D.
Maintenance Practices
4 Blade and reshape the road to conserve existing surface material; to retain the
original, crowned, self-draining cross section; and to prevent or remove berms
(except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities thai retard
normal surface runoff.
4 Maintain road surfaces by mowing, patching, or resurfacing as necessary.
4- Clear road inlet and outlet ditches, catch basins, culverts, and road-crossing struc-
tures of obstructions as necessary.
and Winter
4 Before winter, all permanent, seasonal, and temporary roads should be inspected and
prepared for the winter months.
Crossing and Structure
4 When temporary stream crossings are no longer needed, and as soon as possible
upon completion of operations, remove culverts and log crossings to maintain
adequate streamflow.
4 During and after logging activities, ensure thai all culverts and ditches are open and
functional.
4 Revegetate disturbed surfaces to provide erosion control and stabilize the road
surface and banks.
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Timber Harvesting. Complete discussions of these and other
management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3E. Additional
management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this
listing.
4 Fell frees away from watercourses whenever possible, keeping logging debris from
the channel, except where debris placement is specifically prescribed for fish or
wildlife habitat
4 Immediately remove any tree accidentally felled in a waterway,
4 Remove slash from the water body and place it outside the SMA.
D-6
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
for Landings
•t> Landings should be no larger than necessary to safely and efficiently store logs and
load trucks.
+ Upon completion of a harvest, clean up, regrade, and revegelale the landing.
Ground Skidding
4 Skid uphill to log landings whenever possible. Skid with ends of logs raised to reduce
rutting and gouging.
4- Skid perpendicular to the slope (along the contour), and avoid skidding on slopes
greater than 40 percent.
Yarding
4- Use cabling systems or other systems when ground skidding would expose excess
mineral soil and induce erosion and sedimentation.
4 Avoid cable yarding in or across watercourses.
Petroleum
4 Service equipment at a location where any spilled fuel or oil will not reach water-
courses, and drain all petroleum products and radiator water into containers.
+ Dispose of wastes and containers in accordance with proper waste disposal proce-
dures.
4 Take precautions to prevent leakage and spills.
Additional recommendations for the NIPF
landowner
•t> Participate actively in the timber harvest.
It is important that the NIPF landowner be an active participant in the timber harvest
process. Working with the harvesting contractor and state forester, verify that road layout,
stream protection, landing locations, skid trail layout, and drainage BMPs all follow the
plan developed in the preharvest planning phase. Review the management measures in
this guidance prior to developing a plan, note those measures and BMPs particularly
relevant to your situation, discuss them with a state forester, and then participate in the
harvest to be certain that it is conducted in a manner compatible with the sustainability of
your property.
Site and Regeneration:
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration. Complete discus-
sions of these and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in
Section 3F.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-7
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
Site Preparation
4 Mechanical site preparation should not be conducted on slopes greater than 30
percent.
4- Do not conduct mechanical site preparation in SMAs.
4> Order seedlings well in advance of planting time to ensure their availability,
4 Hand plan! highly erodible sites, sleep slopes, and lands adjacent to stream channels
(SMAs).
Fire Management:
Below arc listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Fire Management. Complete discussions of these and other
management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3G. Additional
management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this
listing.
Fire
4- Carefully plan burning to take into account weather, time of year, and fuel conditions
so thai these help achieve the desired results and minimize impacts on water quality.
4- Intense prescribed fire for site preparation should not be conducted in the SMA.
4 Execute the burn with a trained crew and avoid intense burning.
Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF landowner
4 Contact a state forester before any prescribed burning.
Prescribed burning poses many potential hazards, and the NIPF landowner must be aware
of these. Before using fire as a management tool, consult with a professional forester to
obtain information on permits, burning times and procedures, equipment, current fire
conditions, and safety precautions.
4 Notify adjacent landowners.
Before burning, notify adjacent landowners, the local county sheriff, and local fire
departments to let them know the date of the burn. A permit might be required for the
burn, and it might specify a time period during which the burn must occur. If the burn is
not done during the specified period, a new permit must be obtained. Letting all poten-
tially affected parties know that a bum will take place will lessen the likelihood that the
fire department will be called to put out the fire. The date of the prescribed burn is always
subject to change due to changing weather and fire hazard conditions, and if the date docs
change, inform the previously notified parties of the new date.
4- Hire a professional.
A landowner who is not proficient in prescribed burning should hire a contractor to
perform the burn. Investigate the background and record of any contractor contacted and
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
ask the contractor to provide testimonies of his or her work. Ask the local forestry
department, cooperative extension service, or fire department if they have knowledge of
the contractor as well. Remember that having a contractor perform the burn does not
release the landowner of obligations to notify potentially affected parties, obtain legal
information and permits, and ensure that the burn is conducted within the conditions of
the permit or recommendations made by the fire or forestry department with respect to
time of day, safety precautions, and so forth.
Revegetation of Disturbed
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. Complete discussions of these
and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3H.
4> Use mixtures of seeds adapted to the site, and avoid the use of exotic species. Species
should consist primarily of annuals to allow natural revegetation of native under-
story plants, and they should have adequate soil-binding properties,
+ Seed during optimum periods for establishment, preferably just before fall rains or
whenever the optimum period might be for the region,
+ Fertilize according to site-specific conditions.
4- Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessary repairs and reseed within
the planting season.
4> During non-growing seasons, apply interim surface stabilization methods to control
surface erosion.
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Forest Chemical Management. Complete discussions of these
and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 31.
Additional management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner
follow this listing.
4> Apply pesticides and fertilizers during favorable atmospheric conditions,
4* Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible.
+ Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching.
+ Consider the use of pesticides as only one part of an overall program to control pest
problems,
for the NIPF
landowner
4> Contact a state forester,
Forest landowners who intend to apply chemicals to manage their timber stands should
first contact a local forester. The forester will be able to provide information on approved
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-9
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
pesticides and fertilizers, application guidelines or requirements, and a list of licensed
applicators. It might be possible to hire state foresters to apply chemicals, or they might
be willing to act as a foreman on the site to ensure that proper application procedures are
followed and hire a licensed contractor to perform the work. Information on such ar-
rangements, for which the landowner pays only part of the total cost, should be available
from the state department of forestry or the local cooperative extension service.
Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the
Management Measure for Wetlands Forest Management. Complete discussions of these
and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3J.
Additional management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner
follow this listing.
•t- Select the harvesting method to minimize soil disturbance and hydrologic impacts on
the wetland.
Additional recommendations for the NIPF
landowner
4- Contact a state forester or soil scientist to identify forested wetlands.
Forested wetlands can be difficult to identify. They can occupy very small areas or large
areas, can be of any shape, and need not be permanently flooded. Delineation of an area
as a wetland requires that three criteria be met:
• Hydrology—a degree of flooding or soil saturation
• Hydrophytic vegetation (vegetation specific to wetlands)
• Hydric soils
These three components can be very site-specific. Differentiating a forested wetland from
a non-wetland forest can be difficult. Wetland areas on a property need not be contiguous,
and it is possible for a property to have several wetland areas. Some wetlands might be
large and easily identified, whereas others might be small and very inconspicuous
(Mitsch et al., 1993). Furthermore, different plant species are adapted to the various
conditions that wetlands can occupy, so the absence of wetland plants identified in one
wetland area from other areas does not mean that other wetlands do not exist on the
property. Because of the complexity of wetland identification, a person licensed in
wetland delineation should be consulted if there is any doubt as to whether wetlands exist
on a property.
An initial assessment of the existence of wetlands on a property can be done by walking
the property and asking some simple questions (Maryland DNR, undated):
• Is the ground moist underfoot?
• Are there springs in the area? (Look at a USGS quadrangle map.)
« Are the tree species considered hydrophytic vegetation? (Use a wetlands tree guide.)
« Are there high-water marks or silt deposits on tree trunks?
• Is water ponded anywhere?
D-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix D: Nonlndustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
* Do your feet: sink into the soil when you walk?
« Dig a hole about a foot deep. Is the soil mostly gray?
* Does the soil in the hole smell like sulphur or rotten eggs?
« Does the hole fill up with water? Does water leak into the hole?
• Is there lush vegetation in some areas and not in others?
To help answer some of the questions, it is useful to have field guides to identify wetland
species. Field guides provide descriptions of trees and other wetland vegetation and
information on their ranges and habitats.
Contact the local office of the Soil Conservation District to determine whether there are
hydric soils on the property. The office will be able to provide a map of the soil series of
the property.
Invasive species are gaining a foothold in many parts of the United States, and they can
cause extensive damage to a forest. Introduced insects, diseases, and plants can all cause
problems for the forest landowner, and the means of control include mechanical, chemi-
cal, and biological. Mechanical and chemical control methods, in particular, have the
potential to affect water quality. Prior to attempting control of an invasive species,
consider using the practices below for the protection of water quality during invasive
species control activities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service,
state forestry agencies, cooperative extension agencies, and local or state universities can
provide additional assistance with the identification of invasive species, the problems
they cause, and appropriate control methods. Even if you do not believe that you have an
invasive species problem, or that your problem is not serious enough to do anything
about, it is advised to find out what the invasive species in your area are and what their
signs are. Knowing what the problems are can help prevent them or help you identify
them before the problem becomes insurmountable and your losses significant.
4- Consult a state forester before using mechanical control methods.
The control of invasive species usually requires the implementation of either chemical or
mechanical means of control. To ensure that water quality is not compromised when
these practices are used, consult with the local county forester before taking any action.
Mechanical control methods used to eradicate an invasive plant, insect, or disease can
potentially impair water quality. Some mechanical methods of invasive species removal
are cutting, girdling, hand pulling, burning, and grubbing. Some species that can be
managed through mechanical control are kudzu (Pueraria lobala), tree of heaven (Ailan-
thus altissima), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), mistletoe (Phorandendron serotinum),
purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), saltcedar
(Tamarix ramosissimd), spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis), Douglas fir beetle
(Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), fusiform rust (the fungus Cronarliumfusiformo), and pine
pitch canker (the fungus Fusarium subglutinans). The cooperative extension service
should be able to provide information on invasive species in your area and appropriate
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-11
-------
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management
control methods. The following guidelines apply to water quality protection during
invasive species control activities:
• Remove invasive species from the SMA only if water quality will not be compro-
mised.
• Do not burn SMAs to eradicate an invasive species.
• Avoid removing infected trees during wet weather periods. This will help reduce
erosion potential at the site of removal and on haul roads.
Chemical control of invasive species involves the application of herbicides, pesticides, or
fungicides to remove unwanted pests. Review the guidelines for chemical applications in
this guidance and provided by your state forestry department before using chemicals for
invasive species control.
Additional Resources for the NIPF Landowner:
Landowner's Guide to Building Forest Access Roads, by Richard L. Wiest, is a designed
for landowners in the northeastern United States who will use a tractor and ordinary earth
moving equipment to build the simplest access roads on their property, or who will
contract for these services. Recommendations cover basic planning, construction, drain-
age, maintenance and closure of such forest roads. Also covers special situations involving
water that require individual consideration. Describes geotextiles to be used during tempo-
rary road construction. The guide is published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division. (1998; 47 p.; order
online at http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/stewardship/accessroads/accessroads.htm;
first copy free, other copies $8 ea.).
D-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
APPENDIX E: STATE AND PRIVATE
FORESTRY PROGRAMS
Education and training are vital to effective BMP implementation. Educating and training
loggers and landowners about the importance and use of BMPs is an effective way to
reduce water quality effects from forest operations because harvesters and landowners are
responsible for forest harvesting and decisions concerning the management of much of
the forested land in the Nation. A logger education program that has been adopted in
various forms and under numerous names in many states is the Logger Education to
Advance Professionalism (LEAP) program (APA, 1995). It is modeled after Vermont's
very successful Silviculture Education for Loggers Project and began as a national pilot
program of the USDA Extension Service to promote responsible forest BMPs and to
teach forest ecology and silviculture to loggers. These programs are based on the premise
that it is important to teach forest ecology and silviculture to loggers because professional
foresters supervise less than a third of all the acres harvested in the United States while
loggers are involved in all of the harvests. Before these programs, few people employed
in logging had training in forestry and silviculture, and the logger education programs are
changing that situation. To accomplish its goal, logger training emphasizes five areas—
safety and first aid, business management, harvesting operations, professionalism, and
forest ecology and silviculture.
A USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) program, Soil and Water
Conservation Assistance (SWCA), provides cost share and incentive payments to farmers
and ranchers to voluntarily address threats to soil, water, and related natural resources,
including forest land, grazing land, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. SWCA can help
landowners comply with federal and state environmental laws and make beneficial, cost-
effective changes their land management practices. Through the nearly 3,000 Soil and
Water Conservation Districts nationwide with 2,500 field offices, nearly a million private
landowners are assisted annually with land management decisions.
NRCS also administers the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP), which supports good
forest management practices on privately owned, nonindustrial forest lands nationwide.
FIP is designed to benefit the environment while meeting future demands for wood
products. Eligible practices are tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation
for natural regeneration, and other related activities. FIP is a nationwide program avail-
able in counties designated on the basis of a Forest Service survey of total eligible private
timber acreage that is potentially suitable for production of timber products. Federal cost-
share money is available—with a limit of $10,000 per person per year with the stipulation
that no more than 65 percent of the cost may be paid. A local USDA office, state forester,
conservation district, or Cooperative Extension office can provide information on whether
a particular county participates in FIP.
Currently there are nearly 500
million acres of non-federal
forests in the United States.
More than 50 percent of these
acres are privately owned
(USDA Forest Service).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
E-1
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Numerous non-governmental organizations, such as the Forest Stewards Guild
(http://www.foreststewardsguild.org/) and National Network of Forest Practitioners
(http://www.nnfp.org/) are also available to be contacted for assistance in sustainable
management of forest land.
Cooperative Forestry Programs
Cooperative Forestry is a nationwide program funded through Congress and administered
nationally by the USDA Forest Service. Since 1978, the USDA has connected rural,
urban, and nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners with resources and ideas to
assist with the care of their forests. The Cooperative Forestry program provides technical
and financial assistance through partnerships with the state and private forestry organiza-
tions (USDA Forest Service, 1999). The Cooperative Forestry program was created under
section 2101 of Title 16 of the United States Code, in which it is stated that it is the policy
of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture work through and in cooperation with state
foresters, or equivalent state officials, nongovernmental organizations, and the private
sector in implementing federal programs affecting non-federal forestlands. The land-
owner assistance programs covered under Cooperative Forestry are the Forest Legacy
Program, the Forest Stewardship Program, and the Forest Land Enhancement Program.
The Forest Service's Web site for Forestry Landowner Assistance, http://www.fs.fed.us/
spf/coop/, provides further information about the programs discussed below.
• Forest Legacy Program. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP), a federal program in
partnership with states, supports state efforts to protect environmentally sensitive
forest lands. Designed to encourage the protection of privately owned forest lands,
FLP is an entirely voluntary program. To maximize the public benefits it achieves,
the program focuses on the acquisition of partial interests in privately owned forest
lands. FLP helps the states develop and carry out their forest conservation plans. It
encourages and supports acquisition of conservation easements, legally binding
agreements transferring a negotiated set of property rights from one party to another,
without removing the property from private ownership. Most FLP conservation
easements restrict development, require sustainable forestry practices, and protect
other values.
• Forest Stewardship Program. This program helps private forest landowners develop
plans for the sustainable management of their forests. This is accomplished through
active forest management for present and future landowners, increasing the eco-
nomic value of the timber along with providing environmental benefits. The Forest
Service also provides public outreach programs to assist NIPF landowners with
information regarding seedling production and tree stand improvements.
The 2002 Farm Bill incorporates the following cooperative forestry assistance programs:
• Forest Land Enhancement Program: The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP)
is established to provide financial, technical, educational and related assistance to
state foresters to assist private landowners in actively managing their land. Note that
the FLEP replaces the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) and the Forestry
Incentives Program (FIP). To be eligible for cost-share assistance under the FLEP on
up to 1,000 acres, a landowner must agree to develop and implement for not less
than 10 years a management plan that has been approved by the state forester.
E-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Cost: share payments will be available to landowners for up to 75 percent of the total
cost of implementing the plan.
* Enhanced Community Fire Protection: Recognizing the significant federal interest in
enhancing community protection from wildfire, the Department of Agriculture will
cooperate with state foresters to manage lands to (1) focus the federal role in pro-
moting optimal firefighting efficiency at the federal, state and local levels; (2) ex-
pand outreach and education programs to homeowners and communities about fire
protection; and (3) establish space around homes and property that is defensible
against wildfire.
Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) on Decem-
ber 3, 2003, based on legislation proposed by the Bush Administration. The law provides
critical tools needed to fully implement the Healthy Forests Initiative and the funding
necessary to reduce wildfire risks and improve forest and rangeland health (USDOI,
USDA, 2004). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act: establishes procedures to expedite
forest and rangeland restoration projects on Forest Service and BLM lands. It focuses on
lands (1) near communities in the wildland urban interface, (2) in high risk municipal
watersheds, (3) that provide important habitat for threatened and endangered species
where catastrophic wildfire threatens the survival of the species, and (4) where insects or
disease are destroying the forest and increasing the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The
law:
• Helps communities use wood, brush, and other plant materials removed in forest
health projects as a fuel supply for biomass energy.
* Authorizes a program to support community-based watershed forestry partnerships
that address critical forest stewardship and watershed protection and restoration
needs at the state and local level.
« Directs research focused on the early detection and containment of insect and
disease infestations.
* Establishes a private forestland easement program focused on recovering forest
ecosystem types and protecting valuable wildlife habitat.
The Watershed Forestry Assistance Program, created by the law, enacts the Watershed
Forestry Cost-Share Program. The cost-share program provides up to 75 percent of
project funding to communities, nonprofit: groups, and NTPF landowners for watershed
forestry projects that:
* Use trees as solutions to water quality problems in urban and rural areas.
« Employ community-based planning, involvement, and action through State, local
and nonprofit partnerships.
• Apply and disseminate monitoring information on forestry best-management prac-
tices relating to watershed forestry.
* Implement watershed-scale forest management activities and conservation planning.
* Restore wetland and stream-side forests and establish riparian vegetative buffers.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-3
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Noninduslrial private forest land (NIPF) owners in the United States own 58 percent of
all timberland. Of this, 29 percent is owned by farmers who can benefit from the numer-
ous provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill that involve land management. The rest of the
timberland in the United States is owned by the federal government (20 percent), the
forest industry (14 percent), state government (6 percent), and counties and municipali-
ties (2 percent). Because of the large percentage of timberland owned by nonindustrial
private forest land owners, an important part of protecting forests and water quality
during forest harvest is educating those landowners about forest management and proper
timber harvesting techniques to protect water quality (Powell et al., 1994). Birch (1996a)
reports that private forest land owners (including industrial owners) have diverse reasons
for owning their land, including "... it's just part of the land" (40 percent), a private
source for forest products (8 percent), recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (23 percent),
investment (9 percent), and timber production (3 percent). The last group, those who hold
their land for timber production, represents 29 percent of private forest land ownership. It
is estimated (Birch, 1996a) that 5 percent of private forest land owners have a written
management plan and these owners control 39 percent of private forest land.
With so much land owned and controlled by private forest land owners, and specifically
NIPF owners, it is crucial that the importance of protecting water quality be considered as
part of NTPF harvesting. Some private landowners may not place an emphasis on water
quality protection when planning a harvest because it appears to provide benefits only for
downstream users, not for the harvesting landowner. Other management measures-such
as site preparation to improve regeneration-provide direct benefits to landowners and are
therefore more likely to be part of the landowner's harvest plan (Alden et al., 1996).
Effectiveness
A survey to compare the attitudes of persons involved with forestry program administra-
tion and implementation about the effectiveness of various approaches to protecting water
quality and forests in general rated methods for protecting water quality from most
effective to least effective as follows (Ellefson et al., 1995): technical assistance, fiscal
incentives, educational programs, voluntary programs, regulatory programs, and tax
incentives (Figure E-l).
In this survey, forestry program administrators were asked to rate specifically the effec-
tiveness of educational programs for protecting water quality: 19 were neutral about their
effectiveness, 17 said that they thought they were effective, and 12 thought that they were
ineffective. The results for a similar rating of the effectiveness of technical assistance
programs for protecting water quality showed that 26 administrators thought they were
effective, 17 were neutral about their effectiveness, and 6 thought them to be ineffective.
The importance of education in forest harvesting and forest stewardship can be judged
from the fact that many state departments of forestry have BMP guidebooks and educa-
tion programs geared not only to loggers and industrial owners but also to the land-
owners who are not trained in forest management and harvesting. A review of some
states' educational programs is provided below, and this review represents the variety of
E-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
35--
30--
0)
.£ 25--
O
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
The Federal Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program
(6217) is designed to enhance
state and local efforts to
manage land use activities that
degrade coastal habitats and
waters.
educational and technical assistance programs offered by states and the importance states
place on education.
Examples of State Forestry Assistance
Programs
Provided below are some examples of state programs for forestry assistance and educa-
tion. Links to information on state forest protection and education programs can be found
at the Web site www.usabmp.net.
Washington State
In 1999, Washington State created a Forestry Riparian Easement Program to be managed
by a Small Forest Landowner Office within DNR. Responding to the federal Endangered
Species Act by listing several salmon species and authorizing the Forest Practices Board
to adopt rules for salmon recovery, the size of riparian buffers was increased and further
measures were created to protect water quality and restore salmon habitat. Recognizing
that these rules would have a disproportionate impact on small forest landowners, the
easement program under the Forestry Riparian Easement Program acknowledges the
importance of small forest landowners and the contributions they make to protect wildlife
habitat. The program is also intended to help small forest landowners keep their land in
forestry.
DNR's Forestry Riparian Easement Program partially compensates eligible small forest
landowners in exchange for a 50-year easement on "qualifying timber." This is the timber
the landowner is required to leave unharvested as a result of new forest practices rules
protecting Washington's forests and fish. Landowners cannot cut or remove the qualify-
ing timber during the easement period. The landowner still owns the property and retains
full access, but has "leased" the trees and their associated riparian function to the state.
Washington's Backyard Forest Stewardship Program is especially designed for owners of
small-forested parcels (from a "forested lot" up to ten acres) and anyone who owns a
home in a forested environment. Guidelines for forest protection are provided on a DNR
Web site (http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/rp/stewardship/bfs/) and can be obtained in print
as well. Landowners who implement the guidelines relevant to their property can apply
for recognition under the program from the state.
Virginia
The Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) reports that surveys show most landowners
sell timber and make other forest management decisions without professional advice.
These same studies have demonstrated that landowners who sell timber with the assis-
tance of a professional forester receive 50 percent more for their timber (Virginia DOF,
1998). Since professional foresters are knowledgeable of water protection BMPs, having
a landowner contact a professional benefits both the landowner and the environment
(Virginia Department of Forestry, 1998).
The Virginia DOF inspects harvesting sites for compliance with the Seed Tree Law and
The Silvicultural Water Quality Law. During an inspection, compliance with other state
and federal laws is observed so the landowner and logger can be informed and kept in
E-6
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
compliance with applicable regulations. Other laws that landowners need to be aware of
and in compliance with include, depending on their particular location and situation, the
Chesapeake Bay Act, the Virginia Marine Resources Law, and the Federal Clean Water
Act. The logger, consultant forester, industry forester, and/or the landowner are contacted
by Virginia DOF during logging operations concerning BMP installation. The landowner
is contacted concerning needs for forest renewal and future management.
Regardless of the origin of the request, if the landowner wishes to reforest an area or
implement other recommended management practices, Virginia DOF will provide them
with the names of consultants or contractors who can implement the recommended
practices, and will inform them of any cost share assistance for which they might be
eligible.
The Virginia DOF has the responsibility to administer and give technical approval for
cost-share programs, A reforestation cost-share examination must be completed along
with application forms and other paperwork for cost-share programs. For cost-share
assistance, the area must be inspected for needs determination before the practice is
started and after the practice is completed to determine if the practice was completed
correctly. Again, required compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and
regulations are checked.
Tennessee
Forestry assistance in Tennessee is handled by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture
(DOA), Forestry Division. The Forestry Division trains loggers and others involved in
land management in the use of logging techniques to prevent erosion and leave streams
unharmed. Tennessee DOA has also developed a number of training aids for water
quality, including a video, printed material, and a number of forest management demon-
stration sites. One of the Forestry Division's primary services is offering advice to
landowners, often in person on the individual's property, A forest land owner can contact
a local Area Forester to discuss management objectives for the property. The Area
Forester will work through a sequence of steps to help meet the objectives, A local
forestry office can also provide information on what landowner options are for managing
their land. The DOA Forestry Division web site provides A Practical Introduction to
Forestry for Landowners that gives information on a variety of forest management
options and has references and links to other sources of information.
The Tennessee Reforestation Incentive Program (TRIP) was created in mid-1997 to
provide financial assistance to landowners for planting trees on marginal and highly
erodible crop and pasture lands. Money provided by the State Agricultural Nonpoint
Water Pollution Control Fund administered by the Department of Agriculture is used to
share the cost of planting trees to stabilize eroding lands and improve water quality.
Another training program available to loggers is the Master Logger Program. The mis-
sion of the Master Logger Program is "to enhance the professionalism of the Tennessee
logger" through a complete educational program designed to improve the health and
well-being of the logging industry and the forest resource. The Master Logger curriculum
consists of five 1 -day courses, one of which is on forest ecology and BMPs. Loggers
attend individual sessions of the program 1 day every 2 weeks, and it takes 10 weeks to
complete the workshop. Master Loggers must continue their education to retain Master
Logger status. Many other states provide programs similar to the Master Logging
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-7
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Program under various names, and all of the programs stem from the original pilot
program of the USDA Extension Service, the LEAP program.
the number 10 years ago. The largest number of operations occur on small private forests
where the landowners are typically not as familiar with the state's forest practice rules as
are large industrial landowners. The state therefore puts a great deal of energy into
providing information, training, and resources to landowners and operators (Oregon DOE,
1997).
The Oregon Department of Eorestry's Eorest Practices Program involves more than 150
people in the department's main offices and in field offices who provide face-to-face
information and guidance to landowners. Program staff work with industry and environ-
mental representatives to develop programs and incentives for encouraging sound stew-
ardship of forest resources.
Small woodland owners in Oregon can request on-site assistance from their local service
forester, who can provide information and guidance on insect and disease issues, refores-
tation and young growth management, financial incentives, and other forest related topics
and resources. Private forest consultants are available throughout the state to provide
comprehensive assistance to landowners. Consultants provide services that are beyond the
scope of public agency assistance programs, such as the development of Forest Steward-
ship Plans.
The Oregon Eorest Resource Trust provides monies for the direct cost payments of site
preparation, tree planting, seedling protection, and competitive release activities. The
program encourages landowners to establish and maintain healthy forests on
underproducing forestlands—lands capable of growing forests but that are in brush,
cropland, pasture, or that are very poorly stocked. The landowner commits to establishing
a healthy "free-to-grow" forest stand and takes responsibility for seeing that the work gets
done. The service forester provides technical assistance on how to complete the reforesta-
tion project and is available to provide direction with respect to the landowner's project
management responsibility. If timber is harvested from the forests created with trust
monies, participating landowners repay the trust (up to set amounts) with a portion of the
profits. Eligible underproducing land must be at least 10 contiguous acres, zoned for
forest or farm use, located in Oregon, and part of a private forestland ownership of no
more than 5,000 acres. The trust can fund 100 percent of the reforestation cost up to
$100,000 every two years.
The Oregon 50% Tax Credit, the "Undcrproductive Eorest Land Conversion Tax Credit,"
encourages landowners to establish and maintain healthy and productive forests. Fifty
percent of the cost of establishing a stand of trees on underproductive forestland may be
applied as a credit against Oregon state taxes. The 50 percent tax credit applies on brush-
land, grassland, or on very poorly stocked forestland.
South Carolina
The South Carolina Forestry Commission provides timber management assistance to
forest landowners in the state. Forestry Commission foresters will examine forestland and
potential forestland at the request of a landowner. A written plan and map are prepared
for the landowner, giving forest management recommendations that best meet the
owner's needs and objectives, provided that they are compatible with good forest BMPs
(South Carolina Forestry Commission, 1998). When conditions warrant, such as a request
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
for a detailed plan on a large tract, the Forestry Commission forester can recommend
consultants or Industry foresters who can be of assistance.
Two-thirds of the state's forestlands are under private ownership, and the South Carolina
Forestry Commission provides assistance to these landowners geared toward educating
them so that they can take an active role in managing their forests. A South Carolina
Forestry Commission staff member will help the landowner put together a multiple-
resource Stewardship Management Plan (SMP) that provides detailed recommendations
for timber management activities designed to help prevent soil erosion and protect water
quality and might also provide details on wildlife habitat improvement. Anyone who
owns at least 10 acres of forestland can qualify for assistance under the SMP program.
Ohio
The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry participates in the
Service Forestry Program, the mission of which is to develop better stewardship of the
forest resources on private lands in Ohio through on-site technical assistance and the
dissemination of information to landowners. There are twenty-five Service Foresters
statewide that work one on one with the woodland owners. The Service Foresters are
available to provide landowners with current information for the long term management
of their woodlands. The Service Foresters can provide management plans and advice on
how to accomplish the plan's objectives. The Service Foresters also provide landowners
with technical assistance and information on tree planting projects, woodland improve-
ment activities and timber marketing assistance. The Service Foresters also direct land-
owners to other education participation programs in the state.
The Ohio Forestry Association maintains a Safety Training and Certification Program for
logging contractors and their employees. It is the Ohio equivalent of a LEAP program.
One of the requirements for certification as a Certified Logging Company is to have
employees trained to use BMPs to reduce soil erosion and improve the appearance of
timber harvesting activities (Ohio Forestry Association, 1999).
California
The California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF) administers several state
and federal forestry assistance programs with the goal of reducing wildland fuel loads and
improving the health and productivity of private forest lands. California's Forest Im-
provement Program (CFIP) and other federal programs that CDF administers, offer cost-
share opportunities to assist individual landowners with land management planning,
conservation practices to enhance wildlife habitat, and practices to enhance the productiv-
ity of the land.
The CFIP provides technical assistance to private forest landowners, forest operators,
wood processors, and public agencies. Cost share assistance is provided to private forest
landowners, Resource Conservation Districts, and nonprofit watershed groups. Cost-
shared activities include management planning, site preparation, tree purchase and
planting, timber stand improvement, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and land
conservation practices for ownerships containing up to 5,000 acres of forest land.
A Forest Legacy Program (FLP) protects environmentally important forestland threatened
with conversion to non-forest uses, such as subdivision for residential or commercial
development by promoting the use of permanent conservation easements.
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-9
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Maine
The Forest Policy and Management Division of the Maine Department of Conservation,
Forest Service provides technical assistance, information, and educational services to
forest landowners. Part of the Division's implementation of the Forest Practices Act is
providing educational workshops, field demonstrations, and media presentations, and
contacting landowners personally to discuss forest management issues (Maine DOC,
1998).
North
The majority of North Dakota's rural forests are privately owned. Forest resource man-
agement in the state focuses on education and assisting noninduslrial private landowners
to better manage, protect, and use their natural resources. This is accomplished through
the development of a forest stewardship plan and direct financial assistance for forest
improvement practices. Rural forestry services are delivered through an agreement with
North Dakota's local Soil Conservation Districts (NDSU, 1998).
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incen-
tives Program (WHIP) offer up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to landowners for
accomplishing forest stewardship projects such as tree planting, forest stand improve-
ment, soil and water protection, riparian protection, windbreak renovation and wildlife
habitat enhancement. Eligible landowners may sign up at their local FSA office for WHIP
or EQIP practices.
Technical forestry assistance is provided to more than 600 rural landowners each year in
North Dakota. Since 1991, 1,405 forest stewardship plans have been requested and
completed for 71,777 acres of privately-owned native and planted woodlands and 456
forest improvement practices were awarded $548,887 in Stewardship Incentive Program
cost-share funds. A total of 587 landowners enrolled 39,384 acres in the Forest Steward-
ship Tax Law.
Missouri
The vast majority of land in Missouri is under direct ownership and influence of private
landowners. Private individuals own more than 93 percent of all land and 85 percent of
forest land. The Department offers two levels of assistance based upon the landowner's
need and interest in long term forest management. The two levels are Advisory Service
and Management Service. Advisory Service is available to all landowners, including
urban residents. This service includes group training sessions, publications, film and
video loan, office consultation, insect and disease identification and analysis, referrals to
consultants, on-site visits under certain conditions, and help with evaluating and choosing
land management options.
Management Service is available to landowners interested in the long term management
of their forest land. Those who receive management services agree to develop and carry
out a management program for the immediate and long term stewardship of their property.
Management plan implementation activities include guidance in soil and watershed
protection, erosion control, wildlife habitat improvement, and forest road location and
construction. A visit to the landowner's property is part of MDC's assistance in manage-
ment plan development (Missouri DOC, 2000).
£-70 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
Of
The Society of American Foresters (SAP), a nonprofit, scientific, and educational organi-
zation, established the Certified Forester (CF) program in 1994. The term Certified
Forester is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and may only be used
by individuals who meet SAF's certification requirements. The CF program is voluntary,
nongovernmental, and open to qualified SAF members and nonmembers. A Certified
Forester agrees to abide by current CF program requirements and procedures for certifi-
cation and recertification; to maintain continuing professional development; and to
conduct all forestry practices in a responsible, professional manner consistent with state
and federal regulations governing environmental quality and forest BMPs.
Through the CF program and other activities, SAF advocates wise stewardship in forest
resources management. The CF program provides a consistent, national credential.
Certification constitutes recognition by SAF that, to the best of SAF's knowledge, a
Certified Forester meets and adheres to certain minimum standards of academic prepara-
tion, professional experience, continuing education, and professionalism. No individual is
eligible to receive or to maintain Certified Forester status or recertification unless the
individual meets and continues to adhere to all requirements for eligibility. Some of the
requirements that must be met by all CF applicants can be found in Appendix C.
Of
Assistance
Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service reviewed state BMP implementation and
monitoring programs and the results from those programs in 1994. At the time, 21 states
were assessing BMP effectiveness. The U.S. Forest Service found that the states had
generally concluded that carefully developed and applied BMPs can prevent serious
deterioration of water quality and that the availability of well-qualified personnel at the
field level is probably the most cost-effective approach to meeting water quality
standards. Most water quality problems, they found, were associated with poor BMP
implementation, and trained field personnel could help correct problems with
implementation (Greene and Siegel, 1994).
The researchers also concluded that an iterative self-education process at the state level
was important for BMP improvement. Water quality monitoring is essential to under-
standing the relationship between land disturbance and water quality, they found, and it
leads to improved understanding of the interaction of soils and topography with BMP
implementation. This understanding was considered essential to continually reassessing
BMP guidelines to make them more cost-effective. BMPs need to be specified, used,
monitored, and fine tuned to provide cost-effective water quality protection.
Ellefson and others (1995) reviewed forest practice programs in many states, and one
aspect of their review involved asking program managers what they thought were the
most effective means to protect water quality. State program managers rated the follow-
ing in program effectiveness, from most effective to least effective: technical assistance,
fiscal incentives, educational programs, voluntary programs, regulatory programs, and tax
incentives. For promoting reforestation and improving timber harvesting methods,
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-11
-------
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs
technical assistance and fiscal incentives were rated as the most effective means and
regulatory programs and voluntary guidelines were rated as the two least effective.
When the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) studied BMP implementation
and effectiveness, ANR personnel accompanied harvesters in the field during harvests.
During the harvests monitored, logging personnel appeared to become much more aware
of the water quality issues related to their activities and the intent of the BMPs. By the
end of the project, the loggers were extremely conscientious in their efforts to protect
water quality. Vermont ANR personnel felt that without the oversight of the forestry
agency, it was likely that water quality problems would have been more severe, particu-
larly in the early phase of the project. After the assistance provided by the personnel,
managers for the logging companies were fully capable of implementing appropriate
BMPs with little or no oversight.
E-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry
------- |