43492 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), nor will it impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this rule and 

other required information to the U.S. 

Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives, and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of the rule in the Federal 

Register. A major rule cannot take effect 

until 60 days after it is published in the 

Federal Register. This action is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 6, 2016. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: June 22, 2016. 

Ron Curry, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart T—Louisiana 

■ 2. In § 52.970, the second table in 

paragraph (e) is amended by adding the 

entry ‘‘2011 Emissions Inventory for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS’’ at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.970 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA APPROVED LOUISIANA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA Approval date Explanation 

*******

2011 Emissions Inventory for the 

2008 Ozone NAAQS.

Baton Rouge Ozone Nonattainment 

Area.

5/2/16 7/5/16 [INSERT Federal 

Register CITATION].

[FR Doc. 2016–15748 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Chapter I 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668; FRL–9948–62– 

OW] 

Decision Not To Regulate Forest Road 

Discharges Under the Clean Water Act; 

Notice of Decision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the 

Agency’s decision that no additional 

regulations are needed to address 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

under Section 402(p)(6) of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA) at this time. This 

document responds to the remand in 

Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. 

U.S. EPA, 344 F.2d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) 

that requires EPA to consider whether 

the CWA requires the Agency to 

regulate stormwater discharges from 

forest roads. 

DATES: This decision shall be 

considered issued for purposes of 

judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on 

July 11, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Prasad Chumble, EPA Headquarters, 

Office of Water, Office of Wastewater 

Management via email at 

chumble.prasad@epa.gov or telephone 

at 202–564–0021. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Applicability 

This document does not impose 

requirements on any entity. 

B. Obtaining Copies of This Document 

and Related Information 

1. Docket 

EPA has established a docket for this 

action under Docket ID No. [EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0668; FRL–9948–62–OW]. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA 

Docket Center Public Reading Room is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43493 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room and the Docket 

Center is (202) 566–1744. 

2. Electronic Access 

You may access this Federal Register 

document electronically from the 

Government Printing Office under the 

‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at FDSys 

(http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/

collection.action?collectionCode=FR). 

3. Dates 

In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, 

this decision shall be considered issued 

for purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. 

Eastern time on July 11, 2016. Under 

Section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial 

review of this decision can be had only 

by filing a petition for review in the U.S. 

Court of Appeals within 120 days after 

the decision is considered issued for 

purposes of judicial review. 

II. Executive Summary 

EPA has determined not to designate 

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

for regulation under Section 402(p)(6) of 

the Clean Water Act (CWA) at this time. 

EPA’s decision is based on several 

interrelated factors. First, state, federal, 

regional, tribal government, and private 

sector programs already exist 

nationwide to address water quality 

problems caused by discharges from 

forest roads. Many of these programs 

have been improved and updated in 

recent years. Program implementation 

rates are generally high and have been 

shown to be effective in protecting 

water quality when properly 

implemented. These programs employ a 

variety of approaches, based in part on 

variations in regional topography and 

climate. While EPA recognizes that 

existing programs vary in their degree of 

rigor, the Agency has concluded that 

efforts to help strengthen existing 

programs would be more effective in 

further addressing forest road discharges 

than superimposing an additional 

federal regulatory layer over them. 

Some commenters have asserted that 

federal regulatory requirements could, 

in theory, promote national consistency 

and improvements in less effective 

programs. In practice, however, federal 

forest roads regulation presents a 

number of challenges that make 

achievement of that result unlikely. 

Wide variations in topography, climate, 

ownership, management, and use across 

the nation’s network of forest roads 

make the establishment of any 

nationwide regulatory program a 

complex and difficult endeavor. 

Mechanisms for implementation and 

enforcement of any federal regulatory 

requirements are limited, as recent 

amendments to CWA Section 402(l) 

preclude both the use of National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits to regulate most 

discharges from forest roads and citizen 

suit enforcement of any Section 

402(p)(6) requirements. Some 

commenters discussed the failings of 

existing best management practices 

(BMP) programs, including insufficient 

compliance rates and compliance 

monitoring, but a federal EPAadministered program would not 

necessarily be able to address these 

challenges more effectively than entities 

with regional expertise overseeing 

existing forestry management practice 

programs, especially without the 

accountability mechanisms afforded by 

a permitting program or third-party 

enforcement. 

For these reasons, elaborated upon 

below, EPA is exercising the ‘‘broad 

discretion the CWA gives the EPA in the 

realm of stormwater runoff,’’ in deciding 

not to regulate stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. See Decker v. Nw. 

Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct 1326, 1338 

(2013) (affirming EPA’s determination 

not to regulate stormwater discharges 

from logging roads in its industrial 

stormwater rule). Instead, EPA intends 

to work in consultation with state and 

local officials, as well as other federal 

agencies and interested stakeholders, to 

help strengthen their existing programs 

and improve awareness and 

implementation of forestry best 

management practices. In reaching this 

conclusion, the Agency is cognizant that 

the CWA reserves for states ‘‘the 

primary responsibilities and rights . . . 

to prevent, reduce, and eliminate 

pollution [and] to plan the development 

and use (including restoration, 

preservation, and enhancement) of land 

and water resources . . .’’ 33. U.S.C. 

1251(b). 

III. Legal Background 

The objective of the CWA is to restore 

and maintain the chemical, physical, 

and biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters. 33 U.S.C. 1251(a). To that end, 

the CWA provides that the discharge of 

any pollutant by any person shall be 

unlawful, except in compliance with 

other provisions of the statute. The 

CWA provides for a permit program, in 

general, for the discharge of a pollutant 

from a ‘‘point source,’’ which is defined 

in Section 502 of the CWA as ‘‘any 

discernible, confined and discrete 

conveyance, 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.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1362(14). In 1987 Congress added 

Section 402(p) to the CWA, which 

required NPDES permits for certain 

specified stormwater discharges and 

provided EPA with discretion to 

determine whether and how discharges 

from other stormwater sources should 

be addressed ‘‘to protect water quality.’’ 

See Northwest Environmental 

Advocates v. EPA, 640 F.3d 1063, 1083 

(9th Cir. 2011) (‘‘[i]t is within the 

discretion of EPA to promulgate Phase 

II regulations requiring, or not requiring, 

permits for such discharges’’). 

For the initial phase of stormwater 

regulation, Section 402(p)(1) created a 

temporary moratorium on NPDES 

permits for point sources except for 

those listed in Section 402(p)(2). Section 

402(p)(2) includes discharges already 

required to have a permit; discharges 

from municipal separate storm sewer 

systems serving a population of 100,000 

or more; and stormwater discharges 

‘‘associated with industrial activity.’’ 

Congress did not define discharges 

associated with industrial activity, 

allowing EPA to interpret the term. For 

other stormwater discharges, Section 

402(p)(5) directs EPA to conduct 

studies, in consultation with the states, 

for ‘‘identifying those stormwater 

discharges or classes of stormwater 

discharges for which permits are not 

required’’; ‘‘determining to the 

maximum extent practicable, the nature 

and extent of pollutants in such 

discharges’’; and ‘‘establishing 

procedures and methods to control 

stormwater discharges to the extent 

necessary to mitigate impacts on water 

quality.’’ 

Section 402(p)(6) authorizes the 

Administrator to issue regulations, in 

consultation with state and local 

officials, based on the studies prescribed 

by Section 402(p)(5). It provides EPA 

discretion in selecting which discharge 

sources to regulate and how to regulate 

them; it does not require the use of 

NPDES permits. Specifically, the section 

states that the regulations ‘‘shall 

establish priorities, establish 

requirements for state stormwater 

management programs, and establish 

expeditious deadlines’’ and may include 

‘‘performance standards, guidelines, 

guidance, and management practices 

and treatment requirements, as 

appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). This 

flexibility is unique to stormwater 

discharges regulated under Section 

402(p)(6) and differs from the 

requirement for NPDES permits for 

stormwater discharges listed in Section 

402(p)(2) of the Act. 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43494 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

In 1990, EPA promulgated the Phase 

I stormwater regulations (55 FR 47990, 

November 16, 1990) (‘‘Phase I Rule’’), 

following the 1987 CWA amendments 

which directed the Agency to develop 

regulations requiring permits for large 

and medium municipal separate storm 

sewer systems and stormwater 

‘‘discharges associated with industrial 

activity.’’ In March 1995, EPA submitted 

to Congress a report on the results of the 

Section 402(p)(5) study that evaluated 

the nature of stormwater discharges 

from municipal and industrial facilities 

not already regulated under the Phase I 

regulations (EPA, 1995). On December 

8, 1999, EPA promulgated the Phase II 

stormwater regulations to address 

stormwater discharges from small 

municipal separate storm sewer systems 

and construction sites that disturb one 

to five acres. 64 FR 68722. Under CWA 

Sections 402(p)(2)(E) and 402(p)(6), EPA 

retains the discretionary authority to 

designate additional stormwater 

discharges for regulation. 

The Phase II stormwater regulations 

were challenged in Environmental 

Defense Center v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 

(9th Cir. 2003) (EDC v. EPA). In that 

case, petitioners contended that EPA 

arbitrarily failed to regulate discharges 

from forest roads under the Phase II 

rule. The court held that EPA failed to 

consider petitioners’ comments and 

remanded the issue to EPA ‘‘so that it 

may consider in an appropriate 

proceeding Petitioner’s contention that 

Section 402(p)(6) requires the EPA to 

regulate forest roads. The EPA may then 

either accept Petitioners’ arguments in 

whole or in part, or reject them on the 

basis of valid reasons that are 

adequately set forth to permit judicial 

review.’’ Id. at 863. 

In the years following the decision in 

EDC v. EPA, EPA undertook research to 

improve the Agency’s knowledge of the 

water quality impacts of forest road 

stormwater discharges and the programs 

that exist to reduce those impacts. 

During that period, the Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center initiated 

litigation concerning logging road 

stormwater discharges. In 2011, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

issued a decision in Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 

640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (‘‘NEDC’’), 

a citizen suit alleging violations of the 

CWA for unpermitted discharges of 

stormwater from ditches alongside two 

logging roads in state forests. The court 

held that because the stormwater runoff 

from the two roads in question is 

collected by a system of ditches, 

culverts, and channels and then 

discharged into waters of the U.S., there 

was a point source discharge of 

stormwater associated with industrial 

activity for which an NPDES permit is 

required. 

On May 23, 2012, EPA published a 

Notice in the Federal Register 

summarizing known water quality 

impacts related to forest roads and 

discussing existing state, tribal, and 

voluntary programs designed to address 

those impacts. (77 FR 30473). The 

Notice expressed EPA’s intent to specify 

that only stormwater discharges 

associated with rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage are 

discharges associated with silvicultural 

activity that are subject to permitting 

under the stormwater regulations 

pertaining to industrial activity. The 

Notice also discussed the Agency’s 

consideration of non-permitting 

approaches to address other stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. On 

December 7, 2012, EPA promulgated a 

rule (77 FR 72970) clarifying that 

discharges of stormwater from 

silviculture activities other than rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, 

and log storage do not require an NPDES 

permit. On March 20, 2013, the 

Supreme Court reversed the Ninth 

Circuit’s ruling in NEDC, holding that 

discharges of stormwater that ran off 

logging roads into ditches, culverts, and 

channels did not require an NPDES 

permit as stormwater from industrial 

activity. See Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. 

Ctr., 133 S. Ct 1326 (2013). 

In January 2014, Congress amended 

CWA Section 402(l) to effectively 

prohibit the requirement of NPDES 

permits for the discharge of runoff 

‘‘resulting from the conduct of the 

following silviculture activities 

conducted in accordance with standard 

industry practice: nursery operations, 

site preparation, reforestation and 

subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, 

prescribed burning, pest and fire 

control, harvesting operations, surface 

drainage, or road construction and 

maintenance.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1342(l). In 

addition, the amendment prohibits 

third-party lawsuits (‘‘citizen suits’’) 

authorized by CWA Section 505(a) for 

any requirements established under 

Section 402(p)(6) for the silviculture 

activities listed above. 

In December 2014, EDC and the 

Natural Resources Defense Council filed 

a petition with the Ninth Circuit to 

compel EPA to respond, within six 

months, to the question remanded in the 

2003 EDC v. EPA decision of whether 

Section 402(p)(6) requires federal 

regulation of stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. Following execution 

of a settlement agreement filed with the 

court on August 26, 2015, the court 

entered an order establishing a schedule 

requiring EPA to issue a final 

determination by May 26, 2016. The 

parties subsequently extended the 

deadline by joint stipulation to June 27, 

2016. 

IV. Background on Forest Roads and 

Their Water Quality Impacts 

Forests cover about one-third of the 

continental U.S. (approximately 816 

million acres). Over half are privately 

owned (58% or approximately 475 

million acres) (USFS, 2016). Of private 

forest land, 63% is owned by families 

and individuals and is commonly 

referred to as ‘‘family forests.’’ Most of 

the family forest owners (around 62%) 

own fewer than 10 acres of forest land. 

Owners of the remaining private forest 

land include corporations, Real Estate 

Investment Trusts (REITs), conservation 

organizations, clubs, and Native 

American tribes (USFS, 2016). Over 300 

Native American reservations are 

significantly forested, and Native 

American tribal lands include 18.6 

million acres of forest land, including 

1.5 million acres of productive 

timberland (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

2009). Private forest land owners invest 

considerable resources in forest road 

construction and maintenance, as they 

are critical assets that enhance property 

values, maintain economic viability, 

and facilitate sustainable forestry. 

Forty-two percent of forest land, or 

approximately 341 million acres, is 

publicly-owned. The federal 

government administers an estimated 

74% of the public forest land. State 

forestry, park, and wildlife agencies 

account for most of the 22% of stateowned public forest land. The 

remaining 4% of public forest land is 

owned by local governments, such as 

counties and towns (USFS, 2016). 

Within the U.S., the distribution of 

public versus private forests differs 

greatly among the various regions of the 

country. For example, forest ownership 

in the Northwest is dominated by public 

ownership, primarily by the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM). Private ownership 

is more prevalent in the Southeast and 

Northeast (Id.). 

Forests are connected by a vast 

network of forest roads built over the 

course of more than a century. Roads 

exist in forests for all land ownership 

categories, enabling activities as varied 

as timber operations, recreation, fire 

protection and general transportation. 

Originally some were built to allow 

mining or agriculture. The network of 

forest roads includes both active and 

inactive roads that vary in age and 

condition, and which often serve 

multiple purposes by multiple users at 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43495 

1https://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_

index.home 

2Non-point source silvicultural activities include 

nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation 

and subsequent cultural treatment, thinning, 

prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting 

operations, surface drainage in addition to road 

construction and maintenance from which there is 

natural runoff at issue here. 

3http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/

icbemp.shtml 

the same time. Because of the nature of 

timber growing, timber roads are often 

used just once every fifteen or twenty 

years. Endicott (2008) noted that: 

[e]ach forest road network commonly 

contains a collection of older and newer 

roads, designed to different standards, for 

various purposes, and crossing terrain of 

differing sensitivities. This mosaic of road 

segments has implications for how the forest 

road network will interact with the forest 

watershed, streams, and other downstream 

aquatic resources. 

A single road may be subject to 

different owners and managers and used 

for different activities at different 

points. Often the owner of the road is 

not the owner of the forest land over 

which the road travels. For example, a 

BLM-owned road may pass through 

private property or a timber companyowned road may pass through a stateowned public forest. The purpose of a 

road may also change at different points; 

for example, most of a road may be used 

for recreation but a small part of it may 

service a timber operation. Legacy roads 

pose particular concerns for water 

quality. Built prior to the adoption of 

modern BMPs, they may be poorly sited 

or designed and frequently no owner or 

operator assumes responsibility for 

those roads. 

As previously discussed in 80 FR 

69655–69656 (November 10, 2015) and 

77 FR 30476 (May 23, 2012), the 

Agency’s research indicates that 

improperly designed, constructed, 

maintained, or decommissioned forest 

roads can impact water quality. These 

impacts are variable and may include 

increased sediment load and changes in 

stream network hydrology, which can 

cause physical, biological, and 

ecological impacts to water quality and 

aquatic organisms. 

Erosion from many forest roads does 

not affect water quality. First, roads that 

are not hydrologically connected to a 

stream do not deliver sediment to water 

bodies. For example, Dube et al. (2010), 

found that in an inventory of forest 

roads in 60 random four-square-mile 

sections of forests in the Washington 

State, only 11% were connected to 

streams; Skaugset and Allen (1998) 

surveyed 287 miles of forest roads in 5 

regions of Oregon and determined that 

25% of forest roads drained directly to 

streams while another 6% were rated 

‘‘possible’’ for sediment delivery. 

Second, a variety of factors play a role 

in how water quality is impacted by 

forest roads, including road design, road 

surfaces, construction, maintenance, 

rate of use, topography, soil 

characteristics, precipitation patterns, 

and proximity of roads to surface water. 

The source of water quality impacts 

tends to be localized. 

Available data suggest that the 

number of surface waters impacted by 

silvicultural operations, including forest 

roads, is a small percentage of Section 

303(d) listed impaired waters. EPA’s 

analysis of the data shows that this 

trend has been consistent over time, 

indicating that water quality impacts 

appear to have persisted over time, but 

comprise only a small percentage of all 

sources of impairment. Specifically, 

results of nationwide waterbody 

assessments from the EPA’s Assessment 

and Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDL) Tracking and Implementation 

System (ATTAINS),1 which contains the 

most currently available data reported 

by states to the EPA under Sections 

305(b) and 303(d) of the CWA, found 

silviculture, which includes a broad 

spectrum of forestry activities including 

regulated activities,2 contributed to 

impairment of 40,637 miles of rivers 

and streams (7% of the total of 614,153 

miles impaired) and 159,920 acres of 

lakes, reservoirs and ponds (1% of the 

total of 13,009,273 acres of impaired) 

(ATTAINS 2016). ‘‘Forest roads (road 

construction and use)’’ or ‘‘logging 

roads’’ are listed as the ‘‘probable 

source’’ of impairment for 31,076 miles 

of rivers and streams (5% of total 

impaired) and 7,627 acres of lakes, 

reservoirs and ponds (less than 1% of 

total impaired). 

The extent of the impacts of 

silvicultural activities on water quality 

varies by region. Impairment data from 

states that report probable sources of 

impairments suggest that forest roads 

constitute a relatively low percentage of 

impairments. Examples of states where 

silviculture (a broader category that 

includes forest roads) is identified as a 

probable source of impairment and that 

document a percentage of the total river 

and stream miles impaired by ‘forest 

roads’ or ‘logging roads’ include: Idaho 

(0.62%; forest roads); Kentucky (0.04%; 

forest roads); Montana (5.71%); New 

Mexico (1.97%); and Pennsylvania 

(0.01%) (ATTAINS 2016). Road-related 

pollutant loading and impairments, 

however, may represent a higher 

percentage of impairments within 

specific regions. For example, within 

federal lands in the interior Columbia 

Basin, roads were identified as the 

largest source of sediment from any land 

management activity.3

EPA recognizes that the national 

water quality data discussed above have 

certain limitations. One limitation is 

that some states, when compiling their 

Section 305(b) reports, may not report 

the probable source of an impairment or 

may list probable impairment sources as 

unspecified, unknown, or in some other 

category, which may lead to 

underreporting of the source of the 

impairment. Additionally, some states 

may not assess all of their waters or may 

use different methodologies to collect or 

report water quality data, limiting the 

ability of drawing national-scale 

conclusions. 

ATTAINS data indicating the effect of 

discharges from forest roads on water 

quality impairments may therefore not 

be fully representative due to reporting 

differences among states. For example, 

of the 40,637 miles of rivers and streams 

that ATTAINS indicates are impaired by 

silviculture, the database shows that 

California accounts for 34,443, or 85%, 

nationally (ATTAINS, 2016). Some 

regions in California use a particular 

approach toward classifying 

impairments that increases the reported 

percentage of impaired miles. Unlike 

other states, if a given reach of river is 

identified as impaired for a particular 

pollutant, some California regions 

categorize all of the river miles in the 

entire watershed as impaired. 

It is also important to recognize that 

EPA’s data collection methods have 

changed over time. While ATTAINS 

compiles state-level data, it relies on the 

states for this information. The National 

Water Quality Initiative (NWQI), 

conducted by EPA, provides very 

specific information on impairments 

and sources, but EPA no longer collects 

these data. EPA currently uses 

probabilistic approaches (such as the 

Wadeable Streams Assessment and the 

National Rivers and Streams 

Assessment) to collect national-scale 

data on water quality. While these 

assessment approaches are sound, they 

do not reveal specific impairments and 

causes and therefore are less informative 

for purposes of this analysis. 

Estimating sedimentation specifically 

related to forest road discharges is also 

difficult as a practical matter. Unlike 

industrial and wastewater facilities, 

which typically have water quality 

monitoring to provide background data 

for assessing compliance with water 

quality standards, there is little to no 

regular monitoring of water quality in 

waters affected by forest road 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43496 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

4 40 CFR 122.44(k). 

discharges. Endicott (2008) noted that 

‘‘[e]ven a well-designed erosion 

experiment frequently results in 

variations from the mean of up to 50%.’’ 

Investigators may also be unable to 

differentiate among sediment generated 

from forest roads and sediment 

generated from other silvicultural 

activities, background erosion rates, or 

other sources. Endicott (2008) further 

explains that: ‘‘Numerous studies have 

demonstrated that the biotic and 

chemical ‘‘noise’’ in larger streams 

renders the water quality effects of 

forestry activities using BMPs 

undetectable.’’ Finally, Endicott (2008) 

recognizes that quantitative data can be 

difficult to obtain because ‘‘impairments 

can be difficult to detect and/or 

measure’’ and ‘‘[e]rosion only usually 

occurs during wet weather.’’ 

V. Role and Effectiveness of Forestry 

Best Management Practices 

The U.S. Forest Service defines Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) as the 

following: 

A practice or a combination of practices, 

that is determined by a State (or designated 

area-wide planning agency) after problem 

assessment, examination of alternative 

practices and appropriate public 

participation to be the most effective, 

practical (including technological, economic, 

and institutional considerations) means of 

preventing or reducing the amount of 

pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a 

level compatible with water quality goals 

(USFS, 1988). 

In the context of forest roads, BMPs 

focus on preventing and mitigating 

water quality impacts that may stem 

from the construction, maintenance and 

use of forest roads. Forest road BMPs are 

on the ground activities and structures 

that, in most cases, aim to prevent 

discharges of sediment from roads to 

streams. BMPs may also target other 

suspended solids, spills and residues, 

changes in water temperature, and 

alterations to flow regimes. In some 

cases they are designed to protect 

stream geomorphology and habitat for 

certain species. 

BMPs for forest roads generally fall 

into three categories: BMPs addressing 

road planning and design, road 

construction and reconstruction, and 

road management (e.g., Endicott 2008). 

Over the past several decades BMPs 

have been developed, evaluated, and 

improved based on ongoing research 

and technical innovation. BMPs are now 

widely implemented as standard 

elements of most private, state, and 

federal forestry programs (Ice et al., 

2010). State-specific BMP programs and 

guidelines are available in most states 

(NCASI, 2009). Although the primary 

purpose of BMPs is to reduce 

environmental impacts, they must also 

be feasible and practical (Ice, 2004). 

BMPs are generally selected based on 

site-specific needs and conditions, 

which vary tremendously. Proximity of 

the road to the stream, size of the road, 

local geology and climate all influence 

the occurrence and magnitude of 

erosion and consequently the types of 

BMPs that will be most effective. For 

example, use of gravel to cover a road 

surface can be a highly effective erosion 

control BMP in steep terrain. In flat 

terrain, that same BMP would be less 

effective and much more expensive than 

a properly maintained continuous 

roadside berm (Appelboom et al., 2002). 

While BMP design is site-specific, 

many documents describe the most 

common BMPs (e.g., NCASI, 2001; EPA, 

2005; NCASI, 2009; USFS, 2012; NCASI, 

2012). This document does not provide 

a detailed discussion of the BMPs 

themselves; a number of comprehensive 

sources regarding different types of 

BMPs are available and included in the 

record for this decision (e.g., NCASI, 

2009; Endicott, 2008; North Carolina 

Forestry BMP Manual; Montana 

Forestry BMP Manual). Most BMPs are 

based on relatively few guiding 

principles (Megahan and King, 2004; 

Olszewski and Jackson, 2006). These 

include: 

• Use existing roads when 

practicable; 

• Inventory road and stream 

conditions; 

• Identify and avoid high-erosion 

hazard areas; 

• Minimize the total land area 

disturbed; 

• Minimize road crossings and other 

incursions into waterbodies; 

• Engineer stable road surfaces, 

drainage features and stream crossings 

to reduce erosion; 

• Separate bare ground from surface 

waters and minimize delivery of roadderived sediments to streams; 

• Provide a forested buffer around 

streams; 

• Design and install stream crossings 

to allow passage of fish, other aquatic 

biota, and large wood; 

• Anticipate and mitigate erosion 

from precipitation events, including 

especially large ones; 

• Regularly inspect all BMPs and 

erosion-prone areas, including during 

and/or immediately following 

precipitation and snowmelt events that 

may generate runoff; and 

• Maintain forest roads and all BMPs. 

EPA notes that BMPs currently play 

and historically have played a 

significant role in wet weather 4 and 

non-point source control programs. The 

scientific literature increasingly 

demonstrates the effectiveness of BMPs 

in preventing, minimizing, and 

mitigating discharges affecting water 

quality and aquatic habitats (Ice, 2004; 

Anderson and Lockaby, 2011; NCASI, 

2012; Cristan et al., 2016; Endicott 

(2008)). Although existing research has 

significantly improved the effectiveness 

of forest road BMPs, reducing water 

quality impacts from road construction 

and other practices, many discharges 

still occur (Anderson and Lockaby, 

2011). Further research would help to 

optimize operation and maintenance 

and provide guidelines for adapting 

BMP implementation to site-specific 

needs. 

Several commenters cited a report by 

Cristan et al. (2016) —‘‘Effectiveness of 

Forestry Best Management Practices in 

the United States: Literature Review’’— 

which summarized 81 BMP 

effectiveness studies: 30 studies of 

southern states, 20 studies of northern 

states, and 31 studies of western states. 

The review concluded generally that: 

• Forestry BMPs minimize water 

quality effects of forest operations when 

implemented as recommended by state 

forestry and water quality agencies. 

• Forest roads, skid trails, and stream 

crossings warrant considerable attention 

because they have the greatest potential 

for erosion and sediment delivery. 

• Many studies across the U.S. have 

shown BMPs to be effective and reduce 

sediment delivery to streams. 

Several of the studies in the review 

assessed BMP performance and 

effectiveness in tandem and 

individually, including: 

• Appelboom et al. (2002) sampled 

runoff from seven road practices in 

North Carolina and found that roads 

with continuous berm treatment had a 

99% reduction in sediment loss 

compared to roads that did not have a 

continuous berm. 

• Aust et al. (2011) evaluated four 

types of operational forest stream 

crossings at 23 crossings and 

approaches for total dissolved solids, 

pH, conductivity, temperature, and 

sediment concentration in the Piedmont 

region of Virginia during initial, 

installation, harvest, and closure stages. 

The authors found that bridge crossings 

had the least impact on water quality, 

that the installation and harvest phases 

had the greatest impact on water 

quality, and that BMPs should be 

followed during all phases. 

• Wisconsin DNR (2006) published a 

BMP manual in 1995 and assessed the 

first ten years of their water quality 

program. The average BMP compliance 

rate was 83% and BMP effectiveness 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43497 

was 99% when the appropriate BMPs 

were applied and maintained. When 

BMPs were not applied, water quality 

was affected 71% of the time. 

• Pannill et al. (2000) evaluated 

Maryland BMPs in a paired watershed 

study and, based on TSS, stormflow, 

stream temperature, and 

macroinvertebrate data, found no 

significant water quality differences 

between pre-harvest and post-harvest, 

i.e., proper BMPs will help protect water 

quality, biology, and habitat. 

• Vowel (2001) conducted stream 

bioassessments using a stream condition 

index (SCI) for sites before and after 

silvicultural treatments incorporating 

Florida BMPs and found no significant 

differences in the SCI. The study 

concluded that Florida BMPs were 

effective in protecting water quality. 

Cristan et al. (2016) also indicated 

that, in certain conditions, water quality 

effects can occur even when BMPs are 

used. 

• Maryland DNR (2009) evaluated 

state BMPs from 2004–2005 on 75 forest 

harvested sites using a Marylandspecific BMP implementation checklist. 

Maryland found that 81% of those sites 

were in compliance with state BMPs 

standards. Maryland also found that 

BMPs were 77% effective in protecting 

water quality; however, they found that 

19% of the sites evaluated delivered 

measurable sediment to waterways. 

• Rice (1999) estimated the mean 

erosion rate from older logging roads 

(installed in the 1950s, maintained to 

standards of the 1980s) in the Redwood 

Creek watershed (northern California) to 

be 177 m3 km minus;1 from 1980 to 

1997, mainly from the road cut banks, 

but noted that changes in forest practice 

rules (especially proper placement of 

culverts and sizing of culverts) reduced 

erosion on logging roads. 

• Bilby et al. (1989) assessed road 

surface sediment production from five 

roads in two southwestern Washington 

watersheds including two heavily 

trafficked roads built in the 1950s and 

three haul roads built between 1968 and 

1974 and found that sediment entered 

first and second order streams 34% of 

the time. 

• Nolan et al. (2015) examined the 

effectiveness of BMPs at a number of 

stream crossings in Virginia. The study 

conducted an audit of BMP 

implementation rates, which it found 

can often function as surrogates for BMP 

effectiveness. In general, the study 

found that the majority of stream 

crossings were performing properly, but 

that performance varied. The study also 

cited Edwards and Williard (2010), 

which ‘‘found only three studies that 

provided BMP efficiencies with regard 

to sediment loading reductions and 

reported BMP efficiencies ranging from 

53%–94%.’’ 

• The USFS evaluated its Pacific 

Southwest Region BMP program from 

2008–2010, conducting 2,237 BMP 

inspections, and found that BMP 

implementation was 91% and 

effectiveness was 80%, with stream 

water quality impacts at 12% of the sites 

(USFS, 2013). BMPs for timber 

harvesting, fuels treatments, and 

vegetation management were effective; 

BMPs for roads, range management, 

recreation, and mining were not as 

effective, although effectiveness could 

be increased by imposing erosion 

control plans and wet weather 

standards. 

EPA also considered other recentlypublished literature. Below are some of 

the major findings: 

• The literature review Assessing the 

Effectiveness of Contemporary Forestry 

Best Management Practices (BMPs): 

Focus on Roads (NCASI, 2012) reviewed 

hundreds of studies and found that 

‘‘implementing a suite of contemporary 

BMPs reduces sediment loads to streams 

by 80% or more relative to uncontrolled 

forestry operations.’’ The document 

further concluded that ‘‘Specific BMPs 

for roads have been tested in controlled 

studies and proven effective by road 

inventories conducted by forestry 

agencies in several states. Those 

inventories show that road BMPs are 

being implemented at high rates and are 

effective in reducing risks to water 

quality; road drainage structures are 

being disconnected from streams; poor 

road/stream crossings are being 

identified and corrected; and landslides 

from forest roads are being reduced.’’ 

• The USFS (2012) National Best 

Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System 

Lands (Volume 1: National Core BMP 

Technical Guide), provides highly 

detailed guidance on silvicultural 

BMPs, including those for forest roads. 

BMP effectiveness ratings were 93% 

(Pacific Southwest Region) and 98% 

(Montana), with North Carolina 

effectiveness rates showing an increase 

from 73% to 93% between 1992 and 

2010. Guidance to standardize BMP 

monitoring protocols is under 

development. 

• Ice et al. (2010) estimated national 

BMP implementation rates at 89%. 

• Sugden et al. (2012) found that 

BMP implementation rates in Montana 

have increased over time, corresponding 

with a significant drop in the number of 

observed water quality impacts. 

Below are findings from nationalscale studies: 

• Cristan et al. (2016) concluded that 

BMPs implementation rates and quality 

are critical to BMP effectiveness for 

reduction of erosion and sediment yield. 

Important BMP practices for forest roads 

include proper drainage structures, 

surfacing, erosion control of cut and fill 

slopes, traffic control, and closure. 

Sediment control structures applied to 

stream crossing approaches can 

significantly reduce runoff and 

sediment delivery. 

• Ice et al. (2010) concluded that the 

combination of effective BMPs and a 

high rate of BMP implementation helps 

protect the water quality and beneficial 

uses of streams, lakes, and wetlands in 

forested environments. 

VI. Existing BMP-Based Programs and 

Other EPA Tools 

A broad array of BMP-based 

programs—including state and federal 

programs and private third-party 

certification programs—has been 

established to address forest roads in 

every state with significant forestry 

operations in the country. The following 

sections outline the nation’s current 

landscape of state, federal, and thirdparty BMP based programs designed to 

control discharges from forest roads, 

and discuss the role of existing EPA 

tools in addressing stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. As 

highlighted below, available 

information indicates that these 

programs are tailored to address 

regional and local differences, that 

implementation rates are generally high, 

and that meaningful improvements have 

been and continue to be made in these 

programs over time. EPA did not obtain 

significant data about tribal programs 

addressing discharges from forest roads, 

so does not report on tribal programs in 

this section. EPA will seek to learn more 

about efforts to address stormwater 

discharges from forest roads on tribal 

lands as part of its continuing efforts to 

gather best practices data going forward. 

A. State BMP-Based Programs 

Data EPA obtained during the 

comment period indicates that all states 

with significant forestry operations have 

developed BMP manuals and most 

states have established forest 

management programs tailored to statespecific conditions (e.g., topography, 

climate, and industry activity) that 

address runoff from forest roads. The 

data also indicates that BMPs are being 

implemented at increasing rates across 

the nation. A team of researchers from 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University (Virginia Tech), in 

consultation with the National 

Association of State Foresters (NASF), 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43498 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

5Such programs can include states where BMPs 

are not mandatory but enforcement actions can be 

taken against polluters. 

6See 80 FR 69657–69658 (Nov. 10, 2015). 

Characterizations of state forestry BMP programs 

differ in some ways because of the way reviewers 

categorize the programs, aspects of the programs 

they review, different interpretations of program 

elements, and the fact that state forestry BMP 

programs have evolved and continue to evolve over 

time. 

7Endicott, 2008. See Section 4 and Tables 4–1 

and 4–2. 

8Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. 

surveyed all 50 states in 2013 to identify 

silvicultural activities addressed by 

BMPs, characterize the approaches to 

BMP implementation adopted by each 

state, determine the extent to which 

states are implementing BMP 

eÄectiveness monitoring, and summarize 

BMP implementation rates (NASF, 

2015). The survey showed that most 

states have established forestry BMPs 

designed to protect water quality. 

According to the survey, these programs 

are a mix of regulatory (11 states), quasiregulatory (19 states), and nonregulatory (20 states) programs. Those 

states with regulatory programs 

generally have some form of forest 

practices law or silvicultural BMP 

legislation. In states with quasiregulatory programs, state law specifies 

desired outcomes but does not require 

specific BMPs to achieve that outcome.5

Existing state programs vary because 

they are designed to address state and 

site-specific factors. Prior assessments of 

state forestry BMP programs have found 

similar, generally consistent 

information.6 7 The following number of 

states have established forest road 

specific BMPs (Table 1). 

TABLE 1—STATES WITH FOREST

ROAD BMP PROGRAMS BASED ON

ENDICOTT (2008) 

Category of forest road BMP Number 

of states 

Construction .......................... 44 

Drainage ............................... 41 

Location/Spacing .................. 38 

Maintenance ......................... 40 

Road Closure ........................ 24 

Stabilization/Soils/Slope ....... 32 

Stream Crossings ................. 40 

SMZs/Bank Stabilization/

Buffer Strips ...................... 36 

Wet Weather Use ................. 10 

Winter Operations ................. 10 

Training/Technical Assistance .................................. 23 

Implementation/Effectiveness 

Monitoring ......................... 32 

Compliance/Enforcement ..... 30 

1. Existing State Programs Are Tailored 

To Address State and Site-Specific 

Factors 

One of the primary mechanisms for 

addressing water quality impacts of 

forest roads is individual states’ forest 

practices polices, which generally 

establish standards for the design, 

operation and maintenance of forest 

roads applicable to conditions in their 

state. State forest road programs vary to 

some degree in their structure, 

requirements, and administration. 

Differences are based on legal, and 

socioeconomic factors as well as 

variations in climate, soils, topography, 

and aquatic biota. State programs 

generally establish both guiding 

principles and specific management 

practices that must be applied and 

adapted to a broad range of settings and 

conditions. Site-specific flexibility is 

important because no single set of 

requirements will be effective across the 

country. As EPA stated in its November 

10, 2015 notice, ‘‘[t]he diversity of the 

forest road networks, the different 

classes of roads, the different local 

physical conditions, and the broad 

range of road conditions and uses 

indicate the importance of site specific 

BMP selection and implementation to 

protect water quality’’ (80 FR 69656). 

For example, commenters correctly 

pointed out that Florida’s forest road 

BMPs need not recommend or discuss 

full-bench road construction and end 

hauling techniques, as Oregon’s rules 

do, because Florida does not have 

landslide-prone terrain, while Oregon 

has steep terrain with the potential for 

landslides, where such construction and 

end hauling techniques would be 

appropriate (EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668– 

0089). 

2. State Programs Show High 

Implementation Rates 

Data from the 2013 NASF survey 

indicated that both forestry and forest 

road BMPs are implemented broadly. 

BMP implementation surveys in 32 

states (i.e., those with significant forest 

management activity) between 2005 and 

2013 showed an average forestry BMP 

implementation rate of 91% (NASF, 

2015). Nationally, the survey suggests 

that implementation rates for forest road 

BMPs averaged 91.5% and stream 

crossing BMPs averaged 86.7% (NASF, 

2015). The 2012 Southern Region Report 

published by the Southern Group of 

State Foresters (SGSF) found forest road 

BMP implementation rates for 11 states 8

range from 78–99%, with an average of 

88%. In the SGSF report, stream 

crossing BMP implementation rates 

ranged from 72–98% and averaged 89% 

(SGSF BMP Report, 2012). 

The NASF survey also indicated that 

forest road BMP implementation rates 

do not vary significantly regardless of 

whether the state program is regulatory, 

quasi-regulatory, or non-regulatory. The 

NASF survey indicated that 

implementation of forest roads BMPs in 

8 regulatory reporting states averages 

93.9%, while the implementation rates 

in the 11 quasi-regulatory reporting 

states and 13 non-regulatory reporting 

states averages 90.6% and 90.5%, 

respectively (NASF, 2015). 

Plus, BMP implementation rates have 

improved and continue to improve over 

time. For example, from 2008—2012, 

the implementation rates for all forestry 

BMPs (including forest road and stream 

crossing BMPs) trended upward in the 

SGSF report. This included forest road 

BMP implementation rates and stream 

crossings BMP implementation rates, 

which increased from 87 to 90%, and 

from 85 to 89%, respectively (SGSF 

BMP Report, 2012). 

In addition to state forest road BMP 

programs, several efforts have emerged 

over the past 10 years to improve 

monitoring of BMP programs. Regional 

groups have undertaken efforts to 

promote consistent and comparable 

forestry BMP program monitoring data. 

The SGSF and the Northeastern Area 

Association of State Foresters (NAASF) 

have developed regional BMP 

monitoring protocols that states in those 

regions are using. 

SGSF developed Silviculture Best 

Management Practices Implementation 

Monitoring, A Framework for State 

Forestry Agencies (2007) to improve and 

maximize the integrity of BMP 

implementation monitoring in southern 

states (SGSF Regional BMP Framework 

Protocol, 2007). The framework, which 

is implemented by 13 southern states, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

is designed to provide guidance for 

monitoring forestry BMP 

implementation that results in data that 

are statistically sound, objective, and 

promote analytical consistency among 

states. The framework addresses 

monitoring frequency, site selection, 

practices to be evaluated, the basis for 

practice evaluation and reporting, 

scoring methodology, risk assessment, 

and follow-up actions. 

Similar to the SGSF BMP monitoring 

framework, the USFS Northeastern Area 

State and Private Forestry and the 

Northeastern Area Association of State 

Foresters—Water Resources Committee 

have developed the Forestry BMP 

Protocol Project. The BMP Protocol is a 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43499 

9http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/forestmanagement/ 

guidelines.html. 

10http://www.stateforesters.org/action-issuesand-policy/state-forestry-BMPs-map-o-o. 11http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/watershed/ 

condition_framework.html. 

standard method for monitoring the use 

and effectiveness of BMPs commonly 

used in timber harvesting. The BMP 

Protocol, which is available to 20 states, 

serves three functions: (1) Data 

collection, (2) data analysis, and (3) 

report generation. It collects data using 

a branched question set designed to 

address those areas of the timber harvest 

with the greatest potential to impact 

water resources (including haul roads 

and water crossings). The protocol was 

developed to document the use and 

effectiveness of BMPs in protecting 

water resources during forest harvesting 

operations; document the degree of 

compliance with the CWA, as well as 

the Coastal Zone Management Act and 

various state laws and regulations; 

assess water resource protection based 

on the effectiveness of a collective set of 

BMPs; increase credibility through the 

measurement of results; respond to 

public concerns regarding the potential 

effects of timber harvesting based on 

measured evidence; and identify 

opportunities for improvement in water 

resource protection by identifying 

causes of BMP failure. Both a Desk 

Reference and Field Guide have been 

developed for the monitoring protocol 

(BMP Manual Desk Reference, 2007; 

BMP Field Guide, 2007). 

Other factors are also facilitating the 

increasing rate of BMP implementation. 

For example, third-party certification 

programs, as discussed in detail in 

section VI.C of this document, all 

require BMP implementation and thirdparty audits to verify that timber 

companies conform to state standards. 

Forest certification programs have made 

important contributions to improved 

BMP implementation through logger 

training, landowner outreach, and water 

quality requirements. Other examples 

are the logger training and certification 

programs established by states and 

third-party programs, such as the SFI 

Logger Training and Education (2015) 

program, to ensure loggers are educated 

about the use and maintenance of 

appropriate forest road BMPs. Training 

is particularly important given the sitespecific customization BMPs require. 

The best way to ensure optimal BMP 

selection and installation is through 

localized knowledge of climate, soils, 

forestry operations, and other factors, in 

combination with state-specific BMPs. 

Some commenters noted that the Forest 

Resources Association reports having 

trained more than 150,000 logging 

professionals since the inception of the 

forest certification program (EPA–HQ– 

OW–2015–0668–0089). For fiscal year 

2015, West Virginia noted that 1,454 

loggers received certification to 

supervise logging operations and assure 

BMPs were applied (EPA–HQ–OW– 

2015–0668–0075). Also, as one 

commenter noted, effective outreach 

and training programs have served to 

foster a culture of high BMP 

implementation rates such that BMPs 

have largely been institutionalized in 

the forestry community. 

3. State Programs Continue To Evolve 

and Improve 

States frequently revise their forest 

roads management guidance/ 

regulations. States with significant 

forestry operations have mechanisms in 

place to evaluate the effectiveness of 

forestry BMPs and use monitoring and 

research results to revise these practices 

when necessary (typically by 

government appointed forestry boards, 

forestry commissions, or a mix of 

agencies, councils, or departments). For 

example, California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection revised its 

Forest Practice Rules in 2015 to better 

manage drainage and erosion from 

logging roads (EPA–HQ–OW–2015– 

0668–0055); Wisconsin DNR-Division of 

Forestry revised its Forest Management 

Guidelines in 2011,9 including updating 

forestry BMPs for water quality; and the 

Oregon Board of Forestry increased the 

riparian zone buffer width for fishbearing streams in 2015 (Oregon 

Riparian Rule, 2015). States, federal 

agencies and various stakeholder groups 

continue to enhance BMP prescriptions 

and identify the site-specific factors that 

influence their effectiveness. For 

example, industry commenters 

identified 36 states that have revised 

their forest road BMPs within the last 

ten years (EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668– 

0089), and according to a recent state 

survey conducted by the National 

Association of State Foresters, 31 states 

(62%) have updated their forest roads 

management guidance/regulations since 

2006.10 EPA’s own analysis also 

indicates that many states have revised 

their programs, with some being revised 

as recently as 2016 (State Program 

Summary, 2016). 

B. Federal BMP-Based Programs 

At the federal level, the USFS and the 

BLM have established programs to 

manage stormwater discharges from 

forest roads on federal lands. These 

agencies manage large tracts of forested 

lands, including lands that are actively 

being used for road building, road 

maintenance, logging operations, public 

and recreational use or other activities, 

and generally demonstrate sound 

environmental stewardship in managing 

these lands. 

1. Summary of U.S. Forest Service 

Programs 

The 193 million acres (780,000 km2) 

of public land that are managed as 

national forests and grasslands are 

collectively known as the National 

Forest System. These lands are located 

in 44 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin 

Islands and comprise about 9% of the 

total land area in the U.S. The USFS 

manages approximately 20% of the 

Nation’s forested area and nearly 10% of 

the Nation’s rangelands (USFS Strategic 

Plan FY: 2015–2020). The lands are 

organized into 154 National Forests and 

20 National Grasslands. The mission of 

the National Forest System is to manage 

the national forests and grasslands to 

meet the Agency’s sustainable multipleuse mandate. 

The USFS uses several tools and 

strategies, such as the Legacy Roads and 

Trails program, Watershed Condition 

Framework, and the National Best 

Management Practices Program, in 

addition to local programs, to maintain 

and improve watershed health and 

manage discharges from forest roads. 

The Legacy Roads and Trails program 

assists the USFS in identifying legacy 

roads in national forests and grasslands. 

USFS targets projects that will minimize 

the discharge of stormwater by 

decommissioning, maintaining, or 

upgrading various roads. From 2009– 

2015, the USFS decommissioned 5,504 

miles of National Forest System Roads 

and an additional 6,714 miles of 

unauthorized roads; reconstructed 

13,413 miles of roads; and maintained 

57,333 miles of roads per year during 

that period. 

The USFS Watershed Condition 

Framework helps the USFS to assess 

watershed health in national forests and 

grasslands, identify and implement 

protective measures, and conduct 

ongoing watershed monitoring. 

Watershed conditions are categorized 

into three discrete categories or classes 

that reflect the health of the watershed. 

One primary emphasis of the watershed 

assessment is indicators that directly or 

indirectly impact soil and hydrologic 

functions as well as riparian and aquatic 

ecosystems. Initial watershed condition 

framework assessments for all 

watersheds on USFS lands were 

completed in 2011.11

In 2012 the USFS also initiated and 

began to implement a National BMP 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43500 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

program integrating water resource 

protection into landscape management 

activities. The National BMP program is 

designed to improve agency 

performance, accountability, 

consistency, and efficiency in protecting 

water quality. The program consists of 

National Core BMPs, standardized 

monitoring protocols to evaluate BMP 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

National Core BMPs, and a data 

management system to store and 

analyze the resulting monitoring data. 

National Core BMPs address 11 subject 

areas affecting water quality. One of 

those subject areas is road management 

activity, which includes BMPs for travel 

management planning and analysis, 

road location and design, road 

construction, and stream crossings 

(USFS, 2012). The National BMP based 

program enables the USFS to document 

compliance with the management of 

nonpoint source pollution at local, 

regional, and national scales as well as 

address the 2012 land management 

planning rule requirement for national 

BMPs at 36 CFR 219.8(a)(4). 

The USFS monitors road management 

BMP implementation and its 

effectiveness at protecting water, 

aquatic, or riparian resources through 

nine evaluation categories and/or time 

periods, some of which include: 

Construction and reconstruction of 

USFS system roads and/or waterbody 

crossings; after construction or 

reconstruction has been completed; 

long-term management and 

maintenance of USFS system roads; 

decommissioned roads after 

decommissioning activities have been 

completed; and roads, parking areas, 

and snow storage areas during snow 

removal and storage activities. 

The USFS has also developed a 

National Core BMP Technical Guide 

intended to improve USFS 

accountability and performance in 

managing water quality programs. Many 

of the core BMPs in the National Core 

BMP Technical Guide address water 

quality. The Technical Guide also 

provides administrative directives to 

allow for the use of state, tribal, and 

local requirements and information to 

develop site-specific BMPs where 

needed (USFS, 2012). The USFS is 

currently developing a second volume 

of the National Core BMP Technical 

Guide that will provide standardized 

protocols for monitoring BMP 

implementation and effectiveness across 

all USFS lands. 

Further, USFS has developed a suite 

of tools to identify and prioritize road 

segments at risk of impacting water 

quality. These tools operate at scales of 

detail ranging from using corporate road 

databases and digital elevation data to 

using detailed GPS surveys. These tools 

apply in watershed sediment load 

reduction plans for waters listed as 

impaired under the CWA and in forest 

restoration projects under the 

Collaborative Forest Landscape 

Restoration Program in the states of 

Idaho, Montana, and California. For 

example, the Geomorphic Road 

Analysis and Inventory Package 

(GRAIP) tool includes methods to 

inventory roads and analyze the 

inventory for surface erosion, and risks 

for gullies, landslides, and stream 

crossing failures. This tool can be used 

in combination with other field 

observations to assess forest roads. 

As an example of implementation of 

the USFS’s BMP programs, the USFS 

evaluated its Pacific Southwest Region 

BMP program from 2008–2010 through 

2,237 BMP inspections. It found that 

BMP implementation was 91% and 

effectiveness was 80%, with water 

quality affected at streams on 12% of 

sites. The USFS is continually 

improving and updating its programs 

and tools as accomplishments are 

monitored and verified. In 2013, the 

USFS completed an interim National 

BMP monitoring database for the 

National BMP program. The USFS 

expects to integrate this interim 

database into an enterprise data 

management system in the future which 

will extend reporting and analysis 

capabilities of the database. 

In fiscal year 2014, 97 USFS 

administrative units completed a total of 

600 BMP evaluations as part of 

implementing in the National BMP 

monitoring program. As discussed 

above, the USFS national core BMPs 

address 11 subject areas that potentially 

could affect water quality, including 

‘‘road management activities.’’ Nine 

monitoring protocols have been 

developed for the road management 

activity BMPs. At least 1 BMP 

evaluation was completed on 87% of 

the USFS administrative units; over 100 

evaluations were conducted for road 

management activity BMPs. Of the 600 

total evaluations, 94% included 

implementation assessments, 90% 

included effectiveness assessments, and 

85% included both implementation and 

effectiveness assessments. 

Overall, 61% of the BMP 

implementation evaluations were rated 

as ‘‘fully implemented’’ or ‘‘mostly 

implemented.’’ In addition, 65% of the 

BMP effectiveness evaluations were 

rated as ‘‘effective’’ or ‘‘mostly 

effective.’’ For sites where BMP 

implementation and effectiveness were 

both evaluated, 56% had composite 

ratings of ‘‘excellent’’ or ‘‘good.’’ For 

road management activities, 

approximately 70% of the evaluations 

identified BMPs that were fully or 

mostly implemented. With regard to 

road management BMP effectiveness, 

approximately 50% of the completed 

evaluations were found to be effective or 

mostly effective. In the study the USFS 

acknowledges that these data show 

room for improvement in BMP 

implementation and effectiveness but 

observes that prior to development of 

the National BMP Program, it was 

impossible to report on BMP 

implementation and effectiveness on a 

national scale in a coherent, 

understandable, and useful way. 

In December 2015, the USFS 

published the National Best 

Management Practices Monitoring 

Summary Report for the two-year BMP 

phase-in period of fiscal years 2013 and 

2014 following the launch of the 2012 

National Best Management Practices 

program. That report summarizes the 

national results of the two year phasein period of national BMP monitoring. 

The report demonstrates the capabilities 

of a consistent nationwide monitoring 

program to document BMP performance 

(USFS, 2015). In addition, as part of the 

Watershed Condition Framework, the 

USFS is currently undertaking a five 

year re-assessment to assess changed 

conditions of USFS watersheds. 

For example, USFS is using outputs 

from the GRAIP tool, mentioned 

previously, in combination with 

associated field observations to assess 

the effectiveness of road 

decommissioning in Idaho, Montana 

(Cissel et al., 2014a), Oregon, Utah, and 

Washington. BMPs implemented as part 

of the decommissioning efforts resulted 

in a 79% reduction in fine sediment 

delivery to streams (Cissel et al., 2014b). 

The USFS implements best practices 

to control stormwater from forest roads 

on a program-wide scale in a number of 

ways, as well as ensuring that specific 

projects are implemented properly. 

Where a USFS road crew is in place, the 

agency performs maintenance and 

construction/reconstruction to the 

extent the law allows. BMPs are 

followed according to USFS policy, 

incorporating any national, regional, 

and local level BMPs. Crews work 

closely with local resource specialists to 

ensure work is being performed 

according to BMPs. When a project is 

awarded under a contract, clauses, 

provisions, mitigation measures, and 

BMPs are incorporated into the plans, 

specifications, and contract documents. 

For example, some contract provisions 

require the contractor to preserve, 

protect, and minimize the impacts from 

soil erosion to streams, lakes, and 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43501 

12See BLM. (2011). Contract for the Sale of 

Timber and Other Wood Products Lump Sum Sale. 

13Bureau of Land Management estimates that as 

of 2014 there were approximately 72,300 miles of 

roads on Bureau of Land Management lands (Public 

Land Statistics Table 6.2, pg. 246). Only a subset of 

these roads are located in forested environments 

that would have the potential to contribute to 

stormwater runoff (Bureau of Land Management 

Supplemental Response 3/29/16). 

14http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/ 

forests_and_woodland.html. 

15An example of an interagency MOU between 

Bureau of Land Management, other federal agencies 

and the Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality, can be found at http://www.deq.idaho.gov/ 

media/1041346- 

nps_program_implementation_mou_2013.pdf. 

16Bureau of Land Management Manual 9113 

(Roads), 9115 (Primitive Roads including BMPs 

from the Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development), 7240 (Water Quality), Manual 5000 

Forest Management (pertaining to timber sale 

contracts and specific contract provisions to apply 

to forest roads to address water quality protection). 

17 ‘‘Bureau of Land Management Standard Timber 

Sale Contract Language,’’ Bureau of Land 

Management Form 5450–004, Sections 26, 27, & 28. 

reservoirs.12 A Contracting Officer or 

their certified designees monitor work 

performed by the contractor to ensure 

work compliance with the terms and 

conditions set forth in the contract. 

The USFS is a recognized leader in 

establishing road crossing techniques 

that provide for aquatic organism 

passage, or the ability for fish and other 

aquatic life to move up or downstream 

under roads. In 2005, the USFS created 

the National Inventory and Assessment 

Procedure to evaluate the effectiveness 

of current and remediated fish passages 

(USFS, 2005). Over 1,600 miles of 

habitat were restored in fiscal years 

2011–2013 by aquatic organism passage 

projects funded through the USFS 

Legacy Roads and Trails Restoration 

program among others (USFS, 2014). 

2. Summary of Bureau of Land 

Management Programs 

BLM manages approximately 246 

million acres of public lands (BLM, 

2015). Most BLM lands are concentrated 

in 11 western states with scattered tracts 

in the various eastern states. Of the 246 

million acres, approximately 50 million 

acres are forest or woodlands where 

approximately 6–7 million acres are 

managed for sustainable timber 

harvests. These areas are generally 

mesic sites with annual average 

precipitation that usually exceeds 15 

inches per year. Traditional timber 

harvesting on BLM property occurs 

primarily in northern California, 

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and 

Wyoming, with minimal harvest 

occurring in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, 

New Mexico, and Utah. BLM uses 

several tools including land use plans, 

Memoranda of Understanding (‘‘MOU’’) 

with states and other federal agencies, 

timber sale contracts, and training to 

ensure protection of water resources. 

Most BLM lands are managed 

pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), at 

43. U.S.C. 1712, which requires public 

lands to be managed under the 

principles of multiple-use and sustained 

yield. BLM’s land use planning 

regulations at 43 CFR part 1600 

establish a land use planning system for 

BLM-managed public lands. Similar to 

the USFS, a full suite of activities are 

authorized and managed on BLM forests 

and woodlands, including timber 

harvesting, hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments, recreation, fish and wildlife 

conservation, oil and gas activities, and 

grazing. Authorized uses in forests and 

woodlands such as timber harvesting 

often include road construction and 

maintenance 13 which are broadly 

governed by policies, standards, and 

right-of-way agreements that ensure 

proper design and upkeep.14

One source of guidance for proper 

development of BLM land use plans is 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook. 

The Handbook provides broad agency 

direction for BLM to use BMPs to meet 

the standards and goals of the CWA and 

address various protection measures to 

mitigate impacts to human health 

concerns, ecosystem health, riparian 

areas, and overall watershed conditions, 

and to meet state and local water quality 

requirements (BLM, 2005). 

BLM state offices enter into 

interagency MOUs with state and other 

federal agencies designed to ensure that 

they cooperatively meet state and 

federal BMPs and water quality rules 

and regulations related to point and 

nonpoint source water pollution from 

BLM managed lands.15 These MOUs 

clarify such issues as jurisdictional and 

statutory authorities, monitoring 

responsibilities, implementing effective 

BMPs, prioritizing restoration activities, 

and developing strategies to meet water 

quality standards. The Idaho Nonpoint 

Source Management Plan provides one 

example of such an MOU (Idaho DEQ, 

2015). In addition, several components 

of BLM state and national level manuals 

apply to ground-disturbing activities 

and provide for consistent 

implementation of BMPs.16

Finally, all BLM timber sales 

contracts contain standard contract 

requirements that expressly require that 

the purchaser must comply with all 

applicable state and federal laws and 

regulations pertaining to water quality. 

Often, they include special provisions 

deemed necessary (e.g., restrictions on 

wet weather operations, conditions 

addressing Endangered Species Act 

requirements, soil and aquatic 

protection requirements, etc.).17

Individual BLM offices consistently add 

special provisions to timber sales as 

well as other ground disturbing activity 

contracts to ensure effective BMP 

implementation. Appropriate BMPs are 

identified at the Resource Management 

Plan level, analyzed during site-specific 

NEPA review process, and implemented 

in various ways such as direct 

performance by BLM crews or through 

a timber sale contract. 

BLM also provides training for their 

specialists in all aspects of resource 

management including engineering (to 

include roads and facilities), forest 

management, fish and wildlife 

management, and hydrology. Training 

curricula include: Review of existing 

and new state and federal regulations, 

manuals, handbooks, and policies 

including compliance with BMPs; 

preparing and administering contracts; 

review of interagency agreements or 

MOUs; review of updates on 

monitoring, evaluating, and reporting 

protocols and agency monitoring 

databases; review of Resource 

Management Plans and amendments; 

and conducting National Environmental 

Policy Act reviews. 

BLM incorporates BMPs into land use 

plans that include management of forest 

roads. The recently released western 

Oregon Proposed Resource Management 

Plan/Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Appendix J provides one 

example of such a plan (BLM RMPWO 

Vol. 3 Appendix J, 2016). The BMPs for 

the western Oregon Proposed Resource 

Management Plan address various 

anticipated resource management 

actions including: Road and landing 

maintenance and construction, timber 

harvest activities, silviculture activities, 

surface source water for drinking water, 

and recreation management. These 

BMPs were developed in coordination 

with Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality to cooperatively 

meet state and federal water quality 

regulations. Additional BMPs could be 

required for a particular project 

depending on site-specific needs and 

subsequent implementation and 

effectiveness monitoring. BLM field 

offices review the land use plan BMPs 

and select and apply the appropriate 

and applicable BMPs for a particular 

project. Those BMPs are incorporated 

into on-the-ground operations like 

timber sales, road maintenance, road 

construction, and riparian restoration 

projects. 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43502 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

18http://blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/nlcs/ 

Headwaters_ForestReserve/restoration.html. 

19See FSH 7709.56 Chapter 40 at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/dirindexhome/dughtml/fsh_1.html. 

20See FSH 7709.56b Chapter 60 at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/dirindexhome/dughtml/fsh_1.html. 

21http://www.fs.fed.us/eng/pubs/. 

Although the BLM does not have a 

national BMP monitoring database like 

the USFS, it works closely with a 

number of state and federal agencies to 

annually monitor, evaluate, and report 

BMP compliance and effectiveness. One 

example demonstrating the success of 

resource management plans to protect 

water quality is the Northwest Forest 

Plan (NWFP). Approximately 2.5 

million acres of forested BLM land falls 

within the area covered by the NWFP 

and those acres have been managed 

consistent with the NWFP standards 

and guidelines. All of those standards 

and guidelines were incorporated into 

the 1995 western Oregon resource 

management plans. 

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy is 

an important element of the NWFP, 

which incorporates into the resource 

management plans the implementation 

of a riparian reserve system (e.g., 

buffers) along streams as well as 

reducing road densities. Since 1995, 

western Oregon BLM Districts have 

decommissioned or obliterated over 883 

miles of roads. 

As mentioned above, BLM has 

released a proposed resource 

management plan and a final 

environmental impact statement for 

western Oregon BLM Districts to revise 

the 1995 resource management plans. 

Under the proposed resource 

management plan, the riparian reserve 

system, along with a late successional 

forest reserve system, would increase 

from 57% following the 1995 resource 

management plan to 64% following new 

guidelines. BLM has worked closely 

with over 20 cooperating agencies 

including U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, and EPA to continue a 

comprehensive and regional strategy to 

maintain and improve aquatic resources 

in alignment with the overarching 

ecosystem principles and intent of the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the 

NWFP under the new RMP. 

The recently released ‘‘Northwest 

Forest Plan Interagency Regional 

Monitoring: 20 Year Report, Status and 

Trends of Watershed Condition’’ report 

summarizes the results of the twenty 

year interagency effort to implement an 

array of water quality protective 

measures in the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy to maintain watershed health in 

that region (Northwest Forest Plan, 

2015). The NWFP Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy consists of four components: 

Riparian reserves, key watersheds, 

watershed analysis, and watershed 

restoration. Once watershed conditions 

were evaluated and resource needs were 

identified, multiple agencies, as well as 

public stakeholders, partnered to 

complete millions-of-dollars’ worth of 

watershed restoration work include: 

Providing fish passages through culvert 

removals, replacements, or bridge 

construction; obliterating, closing, or 

relocating streamside roads; vegetating 

disturbed areas; reducing hazardous fuel 

loads; upgrading road surfaces to reduce 

sediment runoff; and removing dams. 

Implementation of these four 

components has resulted in improved 

watershed conditions in many 

watersheds. 

The recently released monitoring 

report’s objective was to evaluate 

whether the NWFP Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy is achieving the 

goal of maintaining and restoring the 

condition of watersheds throughout the 

region covered by the NWFP. The report 

evaluated two subject areas: Upslope 

riparian areas for all watersheds with at 

least 5% federal ownership, and inchannel stream data (e.g., temperature, 

sediment, and macroinvertebrates). The 

report compares the effectiveness of 

management practices under the aquatic 

conservation strategy direction for two 

periods: 1993 and 2012 for upslope 

riparian assessment, and rotational 

sampling between 2002–2009 and 2010– 

2013 for in-channel stream assessment. 

These monitoring data were used to 

detect trends and evaluate stream and 

upslope riparian conditions for 1,974 

watersheds in the Pacific Northwest. 

The report signified that there has 

been a slight positive shift in upslope 

riparian condition. Sediment scores 

were generally very high, indicating a 

low risk of roads delivering sediment to 

streams. Sharp declines in assessment 

scores were mainly driven by large 

wildfires, and were offset by moderate, 

broad-scale improvements in vegetation, 

and focused improvements related to 

road decommissioning. 

BLM also uses technical tools for 

evaluation, planning, and assessment of 

water quality. BLM is applying the 

USFS GRAIP tool, as well as others, in 

western Oregon watersheds to assess the 

effectiveness of road decommissioning 

and in sediment load reduction plans 

for waters listed as impaired under the 

CWA. These tools will also be used to 

prioritize the backlog of deferred 

maintenance needs that are later 

identified in the western Oregon Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Chapter 3, Trails and Travel 

Management. 

Outside of western Oregon, BLM is 

involved with various state, regional, 

and national water quality monitoring 

efforts to assess management 

effectiveness including indirect 

effectiveness of BMPs related to forest 

management and roads. For example, 

BLM cooperates with the Montana State 

Environmental Quality Council to 

monitor how forest practices are 

affecting watersheds in Montana. 

Montana conducts BMP field reviews on 

state, federal, and private industrial and 

non-industrial forest lands to monitor 

BMP implementation and effectiveness. 

Montana’s 2014 BMP review concluded 

that 96% of BMP practices were 

effective on federal lands (Montana 

DNRC, 2014). 

BLM has conducted a number of 

successful watershed restoration efforts 

to improve water quality on BLM lands. 

One example is the BLM Headwaters 

Forest Reserve Road Restoration Project 

in California. Since 2000, BLM has 

worked with the Pacific Coast Fish, 

Wildlife and Wetlands Restoration 

Association to decommission and 

restore 26 miles of old logging roads 

throughout headwaters. An additional 5 

miles of decommissioning is planned 

for the next several years.18

3. Federal Programs Are Evolving and 

Improving 

Both the USFS and BLM have 

improved their programs that address 

water quality and stormwater from 

forest roads over the last several years. 

As noted above, the USFS launched a 

new National BMP program in 2012 and 

is currently monitoring the program for 

results. In addition, the USFS has 

enhanced its Road Preconstruction 

Handbook on Design 19 as well as the 

Transportation Structures Handbook on 

Hydraulics and Watershed Protection 20

to include design considerations for the 

construction and reconstruction of 

forest roads which minimize road and 

drainage impacts to the watershed. 

USFS Technology and Development 

Centers have created a number of 

publications to assist designers when 

addressing road/water interactions.21

BLM has taken extensive efforts to 

improve its protection and restoration 

efforts of watersheds by addressing key 

resource areas and improving resource 

management plans. Even with limited 

resources, federal programs are using 

new technology to target highest priority 

problems in watersheds to mitigate 

water quality impacts and monitor 

watershed health and project 

effectiveness. Improved resource 

management plans and technology will 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43503 

22From Thaler, R., & Sustein, C. (2009). Nudge. 

likely continue to evolve and lead to 

greater improvements. 

C. Third-Party Certification BMP-Based 

Programs 

In addition to state and federal forest 

road BMP programs, participation in 

third party forest certification programs 

has been increasing rapidly in the U.S. 

Forest management certification arose to 

foster an improved stewardship of 

working forestlands. Programs such as 

certifications, which provide 

information and disclosure to 

consumers, can generate significant 

beneficial impacts on the environment 

while imposing fewer costs on 

industries and producers than direct 

regulatory programs.22 Requirements to 

disclose information to citizens and 

consumers can lead to beneficial change 

without specific behavioral mandates. 

Certification provides a market 

incentive to encourage landowner 

commitment to sustainable forest 

management. It also offers a stamp of 

approval for forest management 

practices that meet standards 

considered to be environmentally 

appropriate, socially beneficial, and 

economically viable. 

The three largest forestry certification 

programs in the U.S. are the Forest 

Stewardship Council (FSC), the 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), and 

the American Tree Farm System 

(ATFS). These programs promote higher 

rates of BMP implementation by 

mandating compliance with applicable 

state and local laws and applicable 

BMPs, whether regulatory or voluntary. 

They promote training/education 

(including continuing education) and 

the use of trained loggers, promote 

monitoring of forestry BMP 

implementation, and include 

mechanisms for addressing instances 

where BMP nonconformance is 

observed. FSC requires expanded 

protection for waterbodies where it 

deems state programs or existing 

guidelines insufficient to protect water 

quality. 

EPA received comments from state 

forestry agencies highlighting the large 

areas of state forested land under one of 

the third-party certifications identified 

above. For example, the Idaho 

Department of Lands notes that over 1.5 

million acres of forest lands in Idaho are 

privately held or owned and managed 

by industries that maintain third-party 

certification through SFI, FSC or ATFS 

(EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668–0072). 

Maine has almost 8 million acres of 

forest land which is third-party certified 

(EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668–0058); and 

in Mississippi almost 470,000 acres of 

public forest land is certified through 

the ATFS and audited annually to 

ensure proper BMP implementation 

(EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668–0081). 

The discussion below provides a brief 

description of the three major programs 

in the U.S., focusing on how they 

promote management practices for 

mitigating water quality impacts 

resulting from stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. 

1. Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 

FSC is an independent group with 

open membership that first convened in 

1993 to improve forest practices 

internationally through a voluntary, 

market-based approach. FSC’s program 

places an emphasis on whole-forest 

conservation, including protecting water 

resources from effects of stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. FSC is the 

only standard that prohibits the use of 

certain pesticides and herbicides in the 

timber industry and prohibits large 

clearcuts where they threaten the 

ecological integrity of the forest. 

FSC’s program includes a series of 

overarching principles and more 

specific performance criteria. An 

example forest management certification 

criterion is Forest Management 

Standard Criterion C6.5, which states, 

‘‘[w]ritten guidelines shall be prepared 

and implemented to: control erosion; 

minimize forest damage during 

harvesting, road construction, and all 

other mechanical disturbances; and 

protect water resources.’’ One 

‘‘indicator’’ of this criterion provides 

that ‘‘[f]orest operations meet or exceed 

BMPs that address components of the 

Criterion where the operation takes 

place.’’ Another provides, 

[t]he transportation system, including design 

and placement of permanent and temporary 

haul roads, skid trails, recreational trails, 

water crossings and landings, is designed, 

constructed, maintained, and/or 

reconstructed to reduce short and long-term 

environmental impacts, habitat 

fragmentation, soil and water disturbance 

and cumulative adverse effects, while 

allowing for customary uses and use rights. 

This includes: access to all roads and trails 

(temporary and permanent), including 

recreational trails, and off-road travel, is 

controlled, as possible, to minimize 

ecological impacts; road density is 

minimized; erosion is minimized; sediment 

discharge to streams is minimized; there is 

free upstream and downstream passage for 

aquatic organisms; impacts of transportation 

systems on wildlife habitat and migration 

corridors are minimized; area converted to 

roads, landings and skid trails is minimized; 

habitat fragmentation is minimized; 

unneeded roads are closed and rehabilitated. 

Yet another indicator requires that, 

‘‘[a] monitoring program is in place to 

assess the condition and environmental 

impacts of the forest-road system.’’ 

Certifiers are independent of FSC itself 

and the companies they audit. 

2. Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) 

SFI is an independent, nonprofit 

organization that is responsible for 

maintaining, overseeing, and improving 

the SFI certification program. Across the 

U.S. and Canada, more than 280 million 

acres are certified to the SFI Forest 

Management Standard and additional 

acres are influenced by SFI Fiber 

Sourcing. SFI administers standards that 

address forest sustainability broadly and 

water quality specifically. The SFI 

2015–2019 Forest Management 

Standard applies to any participating 

organization in the U.S. or Canada that 

owns or has management authority for 

forestlands and consists of measures 

designed to protect water quality, 

biodiversity, wildlife habitat, species at 

risk, and forests with exceptional 

conservation value. The measures 

require developing a program for 

certification and compliance that 

include monitoring BMPs during all 

phases of forestry activities, mapping of 

water resources, and recordkeeping. For 

example, Objective 3 in the Standard 

addresses ‘‘Protection and Maintenance 

of Water Resources—To protect the 

water quality of rivers, streams, lakes, 

wetlands, and other water bodies 

through meeting or exceeding best 

management practices.’’ Under 

Objective 3, Performance Measure 3.1 

provides that ‘‘Program Participants 

shall meet or exceed all applicable 

federal, provincial, state and local water 

quality laws, and meet or exceed best 

management practices developed under 

Canadian or EPA-approved water 

quality programs.’’ Performance 

Measure 3.2 further provides, ‘‘Program 

Participants shall implement water, 

wetland, and riparian protection 

measures based on soil type, terrain, 

vegetation, ecological function, 

harvesting system, state (BMPs), 

provincial guidelines and other 

applicable factors.’’ Objective 11 

addresses ‘‘Training and Education’’ 

and Performance Measure 11.1 provides 

that ‘‘Program Participants shall require 

appropriate training of personnel and 

contractors so that they are competent to 

fulfill their responsibilities under the 

SFI 2015–2019 Forest Management 

Standard.’’ 

SFI noted in its comments that 95% 

of the fiber delivered to SFI Program 

Participant mills is delivered by 

harvesting professionals who have been 

trained in sustainable forestry practices 

(EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668–0099). 

Additional Forest Management 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43504 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

23http://www.pefc.org/. 24 16 U.S.C. 1455b. 

25https://www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpointsource-pollution/environmentally-sensitivemaintenance-dirt-and-gravel. 

Standard Objectives address Forest 

Management Planning (Objective 1) and 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance 

(Objective 9). 

3. American Tree Farm System (ATFS) 

ATFS is a program of the American 

Forest Foundation, and has a forest 

certification standard that applies to 

small landowners in the U.S. In 2009, 

ATFS had certified more than 25 

million acres of privately owned 

forestland managed by over 90,000 

family forest landowners. To become 

certified, ATFS landowners must own at 

least 10 acres of forestland and 

implement a written forest management 

plan; and follow ATFS and AFF’s 2015– 

2020 Standards of Sustainability for 

Forest Certification for Private 

Forestlands. Tree farms are inspected 

and certified to assure proper forest 

management that includes the 

conservation of soil, water and wildlife. 

Standard 4: Air, Water, and Soil 

Protection provides that ‘‘[f]orestmanagement practices maintain or 

enhance the environment and 

ecosystems, including air, water, soil, 

and site quality.’’ Performance Measure 

4.1 provides that each ‘‘[l]andowner 

shall meet or exceed practices 

prescribed by state forestry BMPs that 

are applicable to the property.’’ 

4. Third-Party Certification Programs 

Are Regularly Updated 

All three certification programs 

described above continue to update 

standards on a regular basis. FSC has 

continually revised its Principles and 

Criteria since 1994, with the most recent 

revision in 2012. FSC also developed a 

U.S. Forest Management Standard in 

July 2010, which was updated in 

September 2012. SFI revises its 

standards every five years, and has most 

recently updated them in January, 2015. 

ATFS is required to review its standards 

every five years as part of its conditions 

for endorsement by the Programme for 

Endorsement of Forest Certification, an 

umbrella organization that works with 

national certification programs to 

promote sustainable forest 

management.23 All programs include 

opportunities for public and other 

stakeholder input through public 

comment periods, webinars, and 

surveys. 

D. Existing EPA Tools That Address 

Stormwater Discharges From Forest 

Roads 

In addition to the state, federal, and 

third-party BMP-based programs 

described above, EPA administers other 

programs under the CWA that address 

forest road discharges. Stormwater point 

source discharges from forest roads have 

traditionally been treated similarly to 

nonpoint sources of pollution under the 

CWA. EPA has addressed these 

discharges under Sections 303, 305, and 

319 of the CWA, and for the coastal 

areas, under Section 6217 of the Coastal 

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 

Program under the Coastal Zone Act and 

Reauthorization Amendments 

(CZARA).24

1. Section 319 of the CWA 

Under Section 319 of the CWA, EPA 

provides technical and financial support 

to states in their administration of 

programs that address pollution from 

nonpoint sources and activities that are 

not required to be regulated by NPDES 

permits. Many state nonpoint source 

management programs, which include 

components for the implementation of 

forestry-related BMPs, were initiated 

and continue to be supported, in part, 

through the use of Section 319 grant 

funds. According to EPA’s 2011 

National Evaluation of the Section 319 

Program of the CWA, at least 15 state 

programs (AL, AR, CA, GA, KY, LA, 

MT, NC, OK, OR, SC, TX, VA, WV, WY) 

administer state-wide forestry nonpoint 

source management programs aimed at 

addressing problems associated with 

forest harvesting operations. At least ten 

of these states (AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, NC, 

OK, SC, VA, WV) rely on Section 319 

grant funding through the relevant state 

forestry agency to support water 

pollution controls associated with 

forestry activities. In many of these 

states, the state nonpoint source 

management control agency has a 

formal relationship with the state 

forestry commission (or agency or 

department) to jointly implement the 

forestry program. EPA guidance 

provides that states are expected to 

revise and update their programs every 

5 years as part of ensuring eligibility for 

continued funding. (Nonpoint Source 

Program and Grants Guidelines for 

States and Territories, 2013). 

States have flexibility under the 

Section 319 program to address 

problems not addressed by the NPDES 

program. State Section 319 programs 

may encompass watershed or water 

quality-based approaches aimed at 

meeting water quality standards 

directly; iterative, technology-based 

approaches based on best management 

practices or measures, applied on either 

a categorical or site-specific basis; or a 

mix of these approaches. State forestry 

BMP-based programs apply these 

approaches using forestry BMP 

prescriptions and monitoring to address 

water quality impairments including 

forest road runoff, and EPA approves 

these programs as part of the Agency’s 

review of state nonpoint source 

programs. 

EPA has developed a Grants 

Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) 

to track projects that receive Section 319 

grant funding. It also enables EPA and 

the states to characterize the types of 

projects funded with the use of Section 

319(h) grant funds. A sample GRTS 

query of projects shows that a number 

of Section 319(h) grants have been 

provided to address forest roads, such as 

road construction and maintenance 

projects, across the country. (Grants 

Reporting and Tracking System Forestry 

Data Pull, 2016). Section 319 funding 

remains available to address forest roads 

impacts in those states which have 

prioritized this as an issue in their 

nonpoint source management plans. 

EPA has published various guidance 

documents to assist forest owners in 

protecting waters from forestry related 

runoff, and to help states to implement 

their Section 319 control program. For 

example, EPA published the National 

Management Measures to Control 

Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Forestry (EPA, 2005) which includes 

BMPs for road construction, 

reconstruction, and management. In 

2007, EPA also provided funding 

assistance to the Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation to 

develop a manual which provides 

national guidance on effective and 

efficient practices to apply on dirt and 

gravel roads to reduce erosion, 

sediment, and dust pollution.25

2. Section 6217 of CZARA 

Section 6217 of CZARA addresses 

enhancements to state Coastal Zone 

Management Act (CZMA) programs 

through development and 

implementation of management 

measures for nonpoint source pollution 

control to restore and protect coastal 

waters. This program, which is 

administered jointly by EPA and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), directs states 

and territories with approved CZMA 

programs to provide for implementation 

of management measures for controlling 

runoff from activities within six 

categories of nonpoint source activities, 

including forestry. Each coastal state or 

territory administering a CZMA program 

(approved by NOAA) is required to 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43505 

26https://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/. 

27Unfortunately, EPA’s national-level TMDL data 

does not contain detailed information on specific 

impairment sources such as forest roads. See, for 

example, the state report ‘‘2012 Pennsylvania 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and 

Assessment Report,’’ which identifies silviculture 

as responsible for 19 miles of impairments on state 

waters. Even with state-level data such as this 

report (which still does not make an explicit 

connection between forest roads and impairments), 

EPA found it exceedingly difficult to gather and 

assess this type of data. 

describe its program to implement 

nonpoint source pollution controls, 

known as management measures, in 

conformity with a guidance published 

by EPA under CZARA Section 6217(g). 

The guidance describes ten management 

measures for forestry, including 

management measures for planning, 

road construction/reconstruction, and 

road management. As implemented 

under a state’s CZMA program, CZARA 

requires enforceable policies and 

mechanisms, as well as monitoring and 

tracking of management measure 

implementation. NOAA and EPA are 

required to review and approve coastal 

nonpoint programs of state and 

territorial CZMA programs, and state 

authorities are responsible for 

implementing these programs. In all, 

EPA and NOAA have reviewed the 

programs submitted by 33 states and 

territories and, in many cases, approved 

such submissions with conditions. Over 

time, affected states and territories took 

action to address the program 

conditions incrementally. Since the 

federal agencies’ initial approvals with 

conditions, all but 10 states have now 

met all of the outstanding conditions.26

3. Sections 305(b) and 303(b) of the 

CWA 

Under Section 305(b) of the CWA, 

states are required to assess the quality 

of their surface waters and report this 

information to EPA. In addition, every 

2 years Section 303(d) requires states to 

identify on their Section 303(d) lists, 

which they submit to EPA for approval, 

those waters that are not attaining water 

quality standards, referred to as 

‘‘impaired waters,’’ and waters not 

expected to attain water quality 

standards by the next two-year listing 

cycle, referred to as ‘‘threatened 

waters.’’ 33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A); 40 

CFR 130.7(b). States must also establish 

a priority ranking for establishing total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of 

pollutants for those waters. Id. TMDLs 

are ‘‘pollution budgets’’ that calculate 

how much of a given pollutant a 

waterbody can assimilate, including a 

margin of safety, without exceeding its 

applicable water quality standards. 33 

U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C). TMDLs also 

allocate shares of the waterbody’s 

assimilative capacity for that pollutant 

to all of its point and nonpoint sources. 

40 CFR 130.2(i). Pollutant allocations 

may be assigned to individual sources 

or aggregated to sectors such as forest 

roads. Like Section 303(d) lists, states 

submit TMDLs to EPA for approval. 

Impaired waters lists and TMDLs 

established for those impaired waters 

are ‘‘informational tools,’’ Pronsolino v. 

Nastri, 291 F.3d 1123, 1129 (9th Cir. 

2002), that help states evaluate the 

significance of pollutant sources like 

forest roads in contributing to water 

quality impairments in the U.S and 

guide implementation of measures to 

address those impairments. Nationally, 

pathogens, mercury, other metals, 

sediment, nutrients, and organic 

enrichment/oxygen depletion are 

identified as the leading causes of 

impairment of all assessed water bodies, 

based on state electronic data 

submissions from 2004 through 2010. 

While TMDLs at their core are 

pollutant loading calculations and 

allocations, they also can provide a 

‘‘comprehensive framework’’ for 

pollution reduction in a body of water 

that fails to meet state water quality 

standards. Amer. Farm Bureau Fed’n v. 

EPA, 792 F.3d 281, 287–288 (3rd Cir. 

2015). While approving or establishing 

a TMDL, EPA requires ‘‘reasonable 

assurance’’ from the states that their 

TMDL implementation plans will meet 

their stated goals, i.e., achieve the 

TMDL’s allocations and implement the 

applicable water quality standards. Id. 

at 300. In support of EPA’s recently 

revised TMDL for Lake Champlain, for 

example, Vermont detailed specific 

actions it would take to reduce the flow 

of sediment into Lake Champlain, 

including enhancing its forest roads 

forest management practices to reduce 

erosion (EPA Region 1, 2016). 

EPA considered national TMDL data 

to determine whether forest roads have 

been identified as sources of water 

quality impairment and addressed in 

TMDL load allocations designed to help 

meet water quality standards.27 For 

example, Endicott (2008) indicates that 

in California TMDLs were required for 

10 river basins where silviculture was 

identified as a potential source. EPA 

reviewed three of these TMDLs (Upper 

Main Eel River and Tributaries TMDL, 

2004; Mad River TMDL, 2007; Redwood 

Creek TMDL, 2011) and found that 

roads and road related landslides were 

the leading anthropogenic cause of 

sediment loading in these watersheds. 

While EPA is unable to develop 

national-level summary data to describe 

the degree of impairments from forest 

roads, EPA notes that these and other 

TMDLs serve as existing CWA planning 

tools that guide silviculture-related 

pollutant reduction activities on a 

watershed-specific basis. See also 

Pronsolino v. Nastri supra at 1129, 

where the Ninth Circuit upheld an EPAestablished TMDL addressing sediment 

pollution to the Garcia River caused by 

roads, timber-harvesting, road surfaces, 

and road and skid trail crossings. 

VII. Rationale for EPA’s Determination 

Not To Establish New Regulatory 

Requirements for Forest Roads 

Discharges 

As discussed above, many rigorous 

programs exist at every level of 

government as well as in the private 

sector to address stormwater discharges 

from forest roads in the United States. 

The programs are regularly updated to 

reflect new technology and research 

findings, are specifically tailored for the 

locations in which they are 

implemented, and have high 

implementation rates. While these 

programs have limitations and may vary 

in their effectiveness, EPA has 

concluded that providing support for 

further improvement to these programs 

will be more effective in further 

addressing discharges from forest roads 

than would the establishment of a new 

federal regulatory program under CWA 

Section 402(p)(6). 

A number of practical considerations 

also militate against the establishment 

of a new federal regulatory program for 

forest roads. These include the sitespecific nature of the environmental 

problem, the complex ownership 

arrangements of forest roads, and the 

limited financial resources and legal 

tools for addressing these roads, all 

discussed further below. A new program 

could require the expenditure of 

substantial resources while duplicating 

or displacing existing programs, with 

limited incremental environmental 

results. EPA has determined that the 

theoretical benefits of creating a ‘‘federal 

floor’’ do not outweigh its certain 

implementation problems, high costs, 

and potential duplication or 

displacement of longstanding and 

maturing federal, state, and private 

initiatives to address stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. 

A primary difficulty in establishing a 

new, nationwide regulatory regime is 

the variability in water quality impacts 

from forest roads across the country. 

Many factors affect the extent to which 

BMPs are needed and those best suited 

to particular locations, including 

physical and meteorological factors 

(e.g., climate, topography, soil type), 

which affect the nature of erosion and 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43506 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

sedimentation; the intensity of timber 

operations; and localized scientific 

research and water quality data. A 

national regulation addressing such sitespecific issues would likely be either 

too general or too complicated to be 

successful. The current multi-faceted, 

multi-layered landscape best supports 

the site-and region-specific nature of 

effective BMPs. 

The options laid out in Section 

402(p)(6) of the CWA, the authority 

pursuant to which EPA could have 

designated stormwater discharges from 

forest roads for regulation, resemble the 

existing universe of forest roads control 

programs in the U.S. The types of 

regulatory actions that EPA could 

hypothetically take under Section 

402(p)(6) are similar to the types of 

requirements and programs that states 

and other entities across the U.S. have 

already established, as described above. 

Section 402(p)(6) authorizes EPA to: 

‘‘establish priorities, establish 

requirements for state stormwater 

management programs, and establish 

expeditious deadlines’’ which may 

include ‘‘performance standards, 

guidelines, guidance, and management 

practices and treatment requirements, as 

appropriate.’’ 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(6). 

Many ‘‘state stormwater management 

programs’’ already exist and address 

discharges from forest roads in a manner 

specifically tailored to conditions in 

each state. See Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. 

Ctr., 133 S. Ct 1326, 1338 (2013) 

(‘‘Indeed, Congress has given express 

instructions to the EPA to work ‘in 

consultation with State and local 

officials’ to alleviate stormwater 

pollution by developing the precise 

kind of best management practices 

Oregon has established here. 33 U. S. C. 

§ 1342(p)(6)’’). In addition, states, 

agencies and organizations, including 

the USFS and EPA, have published 

‘‘guidelines’’ and ‘‘guidance’’ discussing 

‘‘management practices.’’ Every state 

and state organization that submitted 

comments to inform EPA’s 

determination strongly opposed 

additional federal regulations. EPA has 

decided to help states strengthen their 

programs rather than supplant them, 

consistent with the CWA’s policy to 

‘‘recognize, preserve, and protect the 

primary responsibilities and rights of 

States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate 

pollution’’ and to plan the ‘‘use . . . of 

land and water resources.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1251(b). 

Supporting rather than duplicating 

state programs is also consistent with 

the CWA’s policy of fostering 

governmental efficiency: to ‘‘encourage 

the drastic minimization of paperwork 

and interagency decision procedures, 

and the best use of available manpower 

and funds, so as to prevent needless 

duplication and unnecessary delays at 

all levels of government.’’ 33 U.S.C. 

1251(f). An EPA program would add 

another layer of bureaucracy for both 

regulators and the private sector, sow 

confusion about program requirements 

and responsibilities, and lead to an 

inefficient use of already thin 

management resources, all for 

potentially limited environmental 

benefit. 

While Section 402(p)(6) could 

otherwise generally allow for regulation 

through some sort of permitting, 

Congress has specifically foreclosed that 

option for discharges ‘‘resulting from 

the conduct of the following silviculture 

activities conducted in accordance with 

standard industry practice: nursery 

operations, site preparation, 

reforestation and subsequent cultural 

treatment, thinning, prescribed burning, 

pest and fire control, harvesting 

operations, surface drainage, or road 

construction and maintenance.’’ 33 

U.S.C. 1342(l). Congress has also 

precluded third-party citizen suits to 

enforce any non-permitting program 

established under Section 402(p)(6) or 

any other limitations applied to 

silviculture activities. In the absence of 

these implementation and enforcement 

mechanisms, it would be difficult to 

provide for effective federal 

implementation and compliance 

assurance for a new set of national forest 

road discharges. 

Some commenters urged EPA to 

establish mandatory requirements 

pursuant to Section 402(p)(6), including 

prioritization of forest management 

areas, requiring road inventories, and 

monitoring for water quality standards. 

Many of these elements are part of state 

programs already. Requiring all forest 

landowners in the country to submit 

data to EPA about roads on their 

properties would necessitate a resourceintensive outreach operation. The large 

number of private family forest owners 

in the U.S. and Internet broadband 

limitations in rural areas, among many 

other factors, would make it difficult to 

ensure that forest road owners and 

operators are aware of and comply with 

such this requirements; legacy roads 

with no apparent owner would present 

even greater challenges. Additionally, as 

one commenter pointed out, many 

programs are targeted at certain 

impacted watersheds or aquatic species. 

An inventory of all forest roads, many 

of which do not cause water quality 

problems, does not necessarily provide 

information needed to address these 

particular impacts. Obtaining forest 

roads inventory information would 

likely be easier where large areas of 

forest are managed by a single entity, 

such as the USFS, but those entities are 

the ones most likely to already be 

engaging in inventory efforts (as 

described in section VI.B.1 of this 

document). Given these challenges, EPA 

does not believe that creating a new 

federal inventory of forest roads is a 

cost-effective use of EPA’s limited 

resources. 

Requiring water quality monitoring 

poses another distinct set of problems. 

Water quality monitoring is in-situ 

(ambient water) sampling for one or a 

selected set of environmental indicators. 

These metrics can be biological (e.g., 

macroinvertebrates or fish community 

health), chemical (e.g., pollutant 

concentrations), or physical (e.g., 

geomorphology). This approach is not 

typically used to assess one or a few 

BMPs because in-situ water quality is 

influenced by multiple local and 

upstream factors/sources, and statistical 

distinctions between these factors and 

determining relative contributions may 

be impossible. Endicott (2008) reported 

findings ‘‘that the biotic and chemical 

‘noise’ in larger streams renders the 

water quality effects of forestry activities 

using BMPs undetectable.’’ 

EPA recognizes that existing forest 

road BMP programs have limitations, 

including limited funding. Resource 

constraints are a primary difficulty 

facing both state and federal programs, 

limiting their abilities to implement and 

monitor BMPs. Yet a new set of 

requirements from EPA would not 

address the funding gap. Indeed, 

another federal program could divert 

resources from on-the-ground stream 

protection efforts to bureaucratic 

reshuffling. EPA has decided not to 

expend resources on creating, 

implementing, and enforcing a new 

national program that may not tangibly 

improve water quality. 

VIII. Facilitating Continuous 

Improvement of Forest Road Programs 

As discussed above, programs at the 

state, federal, and local levels, as well as 

within the private sector, have 

demonstrated positive momentum in 

strengthening efforts to address 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

EPA seeks to further facilitate 

continuing improvements in working to 

address water quality impacts from 

forest roads. Thus, rather than 

superimposing additional EPAregulatory programs over existing 

programs, EPA plans to help strengthen 

these existing programs by forming an 

ongoing dialogue with all relevant 

stakeholders (including industry, 

environmental groups, academics, and 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43507 

28For example, Virginia has an implementation 

rate of 78% for forest road BMPs (SGSF BMP 

Report, 2012). In addition, the following states 

report lower than the national average of 86.7% for 

BMP implementation rates of stream crossing 

BMPs: Vermont, 68%; North Carolina, 72%, Ohio, 

78%, Maryland, 67%, and Oregon, 71%. (NASF, 

2015). 

29NPDES Bypass and Upset provisions at 40 CFR 

Sections 122.41(m) and (n) providing relief in 

certain circumstances to NPDES dischargers. 

government agencies at the federal, 

state, tribal, and local levels) on 

program improvements, technical and 

policy issues, research results, state of 

the art technologies, success stories, and 

solutions to problem areas. This forum 

could provide an opportunity for 

stakeholders to exchange information 

and expertise. EPA envisions that a 

major part of these discussions will 

focus on specific problems and 

solutions to forest roads, such as 

existing/legacy roads or stream 

crossings as well as particularly 

effective forest road programs and best 

practices. Working with stakeholders 

collaboratively, the forum could 

develop a national compendium of 

highly effective components of private 

or governmental forest roads programs 

to serve as a resource for states, tribes, 

federal agencies, local government, and 

industry. The compendium could serve 

as an indicator of expectations for 

development, implementation, and/or 

revisions of forest road programs by 

highlighting existing robust efforts and 

the latest developments of evolving 

strong programs. 

IX. Response to Key Comments on 

Existing BMP-Based Programs 

The discussion below responds to 

significant issues commenters raised 

with regard to the effectiveness of 

existing BMP-based programs. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

about the effectiveness of BMPs. In 

response, EPA makes an important 

distinction between the well 

documented ability of properly 

implemented BMPs to adequately 

control the discharge of pollutants, and 

situations where BMPs are improperly 

implemented or maintained (see 

multiple studies discussed in Part V). 

As these studies generally conclude, 

most BMPs are highly effective when 

appropriately designed and 

implemented; this includes choosing 

the right practice for particular 

situations and ensuring proper 

operation and maintenance. BMPs are 

ineffective or perform sub-optimally 

when not properly sited, installed, or 

maintained. These paradigms hold true 

for all water quality control 

technologies, not just BMPs, and 

underscore the importance of vigilant 

operation and maintenance rather than 

a conclusion that BMPs are not effective 

at protecting water quality. For example, 

Wisconsin DNR (2013) found that when 

BMPs were applied correctly no adverse 

impacts to water quality were found 

99% of the time, and Montana DNRC 

(2014) reported that Montana’s forestry 

BMPs were effective in protecting soil 

and water resources 98% of the time. In 

addition, as with most technologies, it is 

important to note that BMP science 

continues to evolve and improve. 

One commenter mentioned a study of 

two watersheds in the U.S. Pacific 

Northwest region, which found that 

44% of 80 sediment debris slides were 

associated with roads, even though 

roads comprised only 3.1% of the area. 

However, the authors of the study 

concluded that standard BMPs were the 

best approach to reducing erosion and 

sediment delivery rates. This is the 

approach that states and others are 

already pursuing in that region. 

Another commenter pointed to low 

BMP efficiency data in Edwards and 

Williard (2010, as cited in Nolan et al., 

2015) but the cited article examined the 

efficiency of forest harvesting BMPs in 

reducing sediment, not BMPs related to 

forest roads in particular. EPA also 

recognizes that state BMP-based 

programs have limitations, including 

that they may not be fully implemented, 

that their effectiveness differs based on 

numerous variables, and the difficulty 

in measuring quantitative results.28 A 

new federal regulatory program under 

CWA Section 402(p)(6), however, would 

not necessarily improve implementation 

rates, especially given the new 

limitations in CWA Section 402(l), 

which preclude the use of permits to 

implement any such program or of 

citizen suits to enforce any new federal 

requirements. 

A few commenters discussed specific 

state forest road programs, such as 

Oregon’s and Washington’s. One 

commenter stated that Oregon’s forest 

roads program is too flexible and is not 

adequately enforced. The commenter 

specifically identified the approval/ 

rejection process for written plans as not 

being sufficiently stringent because 

there is no requirement to approve or 

deny a plan. With regard to Oregon (and 

other states), given the nature and scope 

of the concerns posed by forest road 

runoff, a reasonable degree of flexibility 

is valuable, as it allows for a tailored 

approach to addressing forest road 

discharges. See Decker v. NEDC, 

(‘‘Oregon has invested substantial time 

and money in establishing these 

practices. In addition, the development, 

siting, maintenance, and regulation of 

roads—and in particular of state forest 

roads—are areas in which Oregon has 

considerable expertise’’). 

Another commenter stated that, in 

addition to requiring BMPs, Washington 

State also requires water quality-based 

numeric criteria for turbidity and has 

rules for antidegradation, and that this 

should be required of all states. With 

regard to Washington State, EPA 

recognizes that states currently have 

various approaches to addressing 

sedimentation concerns (e.g., numeric 

and narrative turbidity standards, 

dissolved oxygen standards, 

temperature standards, etc.) as part of 

their water quality standards programs. 

EPA agrees that applying numeric 

standards can be extremely effective in 

protecting water quality. However, 

states are well situated to understand 

the scope and nature of environmental 

concerns posed by forest road runoff in 

their states and apply state water 

program requirements to those concerns 

accordingly. 

Some commenters, urged EPA to 

implement a national water qualitybased monitoring program for forest 

roads. Requiring water quality 

monitoring for stormwater discharges 

from forest roads is infeasible for the 

reasons discussed in Section VII. 

Examining forest road BMP 

implementation on existing roads 

indicates whether existing programs are 

taking available and reasonable steps to 

address water quality concerns. EPA 

recognizes that most evaluations and 

determinations of BMP implementation 

are qualitative, but nonetheless, that 

information constitutes the best 

available information for EPA to make 

its decision. Extreme storms can pose 

challenges to the use and performance 

of BMPs, but BMPs can be tailored to 

some degree in areas subject to such 

events. A federal regulation would not 

alleviate risks posed by extreme storms 

because it would not be fair or 

reasonable to impose BMPs in all 

extreme storm events.29

One commenter stated that forest road 

BMP programs tend to focus on 

construction of new roads and fail to 

address older roads, often built before 

BMPs were in place (i.e., they are either 

‘‘grandfathered in’’ or subject to 

requirements only when brought back 

into use, reconstructed, or at risk of 

significant failure). The commenter 

observed that older roads can be 

significant sources of sediment since 

they may be poorly located and built 

with few if any features to control 

erosion (citing Endicott 2008, which 

includes some studies that identify 

legacy roads as sources but do not 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43508 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

30BMP monitoring refers in this case to 

assessment of BMP performance effectiveness, 

which includes verifying that the structure/ 

measures are in place and functioning. BMP 

monitoring is different from water quality 

monitoring, which involves monitoring a waterbody 

for particular environmental indicators. 

provide data regarding sediment 

discharged by legacy roads). EPA 

recognizes that legacy roads present a 

challenge and a potential source of 

sediment. Legacy roads are also the 

most challenging types of roads to 

address through regulation, however. 

Legacy roads are often no longer in use, 

so there may not be an ongoing 

silvicultural operation to fund BMPs. 

They may have non-forest uses, also 

complicating responsibility and liability 

assignment, or they may not be used for 

a period of time while timber is growing 

and then they may be placed back into 

use when it is ready for harvest. Legacy 

roads may also be so overgrown with 

vegetation that their presence is no 

longer detectable. 

Nonetheless, several state programs 

require older roads to be upgraded to 

current BMP standards if they are 

brought back into service. Endicott 

(2008) indicates that 24 states had forest 

road BMPs that address road closure. A 

more recent review indicates that 34 

states have BMPs that address forest 

road retirement (State Program 

Summary, 2016). Comments indicate 

that California, Washington, and Oregon 

are among those states having programs 

addressing legacy road issues. 

A few commenters stated that stream 

crossings for forest roads are especially 

vulnerable locations that can lead to 

significant erosion. One commenter 

stated that 5% of truck road stream 

crossings in the southern Piedmont 

region of Virginia were not meeting the 

relevant stream crossing BMPs (Nolan et 

al., 2015) and that failure to meet BMPs 

in these areas will have a 

disproportionately negative impact on 

water quality as compared to upland 

BMP violations. Another layer of 

regulations from EPA, however, would 

not guarantee that the remaining 5% of 

stream crossings would incorporate 

appropriate BMPs. While stream 

crossings are indeed a high risk area for 

forest road runoff, a recent EPA analysis 

of state programs showed that 46 states 

(92%) have developed BMPs for stream 

crossings. (State Program Summary, 

2016). Additionally, BMP guidance 

documents addressing road placement 

make clear that roads should avoid or 

minimize stream crossings and riparian 

areas. Thus, a BMP based approach 

reduces the incidence of road-stream 

crossings and, when deemed 

unavoidable, BMPs have been 

developed to install stream crossings 

while minimizing erosion. 

A commenter also stated that some 

states do not consider the effects of 

diversion and natural disturbances 

when designing BMPs for stream 

crossings. These are important factors to 

consider. They are not, however, the 

only variables considered in a stream 

crossing design; stream flow and 

volume, soil type, volume and type of 

vehicle traffic, climate, and many other 

factors also play a role in determining 

the optimal design for a stream crossing. 

Effective stream crossing BMPs depend 

on site-specific conditions, reflecting 

the difficulty of setting one-size-fits-all 

federal requirements. In one study, 

researchers examined the effects of 

upgrading poorly designed stream 

crossings and concluded that the 

enhanced stream crossings produced 

little sediment and that improved 

stream crossings could significantly 

reduce sediment contributions from 

forest roads (Nolan et al., 2015). One 

commenter spoke favorably of several 

BMPs developed by the USFS for use at 

stream crossings and recommended that 

EPA adopt them nationally. EPA 

encourages state programs to consider 

USFS stream crossing BMPs for their 

menus of BMPs. 

EPA also received several comments 

regarding the compliance and 

monitoring aspects of state programs. 

One commenter stated that BMP 

effectiveness rates are overstated and 

suggested that the appropriate baseline 

for comparison should be forests in their 

natural conditions with no roads, 

whereas most studies compare forest 

roads with BMPs to forest roads with no 

BMPs. The commenter also asserted 

that, based on three studies, the actual 

efficiency of forest road BMPs is 53– 

94%. EPA notes in response that forest 

roads play a critical role in silviculture, 

recreation, fire suppression, and other 

uses. EPA does not expect forest roads 

to be absent from the landscape and 

therefore does not think that virgin 

forest must always necessarily serve as 

the baseline for measuring BMP 

effectiveness. 

A commenter also pointed out that 

most BMP monitoring 30 is conducted 

during dry periods, when effectiveness 

at preventing stormwater runoff may be 

more difficult to discern. The 

commenter noted that variability in 

BMP performance monitoring can be as 

high as 50–100%, which would require 

frequent sampling to distinguish 

sediment derived from forest roads 

versus other sources. A number of BMP 

performance studies are conducted 

under wet weather conditions, 

including most of those cited in Section 

V of this document. However, BMP 

effectiveness also can be assessed to a 

large extent in dry weather, as evidence 

of soil movement is often visible for a 

significant time period after rainfall 

events. For example, gullying or 

landslides will be clearly visible while 

sediment deposition in low areas or 

waterbodies will also be visible. 

Another commenter stated that 

standardizing BMP compliance 

assessments and reporting protocols is 

necessary. They add that most 

monitoring focuses on whether a BMP 

has been implemented, rather than 

monitoring water quality for compliance 

with water quality standards. The 

commenter cited data from Virginia that 

noted a 32% non-compliance rate for 

stream crossing BMPs. EPA recognizes 

that states have used a variety of 

monitoring and reporting mechanisms 

over time and that this can inhibit 

broader analyses about BMP 

compliance. However, as discussed in 

Section VI.A.2 of this document, two 

large groups of states have adopted 

regional standardized monitoring 

protocols to promote consistency in 

compliance assessment and reporting. 

First, the SGSF has been 

implementing a broad monitoring 

program in 13 southeastern states for 

nearly a decade. Second, the joint effort 

between USFS and NAASF developed a 

similar standardized protocol for 

evaluating BMP implementation and 

effectiveness. These two protocols have 

spread a standardized monitoring 

process to a significant number of states 

with active forestry programs. Such 

standardization efforts are examples of 

the type of intra-state consistency that a 

federal EPA program could theoretically 

institute; their spread in the absence of 

EPA regulations provides an example in 

which a new EPA program would be 

duplicative. 

Some commenters stated the lack of a 

national BMP program leads to 

inconsistent BMP application and 

insufficient water quality protections. 

EPA sees the range of designs in BMP 

programs as an appropriate response to 

the diversity of conditions these 

programs are intended to address. State 

or regional timber operations vary in 

intensity, as do the types of forest 

management programs states or other 

oversight agencies implement. BMPs 

used at a site will differ depending on 

the factors above, as well as others, such 

as localized scientific research that 

determines the most effective 

approaches to managing stormwater. 

Within different state frameworks, 

certain aspects of BMP programs are 

largely consistent. For example, state 

BMP categories typically encompass 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 43509 

forest road location/design/ 

construction; road maintenance; stream 

crossings; stream management zones/ 

bank stabilization/buffer strips; and 

many states address forest road 

retirement and wet weather/winter use. 

Many states are taking the lead in 

enhancing their programs to encompass 

newly developed methods to reduce 

water quality impacts from forest roads. 

For example, CA’s ‘‘Road Rules, 2013’’, 

which was first implemented in January 

2015, requires that all forest roads used 

as part of an approved plan be 

hydrologically disconnected from 

waters (EPA–HQ–OW–2015–0668– 

0055). In the Southern region, the 

Southern Group of State Foresters 

Silviculture Best Management Practices 

Implementation Monitoring framework 

requires all southern states to include in 

their implementation monitoring reports 

counts of water quality risks. Finally, 

while ‘‘traditionally a problem area 

within all states, compliance with 

stream crossing BMPs continues to 

improve as a result of increased 

education of landowners and managers 

as well as increased acreage of certified 

forestland in the region (Schilling et al., 

2009).’’ [Ice et al., 2010.] 

One commenter stated, ‘‘Congress has 

failed to adequately invest in the 

National Forest System roads budget. 

Annual spending has declined from 

over $236 million to less than $159 

million in the last six fiscal years, when 

adjusted for inflation.’’ This has helped 

to contribute to the development of a 

more than $5 billion deferred 

maintenance backlog on the National 

Forest System. This commenter also 

suggested that, ‘‘[r]egulating stormwater 

discharges from USFS roads will do 

nothing to address either the forest 

health crisis or the disinvestment in 

maintaining the existing Forest Road 

system’’ (Id.). EPA acknowledges that 

both the USFS and BLM face resource 

constraints, often must address higher 

priority issues such as fire suppression 

to protect lives, and confront other 

challenges that limit the ability to fully 

address all issues arising from forest 

road activity when it comes to 

maintaining their transportation 

networks. Another layer of EPA 

regulations, in addition to existing 

federal programs addressing water 

resources protection and restoration, 

would not address these resources 

constraints and would likely do little to 

enhance water quality. 

In conclusion, none of these 

comments alters EPA’s determination 

not to establish a new regulatory 

program for discharges from forest roads 

under CWA Section 402(p)(6). While 

EPA recognizes that discharges from 

forest roads have significant impacts on 

water quality in many parts of the 

country, the Agency has concluded that 

the most effective way to make further 

progress in addressing these issues is to 

support existing state, tribal, federal, 

and third-party programs. Given the 

diversity of forest roads programs in this 

country, some programs will necessarily 

be more rigorous than others. EPA has 

considered this variability, but 

concluded that any consistency that a 

national regulation could theoretically 

achieve is far outweighed by the 

challenges of its implementation. 

X. References 

Anderson, C.J., & Lockaby, B.G. (2011). The 

effectiveness of forestry best management 

practices for sediment control in the 

southeastern United States: A literature 

review. Southern Journal of Applied 

Forestry, 35(4), 170–177. 

Appelboom, T.W., Chescheir, G.M., Skaggs, 

R.W., & Hesterberg, D.L. (2002). 

Management practices for sediment 

reduction from forest roads in the coastal 

plains. Transactions of the ASAE, 45(2), 

337. 

BLM. (2005). Land Use Planning Handbook; 

BLM Handbook H–1601–1. 

BLM. (2011). Contract for the Sale of Timber 

and Other Wood Products Lump Sum Sale. 

BLM. (2015). Public Land Statistics 2014. 

Volume 199. 

BLM. (2016). Appendix J—Best Management 

Practices. BLM RMPWO Vol. 3. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs. (2009). FY2009: 

Quarter 4 Catalog of Forest Acres. 

Butler, B., Hewes, J.H., Dickinson, B.J., 

Andrejczyk, K., Butler, S.M., & MarkowskiLindsay, M. (2016). USDA Forest Service 

National Woodland Owner Survey: A 

technical document supporting the Forest 

Service update of the 2010 RPA 

assessment. USFS. 

Cissel, R., Black, T.A., Nelson, N., & Luce, 

C.H. (2014). Monitoring the Hydrologic and 

Geomorphic Effects of Forest Road 

Decommissioning and Road Improvements. 

USFS. 

Cissel, R., Black, T.A., Nelson, N., & Luce, 

C.H. (2014). Southwest Crown of the 

Continent GRAIP roads assessment. US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, Colorado. 

Clarkin, K., Conner, A., Furniss, M.J., 

Gibernick, B., Love, M., Moynan, K., & 

Wilson, S. (2005). National inventory and 

assessment procedure for identifying 

barriers to aquatic organism passage at 

road-stream crossings. USFS. 

Cristan, R., Aust, W.M., Bolding, M.C., 

Barrett, S.M., Munsell, J.F., & Schilling, E. 

(2016). Effectiveness of forestry best 

management practices in the United States: 

Literature review. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 360, 133–151. 

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center, 133 S. Ct. 1326, 568 U.S., 185 L. 

Ed. 2d 447 (2013). 

Dube ́, K., Shelly, A., Black, J., & Kuzis, K. 

(2010). Washington Road Sub-Basin Scale 

Effectiveness Monitoring First Sampling 

Event (2006–2008) Report. Department of 

Natural Resources, State of Washington, 

102. 

Edwards, P.J., & Williard, K.W. (2010). 

Efficiencies of forestry best management 

practices for reducing sediment and 

nutrient losses in the eastern United States. 

Journal of Forestry, 108(5), 245–249. 

EPA. (2004). Upper Main Eel River and 

Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet 

Creek and Lake Pillsbury) Total Maximum 

Daily Loads for Temperature and 

Sediment. 

EPA. (2005). National Management Measures 

to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Forestry. 

EPA. (2007). Mad River Total Maximum 

Daily Loads for Sediment and Turbidity. 

EPA. (2013). Nonpoint Source Program and 

Grants Guidelines for States and 

Territories. 

EPA. (2016). Grants Reporting and Tracking 

System Forestry Data Pull. 

EPA Region 1. (2016). Phosphorus TMDLs for 

Vermont Segments of Lake Champlain. 

Great Lakes Environmental Center, & 

Endicott, D. (2008). National Level 

Assessment of Water Quality Impairments 

Related to Forest Roads and Their 

Prevention by Best Management Practices. 

Final Report. Report prepared for US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water. Contract No. EP–C–05–066, Task 

Order, 2, 250. 

Ice, G. (2004). History of innovative best 

management practice development and its 

role in addressing water quality limited 

waterbodies. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering, 130(6), 684–689. 

Ice, G. & Schilling, E. (2012). Assessing the 

effectiveness of contemporary forestry best 

management practices (BMPs): Focus on 

roads. NCASI. Special report No. 12–01. 

Ice, G.G., Schilling, E., & Vowell, J. (2010). 

Trends for forestry best management 

practices implementation. Journal of 

Forestry, 108(6), 267–273. 

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 

(2015). Idaho Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan. 

Megahan, W.F., & King, J.G. (2004). Erosion, 

sedimentation, and cumulative effects in 

the northern Rocky Mountains. 

Miller, S.A., Gordon, S.N., Eldred, P., Beloin, 

R.M., Wilcox, S., Raggon, M., . . . & 

Muldoon, A. (2015). Northwest Forest Plan 

the First 20 Years (1994–2013): Watershed 

Condition Status and Trend. 

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & 

Conservation. (2014). Forestry Best 

Management Practice (BMP) 2014 

Monitoring Report Executive Summary. 

Montana Dept. of Natural Resources & 

Conservation. (2015). Montana Forestry 

Best Management Practices. 

NASF. (2015). Protecting Water Quality 

through State Forestry Best Management 

Practices. 

NCASI Forest Watershed Task Group. (2001). 

Forest roads and aquatic ecosystems: a 

review of causes, effects, and management 

practices. 

Nolan, L., Aust, W.M., Barrett, S.M., Bolding, 

M.C., Brown, K., & McGuire, K. (2015). 

Estimating costs and effectiveness of 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
43510 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 5, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 

1The term ‘‘WTC-related’’ was not included in 

the proposed definition of acute traumatic injury in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking, 80 FR 54746 

(Sept. 11, 2015), but has been added in the final 

rule to clarify specific usage in the WTC Health 

Program and better parallel ‘‘WTC-related 

musculoskeletal disorder’’ on the List. The 

Administrator finds that revising the term results in 

no substantive change from the proposed rule. See 

discussion infra Section VIII. 

2Michael Crane, Roberto Lucchini, Jacqueline 

Moline, et al., Letter from CCE and Data Center 

Directors to Dori Reissman and John Halpin, WTC 

Health Program Regarding ‘‘Musculoskeletal 

Conditions,’’ May 11, 2014; and Michael Crane, 

Roberto Lucchini, Jacqueline Moline, et al., Letter 

from CCE and Data Center Directors to Dori 

Reissman and John Halpin, WTC Health Program 

Regarding ‘‘Rationale for the Continued 

Certification of COPD as a World Trade Center 

Related and Covered Condition,’’ Apr. 22, 2014. 

These letters are included in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

upgrades in forestry best management 

practices for stream crossings. Water, 7(12), 

6946–6966. 

North Carolina Forest Service. (2006). North 

Carolina Forestry Best Management 

Practices Manual to Protect Water Quality. 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. 

Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Olszewski and Jackson. (2006). A Primer on 

the Top Ten Forest Environmental and 

Sustainability Issues in the Southern 

United States. NCASI. Special report No. 

06–06. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. (2015). Board 

of Forestry Streamside Buffer (Riparian) 

Rule Analysis Decision. 

Redwood National and State Parks. (2011). 

Redwood Creek—Progress Report on 

Erosion Control Work and Sediment 

TMDL. 

Schilling, E. (2009). Compendium of forestry 

best management practices for controlling 

nonpoint source pollution in North 

America. NCASI. Technical bulletin No. 

966. 

SFI. (2015). Report on the Status of Logger 

Training and Education (LT&E) Programs 

in 34 Forested U.S. States & 6 Canadian 

Provinces. 

SGSF. (2012). Implementation of Forestry 

Best Management Practices: 2012 Southern 

Region Report. 

SGSF. (2007). Silviculture Best Management 

Practices Implementation Monitoring: A 

Framework for State Forestry Agencies. 

Skaugset, A., & Allen, M.M. (1998). Forest 

Road Sediment and Drainage Monitoring 

Project Report for Private and State Lands 

in Western Oregon. 

Sugden, B.D., Ethridge, R., Mathieus, G., 

Heffernan, P.E., Frank, G., & Sanders, G. 

(2012). Montana’s forestry Best 

Management Practices Program: 20 years of 

continuous improvement. Journal of 

Forestry, 110(6), 328–336. 

Tetra Tech Inc. (2016). Updated Summary of 

State Forest Road BMP Program 

Information. 

USFS. (1988). Soil and water conservation 

practices handbook. 

USFS. (2007). Best Management Practices 

(BMP) Manual-Desk Reference: 

Implementation and Effectiveness for 

Protection of Water Resources. 

USFS. (2007). Best Management Practices 

(BMP) Monitoring Manual-Field Guide: 

Implementation and Effectiveness for 

Protection of Water Resources. 

USFS. (2012). National Best Management 

Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands Volume 1: 

National Core BMP Technical Guide. 

USFS. (2014). USDA Forest Service Update 

March 2014 Subject: Aquatic Organism 

Passage. 

USFS. (2015). National Best Management 

Practices Monitoring Summary Report 

Program Phase-In Period Fiscal Years 

2013–2014. 

USFS. (2015). USDA Forest Service Strategic 

Plan: FY 2015–2020. 

Wisconsin DNR. (2013). Wisconsin’s Forestry 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) for 

Water Quality 2013 BMP Monitoring 

Report. 

Dated: June 27, 2016. 

Joel Beauvais, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Water. 

[FR Doc. 2016–15844 Filed 7–1–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

42 CFR Part 88 

[Docket No. CDC–2015–0063, NIOSH–287] 

RIN 0920–AA61 

World Trade Center Health Program; 

Addition of New-Onset Chronic 

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and 

WTC-Related Acute Traumatic Injury to 

the List of WTC-Related Health 

Conditions 

AGENCY: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The World Trade Center 

(WTC) Health Program conducted a 

review of published, peer-reviewed 

epidemiologic studies regarding 

potential evidence of chronic 

obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 

and acute traumatic injury among 

individuals who were responders to or 

survivors of the September 11, 2001, 

terrorist attacks. The Administrator of 

the WTC Health Program 

(Administrator) found that these studies 

provide substantial evidence to support 

a causal association between each of 

these health conditions and 9/11 

exposures. As a result, the 

Administrator is publishing a final rule 

to add both new-onset COPD and WTCrelated acute traumatic injury to the List 

of WTC-Related Health Conditions 

eligible for treatment coverage in the 

WTC Health Program. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

4, 2016. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel Weiss, Program Analyst, 1090 

Tusculum Ave, MS: C–46, Cincinnati, 

OH 45226; telephone (855)818–1629 

(this is a toll-free number); email 

NIOSHregs@cdc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Costs and Benefits 

II. Public Participation 

III. Background 

A. WTC Health Program Statutory 

Authority 

B. Evidence Supporting the Addition of 

New-Onset COPD and WTC-Related 

Acute Traumatic Injury to the List of 

WTC-Related Health Conditions 

IV. Effects of Rulemaking on Federal 

Agencies 

V. Summary of Peer Reviews and Public 

Comments—New-Onset COPD 

A. Peer Review 

B. Public Comment 

VI. Summary of Peer Reviews and Public 

Comments—WTC-Related Acute 

Traumatic Injury 

A. Peer Review 

B. Public Comment 

VII. How To Get Help for WTC-Related 

Health Conditions 

VIII. Summary of Final Rule 

IX. Regulatory Assessment Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice) 

G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks) 

I. Executive Order 13211 (Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) 

J. Plain Writing Act of 2010 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

This rulemaking is being conducted 

in order to add new-onset COPD and 

WTC-related acute traumatic injury 1 to 

the List of WTC-Related Health 

Conditions (List). Following the receipt 

of letters from the directors of the WTC 

Health Program Clinical Centers of 

Excellence (CCEs) and Data Centers to 

the WTC Health Program supporting 

coverage of all cases of COPD (including 

new-onset COPD) and significant 

traumatic injuries within the Program,2

the Administrator decided to conduct 

literature reviews regarding COPD and 

acute traumatic injuries among 9/11 


sradovich on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES