National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest 

Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices 

Final Report

Prepared by:

Great Lakes Environmental Center 

739 Hastings Street 

Traverse City, MI 49686 

Phone: (231) 941-2230

Principal Investigator: 

 Douglas Endicott

 

for: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Water 

Office of Wastewater Management Permits Division 

Virginia Garelick, Task Order Project Manager 

Contract No. EP-C-05-066 

Task Order 002 

December 4, 2008 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page i 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION ................................................................................1 

2. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF FOREST ROADS..............................................................8 

2.1 What are Forest Roads? .......................................................................................................10 

2.2 What is the Nature, Extent and Severity of Water Quality Impairments Due to Forest 

Roads Across the Country?.................................................................................................14 

2.2.1 Water Quality Impairments ........................................................................................16 

2.2.1.1 Increased Loading of Fine and/or Coarse-Grained Sediment Due to Erosion 

and Mass Wasting ..........................................................................................16 

2.2.1.2 Increased Suspended Solids and Turbidity ....................................................22 

2.2.1.3 Increased Sediment Deposition and Bed Load ..............................................25 

2.2.1.4 Siltation of Coarse Streambed Substrates ......................................................26 

2.2.1.5 Alteration of Stream Morphology (E.G., Reduced Pool Volume) and 

Channel Simplification...................................................................................27 

2.2.1.6 Physical Barriers to Fish Migration and Downstream Transport of Coarse 

Sediment and Large Wood.............................................................................27 

2.2.1.7Altered Streamflow .........................................................................................29 

2.2.1.8 Pollution from Other Chemicals Associated with Roads 

 (Spills, Deicing and Dust Control Agents, and Herbicides) ..........................30 

2.2.2 Degradation of Habitat for Salmonids, Other Fish, Invertebrates, and 

 Other Aquatic Organisms ...........................................................................................31 

2.2.2.1 Sediment.........................................................................................................33 

2.2.2.2 Flows ..............................................................................................................38 

2.2.2.3 Temperature ...................................................................................................38 

2.3 Extent and Severity of Water Quality Impairments Due to Forest Roads ...........................39 

2.3.1 Western Inland Conifers.............................................................................................39 

2.3.2 Pacific Coast Conifers ................................................................................................40 

2.3.3 Northeastern Conifers.................................................................................................41 

2.3.4 Eastern Hardwoods.....................................................................................................41 

2.3.5 Southern Conifers.......................................................................................................42 

2.3.6 How and Why Do Water Quality Impacts from Forest Roads Vary?........................42 

2.3.6.1 Surface Erosion...............................................................................................46 

2.3.6.2 Mass Movements of Soil ...............................................................................48 

2.3.6.3 Road Drainage and Sediment Delivery ..........................................................49 

2.3.6.4 Road Maintenance ..........................................................................................50 

2.3.6.5 Age of Roads and Road Network...................................................................52 

2.3.6.6 Road Density and “Critical” Locations ..........................................................53 

2.3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts and Effects.....................................................................56 

2.4 How are the Water Quality Impacts from Forest Roads Quantified and Documented? ......59 

2.5 What Total Maximum Daily Loads Have Been Developed for 

 Sediment Associated with Forest Roads?............................................................................63 

3. DESCRIPTION, EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS OF FOREST ROAD BMPS ...................71 

3.1 What are the Types of BMPs and how are they Maintained?..............................................74 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page ii 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

3.1.1 Road Planning and Design .........................................................................................75 

3.1.2 Construction/Reconstruction ......................................................................................77 

3.1.2.1 Surface Erosion Control..................................................................................78 

3.1.2.2 Landslide Avoidance ......................................................................................81 

3.1.2.3 Sediment Delivery Reduction.........................................................................81 

3.1.2.4 Stream Crossings ............................................................................................82 

3.1.2.5 Wetlands and Bottomlands .............................................................................83 

3.1.3 Road Management......................................................................................................84 

3.1.3.1 Maintenance ...................................................................................................84 

3.1.3.2 Upgrading .......................................................................................................85 

3.1.3.3 Closure............................................................................................................87 

3.1.4 Decommissioning/ Putting-To-Bed and Obliteration/ Removal ................................87 

3.2 How Well do Forest Road BMPs Work? .............................................................................89 

3.2.1 Site Level Forest Road BMPs Effectiveness..............................................................91 

3.2.2 Watershed Scale Forest Road BMPs Effectiveness ...................................................96 

3.3 What are the Costs of Installing and Maintaining These BMPs? ......................................103 

3.4 What are the Recent Promising Innovations in Forest Road BMPs?.................................107 

3.5 Why do Forest Road BMPs Fail to Protect Water Quality? ..............................................110 

3.5.1 Lack of Effective Implementation............................................................................111 

3.5.2 Erosion Rates and Mass Failures can Exceed Capacity of BMPs to Prevent 

Generation, Transport and/or Delivery of Sediment to Water Bodies.....................111 

3.5.3 Legacy Roads and Crossings: Lack of Maintenance, Failure to Upgrade and/or 

Remove.....................................................................................................................112 

3.5.4 Cumulative Impacts..................................................................................................112 

3.5.5 Highly Sensitive Aquatic Resources ........................................................................113 

3.5.6 Rare Events ..............................................................................................................113 

3.6 How can Failing BMPs be Improved? ...............................................................................114 

4. STATE FOREST ROAD BMP PROGRAMS .......................................................................115 

4.1 What are the State Programs that Address Forest Roads?.................................................116 

4.2 State BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring ...............................................124

4.3 Are Compliance and Effectiveness Monitoring of BMP Programs Actually Capturing 

 the Success of These Programs in Addressing Forest Road Runoff?................................127 

4.4 BMP Implementation Data: Examples from States...........................................................129 

4.4.1 California..................................................................................................................130 

4.4.2 Colorado ...................................................................................................................135 

4.4.3 Florida.......................................................................................................................136 

4.4.4 Georgia .....................................................................................................................138 

4.4.5 Idaho .........................................................................................................................140 

4.4.6 Maine........................................................................................................................141 

4.4.7 North Carolina ..........................................................................................................144 

4.4.8 Minnesota .................................................................................................................145 

4.4.9 Oregon ......................................................................................................................148 

4.4.10 Virginia...................................................................................................................149 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page iii 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 

4.4.11 Washington.............................................................................................................151 

4.4.12 Summary.................................................................................................................152 

4.5 Are Voluntary or Regulatory BMP Programs Effective?..................................................152 

4.6 How Often do States Revise Their BMPs? .......................................................................154 

4.7 Do Existing BMPs Include the Most Technologically Up-To-Date and Useful Practices 

Available?..........................................................................................................................156 

4.8 What Processes are used to Address and Correct Failing BMPs?.....................................157 

4. 9 Is Concurrence or Approval by the State Agency Administering Clean Water Act 

Required for: (a) Forest Road BMPs? (b) Forest Practice Rules Related to Roads and 

Water Quality? (c) Forest Operations or Plans Involving Road Construction and 

Maintenance? ....................................................................................................................158 

4.10 What are the Circumstances Producing Effective BMP Implementation? 159 

 Case Studies of Successful State BMP Programs: Washington, Oregon and Idaho.........159 

4.10.1 Washington Watershed Assessment Process .........................................................159 

4.10.2 Idaho Cumulative Watershed Effects Process .......................................................160 

4.10.3 Oregon Watershed Assessment Process ................................................................161 

4.10.4 Special Issue Management Systems ......................................................................162 

4.10.4.1 Habitat Conservation Plans .....................................................................162 

4.10.4.2 Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds................................................163 

4.10.4.3 Washington Forest and Fish Agreement .................................................164 

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................165 

6. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................171
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page iv 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

LIST OF TABLES 

2-1. Results of Keyword Searches in the TMDL Tracking System Database.............................204 

3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, 

 Measures of Effectiveness, and Costs..................................................................................205 

3-2. Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads. ................................................222 

3-3. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP Programs by 

 Program Type ......................................................................................................................223 

3-4. Table 3-4. Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in 

 the Southeast and Midwest...................................................................................................224 

3-5. Table 3-5. Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for 

 Individual Road Construction and Erosion Control BMPs, by Region................................225 

4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: States in which 

 BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary .................................................................................226 

4-2. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: States in which 

 BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory................................................................................231 

4-3. Detailed Review of State Forest Practices and Selected Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 

 Provisions for Roads ............................................................................................................235 

4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which 

 BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary. ................................................................................236 

4-5. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which 

 BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory................................................................................243 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page v 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

LIST OF FIGURES 

2-1. Distribution of Forest Land in the Continental United States. .............................................250 

2-2. Cross-sectional Diagram of the Forest Road Prism and Components..................................250 

2-3. Legal Basis and Definitions for Roads in the National Forests............................................251 

2-4. Response of Suspended Sediment Concentrations to Forest Harvesting at 

 Experimental Watersheds.....................................................................................................252 

2-5. Figure 5 from Chapman (1988). Graph of Percent Survival of Salmonid Embryos 

 to Emergence in Relation to Percent Fines Smaller than 0.85 mm. Data Provide 

Comparisons of Coho Salmon Survivals in the Laboratory (Lab.) and 

 Field (Cederholm et al., 1981), of Coho Salmon in Two Different Streams (Koski, 1966; 

Cederholm et al., 1981), and of Chinook Salmon in Gravels with a 

 Range of Percentages of Particles Smaller than 9.5 mm......................................................253 

2-6. Distribution of Major Forest Types in the Continental United States..................................254 

 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page vi 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

ATV All-terrain Vehicle 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 

CSBOF California State Board of Forestry 

CSES Critical Site Erosion Study 

CWA Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500) 

CWE Cumulative Watershed Effects 

CSBOF California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

DAT Days After Treatment 

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation 

DOF Department of Forestry 

EDC Environmental Defense Center 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FORPRIEM Forest Practice Rule Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

FPA Forest Practices Act 

FPGs Forest Practice Guidelines 

FPR Forest Practices Regulations 

FPWQ Forest Practices Water Quality audit 

FRTA National Forest Roads and Trails Act of 1964 

ICBEMP Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project 

MCR Modified Compliance Report 

MDC Maine Department of Conservation 

MFS Maine Forest Service 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

NAASF Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters 

NCASI National Center for Air and Stream Improvement 

NCDFR North Carolina Division of Forest Resources 

NFS National Forest System 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page vii 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

NIPF Non-industrial private forest 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GFC Georgia Forestry Commission 

GIS Geographic Information System 

HA Hectare (1,000 square meters) 

HCP Habitat Conservation Plan 

HMP Hillslope Monitoring Program 

IMMP Interagency Mitigation Monitoring Program 

JTU Jackson Turbidity Unit 

LA Load Allocation 

LW Large Wood 

MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems 

NAASF Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters 

NAD National Assessment Database 

NFC North Fork Caspar Creek Gauging Station 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS nonpoint source pollution 

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

NWQI National Water Quality Inventory 

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

OHV Off-highway Vehicle 

PNW Pacific Northwest 

QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan 

SABS Suspended and Bedded Sediments 

SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative 

SFRA Sustainable Forest Resources Act 

SHA Stream Habitat Assessment 

SGSF Southern Group of State Foresters 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page viii 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

SMA Streamside Management Area 

SYP Sustained Yield Plan 

TFW Timber/Fish/Wildlife program 

TIFS Texas Intensive Forestry Study 

TH/FM Timber Harvesting and Forest Management Guidelines 

THP Timber Harvest Plans 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

USFS Unites States Forest Service 

USEPA Unites States Environmental Protection Agency 

USLE Universal Soil Loss Equation 

VA DOF Virginia Department of Forestry 

WLA Wasteload Allocation 

WATERS Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 1 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

1. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION 

Most of the measures to protect water quality in the United States owe their origin to the 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), which became 

known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) (ee U.S.C. §1251 et seq. CWA section 301(a) 

generally prohibits the discharge of a pollutant from a point source to navigable waters 

unless in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit. The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any 

point source into waters of the United States. Section 502(14) of the CWA defines point 

sources as “any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance,” and includes, among 

other things, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, or conduit from which pollutants are 

discharged. It follows that any source that is not a point source is a nonpoint source, 

although nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is not specifically defined in the CWA. This 

lack of definition has resulted in some confusion. For example, storm water runoff from 

construction sites, industrial facilities, certain municipal areas, and concentrated animal 

feeding operations are point sources. However, diffuse sources such as agricultural storm 

water runoff and irrigated agriculture return flows are specifically excluded from the 

definition of point source. Generally, a NPS is diffuse runoff caused, for example, by 

rainfall or snowmelt moving over the ground carrying pollutants into waterbodies.

Atmospheric deposition and hydrologic modification are also generally considered NPS 

pollution. 

Silvicultural operators are specifically categorized in 40 C.F.R. section 122.27(b) either 

as as point or nonpoint sources. Silvicultural point sources include any discernible, 

confined and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, 

or log storage facilities which are operated in connection with silvicultural activities and 

from which pollutants are discharged into waters of the United States. Silvicultural point 

sources are subject to the NPDES permit program. NPS silvicultural activities include 

nursery operations, site preparation, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment, 

thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, surface 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 2 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff1. 

Oversight of NPS pollution has been delegated to the states primarily through Sections 

208 and 319 of the CWA. Section 208 of the CWA requires all states to identify nonpoint 

sources of pollution, their cumulative effects, and methods of controlling them 933. 

U.S.C. 208(b)(2)(F). Silviculture was one of the nonpoint sources specifically mentioned 

in the Act. Sediment is the primary pollutant from forestry2 activities and forestry-related 

sediment is a leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and streams 

nationwide (USEPA, 2000 and 2002). Roads are the primary source of sediment from 

forest management activities in the western United States (Megahan and Ketcheson, 

1996), the southern states (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002), the Midwest and the Northeast 

(NCASI, 2007). The dominance of road-related erosion over erosion from other forestry 

activities has been noted in studies since at least 1954 (Anderson, 1954). 

In 1975, USEPA developed regulations to guide the states in implementing Section 208 

by establishing non-regulatory nonpoint source pollution programs. States were required 

to develop Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the major land uses, as well as an 

implementation schedule. BMPs are structural and nonstructural measures used to reduce 

nonpoint source pollution to receiving waters (See 40 C.F.R. section 130.2(m). Forest 

Practice Regulations (FPRs) may be part of some state’s efforts to satisfy the 

requirements of Section 208 and specify the BMPs necessary to control the water quality 

effects of forest roads (Rice, 1992). Every state with significant silvicultural activities has 

some type of program (Ice et al., 1997), but they vary widely across the country due to 

regional, geographic, and cultural differences. Consequently, states have developed 

regulatory programs which require permits or mandatory BMPs; nonregulatory programs 

with voluntary BMPs; nonregulatory programs with enforcement where BMP use is 

voluntary but severe violations may lead to fines or citations; and a combination of 

programs that mix aspects of regulatory and nonregulatory programs. Repeated 

assessments have shown that compliance with state BMPs and FPRs prevents major 

 

1 However, some of these activities (such as stream crossing for roads) may involve point source 

discharges of dredged or fill material which may require a CWA section 404 (a regulatory program for the 

disposal of dredged or fill materials in the waters and wetlands) permit. 

2

 In this report, “silviculture” and “forestry” are used interchangeably, despite the subtle differences among 

the definitions of these terms. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 3 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

water quality impacts under most circumstances (Ethridge and Heffernan, 2000; NCASI, 

2001). However, detrimental impacts from forest roads have been documented in many 

water bodies and the extent of such impacts can be large (Williams, 1999). 

The control of nonpoint source pollution under the CWA has been controversial. The Act 

originally envisioned that nonpoint sources of pollution would be dealt with at the state 

and local level through area waste management plans mandated by Section 208. This 

section requires states to engage in a planning process that, among other things, identified 

and controlled nonpoint sources of pollution. This planning process was not sufficient to 

address nonpoint source pollution (BLM, 2005). 

Recognizing the continuing problem of nonpoint source pollution, Congress added 

Section 319 to the CWA through the 1987 amendments (33.U.S.C. section 1329). This 

section specifically addresses the creation of nonpoint source management programs 

through a three-stage process: 1) states develop nonpoint source assessment reports; 2) 

states adopt nonpoint source management programs; and 3) states phase in the programs 

with the assistance of Federal funds. States are to identify waters not attaining water 

quality standards without additional nonpoint source controls, identify BMPs for 

categories of nonpoint source problems, and develop programs to implement the BMPs. 

Federal grants are made available to develop and implement these measures. This 

nonpoint source management program is intended to operate voluntarily through 

financial incentives from the federal government. The voluntary approach to nonpoint 

source water pollution reflects Congress’s reluctance to encroach upon traditional state 

and local prerogatives to control land use decisions (BLM, 2005). 

Although there is general consensus that Section 319 has brought about some positive 

steps, there is also criticism that it has not comprehensively addressed nonpoint source 

pollution problems (BLM, 2005). In 1988, USEPA indicated that NPS pollution had 

become the dominant fraction of the Nation’s remaining surface water pollution problem 

(EPA, 1988). Another section of the CWA, 305(b), requires the states to describe the 

quality of their surface waters including the extent to which water quality standards are 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 4 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

being met; USEPA then summarizes these assessments and reports the results to 

Congress. Fourteen such reports have been published since 1975; the most recent 

National Water Quality Inventory reports3

 were published in 2000 and 2002. The 2000 

report listed a number of nonpoint sources – agriculture, hydrologic modification, habitat 

modification, urban runoff, and silviculture - as leading sources of river and stream 

impairment. Silviculture was the 5th ranked source, responsible for impairment of 28,156 

river miles. The 2002 report lists silviculture as the 9th leading source, responsible of 

impairment of 18,463 miles4. Significantly, USEPA noted in the 2002 report that: 

 “...it is important to note that the information about specific sources and causes 

of impairment is incomplete. States do not always report the pollutant or source of 

pollutants affecting every impaired river and stream.”

In 1999, USEPA provided Congress with a list of 1,040 waterbodies identified as 

impaired by silviculture in states without authority to regulate forest activities. This list 

and the National Water Quality Inventory reports were criticized by the Society of 

American Foresters (Ice, 2000), which contended that silviculture was a minor 

contributor to nonpoint source pollution nationwide. They cited numerous inconsistencies 

and discrepancies between data sources, pointing out that 48% of the listed waterbodies 

did not appear on the most recent 303(d) lists, and that an additional 37% were listed on 

the basis of sparse or unreliable data. In general, their critique of the list of waterbodies 

impaired by forestry operations pointed out the shortcomings and difficulties of assessing 

water quality progress using 305(b) and 303(d) lists. 

 

In 1999, USEPA also issued the Phase II NPDES rule for stormwater dischargers. 64 

Fed. Reg. 68,722 (Dec. 9, 1999) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 9, 122, 123, and 124). This 

rule did not contain any provisions to require permits for forest roads. This rule was 

challenged in the Fifth, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit Courts in three separate actions 

ultimately consolidated before the Ninth Circuit Court. In the suit filed by the 

Environmental Defense Center (EDC), in cooperation with the Natural Resources 

 

3

 The 2000 and 2002 National Water Quality Inventory reports are discussed further in Section 2.4. 4

 Overall, more river miles were assessed in 2002; however, three states (including Washington) were not 

included in this latest round of reporting. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 5 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Defense Council, plaintiffs asserted that the regulations failed to meet minimum Clean 

Water Act statutory requirements because, among other reasons, they neglected to 

address stormwater runoff associated with forest roads and other significant sources of 

runoff pollution. EDC v. USEPA 344 F.3d 832.859 (9th Cir. 2003). In September 2003, 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the forest road issue to the Agency. The 

court asked USEPA “to consider, in an appropriate proceeding, the petitioners contention 

that Section 402(p)(6) requires USEPA to regulate forest roads.” Id. at 879.

USEPA needs a better understanding of water quality impacts associated with forest 

roads and the effectiveness of state programs to address these impacts. Specifically, 

additional research is needed to assess: (1) the extent to which runoff from forest roads 

has degraded water quality and aquatic habitat, and (2) the effectiveness and state of 

technology of state BMP programs for forestry operations to prevent water quality 

degradation. 

At the request of USEPA, Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) conducted a 

literature review and evaluated data to explore whether, why, and how forest roads 

impact water quality and the effectiveness of BMPs in preventing these impacts. The 

analysis was based on GLEC’s review of documents provided by USEPA and a limited 

survey of on-line literature. This report concisely answers the following questions, based 

on the literature searches and evaluation of available data. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 6 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

What is the nature and extent of water quality impairments 

due to forest roads across the country?

How are the water quality impacts from forest roads quantified 

and documented?

What total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) have been 

developed for sediment associated with forest roads? 

What are the state programs that address forest roads? 

Are forest roads defined differently among states? 

Are voluntary or regulatory BMP programs effective? 

What are the circumstances producing effective BMP 

implementation? 

How often do states revise their BMPs? 

Do existing BMPs include the most technologically up-to-date 

and useful practices available? 

What processes are used to address and correct failing BMPs? 

Are compliance and effectiveness monitoring of BMP programs 

actually capturing the success of these programs in addressing 

forest road runoff? 

 

How representative are the results of BMP monitoring?

What are the types of BMPs and how are they maintained? 

How well do Forest Road BMPs work? 

What are the costs of installing and maintaining these BMPs? 

What are recent promising innovations in forest road BMPs? 

 

How can failing BMPs be improved? 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 7 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The report is organized around several basic issues, which are divided into three sections, 

as follows: 

y Section 2 describes and quantifies the impacts of forest roads on water quality and 

aquatic resources. 

y Section 3 describes the forest road BMPs, their effectiveness and costs. 

y Section 4 inventories and discusses state BMP programs for forest roads. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 8 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008

2. WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF FOREST ROADS 

Forests cover about 1/3 of the continental United States (Figure 2-1). Most of the headwaters of 

major rivers and streams arise in forested catchments (NCASI, 1994), and 80% of the nation’s 

scarce freshwater resources originate in these forests (USFS, 2000). Various assessments show 

that the quality of surface water draining forested watersheds is generally among the highest in 

the country (NCASI, 1994). Natural geologic erosion is quite low from most forested lands. 

Although forests typically occur on the steepest portions of the landscape, the annual sediment 

yields from forested lands are lower than any other rural land use (Swank et al., 1989; Gianessi 

et al., 1986). Unit area loads (also called export coefficients) are routinely used to develop 

estimates of pollutant loads in a watershed. An export coefficient is a value expressing pollutant 

generation per unit area and time for a specific land use (Novotny and Olem, 1994). The use of 

unit area loading or export coefficients has been used extensively in estimating loading 

contributions from different land uses (Beaulac and Reckhow, 1982; Uttormark et al., 1974). The 

concept is straightforward; different land use areas contribute different loads to receiving waters. 

By summing the amount of pollutant exported per unit area of land use in the watershed, the total 

pollutant load to the receiving system can be calculated. Export coefficients for undisturbed 

forest lands are typically the smallest of all land uses. This is the case for sediment as well as 

nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). Thus, the quality of surface waters in forests should be 

excellent and in most forested watersheds the water quality usually is (Rummer et al., 1997), 

assuming that the integrity of the watershed and its functions are maintained. 

The high quality of water supplies from forests is widely recognized as a valuable resource. In 

2000, the US Forest Service (USFS) calculated the marginal value of water from all National 

Forest lands to be at least $3.7 billion per year (USFS, 2000). The rivers and streams in forests 

are also critical habitat for aquatic biota including fish species that are in decline, face significant 

ecological challenges, or are listed as species of concern or endangered species. According to 

surveys of Washington state residents, the most important use of private forestland is as “a 

source of clean water” as the number one priority, followed by “fish and wildlife habitat”(Reiter 

et al., 2004). Likewise, the most generally valued and utilized "commodity" produced by 

California's forest lands is clean water (Reid, 1999). In fact, the origins of the National Forest 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 9 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

system are tied directly to watershed concerns (Ice and Whittemore, 1998). Steen (1991), writing 

about the early legislation that established the National Forests, concluded that "the primary 

driving force behind forest reserve legislation at that early time was the protection and 

enhancement of water supplies, including flood protection." 

Forest management activities associated with timber harvesting can affect the physical, 

chemical, and biological properties of the soil (Swank et al., 1989). Any management activity 

that exposes and/or compacts the soil and reduces infiltration can concentrate surface runoff and 

thereby accelerate erosion. If these activities increase soil erosion, for example, then water 

quality may be decreased through stream sedimentation, accompanied by a loss of long-term site 

and stream productivity. Felling trees alone seldom causes erosion although some soil 

compaction and surface gouging may occur during this operation. In contrast, road building, 

skidding and stacking logs, and some site preparation activities, can produce major soil surface 

disturbance that greatly increases the erosion on a site. Soil losses are greatest during and 

immediately after road construction (unstabilized road prism, disturbances by heavy equipment 

passage). However, water quality impacts can continue throughout the active lifetime of a road 

and even afterwards. 

Sediment is the most significant pollutant of surface waters due to forestry activities, often where 

there is a legacy of roads or road-related drainage issues (Rehder and Stednick, 2006). Unpaved 

roads and stream crossings are the major source of erosion from forest lands (Anderson et al., 

1976, Megahan and Kidd, 1972; Patric, 1976; Rothwell, 1983), contributing up to 90% of the 

total sediment production from forestry operations. Surface erosion rates from roads are typically 

at least an order of magnitude greater than rates from harvested areas, and as much as three 

orders of magnitude (1,000 times) greater than erosion rates from undisturbed forest soils 

(NCASI, 2001). Mass wasting events such as landslides are also frequently attributed to forest 

management and associated with roads in steeply sloped terrain. Both erosion and mass wasting 

can increase the loading of fine and/or coarse-grained sediment to surface waters in forests. 

However, soil erosion and mass wasting do not necessarily represent sediment contributions to 

streams (Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987). Whether eroded soil reaches a stream depends on 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 10 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

many factors such as road location, the volume of water available for sediment transport, 

effectiveness of sediment traps, and slope steepness. The distance that sediment travels 

downslope is also an important factor in determining how much eroded soil is delivered to a 

water body as sediment. Soil losses and erosion occurring closer to a stream have greater 

potential to deliver sediment and lead to water quality impairment. In this regard, stream 

crossings have the greatest potential to adversely impact water quality on the forest landscape 

(Grace, 2002). 

Effects of sedimentation on stream water quality are numerous and the extent of such impacts is 

large (Williams, 1999). Among all pollutants measured in streams, sediment has the largest 

effect on stream biota (Aitken, 1936; Trautman, 1933). Sediment delivery from improperly 

constructed or maintained forest roads can adversely affect stream water quality and associated 

beneficial uses (Furniss et al., 1991; Megahan et al., 1992). As discussed below in Section 2.2, 

sediment loading can degrade water quality and impair numerous physical and biological 

functions. 

2.1 What Are Forest Roads? 

Roads are vital components of the human use of forested systems (Gucinski et al., 2001). 

Without roads, development of the economic activity critical to the quality of modern life would 

have been difficult, and roads remain central to many forest uses today. Roads provide access for 

people to extract resources from natural and modified ecosystems, as well as providing access to 

forests for other activities such as fire suppression and recreation. Figure 2-2 provides a crosssectional diagram of a forest road. 

Different kinds of roads comprise the forest road network. Primary or mainline roads are the 

most heavily traveled forest roads and generally originate from paved county or state highways 

(NCASI, 2001). They are generally graveled roads, are built for use throughout the year, and 

easily accommodate two-way traffic. Secondary roads generally depart from primary roads and 

may or may not be graveled. These roads are commonly closed during at least part of the year. 

Two-way traffic is usually accommodated by turnouts spaced along the route. Temporary roads 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 11 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

are generally unsurfaced, although gravel surfacing of temporary roads is a common practice in 

particularly wet areas of the West Coast and Alaska. These roads are generally closed to traffic 

immediately after completion of log hauling and/or silvicultural activities such as slash disposal, 

thinning, and tree planting. Temporary roads are used to access individual sites and landings, 

where logs are processed and stacked before loading onto log trucks. 

Road networks differ greatly in development through time and layout over terrain, and they carry 

this history into their present performance and environmental impacts (Gucinski et al., 2001). In 

many parts of the National Forest system, the major roads were built in the 1950s and 1960s, 

with secondary and tertiary feeder roads following as the road networks expanded into 

watersheds. In other areas, logging roads developed from previous road systems used for mining 

in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern states or agriculture in the southern Appalachians, 

Ozarks, and New England. Thus, changes in road standards through time (for example, width, 

construction methods, position in the landscape) have affected different parts of road networks. 

Consequently, each road network commonly contains a collection of old and new types and 

standards of roads designed for various purposes that cross terrain of differing sensitivities. This 

mosaic of road segments has implications for how the road network will interact with the forest 

watershed, streams, and other downstream aquatic resources. 

While the term ‘forest road’ is not defined in the CWA or in EPA regulations States have 

developed many definitions of forest roads. Not surprisingly, there is no one, clear definition of 

a “forest road”. This may be one of the problems with the issue because forest road BMPs are 

only required for roads meeting the definition. Although the definition of a road may seem selfevident, definitions of forest roads have been constructed that confuse rather than clarify the 

relationships of roads and streams (NCASI, 2001). Many different definitions of forest roads are 

included in the individual states’ forest practice rules. Here are several examples of definitions of 

forest roads: 

y A forest road is used principally for forest management activities and includes any road 

used by truck or pick-up since 1972 and that has not been formally vacated. (Oregon) 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 12 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y "Forest road," as it applies to the operation of the road maintenance and abandonment 

plan element of the forest practices rules on small forest landowners, means a road or 

road segment that crosses land that meets the definition of forest land, but excludes 

residential access roads. (Washington) 

y Roads, skid trails and landings are all part of a forest transportation system. Roads 

connect the forest land to existing public roads. They provide forest access for such 

activities as managing timber, improving fish and wildlife habitat, fighting fires, and 

recreation. (Wisconsin) 

y Active Road: a road that can be either temporary or permanent that allows vehicle 

movement in and out of forestland. Forest Road: an access route for vehicles into 

forestland. (Arkansas) 

y “Road” refers to truck or haul roads. 

y Unpaved pathway in a forested landscape used at one time or another by vehicles in a 

logging operation. 

y A road built through natural habitat, typically to access resource extraction or recreation 

activities. 

y Roads are smooth-surfaced corridors for truck and automobile transportation (NCASI, 

2001). 

States’ Forest Practice Rules also define different types and categories of forest roads. 

Depending on the state, many different forest road categories may be defined, including: 

mainline, primary, secondary, temporary, permanent seasonal, permanent all-season forest, 

collector, spur, administrative, abandoned, vacated, active and inactive. These definitions often 

tend to overlap. The forest road definitions usually exclude state and county roads that may cross 

forestlands. The definitions also exclude skid trails, which are addressed as timber harvesting 

operations. However, skid trails involve many of the same issues (lack of soil stabilization, 

inadequate stream crossings, poor placement), impacts and BMPs as forest roads. These 

distinctions among types of forest roads are more than academic, because forest practice rules 

and forest road BMPs apply to specific roads. For example, a county road crossing state forests 

in Oregon is not subject to the Oregon Forest Practices Act, because it is not a road owned by a 

public or private forest manager (T. Lorenson, ODF; letter to A. Wiedeman, USEPA, December 

12, 2007). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 13 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

There is a rich variety of road standards and road jurisdictions within the National Forests; 

Figure 2-3 summarizes the legal basis and definitions relative to forest roads in the National 

Forest System (NFS). The USFS definition of a forest road is “any road wholly or partly within, 

or adjacent to, and serving the NFS and which is necessary for the protection, administration, 

and utilization of the NFS and the use and development of its resources” (Coghlan and Sowa, 

1998). 

A recent controversy involving negotiations between the USFS and Plum Creek Timber 

Company over road access in Montana illustrates how changing land use, driven by economic 

development, can complicate forest road management issues. Negotiations between the USFS 

and the nation's largest private landowner over use of Montana forest roads could set a precedent 

for commercial development near forests nationwide, according to the Government 

Accountability Office (Bontrager, E. 2008). 

Until January 5, 2009, the USFS and Plum Creek Timber Co. were engaged in private 

negotiations for nearly two years to amend shared access easements on forest roads. The 

easements were conveyed to Plum Creek and its predecessors under the National Forest Roads 

and Trails Act of 1964 (FRTA), 16 U.S.C. sections 532-538, for large tracts of land in western 

Montana. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the negotiations between 

the USFS and the nation's largest private landowner over use of Montana forest roads could have 

set a precedent for commercial development near forests nationwide. 

The proposed amendment would have allowed the company, which owns 8 million acres 

nationwide and 1.2 million in Montana alone, to use federal timber roads on national forests to 

develop the company's private holdings adjacent to the forests. Critics of the plans said a roadsharing deal would have made it easier for Plum Creek to sell timberland for development. They 

contend the roads were intended for logging only. 

The controversy began after a forest ranger informed a potential buyer of Plum Creek land that 

the easement did not allow access for residential use. That opinion was echoed in a regional 

forest memorandum in 2007 that stated that the FRTA easements "were not developed for 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 14 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

residential use and the roads were rarely designed to accommodate it safely." (memorandum 

from Regional Foresters to Forest Supervisors June 18, 2007But the USFS overruled the ranger 

following discussions with Plum Creek, agreeing that the company could use certain NFS roads 

for any purpose, according to the GAO report. The proposed agreement being hammered out 

between the agency and Plum Creek would allow for the company to use the roads for any future 

development. GAO found that the property value of many Plum Creek lands would have a 

significantly higher value if the amendment is finalized. 

2.2 What is the Nature, Extent and Severity of Water Quality Impairments Due to Forest 

Roads Across the Country? 

Roads can have very different effects on water resources depending on road size, design, 

location, construction, access, usage and maintenance techniques. Although most roads will have 

some effect on their watersheds, a small percentage of road area (or length) is often responsible 

for most of the erosion. For example, in a study of road-related erosion, Rice and Lewis (1986) 

found only 0.6% of the road length had events displacing significant quantities (greater than 15 

m3, approximately 2 dump trucks) of eroded material. Roads creating significant erosion impacts 

may not be completely controllable (McCashion and Rice, 1983). 

Forest roads can severely and permanently harm streams and their biota. The water quality 

impairments due to forest roads include physical, biological and ecological impacts. Forest roads 

degrade aquatic ecosystems by increasing levels of fine sediment input to streams and by altering 

natural streamflow patterns. Construction, use and existence of logging roads detrimentally 

affects stream health and aquatic habitat by increasing sediment delivery and stream turbidity 

which adversely affects the survival of dozens of sensitive aquatic biota (salmon, trout, other 

native fishes, amphibians and macroinvertebrates). Even when well-located and carefully 

designed, adverse impacts can result from forest roads if they are not properly operated and 

maintained. Increased fine sediment deposition in streams and altered streamflows and channel 

morphology result in increased adult and juvenile salmonid mortality, a decrease in aquatic 

amphibian and invertebrate abundance or diversity, and decreased habitat complexity. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 15 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Some degree of environmental impairment is an inevitable consequence of forest roads. 

Although the impacts of forest roads are widespread, the severity of the resulting impairments 

vary considerably between locations. In fact, the extent and severity of water quality 

impairments due to forest roads is debated by various interest groups. This may in part reflect the 

spatial variability of impairments attributed to forest roads. The variations in rates of erosion, 

sediment delivery, and the intensity of forestry activities (as measured by road density and traffic 

levels) lead to vastly different impacts in different locations and watersheds. The issue is further 

complicated because: 

y The impairments can be difficult to detect and/or measure; 

y Erosion only usually occurs during wet weather; 

y There are no reliable data at the national level to use for such an assessment; and 

y Many studies in the peer reviewed literature were conducted 10 or 20 years ago and may 

not represent present conditions. 

This latter point is relevant because, to some degree, the water quality impairments from forest 

roads have been, and continue to be, a consequence of past forestry practices and activities. In 

some states, such as Connecticut and New Mexico, BMP regulations have changed greatly 

within a single decade. In other states, including Idaho and Washington, FPRs are almost 

continuously evolving. Changes in logging systems, reforestation techniques, and environmental 

protection requirements have meant that the concepts of best forest management practices have 

always been evolving (Bisson et al., 1992). The broad changes in road management practices 

that managers have enacted are a result of the gradual development of water quality and 

environmental objectives over the past 40 years or more (NCASI, 2001). Thus, the issue of forest 

roads and their water quality impacts is both dynamic and spatially variable. 

In the sections that follow, specific water quality impairments attributable to forest roads are 

discussed, along with factors that cause these impairments to vary. No attempt has been made to 

distinguish impairments due to historical versus modern forest management practices, although 

this can sometimes be inferred from the dates of specific studies. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 16 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

2.2.1 Water Quality Impairments 

The physical impacts of forest roads on streams, rivers, downstream water bodies and watershed 

integrity can be dramatic and have been well documented. Roads impact watershed integrity 

through three mechanisms: they intercept, concentrate, and divert water (Williams, 1999). Roads 

intercept water falling as rainfall directly on road surfaces and cutbanks as well as subsurface 

water moving underground down the hillslope. They concentrate flow on the road surface and in 

adjacent ditches and channels. Roads divert both surface and subsurface water from flow paths 

that otherwise would be taken in the absence of a road. The hydrologic and geomorphic 

consequences resulting from these three processes can be large, as discussed below. Roads 

directly affect natural sediment and hydrologic regimes by altering streamflow, sediment 

loading, sediment transport and deposition, channel morphology, channel stability, substrate 

composition, stream temperatures, water quality, and riparian conditions within a watershed (Lee 

et al., 1997). 

Potential effects of roads on water quality include increased loading of sediment due to erosion 

and mass wasting, increased suspended solids and turbidity, increased sediment deposition and 

bed load, siltation of coarse streambed substrates, physical barriers to migration and downstream 

transport, altered streamflow and pollution from other chemicals associated with road use. The 

physical and chemical impacts of roads have detrimental effects on fish and other aquatic 

organisms and their habitat; these are discussed separately in Section 2.2.2. 

2.2.1.1 Increased Loading of Fine and/or Coarse-Grained Sediment Due to Erosion and 

Mass Wasting

Roads and especially stream crossings are a major source of sediment to streams (Eaglin and 

Hubert, 1993; Furniss et al., 1991), and contribute more sediment to streams than any other land 

management activity (Gibbons and Salo, 1973; Meehan, 1991). Soil erosion rates were 30 to 300 

times higher on forests with roads than undisturbed forest (Furniss et al., 1991). High rates of 

stream sedimentation can result from this increased erosion. Most fine sediment from surface 

erosion processes is delivered during common rainfall events and is relatively chronic (FPAC, 

2001). A survey conducted in one watershed in the southeast revealed that 80 percent of the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 17 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

sources of sediment delivery to streams and rivers were from the road prism; i.e., road surface, 

ditches, banks (van Lear et al., 1995; Grace and Clinton, 2006). Surface erosion from forest 

roads affects the fine sediment budget and may impose a chronic condition of sediment inputs to 

streams directly affecting the stream substrate and the health of aquatic life (Luce et al., 2001). 

Surface erosion rates from roads are typically at least an order of magnitude greater than rates 

from harvested areas, and three orders of magnitude greater than erosion rates from undisturbed 

forest soils (NCASI, 2001). For example, estimates of road surface erosion rates in California, 

Idaho, and Washington are generally in the range of 10 to 100 tons/acre/year (Cline et al., 1981; 

McCashion and Rice, 1983; WFPB, 1997), with extreme estimates as high as 480 tons/acre/year 

in Washington’s Olympic Mountains (Reid and Dunne, 1984). These extremely high erosion 

rates may be contrasted with sediment yields measured on undisturbed forested lands in the 

eastern and western United Sates (0.09 tons/acre/year; Gianessi et al., 1986 and Patric, 1984), 

intact pine forests the southern US (0-0.09 tons/acre/year), clearcut forests with BMPs (0.04-0.18 

tons/acre/year), and harvesting and site preparation without BMPs (1.3-6.2 tons/acre/year; Yoho, 

1980). 

It should be noted that some investigators have reported erosion rates for roads, ranging from 5 

to 550 tons/acre/year, whereas others have reported erosion rates of watersheds containing roads 

in the range of 0.02 to 2 tons/acre/year. The wide range results from differences in measuring 

erosion (on the road or at the watershed outlet) and in the factors causing erosion, including the 

presence, density, and design of the road network on the watershed (Elliot, 2000). Although a 

wide range of erosion rates and sediment yields are reported in the literature, all sources agree 

that these rates are considerably higher in forests containing roads in comparison to areas 

without roads. 

Bilby et al. (1989) studied erosion from two kinds of forest gravel roads in southwestern 

Washington. The sediment produced from each road segment was related to traffic rate and type 

of road surfacing material. The majority of the sediment produced (80%) was material finer than 

0.004 mm. Steeper roads produced a higher proportion of coarser material (primarily sand). 

Average sediment concentrations from secondary road sites were 2,000 mg/L, with a maximum 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 18 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

of 19,500 mg/L. Hourly concentrations from a mainline road ranged from 500-700 mg/L, 

occasionally exceeding 20,000 mg/L. 

Roads also greatly increase the frequency of landslides, debris flows, and other mass movements 

(Burroughs et al., 1976; Clayton, 1983; Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Furniss et al., 1991; Hammond 

et al., 1988; Megahan et al., 1992). Landslides have been reported to be the predominant form of 

erosion from roads in several studies of steep, hazardous (as evidenced by presence of natural 

failures) terrain (Megahan and Kidd, 1972; O’Loughlin, 1972; Swanson and Dyrness, 1975). 

Landslides from road fills or sidecast are the most common type of failure, tend to form debris 

avalanches or debris flows (often down steep draws and small streams), and are the most 

destructive to downstream fish-bearing channels (Benda et al., 1997; Furniss et al., 1991; 

Gonsior and Gardner, 1971; O’Loughlin, 1972; Dyrness, 1967). Cutslope failures often block 

road ditches and divert concentrated water onto fillslopes, contributing to their failure (Dyrness, 

1967). The discharge of concentrated road drainage water, usually from ditches through relief 

culverts, onto road fills or naturally unstable bedrock hollows also contributes to many failures 

(Benda et al., 1997). 

Road-related landslides and stream crossing failures can result in significant sediment impacts 

from the volume of material in the failed fill and also by scouring headwater channels for some 

distance. These types of sediment inputs tend to be episodic and are often the result of large 

rainfall events. Landslides are typically dominant erosion mechanism in areas with steep slopes, 

the frequency of which can be greatly accelerated by road management practices. Prior to mid1980s, excavated soil and rock from full-bench road construction was sidecast on very steep 

slopes below road prism. These steep slopes were often associated with landslides. 

Weaver and Hagans (1996) found that roads were associated in an apparently causal manner 

with 15% to 61% of the new landslides following the February 1996 storm in the Oregon and 

Washington Cascades and Oregon Coast Range Mountains. That same storm resulted in a flood 

event in the Fish Creek watershed on Oregon's Mt. Hood National Forest that caused 236 

landslides, of which 34% were attributed directly to the road system (Reeves et al., 1997). 

Similarly, very high associations between the road system and landslides were found in Idaho 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 19 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

following 1997 spring storms, with 65% of landslides observed in the North Fork Clearwater 

Basin and 72% in the Lochsa River Basin associated with roads (Weaver et al., 1998). 

McCashion and Rice (1983) investigated erosion due to forest roads and logging in northwestern 

California. Mass erosion was the predominant form of erosion occurring in the study sites. In 

steep watersheds, more sediment may be from mass wasting, which tends to deliver greater 

quantities of sediment to the stream. Roads caused 152 of the 171 major erosional events 

inventoried and 61% of the soil volume displaced by erosion was due to these road-related 

events. In the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho, 58 percent of the landslides that occurred 

were associated with roads (McClelland et al., 1998). Other studies in Oregon, however, suggest 

that road impacts may have been overestimated (Robinson et al., 1999), and that sediment from 

landslides in undisturbed areas is similar to that in areas with roads. 

Soil erosion and mass wasting do not necessarily represent sediment contributions to streams 

(Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987). Whether eroded soil reaches a stream depends on many 

factors such as road location, the volume of water available for sediment transport, effectiveness 

of sediment traps, and slope steepness. Sediment delivery to streams from unpaved forest roads 

consist of a direct component, which is the sediment delivered from road segments leading into 

stream crossings, and an indirect component which is the sediment delivered at constructed 

drainage outfalls and where road surface runoff flows off the roadway before reaching a ditch or 

drain (Woods et al., 2007). The sediment delivery ratio from road segments leading into stream 

crossings is close to 100%, so that the direct component of sediment delivery depends almost 

entirely on the road erosion rate. Active hauling on roads during wet periods results in 

particularly high erosion rates. The delivery ratio for indirect sediment delivery is less than 

100% because a portion of the sediment eroded from the road is stored on the hillslope as a 

plume of sediment that lies on top of the natural soil profile. The delivery rate depends on the 

distance that sediment travels downslope. Soil losses and erosion occurring closer to a stream 

have greater potential to deliver sediment and lead to water quality impairment. Stream crossings 

have the greatest potential to adversely impact water quality on the forest landscape (Grace, 

2002). Ligon et al. (1999) noted that the most common source of sedimentation was from 

fillslopes immediately adjacent to watercourse crossings. Plugged culverts and fill slope failures 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 20 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

are frequent and often lead to catastrophic increases in stream channel sediment (Furniss et al., 

1997). 

Researchers worldwide have measured increased sedimentation from roads and similar 

disturbances (Elliot, 2000). The magnitude of erosion varies considerably with climate, but the 

relative impacts of soil, topography, and management are generally the same (Elliot et al., 1999). 

Erosion rates are observed to be highly variable, due to the high natural variability in the factors 

that cause erosion. Even a well designed erosion experiment frequently results in variations from 

the mean of up to 50 percent. This high variability should be considered when interpreting any 

research or monitoring results, or any erosion prediction value. 

Road age and wet weather use are factors that strongly influence surface erosion (FPAC, 2001; 

Swift, 1988). Research shows newly constructed/ reconstructed roads may have 10 times more 

surface erosion the first winter after construction compared to subsequent years, resulting from 

increased erodibility because of soil disturbance during construction and lack of erosion 

pavement and vegetation to protect the soil surface. During periods of wet weather, road surfaces 

not constructed with adequate surface materials and spacing of drainage structures are a potential 

source of fine sediment delivery by allowing sediment laden water to enter stream channels 

directly. Fill failure is also a risk (FPAC, 2001). 

Water quality effects of fire roads, all-terrain vehicle (ATV, also known as off-highway vehicle 

or OHV) trails, and public access and recreation trails have not been studied as extensively as 

roads built for forestry operations. Unmanaged ATV use is a “spotlight issue” representing this 

threat because of the unauthorized creation of roads and trails and the associated erosion, waterquality degradation, and habitat destruction. An estimated 11 million visits to National Forests 

involve ATV use; this constitutes about 5 percent of all recreation visits to national forests 

(English, 2003). 

Repeated cross-country forays by ATV traffic results in the uncontrolled proliferation of trails. 

Unauthorized trails from motorized use currently cause much of the natural resource damage on 

National Forests, and are a major problem for forest managers. For example, Lewis and Clark 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 21 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

National Forest personnel in Montana currently estimate that the forest has 1,348 unauthorized 

roads and trails extending for 646 miles (Robertson, 2003). ATVs often blaze new paths through 

forests and these roads are typically unmonitored and unmaintained. The magnitude of effects 

varies depending on local characteristics of the landscape including slope, aspect, soil 

susceptibility to erosion, and vegetation type. Riparian areas and riparian and aquatic species are 

particularly vulnerable to ATV damage. Heavy use of trails can accelerate erosion, compact soils 

and decrease infiltration, leading to changes in discharge magnitude/timing, channel structure, 

sediment routing through forest streams, and habitat destruction. Impacts may be more 

pronounced in the case of ATV trails, where users develop improperly located trails in addition 

to designated ones (Chin et al., 2004). 

The Ouachita National Forest in Arkansas has 67 km of designated ATV trails. Because of 

prevalence of off-road exploration and ease with which ATVs traverse rugged terrain, users also 

developed a network of unauthorized trails. These can be especially erosive and potentially 

exacerbate negative impacts of planned trail system on stream channel integrity. Studies of two 

impacted creeks (Chin et al., 2004) indicated that watersheds with ATV trails had pools with 

higher percentages of sands and fines, lower depths, and lower volumes. High turbidity levels 

were observed in surface runoff from ATV trails entering creeks after light rainstorms. Pools 

below ATV trail crossings were sediment-laden and turbid. 

Roads provide access to a wide variety of activities within the Wilson River watershed (Duck 

Creek Associates, 2008). From timber harvesting and log hauling to recreating with ORVs and 

motorcycles, the roads within the watershed are well used and often a busy place. During a 2006 

road inventory, 42 miles of ORV trails were surveyed, representing 28% of the designated trails 

but only ~5% of the undesignated trails. Undesignated trails are not maintained and tend to have 

steep gradients, high erosion, and impaired drainage. Thirteen trails hydrologically connected to 

streams were assessed for risk of washout. Results indicated that trail-stream and trail-road 

intersections were very likely to adversely affect water quality because the majority of 

hydrologically-connected trails violated trail construction guidelines (trail grades <10%, slope 

alignment < 1⁄2 sideslope grade). Many of the worst hydrologically connected trails were 

undesignated or user-created with no regard for design standards. Furthermore, none of the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 22 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

undesignated trails are maintained as they are not part of the Oregon Department of Forestry 

(ODF) OHV-designated trail system. These undesignated trails have high impacts on water 

quality and are common enough throughout the watershed to be a concern. Soil erosion estimates 

were made for seven sample trail segments; the results indicate that hydrologically connected 

OHV trails are a significant source of sediment, especially considering the year round nature of 

use and the back log of repair and closure facing ODF staff. 

2.2.1.2 Increased Suspended Solids and Turbidity 

Suspended sediment transport is generally “source limited” in rivers and streams, meaning that 

concentrations of suspended solids and surrogate measures (e.g., turbidity) depend on sediment 

loading (Beschta, 1981). In many regions, total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations are low 

(<5 parts per million or ppm) under dry weather condition, but increase to high peak 

concentrations (~100 ppm or higher) during major rainfalls. Since forest roads can increase 

sediment loading, it is reasonable to expect suspended solids and turbidity to increase in 

impacted surface waters. However, there is usually a great deal of uncertainty in determining 

when and how much sediment from an erosion feature was delivered to a stream channel (Lewis, 

1998). It can be even more difficult to determine the origin of suspended sediment that has been 

measured at a stream location. To some degree, this is because the biotic and chemical variability 

in rivers and streams tends to mask the water quality effects of forestry activities (Jackson et al., 

2004). Just as environmental characteristics (soil texture, slope, road aspect) and regional 

variability both significantly affect sediment loading, these and other factors can also affect the 

water quality response. 

Forest management activities, such as road construction, often cause concentrations of 

suspended sediment to increase. However, this is not always the case. Figure 2-4, reproduced 

from Binkley and Brown (1993), plots suspended sediment concentrations in undisturbed 

(control) and disturbed (treatment) experimental forested watersheds. Points on the graph in 

Figure 2-4 that fall fairly close to the 1:1 slope line indicate similar suspended sediment 

concentrations in undisturbed and disturbed forested situations. Many of these cases are due to 

proper implementation of BMPs. Local variability in soil erosivity can also affect water quality 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 23 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

due to sediment loading. In regions where BMPs were not imposed, substantial and variable 

increases in sediment concentrations occurred. These cases are also evident on the graph in 

Figure 2-4, as points where the disturbed suspended sediment concentrations are an order of 

magnitude (or more) greater than in the undisturbed forest situations. 

The use of gravel-surfaced roads during wet periods has been documented as a major source of 

fine-grained sediment and associated stream turbidity (Mills et al., 2003; Reid and Dunne, 1984). 

Impacts of water quality on fish and aquatic organisms have motivated much of the research. 

Sediment-laden water supplies also reduce the capacity of storage reservoirs and may require 

additional treatment to render the water drinkable (Lewis, 1998). Sediment in irrigation water 

shortens the life of pumps and reduces soil infiltration capacity. Water quality is also an 

important issue for recreational water users and tourism. 

There is also much evidence in the literature demonstrating the difficulty in evaluating the 

impacts of roads and other logging activities on erosion and suspended sediment transport. 

Monitoring and evaluating forestry impacts on stream water quality is usually complex, time 

consuming, and expensive (Corner et al., 1996). Monitoring projects based on instream sampling 

often result in incomplete or inconclusive data, especially in remote areas. This is partially due to 

the inability to predict the timing of sediment-producing events and the many technical problems 

associated with water quality sampling and analysis. For example, Corner et al. (1996) found 

that instream monitoring did not reveal any significant differences in total suspended solids 

(TSS) between clearcut and control sample locations at three sites. On each site, data for stream 

TSS were generally characterized by high variability and low values. The data were not 

significantly correlated to stream discharge. Outliers did not necessarily correspond to sample 

collection dates that coincided with precipitation events, nor did they occur exclusively at the 

clearcut and road locations. The instream monitoring indicated that clearcutting and access roads 

did not effect stream sediment loads in the summer after logging. Many other studies have 

produced similar results. Hetherington (1976), for example, found no statistical difference in 

suspended sediment concentration above and below logged areas in British Columbia. Sullivan 

(1985) demonstrated that, even with automated equipment sampling stream water at 6 hour 

intervals, large volumes of sediment can enter stream channels and be flushed off-site 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 24 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

undetected. Furthermore, Beschta (1978) noted that the natural variability in the sedimentdischarge relationship often makes relatively small changes in sediment concentrations very 

difficult to detect at a point in the stream system, even with intensive sampling. 

Bilby (1985) measured the size of sediment washing from a gravel-surfaced road and its fate 

after entering Johnson Creek, Washington. After rainfall events, sediment input from the road 

frequently increased the levels of suspended sediment downstream of the culvert compared to 

upstream levels. Maximum turbidity reached downstream was almost three times the maximum 

recorded upstream. The sediment was primarily very fine particles (more than 80% less than 

0.004 mm in size) and was attributed to erosion from the road surface rather than roadside 

ditches or banks. 

In a project to monitor fine sediment delivery to streams, Mills et al. (2003) measured turbidity 

responses in forest streams near road crossings. For a typical site delivering sediment to streams, 

peak turbidity downstream from the road crossing was 110 nephelometric turbidity units (NTUs) 

while peak turbidity above the road was 40 NTUs (Lewis, 1998). A wide range of changes in 

turbidity was observed during the two winters of field monitoring. Thirty percent of the sample 

pairs showed no change or a decrease in turbidity downstream of road crossings. Ninety percent 

of the sample pairs showed a change of 20 NTUs or less. The remaining 10% of the observations 

ranged from an increase in turbidity of 20 to 520 NTUs. Increases in stream turbidity levels at 

stream crossings during periods of wet weather hauling appeared to be impacted by several 

factors including precipitation, surfacing material, drainage design, and traffic factors. 

Depending upon these site-specific factors, as well as the technical difficulties of monitoring 

discussed above, increases in turbidity or suspended sediment concentrations may be 

undetectable, even when other impacts of forest roads are taking place. 

2.2.1.3 Increased Sediment Deposition and Bed Load
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 25 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Sedimentation is the end result of several processes, including erosion; sediment delivery, 

transport and deposition; and instream morphological processes. Erosion and mass wasting 

associated with forest roads can deliver both fine and coarse-grained sediment to water bodies. 

While fine-grained sediment is usually transported suspended in the water column, coarse solids 

are mostly transported as bed load. Bedload transport is “flow limited”, meaning that coarsegrained sediment is usually only transported and redeposited at high flow rates (Beschta, 1981). 

Deposition during and following large flow events can significantly change channel 

characteristics in low-gradient stream reaches. Although many of these changes (e.g., filling of 

pools reducing pool frequency, depth and volume) are associated with negative impacts on biota, 

stream habitat can be potentially enhanced if mass erosion delivers material to streams where 

coarse sediment is limited. 

The capacity of a stream to carry sediment also increases with stream velocity. At a given flow, 

velocity varies within channels longitudinally and in cross section. Thus, channel erosion and 

sedimentation occur simultaneously. The magnitude of these processes is affected by flow rate; 

high flows increase channel erosion, and low flows increase sedimentation, or deposition 

(Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). These relationships are far from straightforward, however, 

because in many forest stream systems, other factors such as large woody debris or bedform are 

the dominant controls on streambed texture (Buffington, 1995). 

Methods for measuring bedload transport are relatively crude, and correctly timing bedload 

sampling to observe transport due to management activities is difficult (Harris et al., 2005). Data 

regarding bedload transport may be best captured with channel geometry and substrate 

measurements in depositional stream reaches. Unless a stream can be intensively monitored 

during high flows or a settling pond exists within a channel, bed load measurements are 

unreliable to the extent that they should not be monitored (Corner et al., 1996). 

2.2.1.4 Siltation of Coarse Streambed Substrates
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 26 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The abundance and quality of spawning substrate can be severely affected by sedimentation. 

Coarse gravel channel substrates are a critical habitat requirement for many stream organisms 

including salmonids and aquatic amphibians and invertebrates, and are considered a scarce 

resource. Fine sediment deposition may alter the quality of these gravel streambeds as fine 

sediment particles embed (cover) the larger particles and fill in the interstitial space in gravel 

substrates. Deposition may occur well downstream of the sediment source(s), because once fine 

sediment is delivered to a stream it can be transported relatively far downstream to a deposition 

location. In low-velocity stream reaches, excess deposition of fine sediment can completely 

cover suitable spawning gravel. Massive levels of fine sediment delivery can also produce 

changes in channel habitat by reducing pool frequency, depth and volume. 

Burns (1984) found that roaded and logged watersheds in the South Fork Salmon River drainage 

had significantly higher channel bed substrate embeddedness ratings than undeveloped 

watersheds. Siltation of spawning gravels can occur rapidly in response to road impacts. Platts et 

al. (1989) studied the effects of fine sediment delivery to rivers from logging and road 

construction in habitat for Chinook salmon and steelhead. After logging ceased, there was a 

significant decline in the percentage of fine sediment (material <4.75 mm in diameter) on the 

surface of 84% of the spawning area locations. Within two years of resuming logging, however, 

surface fine sediments increased at all five spawning areas, with overall increases of 22.2% to 

83.8%. 

Although streambed siltation has been reported to be a widespread impairment of sediment from 

forest roads, a number of studies have found no such impact (Adams, 1994). In Johnson 

Creek/Deschutes River of Washington, Bilby (1985) reported that sediments eroded from road 

surfaces were deposited on the streambed during low flow, but were “flushed” from the system 

by high flows. No increase in fine sediment was found in streambed gravels. The lack of 

deposition was attributable to small particle sizes of road sediment. Sullivan (1985) studied the 

Middle Fork Santiam River of Oregon in the Cascade range. Water quality remained good 

during the first decade of extensive timber harvest. Sediments eroded from road construction and 

road surfaces contributed to instream sediment yield, but the effect on an annual timescale was 

not detected within the natural variability of the erosion processes. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 27 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

2.2.1.5 Alteration of Stream Morphology (E.G., Reduced Pool Volume) and Channel 

Simplification

The increased sediment flux into streams that is associated with roads causes aggradation5

, 

filling of pools, and increased channel widths and width-to-depth ratios (Jackson and Beschta, 

1984; Lisle, 1982; Madej, 1982). Increases in width/depth ratios in sensitive streams can result in 

higher summer water temperatures even when shade is not lost (Beschta et al., 1987; 

McCullough, 1999). With increasing road density there is a clear decline in the frequency of 

pools and large pools, fundamental components of high-quality fish habitat (Lee et al., 1997). 

Significant aggradation at channel transitions such as tributary confluences or road crossings can 

force streamflows subsurface. 

Forest roads can have other impacts on stream morphology. Unnatural channel widths and slope 

and stream bed form can occur upstream and downstream of road crossings, and these alterations 

in channel morphology may persist for long periods of time (Williams, 1999; Heede, 1980). 

Concentration and diversion of flow by roads into headwater areas can cause incision of 

previously unchanneled portions of the landscape (Montgomery, 1994). Roads are sometimes 

placed partially in an existing stream channel. Riprap is placed to prevent erosion of the road fill, 

resulting in a dramatic change in channel form (Luce et al., 2001). 

2.2.1.6 Physical Barriers to Fish Migration and Downstream Transporto Coarse Sediment 

and Large Wood

Structures associated with forest road crossings of streams are potential barriers to movement 

and migration of fish (Clancy and Reichmuth, 1990; Evans and Johnston, 1980; Furniss et al., 

1991). Road crossings, especially culverts (which are also the most widely used crossing type), 

can pose as obstacles to the movement of fish and other aquatic biota, as well as sediment and 

large wood (Cupp et al., 1999). Reducing the number of road crossings of streams or using 

alternatives to culverts, including temporary road crossings such as portable bridges, are BMPs 

that can greatly reduce these impacts (see Section 3). 

 

5

 Aggradation is the accumulation of sediment in streams and rivers, that occurs when the supply of sediment 

exceeds the ability of the stream to transport the sediment. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 28 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

In western streams, anadromous salmonids migrate upstream/downstream during their life 

cycles, usually over long distances. Many resident salmonids and other fish also move 

extensively upstream/downstream seeking food, shelter, water quality and spawning areas. 

Improper culvert placement and installations used for stream crossings may create partial or 

seasonal barriers to fish movement while others may reduce or eliminate fish passage year-round 

(Belford and Gould, 1989; Beechie et al., 1994). Culverts may also delay or deny access to 

seasonally critical habitats, fragment populations, and suppress the recovery of populations 

following disturbance. 

A number of physical conditions at stream crossings create migration barriers (USEPA, 2005). 

The two most important fish passage considerations are maximum water velocity and minimum 

depth. Culverts can be insurmountable barriers to migrating fish when culvert outlet is elevated 

above the streambed that fish cannot enter the pipe; this is termed an outfall barrier. It is 

considered acceptable culvert design practice to not require conditions suitable for fish passage 

during the 5% of the year with highest flows (Evans and Johnston, 1980) because fish don’t 

normally migrate during peak flow. 

The removal of large organic debris at stream crossings can eliminate important components of 

fish habitat (Furniss et al., 1991). Road systems also have the potential to block the downstream 

movement of large wood (LW). Where a stream crossing blocks the passage of LW there is 

potential for dam-break flood to occur. When a downstream reach depends on a supply of LW 

delivered during peak flows, road crossings not designed to pass LW can reduce upstream 

sources of wood and have a negative effect on riparian functions and habitat conditions (FPAC, 

2001). Extreme sedimentation above or below road crossings can cause streamflow to become 

subsurface or too shallow for fish movement (Furniss et al., 1991). 

Increasing numbers of culverts have been correlated with increasing amounts of fine sediment in 

streams and decreasing fish densities. Eaglin and Hubert (1993) studied the effects of logging 

and associated road construction on streams and on trout populations in the Medicine Bow 

National Forest, Wyoming. Both the amount of fine sediment in a stream reach and the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 29 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

embeddedness of fine sediment in the substrate increased as the proportion of logged area 

increased, and as the extent to which roads crossed watercourses increased. Trout standing 

stocks also decreased as the density of road culverts increased. 

It should be noted that culverts and other road crossings can pose migration barriers beyond the 

forest landscape. A survey of county and state highways in western Oregon in 1999 found more 

than 1,200 culverts acted as barriers to fish passage (FPAC, 2001). These highways are typically 

located downstream of forestlands and therefore may limit or block access to upstream fish 

habitat. The relatively large network of nonforest roads in close proximity to streams that are 

currently providing (or have potential to provide) quality fish habitat are likely to have 

significant impact on salmonid maintenance and recovery. 

2.2.1.7 Altered Streamflow

The most dramatic and visible effect of a road often is its effect on the flow of water through the 

watershed (Williams, 1999). Runoff is low from undisturbed forests, but runoff rates from 

rainfall and snowmelt are greater from compacted road surfaces than from less disturbed parts of 

watersheds (Elliot and Hall, 1997). The presence of roads in a watershed may increase the 

frequency and magnitude of peak runoff discharges, particularly on small watersheds. Roads 

may also increase total runoff and decrease the time to peak runoff from major storms or 

snowmelt (Elliot, 2000). Roads interrupt hillslope drainage patterns by intercepting surface and 

subsurface flow and concentrating and diverting it into ditches, gullies and channels, thereby 

effectively increasing the density of streams in the landscape and altering the timing and 

magnitude of peak flows and changing base stream discharge (Furniss et al., 1991; Harr et al., 

1975; King and Tennyson, 1984; Wemple et al., 1996) and sub-surface flows (Furniss et al. 

1991; Megahan, 1972). 

In some instances, road-induced changes in watershed hydrology can have serious consequences. 

However, the magnitude of road effects on peak flows is debated in the literature (Ice et al., 

2004). The impact may depend on the fraction of the forested watershed area occupied by roads. 

King and Tennyson (1984) monitored the effects of logging roads on streamflow on six 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 30 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

headwater watersheds in Nez Perce National Forest in north central Idaho. In one watershed, 

with 3.9% of its area disturbed by roads, there was an increase in the 25% exceedance flows 

(streamflow during snowmelt runoff and summer storms), attributed to interception of 

subsurface flow by the roads and conversion to surface flow. Another watershed, with 4.3% of 

its area in roads, showed a significant decrease in the 5% exceedance flow, which represents the 

period of highest flow. 

2.2.1.8 Pollution From Other Chemicals Associated With Roads (Spills, Deicing and Dust 

Control Agents, Herbicides)

Roads can also contribute to water quality degradation through runoff of applied road chemicals 

(Furniss et al., 1991; Norris et al., 1991; Rhodes et al., 1994) including herbicides, as well as 

toxic spills (Furniss et al., 1991; IDT, 1996). In recent years, the use of chemical site preparation 

has become increasingly common, as indicated by the establishment of BMPs for the proper use 

of chemicals during forest management in many states (Williams, 1999). The use of herbicides 

dramatically lowers the threat of sediment transport to streams compared to disking and other 

tillage treatments by not disturbing the soil surface. For example, Michigan’s BMP manual states 

that herbicides have an “...advantage over mechanical means [of site preparation] because there 

is no soil disturbance and can be used where steep slope prevents use of machinery “ (MI DNR 

& DEQ, 1994). According to NCASI (2007), the potential of impacts to water quality that result 

from herbicide transport to streams has been demonstrated to be small. Analyses of streamwaters 

associated with the Texas Intensive Forestry Study (TIFS) for hexazinone, imazapyr, and 

sulfometuron methyl showed maximum hexazinone concentrations in the range of 20 to 30 ppb 

in waters associated with storm events within approximately 30 days after treatment (DAT), 

dropping to approximately 1 ppb by 140 DAT (NCASI, 2007a). Maximum imazapyr 

concentrations in waters associated with storm events were in the range of 30 to 40 ppb within 

approximately 20 DAT, dropping to approximately 1 ppb by 150 DAT. Maximum sulfometuron 

methyl concentrations in waters associated with storm events were in the range of 2 to 3 ppb 

within approximately 20 DAT, dropping to approximately 1 ppb by 30 DAT. Some details of a 

screening analysis for determination of dissolved glyphosate to 0.2 ppb are also given, and the 

results from analyses of some composite samples of TIFS waters are reported. A screening 

analysis for determination of dissolved glyphosate indicated maximum glyphosate 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 31 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

concentrations in water associated with storm events on the order of 10 ppb within 

approximately 30 DAT, dropping to approximately 1 ppb by 100 DAT. Because the water 

quality impact of other chemicals is discussed only incidentally in most of the literature on forest 

roads, it will not be a focus of this report. 

2.2.2 Degradation of Habitat for Salmonids, Other Fish, Invertebrates, and Other Aquatic 

Organisms 

The physical impacts of roads have detrimental effects on fish and fish habitat. Mechanisms 

through which roads exert these deleterious impacts include fine-sediment effects, changes in 

streamflow, changes in water temperature caused by loss of riparian cover or conversion of 

groundwater to surface water, and migration barriers. The physical impacts of roads discussed 

above have a widespread and profound effect on fish habitat and fish communities and 

populations across a range of environments and conditions (Lee et al., 1997). 

Serious degradation of fish habitat affecting all life-stages of fishes (including migration, 

spawning, incubation, emergence, and rearing) can result from poorly planned, designed, 

located, constructed, or maintained roads, as demonstrated in numerous studies conducted in the 

Pacific northwest (Furniss et al., 1991; Henjum et al., 1994; MacDonald et al., 1991; Rhodes et 

al., 1994). Well-known native aquatic species affected by turbidity and sedimentation are salmon 

(coho, chinook and chum), steelhead, and trout (cutthroat and rainbow) as well as other native 

fishes and amphibians (salamanders, tailed frogs). 

Sedimentation can have obvious consequences in stream systems, often leading to complete loss 

of salmonid fisheries (Berry et al., 2003). The effects of roads on salmonid habitats have been 

most studied, including effects on migration, spawning, incubation and juvenile rearing: 

 

Migration- Improperly designed roads prevent and interfere with upstream migration of 

adult and juvenile salmon, and also impair and/or prevent macroinvertebrate movements by 

road-related changes to stream channels (Pearce and Watson, 1983). Culverts pose the most 

common migration barriers associated with road. Improperly designed and maintained culverts 

can be insurmountable barriers to migrating fish (Furniss et al., 1991). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 32 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

 Spawning- Adult salmon have exacting habitat requirements for spawning, including 

requirements for substrate sizes, depth and velocity. The abundance and quality of spawning 

substrate can be severely affected by sedimentation. In low-velocity stream reaches, excessive 

fine sediment can completely cover suitable spawning gravel. Gravel extraction for road 

construction may directly remove suitable spawning substrate. 

Incubation- If gravel interstices fill with fine sediment, egg development may be slowed 

or halted. 

 Juvenile rearing- Large amounts of fine sediment reduce and/or eliminate suitable 

substrate producing macroinvertebrates, which comprise most of the diets of juvenile fish. 

Modification of stream channel configurations, decreasing the number and depth of pools, 

reduce the space available for rearing fish, and can lead to reduced survival. 

Road construction near streams also often directly removes riparian vegetation. The essential 

role of large woody riparian debris in salmon streams is reviewed in Bisson et al. (1992). 

Because of their great importance to the region, the majority of research on fish population 

abundance in the Pacific Northwest has focused on salmon and trout. Very little is known about 

the effects of cumulative habitat changes on the abundance of most non-salmonid species. Some 

may be more sensitive to habitat change than anadromous salmonids, because they spend their 

entire lives in freshwater and may be associated with a specific type of habitat. There have been 

no studies that have attempted to assess the abundance of non-salmonid populations at the scale 

of drainage basins in the Pacific Northwest (Bisson et al., 1992). A change in the abundance of a 

single species may not be a useful measure of the cumulative effects of forest practices on fish 

populations in a river system. Instead of using trends in designated “indicator species” to gauge 

the cumulative effects of forestry operations, a potentially more powerful approach is to examine 

the relationship between forestry-related habitat changes and the structure of fish communities in 

streams and rivers. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 33 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

2.2.2.1 Sediment

The increased sediment flux into streams that is associated with roads causes aggradation, filling 

of pools, and increased channel widths and width-to-depth ratios (Jackson and Beschta, 1984; 

Lisle, 1982; Madej, 1982). These changes are associated with widespread and profound impacts 

on fish and other aquatic biota in streams, and are well documented in the scientific literature. Of 

all of the taxonomic groups, fishes, particularly salmonids, have received the most attention from 

researchers (Waters, 1995). This is because of the commercial and recreational importance of 

salmonids, and the obvious impact that logging and other land use activities have had on 

salmonid fisheries, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. In California, all species of anadromous 

salmon are in serious decline and many local stocks have been completely extirpated. Coho have 

experienced some of the most precipitous declines of all west coast salmon and are at critically 

low levels today (EPIC, 2002). 

The effects of increased embeddedness, on salmonids in particular, have been well documented 

(e.g., Waters, 1995). As pools are filled by sediment they support fewer fish and the individuals 

that reside in them suffer higher mortality (Alexander and Hansen, 1986; Bjornn et al., 1977). 

Furthermore, elevated levels of fine sediment adversely affect salmonid embryo survival (Bjornn 

and Reiser, 1991; Chapman, 1988; Everest et al., 1987) and have been linked to decreased fry 

emergence, decreased juvenile densities, loss of winter carrying capacity via loss of concealment 

cover, and increasing predation (Bjornn et al., 1977; Chapman, 1988; Chapman and McLeod, 

1987; Everest et al., 1987; Scrivener and Brownlee, 1989; Thurow, 1997; Weaver and Fraley, 

1993; Young et al., 1991). Fine sediment deposition in spawning gravels smothers fish eggs. 

Increased fine sediment in stream gravel reduces intra-gravel water exchange, thereby 

decreasing oxygen concentrations, increasing metabolic waste concentrations, and restricting 

movements of alevins (Bjornn and Reiser, 1991; Chapman, 1988; Coble, 1961; Cordone and Kelly, 

1960; Everest et al., 1987). This loss of unembedded interstitial areas in stream substrates also is 

correlated with a severe reduction or elimination of tailed frogs (Corn and Bury, 1989; Welsh, 

1990) and benthic organism populations (Chutter, 1969; Hynes, 1970). Increased fine sediments 

in rearing areas are also correlated with reduced juvenile salmonid densities (Alexander and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 34 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Hansen, 1986; Bjornn et al., 1977; Chapman and McLeon, 1987; Everest et al., 1987; Shepard et 

al., 1984). 

Numerous studies have indicated that high sediment levels can affect fish by increasing 

mortality, reducing growth rates, causing physiological stress, impairing homing instinct, and 

reducing feeding rates (FPAC, 2001). Efforts to relate sediment concentration to fish response 

have had mixed results (Everest et al., 1987). Some studies have found that increased 

sedimentation reduces egg and alevin survival. Not all sediment increases have detrimental 

effects; there are cases where fish have maintained large and viable fish populations in streams 

with high chronic loads of fine sediment. Fish appear to react most negatively when fine 

sediment concentrations are both high and persistent (Newcombe and MacDonald, 1991). 

Newcombe and Jensen (1996) reviewed 80 published studies on the response of fish to 

suspended sediment in streams. Adult and juvenile salmonids exposed to particle sizes of 0.5-

250 μm showed an increasingly negative response as sediment dose increased, and sublethal and 

lethal effects occurred at high doses. 

Fine grained sediment suspended in the water column contributes to turbidity (along with 

organic and dissolved material) which is clearly linked to fish foraging efficiency (Madej et al., 

2003). For example, increased turbidity is associated with impaired salmonid sight-feeding and 

gill damage (Rhodes et al., 1994; Lloyd et al., 1987). 

Chapman (1988) reviewed laboratory and field studies on salmonid embryo survival. The 

majority of studies showed that survival rates decreased as the percentage of fine sediments in 

stream substrate increased, as illustrated in Figure 2-5. Size of emergents was also found 

generally to decrease as fine sediment levels increased. Despite the variability among studies in 

quantitative results, they consistently showed the adverse impacts of fine sediments on salmonid 

survival. Extrapolation of laboratory results to natural streams was judged to be currently 

impossible without better sampling techniques, and that establishing thresholds was not yet 

feasible without more carefully controlled field experimentation. 

Scrivener and Brownlee (1989) investigated the effect of logging practices on gravel 

composition utilized by salmonids for spawning and fry survival in Carnation Creek on the west 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 35 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

coast of Vancouver Island. After logging, the percentage of fine sediment increased in the 

streambeds, although the patterns of deposition and proportion of fine sediment in the streambed 

varied among treatments and timing of logging. After logging and a subsequent large snowmelt 

event, the survival to emergence rates of coho salmon fry declined to 16.4%, compared to a prior 

survival rate of 29.1%. The decline was correlated to decreasing mean particle sizes in the lower 

layers of the streambed cores. Survival to emergence of chum salmon fry declined from a prior 

rate of 22.2% to 11.5% post-logging, and was correlated to decreasing mean particle size in the 

whole streambed core and in the top layers of the core. Peak survival occurred during years when 

pea gravel and sand were washed out from the top layer. 

Phillips et al. (1975) conducted laboratory experiments at the Alsea Watershed Study field 

station. As the proportion of fine sediment in the gravel mixtures increased, coho salmon fry 

emerged earlier and were smaller in size. Their survival rates decreased as fine sediment 

percentage increased, from 96% survival in the control gravel mixture to 8% survival in the 

mixtures containing 70% sand. Hillman et al. (1987) investigated the effect of fine sediment on 

juvenile chinook salmon, particularly the impact of fine sediment deposition on winter survival. 

Salmon winter rearing densities increased eightfold in glide areas (slow, shallow areas) after 

cobble was added, compared to densities the previous year. A significantly higher density of 

young chinook salmon (five times higher) used interstitial spaces in the altered areas than in the 

unaltered areas. When the cobble subsequently became heavily embedded with fine sediment, 

juvenile salmon densities decreased by more than 90% and were similar to densities prealteration. 

Survival of incubating salmonids from embryos to emergent fry has been negatively related to 

the proportion of fine sediment in spawning gravels (Chapman, 1988; Everest et al., 1987; 

Scrivener and Brownlee, 1989; Weaver and Fraley, 1993; Young et al., 1991). As a rule of 

thumb, a 2% reduction in survival of coho salmon fry to emergence can be expected for each 1% 

increase in percent fines over natural levels (Cederholm et al., 1981). Juvenile salmonid densities 

decline as fine sediment concentrations increase in rearing areas. Increases in fine sediment can 

also reduce winter carrying capacity of streams by loss of concealment cover. Pools that lose 

volume from sediment (Jackson and Beschta, 1984; Lisle, 1982) support fewer fish (Bjornn et 

al., 1977), and fish that reside in them may suffer higher mortality (Alexander and Hansen, 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 36 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

1986). McHenry et al. (1994) reported that no steelhead or coho eggs survived if more than 13% 

fine sediment intruded into the redd6. Fine sediment can also affect the population of aquatic 

insects (Hicks et al., 1991). Similarly, populations of tailed frogs can be severely reduced or 

eliminated by increased sedimentation. Increased sediment reduces populations of benthic 

organisms by reducing interstitial spaces and flow used by many species and by reducing algal 

production. Waters (1995) considered the effects of increased deposition of sediments on benthic 

invertebrates as one of the most important concerns within the sediment pollution issue, 

especially in regards to the dependence of freshwater fisheries on benthic productivity. 

Welsh and Ollivier (1998) studied the impact of highway construction and the resulting erosion 

on the abundance of stream amphibians in California old-growth redwood forest. The density of 

Pacific giant salamanders and southern torrent salamanders was significantly lower in streams 

impacted by road sediment. The density of tailed frogs was lower in their preferred riffle and 

step run habitat in sedimented streams as opposed to control streams. Corn and Bury (1989) 

compared the occurrence and abundance of amphibians in streams flowing through unlogged 

forest versus streams flowing through forests with prior logging in Oregon's Coast Range. 

Results were analyzed for the four amphibian species reported to be the most common and the 

dominant vertebrates of small streams in the Oregon Coast Range: tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei), 

Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon ensatus), Olympic salamanders (Rhyacotriton 

olympicus), and Dunn's salamanders (Plethodon dunni). All four species occurred more 

frequently and had higher density and biomass in the streams flowing through unlogged as 

opposed to logged forest stands. The only physical habitat variable found to be significantly 

different between stand treatment was that streams in logged stands had more fine sediment. 

Studies from Oregon, Idaho, British Columbia, and Alaska, for instance, showed that salmonid 

abundance and fry survival decreased as fine sediment levels increased after logging (Hicks et 

al., 1991). Fine sediment in deposits or suspension also reduced the availability of food in 

streams by reducing invertebrate abundance and primary production. Suspended sediment 

increases were shown to affect salmonids in various ways, including avoidance, cessation of 

feeding, and disrupted social behavior. The increased frequency of landslides and other mass 

erosion events due to logging and roads changed channel morphology, reducing pool area and 

depths and resulting in stream reaches that were wider, shallower, and more prone to bank 

 

6 Redd: The depressions in a gravel streambed created by salmonids to deposit eggs.
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 37 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

erosion. Studies in British Columbia, for instance, showed that pool habitat was reduced by an 

average of 79% in streams affected by debris torrents and suitable winter cover was reduced by 

an average of 75%. Coho salmon winter survival averaged 1.8% in stream reaches affected by 

debris torrents compared to survival rates of 24.5% in unaffected streams. The authors discussed 

studies showing salmonid abundance initially increasing after clearcutting. They note that these 

increases were documented only over the short term and that over the longer term (after 10 to 15 

years), other research had indicated that populations could eventually decline to levels lower 

than those in old-growth forest. 

Several other investigations in the Pacific Northwest have also shown that timber harvest can 

result in increased salmonid productivity, chiefly by enhancing autotrophic production within 

streams (Bisson et al., 1992). Loss of complexity, if accompanied by increased light and 

dissolved nutrients, is likely to result in productivity increases concentrated in only a few taxa 

that directly benefit from the changes. A similar pattern has been observed in the structure of 

aquatic invertebrate communities after logging (Bisson et al., 1992). The pattern of increased 

production of a few taxa accompanied by a reduction in overall biodiversity may be common to 

all consumer trophic levels in streams where habitat has been simplified but light and nutrients 

are more plentiful. Suspended sediment is not always detrimental to fish, and indexes based on 

duration and concentration are unrealistically simplistic (Gregory et al., 1993). Turbidity, can, 

for example, provide cover from predators (Gregory, 1993). However, in the overall context of 

research conducted on the effects of sedimentation on salmonids, other fish, invertebrates, and 

amphibians in stream ecosystems, the impacts are overwhelmingly negative. 

The effects of roads are not limited to those associated with increases in sediment delivery to 

streams; they can include alterations to streamflow regimes, barriers to migration, and water 

temperature changes (Gucinski et al., 2001). 

2.2.2.2 Flows
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 38 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Road-related alterations in the timing and magnitude of peak flows and changes in base stream 

discharge and sub-surface flows affect the predictability and stability of streamflow, factors 

found to strongly influence salmonid densities by influencing overwintering survival and 

reproductive success (McFadden, 1969; Seegrist and Gard, 1972). For example, post-spawning 

high flows can wash out eggs, displace fry, and otherwise increase mortality (Latta, 1962; 

Shetter, 1961). Montgomery et al. (1996) noted research by other authors reporting that 

increases in scour depths were related to increases in stream discharge and velocity and 

increases in fine sediment transport. Those authors therefore concluded that increases in scour 

due to increased sedimentation from logging or roads could significantly increase the mortality 

of buried salmon eggs. Other authors state that the effect of roads on peak flows is relatively 

modest and the issues of changing stability and predictability because of roads may be of little 

importance to aquatic habitat suitability (Gucinski et al., 2001). 

2.2.2.3 Temperature

Increases in temperature are correlated with construction of roads along valley bottoms next to 

stream channels and the resultant removal of riparian vegetation and reduction in riparian 

canopy cover. Roads in riparian zones prevent growth of dense stands of trees shading streams, 

and roads that travel long distances along stream channels would be more likely to yield a 

measurable effect on stream temperature (Luce et al., 2001). As noted above, increases in 

width/depth ratios in sensitive streams due to sediment delivery can also result in higher 

summer water temperatures even when shade is not lost. Such temperature increases can 

elevate stream temperatures beyond the range for rearing, increase susceptibility of fishes to 

disease, reduce metabolic efficiency, shift species assemblages, and inhibit upstream 

migrations (Beschta et al., 1987; Hicks et al., 1991). Filling of stream pools can also result in 

the in loss of low-temperature refuge.

2.3 Extent and Severity of Water Quality Impairments Due to Forest Roads 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 39 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

As noted above, sedimentation of streams is one of the most significant nonpoint source 

pollution concerns in the United States. This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest (Sidle, 

1980) owing to the potential for adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems, critical fish habitat, 

stream morphology, reservoir capacity, quality of domestic water supplies, and aesthetic and 

recreational values (Anderson, 1974; Bilby, 1985; Bisson and Bilby, 1982; Meehan and 

Swanston, 1977). Increased sediment delivery to streams after road building has also been well 

documented in the research literature in California, Idaho and in the Eastern United States 

(Gucinski et al., 2001). However, since forest roads and stream crossings are recognized as 

major contributors of sediment to surface waters regardless of region, the potential effects of 

this pollution may be found wherever silvicultural activity occurs. 

Precise quantification of the impacts of forest roads and other silvicultural practices on soil and 

water is not possible across the wide range of forest types and regions nationwide (Swank et 

al., 1989). However, research is available to provide a scientific basis of general principles that 

indicate the relative magnitude of changes to expect in different forest types (see Figure 2-65 

for a map of the major forest types in the Continental U.S.). Although differences between 

regional forest types are noted below, similarities in the descriptions of forest erosion and 

water quality impacts from forest roads should also be recognized: natural geologic erosion is 

quite low from most forested lands; roads and skid trails are the primary sources of additional 

sediment associated with harvesting practices; effective procedures and methods are available 

for some regions of the country that minimize sediment from harvesting practices; and, many 

management goals for protecting water quality can be achieved by following BMP concepts. 

2.3.1 Western Inland Conifers 

The western inland conifer forest region is located in the Rocky Mountains, where it extends 

from Canada to the Mexican border. Forest types in this region range from the Rocky 

Mountain subalpine forests in Colorado and Wyoming to southwestern ponderosa pine stands 

in Arizona and New Mexico. The northern Rocky Mountain province comprises the 

mountainous headwaters of the Columbia and Missouri drainages. The remaining portion of 

the central and southern Rocky Mountains are located mainly in the upper and lower Colorado 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 40 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

River basins. Geomorphology, geology, and soils vary widely throughout the western inland 

conifer type. Noteworthy is an area in the northern Rocky Mountains called the Idaho 

Batholith. The geology of this area is granitic rocks and the soils derived from them are 

extremely erodible and present special management problems. Accelerated surface and mass 

erosion are often easily caused by silvicultural practices in the inland conifer type. 

The amounts of erosion and sedimentation vary widely within the inland conifer type. 

Landslides are a major concern in 10-12 % of national forest lands in Idaho and Montana; 

however, the risk and occurrence of landslides is considerably less than in Pacific Coast 

Range. Landslides associated with roads accounted for 57-88% of total landslide occurrence 

(McCleland et al., 1997; Megahan et al., 1978). 

2.3.2 Pacific Coast Conifers 

The Pacific coast conifer forest region extends from southwestern Alaska through the Cascade 

Mountains in western Washington and Oregon and southward into the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains in northern and central California. This forest type also includes the Pacific Coast 

Mountains in northern and central California. Substantial increases in sediment yields have 

been noted on watersheds during and following the construction of forest roads in this region. 

Erosion rates on roads and landings in southwestern Oregon were 100 times those on 

undisturbed areas. Properly constructed roads on gentle to moderate slopes on stable 

topography present little hazard. However, construction difficulty and erosion hazard increase 

rapidly when roads are pushed into steep terrain, cut into erosive soils or unstable slopes, or 

encroached on stream channels (Stone, 1973). Sedimentation of streams is one of the greatest 

nonpoint source pollution concerns in the Pacific Northwest (Sidle, 1980). 

2.3.3 Northeastern Conifers

The northeastern conifer forest region supports stands of spruce, fir, and pine in the northern 

part of the United States between Minnesota and Maine. These species are intermingled with 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 41 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

the maple-beech-birch forest type in New England and aspen-birch type forests in the upper 

Great Lakes states. Scattered islands of red spruce and white pine stands extend into the 

Appalachian Mountains as far south as Georgia. The sparseness of streams, porous soils, and 

more than 760 mm (30 inches) of precipitation create a hydrologically stable environment in 

the northeastern conifer region. Forest disturbances generally heal quickly. Cut slopes on roads 

and roads crossing streams have long been recognized as the primary sources of stream 

sedimentation. Some of the deep unconsolidated gravels and sands of glacial origin erode 

badly if disturbed by road construction. However, efforts have been made to better locate and 

design roads to minimize this impact (Stone, 1973). Less expensive roads, having lower 

standards, have been tested as a measure for reducing environmental impacts as well as 

construction costs (Kochenderfer et al., 1984). Such lower standard roads may be acceptable in 

this region when their location avoids erosion hazards and adequate riparian buffers are 

maintained. 

2.3.4 Eastern Hardwoods

The eastern hardwood forest region is considered to encompass hardwood forest types within 

the Appalachian Highlands physiographic division, which extends from Maine to northern 

Georgia. A major concern in harvest and regeneration practices is the impact on stream 

sedimentation. Natural geological erosion in the moist climate of forested lands in the 

hardwood region averages about 0.1 ton/acre/year (Patric, 1980). The primary sources of 

additional sediment associated with silvicultural practices are roads and skid trails as 

documented in many studies (Lull and Reinhart, 1972; Anderson et al., 1976). Some temporary 

increases in stream turbidity are an inevitable consequence of any harvesting but can be 

minimized by careful layout, construction, and maintenance of roads. The most critical aspect 

of road construction occurs at stream crossings since soil eroded from cuts and fills has direct 

access to the stream. A key factor in erosion control for roads is rapid establishment of surface 

protection such as a grass cover (Swift, 1984a). Immediately after construction, the roadbed 

accounts for only 10-30 percent of the total soil loss from roads (Swift, 1984b), but after cut 

and fill stabilization, the roadbed may be a major source of stream sediment, particularly with 

continual use. Thus, the type and amount of road surfacing are important factors in controlling 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 42 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

soil loss. In general, effective procedures that minimize sediment from logging and road 

construction activities are well known (Kochenderfer, 1970; Hewlett and Douglass, 1968) and 

need only to be judiciously applied. 

2.3.5 Southern Conifers

The Piedmont and Upper Coastal Plain regions of the southeastern US have much higher 

suspended sediment concentrations in undisturbed forest watersheds. A baseline value of about 

60 mg/L has been suggested as the average annual sediment concentration in stormflow from 

small, pine-covered watersheds in the south (Ursic, 1979). A more recent review of 

background-level data for all pine types by Ursic (1986) indicates an average annual sediment 

concentration of 0.006 ton per hectare-centimeter (0.007 ton per acre-inch) of flow. Much of 

the sediment comes from erosion of the minor channels developed during former land uses; 

therefore, natural sedimentation rates may vary substantially depending upon channel 

characteristics. The increases in stormflow from harvesting and site preparation accelerate the 

rates of baseline sediment losses to varying degrees depending on the nature of the 

disturbance, characteristics of the soil, and climatic factors. Erosion and sedimentation are 

noted as primary forest management concerns in 4 of 8 physiographic provinces in the 

southeast (Jackson et al., 2004). The duration of elevated sediment losses following road 

construction is related to how rapidly vegetation becomes re-established. Some studies indicate 

that sediment losses return to near preharvest levels within a 4 to 5 year period after 

disturbance. 

2.3.6 How and why do Water Quality Impacts from Forest Roads Vary? 

The impacts of forest road on water quality tend to be concentrated in certain regions of the 

country and specific locations in the forest landscape. Increased sediment delivery to streams 

after road building has been well documented in the research literature in the Pacific 

Northwest, California, Idaho and in the Eastern United States (Gucinski et al., 2001). In fact, 

most studies of roads have been conducted in only a few regions (the Pacific Northwest, Rocky 

Mountains, Appalachians, Interior Highlands, and Piedmont), so the ability to generalize to 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 43 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

other regions is limited. Statements about the effects of roads on mass erosion are limited to 

those landscapes affected by such processes. This section will focus on forest roads in highly 

impacted locations, as these tend to be the most studied. Detrimental impacts from roads in 

these regions and locations can be inevitable, and the extent of such impacts is large as is the 

legacy of past road building (Williams, 1999). Within the range of the northern spotted owl, 

there are about 180,000 km (or 111,800 mi) of roads, including 250,000 stream crossings 

(about 1.25 per km or 2 per mile) and a significant number of culverts that are unlikely to be 

able to withstand a 25 year storm event (FEMAT, 1993). Within the Interior Columbia Basin 

Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) area, there are at least 204,333 km (126,900 miles) 

of inventoried roads and an additional 61,300 to 102,166 km (38,100 to 63,500 miles) of 

uninventoried roads (Lee et al., 1997). 

Representatives of the forestry industry including the NCASI contend that a few roads cause 

most of the problems, i.e., the so-called 80/20 rule (80% of the problems come from 20% of 

the roads; NCASI, 2001). Some regional studies support this view. For example, Rice and 

Lewis (1992) developed an objective methodology to estimate erosion risk on forest roads and 

in harvest areas on private land in northwestern California. It was based on 260 plots sampled 

from the area harvested under 415 Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) completed between 1978 and 

1979. Results confirmed previous findings that most erosion related to forest management 

occurs on a small fraction of the managed area. Locations where the volume of eroded soil 

were larger than the minimum size inventoried in that study (> 13 cubic yards) occupied only 

0.2 percent of the area investigated. 

However, earlier assessments have found the problems associated with forest roads to be more 

widespread. An example is the direct connection of road drains to streams. Direct drainage 

connections signify likely impacts of roads on stream sedimentation, because sediment eroded 

from the roadway is delivered directly to the stream. A number of field studies have 

documented the extent of direct drainage connections in forest road networks in the Pacific 

Northwest. Reid and Dunne (1984) found that 75% of road drainage in a western Washington 

study area was discharging directly to streams; Bilby et al. (1989) reported 34% direct 

discharge of road drainage in southwestern Washington; and Wemple (1994) found 57% of 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 44 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

road drainage in the western Cascades of Oregon was discharging directly to streams. A 1997 

ODF study of road-sediment in the Tillamook State Forest found that 25 to 39% of the road 

system was delivering sediment to streams from 459 different discharge points (live stream 

culverts, where stormwater ditches joined flowing stream that then flowed through culvert 

under the road) along 42 miles of road (ODF, 1997). Skaugset and Allen (1998) reported 31 

percent of the surveyed road length in 5 Oregon regions was rated as certain (25%) or possible 

(6%) to deliver sediment to streams. 

Even in the same region, road effects differ by landscape position (Gucinski et al., 2001). 

Ridgetop, midslope, and valley floor roads all produce different effects, based on the 

topography they cross; the degree and type of interaction with stream networks; the stability 

and response to storms; and the effects on fire, wildlife, and vegetation. 

The geographic patterns of roads in forest landscapes differ substantially from place to place, 

with commensurate differences in environmental effects (Gucinski et al., 2001). In the 

glaciated terrain of southeastern Alaska, for example, main roads were built on the broad, 

major valley floors, and the high-value timber that grew on lower hillslopes was brought 

downhill to them. In forests along the west side of the Sierra Nevada in California, on the other 

hand, major roads were built along broad ridges, with secondary roads leading down into 

headwater areas. The main roads into western Oregon forests entered watersheds along narrow 

stream bottoms and then climbed the adjacent steep, unstable hillslopes to access timber 

extending from ridge to valley floor. These configurations, combined with local geology and 

climate, resulted in very different effects of roads on stream and watershed processes. 

Adverse environmental effects from logging roads change over time and vary with season of 

construction and use, age, weather, kinds and intensity of maintenance, traffic level and other 

factors. Understanding how and why these effects vary is critical to appreciate the extent and 

severity of forest road impacts on water quality, and sets the stage for considering how these 

impacts can be reduced using BMPs. Focusing on sediment impairments, spatial and temporal 

factors to consider include the following: 

 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 45 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

 Geology, geomorphic location, soils and terrain - Luce and Black (1999) showed 

that soil type makes an important difference in terms of road erosion and BMP performance. 

Soils vary in erodibility, depending on their properties. Landsides in Oregon’s Coast Range 

were concentrated in “soft sedimentary bedrock” that was geologically young, poorly 

consolidated, yet on steep slopes (Durgin et al., 1988). Percentage and length of slope are the 

most significant topographic variables affecting erosion. 

 Climate - Rainfall intensities are greatest along the coasts and generally decline to the 

interior. Road erosion in western Montana was limited by low erodibility of dominant parent 

materials and low rainfall (Sugden and Woods, 2007). Alternate freezing and thawing of soils 

also exert strong forces for the detachment of soil particles. High summer temperatures 

desiccate bare soil, and a layer of loose, structureless soil similar to that caused by frost 

heaving is produced. Thus, temperature extremes set the stage for high erosion losses from 

bare soils during rainstorms. 

 Age and density of road network - Road area distributed in “critical locations” may 

be a better indicator of impacts and cumulative effects than road density. 

 Sensitivity of designated uses – The presence of salmonids and other sensitive and 

endangered species in a receiving water may be much more vulnerable to sedimentation. 

Roads produce geomorphic responses ranging from the chronic, long-term contributions to 

streams of relatively small amounts of fine sediment to the catastrophic contributions of large 

amounts of sediment during mass failures (Williams, 1999). Further, the results of these 

geomorphic changes produce cumulative consequences that can be manifest considerably 

downstream. 

2.3.6.1 Surface Erosion

Erosion occurs when the energy for detachment and transport of soil particles exceeds the 

cohesive and adhesive forces which bind soil in place. The energy for erosion comes 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 46 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

principally from rainfall and flowing water. The greatest source of energy is from falling 

raindrops. Rainfall intensities are greatest along the Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic Coasts and 

generally decline to the interior (Douglass, 1975). Rain which does not infiltrate the soil moves 

overland and possesses kinetic energy for detachment and transport of soils. Total energy is 

influenced mostly by velocity. In both detachment and transport of soil, velocity of flowing 

water is a key factor. Velocity of overland flow, if it occurs under forest stands, is slow. But 

since overland flow is concentrated in rills and gullies, the velocity of flow, depth of flow, or 

both are increased, the energy is concentrated, and erosion losses increase sharply. 

The major effect of forests on erosion is to reduce slightly the volume of rainfall reaching 

mineral soil and to change greatly the energy available for detachment and transport of soil 

particles (Douglass, 1975). Water temporarily stored in the forest floor drains slowly, thus 

increasing the likelihood of infiltration. The forest floor also offers resistance to overland flow 

and reduces the velocity of any water which may fail to infiltrate. Increases in erosion have 

been associated with cutting the forest, but if the forest floor is not removed or grossly 

disturbed by cutting the overstory, infiltration rates remain high and overland flow is virtually 

absent. When the forest floor is removed by the building of roads, the skidding of logs, or 

wildfire, raindrop energy is dissipated on mineral soil. Infiltration rates are reduced by 

compaction and puddling of the soil. When infiltration rate falls below the rainfall rate, 

overland flow and sheet and rill erosion occur. 

Chronic surface erosion from road surfaces, cutbanks, and ditches is well documented (Bilby 

et al. 1989; Megahan and Kidd, 1972; Reid and Dunne, 1984), and is often the dominant 

source of road-related sediment input to streams. In the initial years after construction, rates of 

surface erosion appear highest (Megahan and Kidd, 1972) and, on unpaved roads, are closely 

correlated to traffic volume (Reid and Dunne, 1984). However, because of maintenance 

problems, roadbeds and road-related ditches and channels are continuing sources of sediment 

long after construction is complete (Miller et al., 1985; Swift, 1984a and 1988). 

Sediment erosion on forest roads in the Oregon Coastal Range was correlated to the road 

length between culverts, the square of the road slope, soil erosivity, and ditch cleaning (Ice et 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 47 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

al., 2004 ). Other factors related to surface erosion rates include vegetative cover and climate 

(amount of precipitation, occurrence of freeze-thaw cycles). Roads account for 4% of the land 

area in Coast Range mountains, but 76% of measured erosion (Durgin et al., 1988). One third 

of the sediment production was from surface erosion. The most common source of 

sedimentation was from fillslopes immediately adjacent to watercourse crossings 

Other literature shows that wet season road use can be a major source of fine sediment (Mills 

et al., 2003). Road surfacing and drainage practices can have a very large effect on both 

erosion and the delivery of sediment to streams in this situation. The use of gravel-surfaced 

roads during wet periods has been documented as a major source of fine-grained sediment and 

associated stream turbidity (Reid and Dunne, 1984). Studies by Weyerhaeuser and others 

(Bilby, 1985; Duncan and Ward, 1985; Bilby et al., 1989) found a good correlation between 

rock hardness and sediment delivery. They also found that most of the sediment delivered to 

streams from the road surface was very fine, clay-sized particles. 

Extensive research has been conducted on road erosion and sediment travel distances in highly 

erodible parent materials such as the granitics of the Idaho batholith (Megahan and Kidd, 

1972; Megahan et al., 2001; Burroughs and King, 1989), and the high precipitation and 

landslide prone climate of Oregon’s Coast Range (Wemple et al., 1996; Luce et al., 2001; 

Brake et al., 1997). Less research has been conducted in other parent materials. Road erosion 

in western Montana is limited by both low erodibility of the dominant parent materials and low 

rainfall. Woods et al. (2007) investigated sediment travel distances below drivable drain dips 

along unpaved roads in the metasedimentary Belt Series and glacial till parent materials of 

western Montana. The generally low sediment travel distances observed in that study indicate 

that most drivable dips along unpaved roads in western Montana did not deliver sediment to 

streams. The vast majority of the sediment introduced to streams came from relatively few 

drainage outfalls. 

2.3.6.2 Mass Movements of Soil
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 48 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

In areas with steep slopes, landslides are the dominant erosional mechanism. Rates of mass 

movement (wasting) vary greatly across the landscape, depending on climatic, geologic, and 

topographic factors as well as factors associated with management practices (NCASI, 2001). 

Landslide frequency can be greatly accelerated by road management practices (Sidle et al. 

1985). According to Megahan et al. (1992), 88% of landslides within Idaho were associated 

with roads. Roads have been associated with most failures and failure volume in most studies, 

but certainly not in all studies and all locations (NCASI, 2001). In addition to the detrimental 

effects on vulnerable fish species and their habitat through increased sedimentation, landslides 

can result in serious personal injury and downstream property damage. 

Mass movement can occur as shallow debris slides, deep-seated slumps, and rapid debris flows 

(Williams, 1999). In areas ranging from the Pacific Northwest to New Zealand, mass 

movements were 30 to 300 times greater in roaded than in unroaded watersheds (Sidle et al., 

1985). Erosion rates on roads and landings in the Klamath mountains of southwest Oregon 

were 100 times greater than those on the undisturbed area (Amaranthus et al., 1985). Total 

sediment production from logging roads in the Idaho batholith was 770 times higher than in 

undisturbed areas; approximately 71 % of the increased sediment production was due to mass 

erosion and 27% to surface erosion (Megahan and Kidd, 1972). Ninety-one percent of the 

annual sediment production by land use activities in the South Fork of the Salmon River has 

been attributed to roads and skid trails (Arnold and Lundeen, 1968). Increased rates of 

landsliding in roaded areas as compared to unroaded forested areas also have been documented 

in Washington (Reid, 1981) and northern California (Hagans et al., 1986). The majority of 

landslides associated with managed forests came from road Right-of-Ways and were often 

associated with specific practices such as sidecast road construction, poor location and 

inadequate drainage (Ice et al., 2004). Stream diversion at road crossings and landslides 

initiated by culvert failures are two other related road impacts. 

In addition to the reported correlation between mass movement and roads, a number of 

geomorphic locations within a watershed are more susceptible to landsliding than are others 

(Williams, 1999). Most of the landslides observed in Idaho by Weaver et al. (1998) were most 

likely to occur in the inner gorge, swale, or break-in-slope (93%, 86%, and 68% respectively 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 49 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

for the North Fork Clearwater, Lochsa River, and Boise River basins). These three locations 

also have been identified as being at higher risk of landslide during infrequent, high intensity, 

or long duration storm events in northwestern California by LaHusen (1984) and in Oregon 

and southern Washington by Weaver and Hagan (1996). The risk of landslide in these areas is 

even greater when these hillslope locations are roaded (Weaver et al., 1998). 

2.3.6.3 Road Drainage and Sediment Delivery

Historically, logging roads were intentionally designed to discharge stormwater directly into 

streams. This practice also directly delivered sediment eroded from roads into the streams. 

More recent design standards acknowledge that direct discharges are ecologically undesirable 

and seek to direct drainage onto porous forest soils for infiltration. However, direct discharge 

into streams is still commonly reported. Runoff from roads generally follows one of several 

potential pathways: infiltration back into the hillslope below the road with no delivery to 

streams; direct delivery at channel crossings; direct delivery through gullies formed below 

relief drains; or indirect delivery via overland flow below the road (NCASI, 2001). Direct 

delivery at channel crossings is the most common and most rapid form of delivery, and occurs 

where roadside ditches and/or road surface runoff run directly to the stream crossing structure. 

The prominence of direct delivery and gullying is documented by research done in western 

Washington and Oregon. These studies found that 42 to 66% of road drainage points 

discharged to hillslopes with no delivery to streams, 28 to 35% of drains delivered directly to 

streams, and 17 to 28% delivered via gullies (Bilby et al., 1989; Bowling and Lettenmaier, 

1997; Wemple et al., 1996). More importantly, however, these same or similar studies have 

found that 17 to 35% of the total road mileage contributes sediment to the stream system 

(Bowling and Lettenmaier, 1997; McGreer et al., 1997), or conversely, 65 to 83% of the road 

mileage did not contribute sediment to streams. Monitoring conducted in the mid-1990s shows 

that about one-third (29-39 %) of active and inactive roads on state and private lands in Oregon 

can deliver sediment to streams by ditch delivery (Skaugset and Allen, 1998). An inventory of 

road drainage sites in three watersheds in southwestern Washington found two thousand 

drainage points along 730 km of road; 34% of the drainage points directly entered streams 

rather than draining into the forest floor (Bilby et al., 1989).
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 50 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

2.3.6.4 Road Maintenance

Forest roads require significant ongoing maintenance to prevent deterioration of the roadway 

by grading, ditch cleaning, unplugging culverts, etc. Poorly maintained roads are subject to 

periodic blockage or failure as transportation systems due to both surface erosion and mass 

wasting events, primarily during floods. Erosion and sediment delivery associated with such 

failures can be extreme. In addition, roads produce chronic surface erosion impacts, 

particularly where poorly located and maintained. Although sediment problems are sometimes 

worsened by too much maintenance, it is usually the neglect of maintenance that leads to 

problems with road erosion and mass wasting. Road maintenanace is an ongoing expense, and 

economics is the primary reason that forest roads are poorly maintained. 

This is well illustrated by statistics for the National Forests. The NFS road system is 

considerably more extensive than the Interstate Highway System (Grace and Clinton, 2006) 

and consists of over 600,000 km of roads of varying classes and an estimated 7,600 bridges 

(TetraTech, 1999). There are a variety of road standards and road jurisdictions within the 

National Forests. Figure 2-3 summarizes the legal basis and definitions relative to forest roads 

in National Forests (Coghlan and Sowa, 1998). Most of these roads were initially constructed 

for management activities such as harvesting and fire prevention. In recent years, road 

maintenance has been sharply reduced because funds for maintenance as well as maintenance 

by timber purchasers have declined (Williams, 1999). This has resulted in chronically poor 

road maintenance. In the southern Appalachians, forest roads often are not maintained at all, 

are subjected to maintenance that is inadequate for the level of road use, or are scheduled for 

maintenance in such a way that the work is poorly timed relative to storm patterns (Swift, 

1984b and 1988). This pattern is not unique to the East. There has been a progressive 

degradation of road drainage structures and function in the Columbia River Basin (Lee et al., 

1997), and about 60% of all NFS roads are not fully maintained to the planned safety and 

environmental standards for which they were designed (USFS, 1999). It is not clear whether 

the same trends are taking place for forest roads in timberland owned by the commercial forest 

industry and other private timberland owners, but this may be a reasonable assumption. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 51 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

During the early 1970’s through the 1980’s the value of timber started to fluctuate (Coghlan 

and Sowa, 1998). A dramatic increase in the development of forest road miles also occurred 

between 1977 and 1987. In an attempt to reduce roading costs, access was frequently provided 

through temporary roads rather than the more costly permanent roads. Temporary roads have 

lower initial development costs than permanent roads, but their long-term management 

implications are more significant. The reliance on temporary as opposed to permanent roads 

created some unwanted impacts. These lower standard roads were also not intended to serve 

the purposes that they have evolved to serve, namely increased recreational use in the National 

Forests. There has been an eleven-fold increase in traffic in National Forests in comparison to 

the 1950’s. Increased use and traffic has resulted in the need for significantly more 

maintenance, and has resulted in more erosion and sedimentation. 

Revisions in the USFS timber management practices during the 1990’s limited the harvest 

activity for which the existing roads were designed. Consequently, timber harvesting presently 

accounts for only 0.5% of all forest road use. Commercial users, such as timber haulers, are 

responsible for traffic-generated maintenance commensurate with their use, so commercial use 

maintenance has decreased in proportion to the decrease in timber harvest. Current funding is 

sufficient to maintain about 40 percent of the roads to planned service levels. The balance of 

the roads are maintained according to priority safety and environmental needs. Appropriated 

annual maintenance ranges from $300 to $600/mile for maintenance level 3–5 roads, $60 to 

$100/mile for maintenance level 2 roads, and $20 to $40/mile for maintenance level 1 roads. It 

is practically impossible to maintain roads to designed standards based on these funding levels. 

For comparison, in 1994, the average annual costs of maintaining a mile of gravel or loose 

aggregate road was $7,986 for all counties, and $1,995 for all townships (Coghlan and Sowa, 

1998). The backlog of deferred maintenance on roads in the National Forests has been 

estimated to be $4.1 billion (Bellingham Herald, 2007). The cost to remove barriers to fish 

passage at 25,500 stream crossings would cost an additional $1.9 billion. 

 

2.3.6.5 Age of Roads and Road Network
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 52 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Much of the potential watershed-scale effects of roads are likely related to roads designed and 

constructed under older administrative rules (FPAC, 2001). These make up the majority of the 

roads on the landscape, often constructed with practices presenting greater risk of adverse 

effects to aquatic habitat. The result of over 100 years of forest access is that most of the roads 

needed today for management of private lands have already been built (NCASI, 2001). 

However, much of today’s existing road system was designed and built to standards and in 

locations that would not be used if the system were built “from scratch” today. Road networks 

differ greatly in development through time and layout over terrain, and carry this history into 

their present performance (Gucinski et al., 2001). The geographic patterns of roads in forest 

landscapes also differ substantially from place to place, with commensurate differences in 

environmental effects (Gucinski et al., 2001). Road effects, when aggregated at the landscape 

scale, are dependent on road design and road location, and assessment of these effects must 

consider the proportion of old roads to new roads that incorporate improved engineering 

design (Gucinski et al., 2001). 

Cederholm et al. (1981) reported that large amounts of the sediment embedded in spawning 

gravels in the Clearwater River of Jefferson County, Washington came from roads built before 

1972. In Oregon, “old” roads are considered to be those built before 1983 (i.e., before endhauling was introduced to eliminate the hazardous side-casting of excavated soil). Current 

methods of road construction and erosion prevention have vastly reduced erosion problems. 

Numerous large landslides associated with the road system in the South Fork of Caspar Creek 

occurred in early 1998, indicating that “legacy” roads continue to be significant sources of 

sediment decades after they were constructed (Cafferata and Spittler, 1998). Old roads built 

with practices prevalent in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and early to mid-1970’s are still significant 

sources of erosion. In virtually all of the studies of road failures due to mass wasting reviewed 

by NCASI (2001), the majority of failures observed are from roads built years ago in locations 

and with construction methods which later became unacceptable and/or illegal, and thus road 

systems pose significant potential for legacy effects. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 53 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

In addition, however, it is important to note that increases in sedimentation from new roads 

and landings are unavoidable even using the most cautious logging and roading methods 

(Williams, 1999). Few studies have systematically and quantitatively evaluated the extent to 

which new road design, siting, construction and engineering practices have resulted in lower 

mass erosion rates and reduced the ecological impacts of roads (McCashion and Rice, 1983). 

An analysis of the effects of new road construction and siting practices in the Oregon Coast 

Range suggested some reduction in slide frequencies over those resulting from the old roading 

practices (Sessions et al., 1987). However, the new practices were not "put to the test" as no 

large storms occurred during the study period. McClelland et al. (1997) also reported that 

following intense rain-on-snow precipitation during the 1996 floods the rate of failure of roads 

built in the 1970s through the 1990s was approximately half the rate of failures of roads built 

in the 1950s and 1960s. Examination of the improved road design practiced by the Boise 

National Forest indicated that while the new practices were an improvement over the old 

roading practices, total accelerated sediment yields still were 51 % greater than natural 

(undisturbed) levels (Megahan et al., 1992). 

2.3.6.6 Road Density and “Critical” Locations

The density and location of roads have been correlated to impairments of forested watersheds. 

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP) Assessment of 

Ecosystem Components in the Interior Columbia Basin of Idaho, Oregon and Washington 

(Quigley and Arbelbide, 1997) was one of the few examples of landscape-scale analysis of 

road influences. The evaluation of road density and forest and range integrity in that study 

serve to illustrate landscape-scale interaction of roads with their surroundings (Gucinski et al., 

2001). Forest and range indices of integrity were developed that showed sub-basins having the 

highest forest-integrity index were largely unroaded. Of the five indicator variables used, the 

proportion of a subbasin composed of wilderness or roadless areas seemed most closely 

associated with subbasins having high integrity indices; 81 percent of the subbasins classified 

as having the highest integrity had relatively large proportions of wilderness and roadless areas 

(>50 percent). Conversely, of subbasins with the lowest integrity, 89 percent had low 

proportions of roadless and wilderness areas; 83 percent had relatively high proportions of at 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 54 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

least moderate road density (0.27 miles/square mile). None of the seven subbasins having high 

rangeland integrity had areas of moderate or high road densities. This assessment found that 

increasing road densities (combined with the activities associated with roads) are correlated 

with declines in anadromous salmonid species (NCASI, 2001). In other words, road density 

and fish populations are inversely correlated across a large area in the interior Columbia basin. 

Linkages show that strong fish populations were more frequently found in areas with low 

rather than high road densities (Gucinski et al., 2001). Supplemental analysis "clearly show 

that increasing road densities and their attendant effects are associated with declines in the 

status of four nonanadromous salmonid species .... they are less likely to use highly roaded 

areas for spawning and rearing, and, where found, are less likely to be at strong populations 

levels." (Lee et al., 1997). However, the ICBEMP report also noted that the component 

contributions (causes) of effects associated with roads could not be identified, and that they 

were therefore “forced to use roads as a catch-all indicator of human disturbance.” The 

correlation of basin or subbasin integrity is not total, thereby suggesting that other variables 

and mechanisms are complex and non-uniform. 

The degree of connectivity between roads and streams (that is, the number of stream crossings 

and areas where roads and streams are near enough to strongly interact) is recognized as a 

good general indicator of the interactions between the two and of the potential effects roads 

can exert (Wemple, 1994). Where both stream and road densities are high, the incidence of 

connections between roads and streams can be expected to also be high, resulting in more 

common and pronounced effects of roads on streams than in areas where road-stream 

connections are less common and dense (Gucinski et al., 2001). Eaglin and Hubert (1993) 

studied the effects of logging and associated road construction on streams and on trout 

populations in the Medicine Bow National Forest of Wyoming. The amount of fine sediment 

in a stream reach increased, and the embeddedness of fine sediment (its coverage of large 

particles) in the substrate increased as the proportion of logged area increased and as the extent 

to which roads crossed watercourses increased. Trout standing stocks also decreased as the 

density of road culverts increased. Cederholm et al. (1981) found that the percent fine sediment 

in spawning gravel increased above natural levels when more than 2.5% of the drainage basin 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 55 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

was covered by roads. King and Tennyson (1984) found that the hydrologic behavior of small 

forested watersheds was altered when as little as 3.9% of the watershed was occupied by roads. 

Other scientists looking at large scale physical variables relating to fish abundance have also 

noted that increased road density yields lower fish abundance (Lee et al., 1997) or occurrence 

(Dunham and Rieman, 1999). Luce et al. (2001) applied a predictive watershed erosion model 

to estimate the average annual sediment yield from surface erosion in 18 small basins. The 

results suggested that road density correlates poorly to sediment yield from surface erosion 

(Luce et al., 2001). They concluded that a strategy aimed at reducing road miles alone may not 

reduce sedimentation in streams. 

Road area distributed in “critical locations” has been suggested as a better indicator of 

cumulative watershed effects than road density alone. The Critical Site Erosion Study (CSES) 

was a study of the occurrence of critical sites, defined as sites where more than 189 m3/ha of 

soil were eroded, in harvest areas and forest roads (Lewis and Rice, 1989). The sampled site 

population came from areas covered by Timber Harvest Plans completed in California between 

November 1978 and October 1979. Because of high landowner cooperation, CSES came close 

to obtaining a truly random sample of the target population. The results largely confirmed 

previous findings (Rice, 1992). Critical sites contained 65% of the erosion but occupied only 

2% of road length and 0.5% of harvested area. The CSES also confirmed the dominance of 

road-related erosion over harvest area erosion, which has been noted in studies since at least 

1954 (Anderson, 1954). Roads yielded 70% of the total erosion volume. The erosion rate on 

roads was 21.5 times that in harvest areas, close to the ratio of 17 reported by McCashion and 

Rice (1983). These findings confirm the ubiquitous “80-20 rule,” in this case, 80% of the 

problems come from 20% of the roads. 

2.3.6.7 Cumulative Impacts and Effects

Logging is generally conducted in large areas (tracts or parcels) that often comprise major 

portions of catchments or watersheds. A road network develops in forested watersheds, 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 56 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

resulting in numerous chronic sediment sources, landslides and/or obstacles to fish passage. If 

a large number of such sources (possibly hundreds or thousands) deliver sediment into the 

streams in a watershed, they will have a cumulative impact on the sediment budget of the 

streams, rivers and other downstream water bodies, resulting in significant accumulation of 

sediment in deposition locations. Cumulative impacts from these numerous sediment sources 

tend to be greater downstream of larger watersheds; watersheds with more forestry activity, 

higher road density and/or problem roads, crossings, etc.; watersheds with older road networks 

and a greater percentage of legacy roads; and watersheds where the rates of chronic sediment 

delivery and/or mass wasting are higher due to regional and site-specific factors. Again, much 

of the potential for the watershed-scale effects of roads is likely related to roads designed and 

constructed under older administrative rules (FPAC, 2001). These make up the majority of the 

roads on the landscape, often constructed with practices presenting greater risk of adverse 

effects to aquatic habitat. 

In the Caspar Creek watershed, much of the sediment measured in the tributaries has been 

trapped behind woody debris or otherwise stored in the channels, so that much of it has not yet 

been measured downstream (Lewis, 1998). Suspended sediment transport per unit watershed 

area tends to increase downstream in the absence of disturbance. This tendency was apparent 

in the pretreatment data analyses and could be reflecting the greater availability of fine 

sediment stored in these lower gradient channels. The relevance to cumulative effects is that 

downstream locations might reach water quality levels of concern with a smaller proportion of 

watershed disturbance than upstream locations. To the extent that larger watersheds reflect 

average disturbance rates and therefore have smaller proportions of disturbance than the 

smallest disturbed watersheds upstream, one might expect sediment loads downstream to 

increase by less than those in the logged tributaries, reducing the overall variability among 

watersheds. In addition, as mentioned before, some of the sediment may be stored for several 

years before reaching the lower stations. In Caspar Creek, the effects of multiple disturbances 

in a watershed were approximately additive. Downstream suspended load increases were no 

greater than would be expected from the proportion of area disturbed (Lewis, 1998). To the 

contrary, most of the increased sediment produced in the tributaries was apparently stored in 

the main stem and has not yet been measured at the main-stem stations. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 57 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Cumulative impacts are those influenced by multiple activities, as are most environmental 

impacts (Reid, 1999). In reality, then, almost all off-site environmental impacts are cumulative 

impacts. When impacts involve the transport of water, sediment, or woody debris through a 

watershed, they are referred to as "cumulative watershed impacts." Cumulative watershed 

impacts are of considerable concern because they are responsible for much of the damage to 

property and to public-trust resources that occurs away from the site of land-use activity. 

Cumulative watershed impact influences, or is influenced by, the flow of water through a 

watershed (Reid 1998). Cumulative watershed effects, a phrase which has widely replaced 

reference to “impacts,” can be additive or synergistic and involve modification of water, 

sediment, nutrients, pollutants, and other watershed system components (Swanson et al., 

2000). An example of such effects would be where forest roads and timber cutting contributes 

to increased peak streamflows and sediment loads, leading to aggradation of downstream 

areas, which in turn results in lateral channel migration causing streambank and floodplain 

erosion, which entrains additional sediment. 

Reid (1993) provides a broad and detailed summary of cumulative watershed effects of diverse 

land-use activities, such as grazing, roads, logging, recreation, and water extraction. She also 

addresses alternative approaches for assessing cumulative effects (Reid 1993, 1998). 

Cumulative effects can be addressed by examining the changes triggered by a particular landuse activity and how these changes interact with effects of other land uses and natural 

processes. Such an approach is best undertaken as a long-term study with substantial focus on 

mechanisms of transport, transformation, and storage within the watershed. 

An important development in anticipating and hopefully minimizing cumulative watershed 

effects has been the watershed analysis developed for use by federal (e.g., Regional Ecosystem 

Office, 1995) and state (WFPB, 1995) agencies in the Pacific Northwest (Swanson et al., 

2000). The general objective of the federal watershed analysis procedure is to gain an 

understanding of present and prospective future mechanisms affecting watershed conditions. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 58 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Thus, watershed analysis provides a useful starting point for assessments of cumulative 

watershed effects. However, Reid (1998) asserted that neither of these “widely used watershed 

analysis methods provides an adequate assessment of likely cumulative effects of planned 

projects.” 

The term “cumulative effects” is intuitively appealing, as it suggests that environmental 

impacts of specific management activities cannot properly be viewed in isolation from a broad 

perspective of land management at large spatial scales and long time scales (Bisson et al., 

1992). An underlying assumption has been that although individual management actions by 

themselves may not cause undue harm, taken collectively, such land use activities may result 

in unacceptable stream habitat degradation and long-term declines in fish abundance. As 

seemingly logical as this concept is, clear examples of cumulative effects of forest 

management on stream habitat have been difficult to demonstrate in all but the most severely 

degraded river systems. Establishing unambiguous relationships between abundance of fish 

populations and cumulative environmental change has been equally difficult, if not more so. 

Specific changes in stream environment caused by past forest practices in the Pacific 

Northwest (PNW) vary according to logging and reforestation history, watershed geology, 

regional climate, and the degree of protection given to riparian zones during management 

activities (Bisson et al., 1992). The one change that appears to be consistent over all areas in 

which the effects of forest management on streams have been studied is a trend towards 

simplification of stream channels and a loss of habitat complexity (Bisson and Sedell, 1984). 

Simplification of stream channels involves loss of hydraulic complexity (i.e., variation in depth 

and velocity and obstructions), elimination of physical and biological interactions between 

stream and floodplain, reduction of structures that serve as cover from predators, increase in 

dominance of one particular substrate type, and the loss of sediment and organic matter storage 

capacity. This is most evident in the changes in frequency, size, and location of different types 

of habitat units within the channel. The most pervasive change has been a reduction in the 

frequency and size of pools that constitute preferred habitat of certain species and age classes. 

There have been two principal causes of pool reduction in PNW streams: filling of pools by 

sediment (Megahan, 1983) and the loss of pool-forming structures such as boulders and large 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 59 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

woody debris. Bisson et al. (1987) cited numerous studies that have associated declines in fish 

abundance with the loss of pools and woody debris in PNW streams. In addition to reductions 

in the number and size of large scour and plunge pools, forestry and other land use practices 

have led to stream channel simplification by eliminating edge habitat along stream margins, 

although this is not necessarily an effect of roads. 

2.4 How are the Water Quality Impacts From Forest Roads Quantified and 

Documented? 

National level assessments of water quality are based on state lists of impaired waters, the socalled 305(b) and 303(d) lists. These assessments represent the only available National data on 

the extent and causes of impairment to rivers and streams, lakes, wetlands, and other 

waterbodies. Section 305(b) of the CWA requires the states to describe the quality of their 

surface waters including the extent to which water quality standards are being met. USEPA is 

also to biennially provide a prioritized list of waters that are impaired and develop pollution 

controls; this data is discussed separately in Section 2.5 (below). Fourteen National Water 

Quality Inventory (NWQI) reports have been published since 1975; the most recent reports 

were published in 2000 and 2002. For the 2000 report, states assessed 19% (699,946 of 

3,692,830 miles) of the nation’s total river and stream miles; 43% of its lake, pond and 

reservoir acres; 36% of its estuarine square miles; and 92% of Great Lakes shoreline miles.

This report will focus on the assessment results for rivers and streams, as these are the 

waterbodies most likely to reflect impairments due to forest roads. The states assessed 142,480 

fewer river and stream miles in 2000 than in 1998. This 17% decrease was primarily a result of 

changes in assessment and reporting methods in a few states, for the most part reflecting a 

move toward the use of more reliable monitoring data and a greater reluctance to include 

qualitative information or older data in water quality assessments. The states reported that 61% 

of the 699,946 assessed river and stream miles fully supported all of their uses. As reported in 

earlier assessments, sedimentation remained one of the most widespread pollutants affecting 

assessed rivers and streams. Sedimentation impaired 84,503 river and stream miles (12% of the 

assessed river and stream and stream miles). Sources of sedimentation included agriculture, 

urban runoff, construction, and forestry. Alteration to river and stream habitats was reported by 

the states to cause impairment to 58,807 miles (8% of the assessed river and stream miles and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 60 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

22% of the impaired river and stream miles). In this case, only habitat alterations that did not 

affect water flow were considered because states and tribes reported stream flow alterations 

(such as dams and irrigation) under a different category. Examples of habitat alterations that do 

not directly affect stream flow include the removal of woody debris or stream bottom 

cobblestones. Habitat modifications result from human activities such as flow regulation, 

logging, and land-clearing practices. The 2000 report listed nonpoint sources – agriculture, 

hydrologic modification, habitat modification, urban runoff, and silviculture - as leading 

sources of river and stream impairment. Silviculture was the 5th ranked source, responsible for 

impairment of 28,156 river miles; this represents 10% of impaired river miles and 4% of all 

assessed river miles. Ten states listed silviculture as a major source of impairment to assessed 

rivers and streams: Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, 

Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia. North Carolina listed silviculture as a major source of 

impairment to assessed wetlands, and Utah listed silviculture as a major source of impairment 

to assessed lakes.

For the 2002 NWQI, states assessed 695,540 miles (19%) of the nation’s 3.7 million miles of 

rivers and streams. Three states (Alabama, North Carolina, and Washington), Puerto Rico, the 

tribal nations, and the island territories of the Pacific did not provide data electronically in 

2002. This lack of data may account, at least in part, for the fewer number of river miles, lake 

acres, and estuarine square miles reported as assessed in 2002 compared to 2000. Of these 

waterbodies, 45% were reported as impaired or not clean enough to support their designated 

uses. States found the remaining 55% to be fully supporting of all designated uses. Sediment, 

pathogens, and habitat alterations were again cited as the leading causes of impairment in 

rivers and streams, and top sources of impairments included agricultural activities, 

unknown/unspecified sources, and hydrologic modifications. The 2002 report lists silviculture 

as the 9th leading source, responsible for impairment of 18,463 river miles. Of the nine states 

that listed silviculture as a major source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams in 2000, 

in 2002 only California listed silviculture as a major source of impairment. California and 

Montana reported 9,713 forest road-related impaired miles of streams. Oregon did not report 

probable sources for impairments in 2002. As noted in the 2002 report: 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 61 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

“...it is important to note that the information about specific sources and causes of impairment 

is incomplete. States do not always report the pollutant or source of pollutants affecting every 

impaired river and stream.” 

In previous NWQI reports, unknown or unspecified causes and sources were included only as 

footnoted material to summary statistics. For the first time, the 2002 NWQI report includes 

unspecified causes and sources in all summary statistics to more clearly represent what states 

are reporting to USEPA. The ranking of “unknown or unspecified sources” as the secondleading source of river mile impairment illustrates the uncertainty inherent in the assessment 

data. In the 2002 NWQI report, there is additional breakdown of the silviculture source group: 

forest roads, forest management, silviculture, etc., in terms of affected river and stream miles. 

However, these sources are not defined well enough to interpret the information, and the 

impairments attributed to the different sources may substantially overlap. Review of the 

complete data presented in the current NWQI report suggests that this detailed breakdown of 

the silviculture source group may be misleading or even meaningless. 

The most recent national summary of state information available on the USEPA Watershed 

Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results (WATERS) web site is based upon data 

reported between 2002 and 2006. For this summary, the states assessed 822,721 river and 

stream miles (23% of the nation’s total of 3,533,205 river and stream miles); this assessment 

reflected an increase of over 100,000 river and stream miles from the previous 2 reporting 

cycles. Of the assessed waterbodies, 47% were reported as impaired or not clean enough to 

support their designated uses. States found 52% to be fully supporting of all designated uses. 

The remaining 1% (9,793 miles) were categorized as “threatened”. Pathogens, sediment, 

nutrients and habitat alterations were cited as the leading causes of impairment in rivers and 

streams, and the top sources of impairments included agriculture, unknown/sources, and 

hydromodification. The 2002 report lists silviculture as the 12th leading source, responsible for 

impairment of 19,071 river miles; this represents 5% of impaired river miles.

USEPA characterizes the information contained in the NWQI reports and the associated 

National Assessment Database (NAD) as useful “snapshot views” of water quality assessed by 

the states during each reporting cycle. Although the information in the NAD provides a picture 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 62 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

of state assessment results, these data cannot be used to compare water quality conditions 

between states or to identify trends in statewide or national water quality. According to 

USEPA the following are reasons for this lack of comparability: 

y The methods states use to monitor and assess their waters, including what and how they 

monitor and how they report their findings to USEPA, vary from state to state and 

within individual states over time. 

y The science of monitoring and assessment varies over time, and many states are better 

able to identify problems as their monitoring and analytical methods improve. 

y 2002 was a transition period between traditional 305(b) reporting and integrated 

305(b)/303(d) reporting. 

y Under the CWA, each state has the authority to set its own water quality standards; 

therefore, each state’s definition of its designated uses (e.g., Warm Water Fishery or 

Livestock Watering) may differ from definitions used by other states, along with the 

criteria against which states determine impairments.

As discussed above, the 305(b) lists cannot be considered to be reliable, representative data to 

assess and quantify the water quality impacts from forest roads at the National level. In 

general, the rigorous scientific documentation of water quality impairments due to forest roads 

comes from site-specific studies of impacted water bodies and threatened aquatic resources, 

and these tend to be focused on water bodies where impairments are known or suspected. 

Many studies have been conducted which show the adverse impacts of soil erosion and stream 

sedimentation on the nation’s water quality (Author et al., 1998; Binkley and Brown, 1993). A 

number of different scientific approaches have been used in these studies to quantify the water 

quality impacts from forest roads, including water quality monitoring and bioassessment 

approaches, stream morphology and substrate analysis, as well as watershed-scale research. 

The problems associated with detecting water quality impacts and attributing them to specific 

sources are common to all of these approaches. Results from many of these studies have been 

presented previously in Sections 2.2 and 2.3. 

USEPA, other federal agencies, and the states have embarked on a more cost-effective 

approach to track trends in the quality of the Nation’s waters: statistically valid, probabilitybased studies that complement existing monitoring and assessment programs and add to our 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 63 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

understanding of national, regional, and local water quality conditions. Probability-based 

studies select a specific number of sites at random to represent the condition of waters in 

regions that share similar ecological characteristics. Scientists can then draw inferences for all 

waters with a known degree of confidence. Probability-based studies are generally 

characterized by standard sampling methodologies, a defined set of relevant indicators, and 

stringent quality assurance (QA) requirements. The Wadeable Streams Assessment, a survey 

of the biological health of the nation’s wadeable streams, was launched in 2004 by USEPA and 

the states to provide a scientific baseline of stream water quality data based on conditions at 

approximately 500 randomly selected sites across the central and eastern United States. With 

support from USEPA, state water quality agencies sampled streams between June and October 

2004 using the same types of methods at all sites. Crews collected macroinvertebrates, 

sampled water quality conditions, and evaluated physical habitat (i.e., the condition of the 

streambed, streambanks, and vegetation surrounding the stream site) at each site. Data from 

these sites were combined with data collected by USEPA and western states in the Western 

Streams Pilot Study to draw conclusions about the condition of 100% of streams throughout 

each major ecological region of the contiguous United States. Further assessments of rivers 

and streams, which will include fish collection, are planned for 2008 and 2009.

2.5 What Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Have Been Developed for Sediment 

Associated with Forest Roads? 

The need to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters was 

established by Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act to assist in the implementation of state 

water quality standards to protect the designated beneficial uses (e.g. fishing, swimming, 

drinking water, fish habitat, aesthetics) of individual water bodies. TMDLs are developed for 

waters that fail to meet state water quality standards despite the application of technologybased effluent limitations. A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum quantity of a pollutant 

that may be added to a water body from all sources, including point sources, nonpoint sources, 

and natural background sources, without exceeding the applicable water quality criteria for that 

pollutant. A TMDL has three components: a Wasteload Allocation (WLA), a Load Allocation 

(LA), and a margin of safety. The WLA is the portion of a TMDL allocated to existing and 

future point sources, whereas the LA is the portion attributed to existing and future nonpoint 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 64 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

sources, including natural background levels of the pollutant. Where possible, the LA must 

distinguish between loadings from natural sources and those from nonpoint sources. The 

TMDL must allow a margin of safety to account for scientific uncertainty, and it must take into 

consideration seasonal variations in water quality conditions. A simple formula summarizes 

the components of a TMDL: 

 WLA + LA + margin of safety = TMDL 

Determining the source of a particular type of non point source pollution (e.g., sedimentation) 

is difficult. Sediment in a water body or watershed is typically derived from a number of both 

natural and man made sources. The type and amount of sediment will also fluctuate depending 

on short-term climatic changes. Nevertheless, the “Sources of Impairment” statistics on the 

303(d) list clearly shows the significance of nonpoint source pollution. Only 10% of the 

impaired watersheds in the United States are impaired solely because of point source pollution 

alone. An estimated 43% of the nation’s waterways are impaired by nonpoint source pollution 

only, with the remaining 47% impaired from a combination of both point source and nonpoint 

source pollution. Sedimentation is a leading impairment in 6,427 water bodies (9.9% of 

reported impairments). This picture loses some of its coherence, however, when the 

consistency of the state lists of impaired waters is examined. States with very similar land use 

patterns and environment paint a very different picture of the impairment level of their waters. 

For example, the State of Washington shows little impairment of their watersheds while 

neighboring Oregon reports a high level of impairment for their watersheds. States are required 

to disclose the data, modeling and assumptions used in developing their list of impaired 

waters. The ranking depends on the best available information, and the quality and reliability 

will tend to vary from state to state. Thus, TMDL tracking can be plagued by the same 

inconsistencies and incomplete reporting noted above for the 305(d) lists. 

As mentioned in Section 2.4 above, TMDLs listed under Section 303(d) provide another way 

to evaluate the significance of forest roads in contributing to water quality impairments in the 

US. Beginning in 1992, states, territories and authorized tribes were to submit lists of impaired 

waters (i.e., waters that do not meet water quality standards) to USEPA every two years. The 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 65 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

current National Section 303(d) list, which includes state electronic data submissions from 

1998 through 2006, lists pathogens, mercury, other metals, sediment, nutrients, and oxygen 

depletion as the leading causes of impairment of all water bodies. Sediment, as well as other 

causes of impairment (e.g., Cause Unknown - Biological Integrity, Turbidity, Habitat 

Alteration), suggest that forestry and forest roads may be sources of impairment in some of 

these water bodies. However, the source(s) of the impairment are not identified in the current 

National Section 303(d) List and the associated TMDL Tracking System database7. Oregon 

lists 1,512 sedimentation-impaired water bodies (including 5,600 miles of forest streams) in 

the 2004/06 Integrated Report Database; Washington lists 1,110 impairments in stream and 

creek segments. Unfortunately, neither state reports the sources of water quality impairment.

Many impaired waters that require a TMDL budget for sediment include roads as a primary 

source. In Idaho, for example, nearly every TMDL created for sediment in a forested setting 

identifies roads as a primary source of sediment problems. TMDLs written for seven 

waterbodies in Idaho specifically address forest roads as a source of sediment, while 

implementation strategies for general sediment reduction often focus on road improvement and 

road removal as critical steps for reducing loads. 

The involvement of the National Forest Service in developing TMDLs illustrates the possible 

extent of forest roads as sources of impairments. The 303(d) lists for 2005 include more than 

4,300 water quality impairments in 2,600 water bodies on National Forest Service lands in 41 

states. The Forest Service has supported development of more than 300 TMDLs in more than 

30 National Forests. As another example, the Washington State Forest and Fish Agreement 

addresses Endangered Species Act listings for 660 streams included on the 303(d) list of water 

quality limited water bodies (NCASI, 2001b).

In California, many Northern Coastal rivers have been listed as "water quality limited" due to 

sediment and/or temperature impacts to fish. In the settlement of a lawsuit brought against 

 

7 In the future, it may be possible to identify the source of impairment in a TMDL as forestry-related in EPA’s new 

TMDL data system (expected to be online in the spring of 2008), but only for Integrated states and within that 

subset, only those states that actually identify their cause of impairment sources (N. Abdelmajid, EPA; personal 

communication 12/13/07). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 66 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

USEPA stating that the agency was not enforcing the Clean Water Act, USEPA made a legal 

commitment guaranteeing that TMDLs would be established by either USEPA or the State 

Regional Water Quality Control Board for 18 river basins by 2007, including 10 where 

silviculture is a potential source of sedimentation and/or siltation: 

y Garcia River (TMDL completion date: 1997) 

y Redwood Creek (1998) 

y Noyo River (1999) 

y Eel River South Fork-above and below Garberville (1999) 

y Navarro River (2000) 

y Gualala River (2001) 

y Mattole River (2002) 

y Eel River -North Fork (2002) and Upper Main Fork (2004) 

y Mad River (2007) 

The state of California did not complete adoption of a TMDL for the Mad River by the 

deadline of December 2007, so USEPA established sediment and temperature TMDLs for the 

river. USEPA expects the state Regional Board to develop an implementation strategy that 

meets the requirements of 40 CFR 130.6. 

 

More than 30 rivers where silviculture is a potential source of sedimentation and/or siltation 

are listed on California’s 2006 303(d) list. These include the following rivers: 

Navarro River - Increased sediment and summer temperatures are detrimental to native cold 

water fish, such as coho salmon and steelhead trout. Both populations of these species are 

listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. Road-related sources dominate 

other anthropogenic sources, reflecting the dominant land uses in the watershed, specifically 

timber production and ranching, which use a vast network of roads. 

Garcia River - Sedimentation has contributed to the reduction and loss of habitat necessary to 

support cold water fish such as these salmonids. An analysis of the road density indicates that 

road densities in the Garcia River watershed are well above the desired density to protect 

instream habitat, also indicating that erosion from roads is a probable source of concern. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 67 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Redwood Creek - Accelerated erosion and other causes of sedimentation are adversely 

affecting the migration, spawning, reproduction, and early development of coho salmon, 

chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. Specific in-stream problems in Redwood Creek include 

fine sediment in spawning gravels, channel aggradation, lack of suitable pools for rearing 

habitats, stream channel instability, and physical barriers to migration. Specific hillslope 

problems in the watershed include improperly designed or maintained roads, sediment from 

unstable areas, removal of riparian trees, and loss of large woody debris. 

Noyo River - The primary beneficial use of concern in the Noyo River watershed is the 

salmonid fishery, particularly the coho salmon fishery. Several factors have contributed to the 

increased sediment delivery above natural rates throughout the watershed. They include: high 

rates of timber harvest, a strong reliance on ground-based yarding methods (particularly in the 

Headwaters and North Fork Noyo River Assessment Areas), and high road densities. These 

factors have led to an increase in the rates of sediment delivery due to landsliding, fluvial 

erosion, and surface erosion related to land management activities. 

Elk River – The Elk River is listed by California as a high TMDL priority water body, and is 

classified as impaired for sediment under section 303(d). Less than 20 years ago, the Elk River 

supported domestic water uses and relatively healthy populations of chinook and coho salmon, 

steelhead, and cutthroat trout (EPIC, 2002). Approximately 5,000 forest acres the North Fork 

drainage were clearcut or similarly harvested between 1990 and 1997. Following logging, 

sediment pollution increased drastically in the North Fork of the Elk River. Native species 

declined significantly in number within the North Fork during this time frame, and domestic 

water uses were completely eliminated in downstream areas. There was extensive evidence 

that the large acreage and rapid rate of timber operations in the watershed on the North Fork 

Elk River have had major adverse effects on the beneficial uses of water. Although its 

conditions today are far from pristine, the South Fork Elk River contains some of the best 

habitat remaining in California for anadromous salmonid species and other native aquatic life. 

As summarized by the State Water Resources Control Board, the record establishes that the 

waters of the South Fork Elk River serve a large number of beneficial uses, several of which 

could be adversely impacted by increased sediment. In 2002, logging plans were pending that 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 68 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

covered more than 1,400 acres in the South Fork. Combined with existing problems from past 

logging operations, this has put the South Fork at great risk of further degradation. The 

Regional Board found that logging in the “Hole in Headwaters” site would increase the amount 

of sediment delivery to the South Fork and adversely impact its important beneficial uses. 

Despite these warnings, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL 

FIRE) allowed logging to commence in the Hole in Headwaters and stood poised to approve 

six additional logging plans in the watershed. This would put more than half of the watershed 

under logging plans within a 10 year time period. 

Bear Creek – The Bear Creek drainage was first intensively logged in the 1950s, when 

approximately 50% of the watershed was cut (EPIC, 2002). Subsequent to the logging, large 

landslides swept the creek, causing extensive damage to the stream channel. Restoration efforts 

followed in the 1990s at a cost of nearly $100,000. By the summer of 1996, Bear Creek once 

again supported coho salmon and steelhead. Simultaneous with these restoration efforts, 

however, logging in the watershed resumed at an unprecedented rate. Between 1987 and 1996, 

more than half of the land draining to Bear Creek was logged. In the winter of 1996-97, 

massive landslides again took place in Bear Creek, turning a confined channel with deep pools 

and high-quality salmon habitat to one that is wide, shallow and filled with sediment. All of 

the habitat structures that were put into place during restoration were either buried or 

eliminated by the landslides. The stream is now severely degraded by high temperatures, 

sediment pollution and sedimentation. Upon inspecting Bear Creek, CAL FIRE, Water 

Quality, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Department of Mines 

and Geology all declared that landslides in Bear Creek had resulted in significant adverse 

cumulative effects to the drainage. Reports from these inspections indicated that the drainage 

had been impacted “beyond reasonable limits” and would take years to recover. 

Logging plans comprising over 900 acres have been approved since 1999 or are currently 

pending approval for Bear Creek, threatening to bring more than 15% of the watershed under 

the footprint of a logging plan in the span of less than 5 years. All of these plans include evenaged management prescriptions and winter operations, and many include extensive road 

construction. Staff of the Regional Board concluded that the current and projected rates of 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 69 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

logging presented a clear threat to beneficial uses (D. Kuszmar, “Comments on Bear Creek 

Harvest Area Analysis” submitted by CAL FIRE on July 6, 2000). 

It should also be recognized that not all impaired waters will be included on Section 303(d) 

lists. USEPA regulations recognize that alternative pollution control requirements may obviate 

the need for a TMDL. Specifically, segments are not required to be included on the Section 

303(d) list if "other pollution control requirements (e.g., BMPs) required by local, State, or 

Federal authority" are stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards within 

a reasonable period of time (40 C.F.R. section 130.7(b)(1)(iii)). These alternatives to TMDLs 

are commonly referred to as Category 4b waters. Over the past three listing cycles, USEPA has 

provided additional clarity and flexibility with respect to the use of Category 4b. As a result, 

use of Category 4b is increasing. 

As of November 28, 2007, the TMDL Tracking System database8 included data for 2,235 

TMDLs, which is an incomplete list. As mentioned above, the source of the impairment to a 

water body is not identified in the current TMDL Tracking System database. However, the 

database can be searched by keyword and the results interpreted to infer the possible sources of 

water quality impairment for the included TMDLs. Table 2-1 summarizes the number of 

TMDLs matching search criteria for a number of forestry-related pollutants (sediment, 

turbidity siltation, habitat alteration), type of TMDL (point/nonpoint or nonpoint), and 

keywords (e.g., silviculture, forest, timber, forestry, roads). The search results in Table 2-1 are 

listed (in descending order) by the number of TMDLs matching each combination of search 

criteria. At the most, these results suggest that 6 to 7% of the TMDLs included in the Tracking 

System database may include silviculture as a potential source of impairment. 

 

8

 http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/text_search.tmdl_search_form 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 70 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

3. DESCRIPTION, EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS OF FOREST ROAD BMPS

BMPs are activities and practices to prevent or reduce pollution to waters of the U.S. They 

include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control runoff, spillage, 

or leaks. Silvicultural BMPs are intended to reduce nonpoint source pollution and maintain 

stream channel integrity so that state water quality standards are met (Prud’homme and Greis, 

2002). Most forest practice regulations have been designed to address changes in temperature 

and fine sediment concentrations in water bodies, two parameters shown to have been 

increased by logging activities. By far the largest issue of concern for forest roads is 

controlling erosion and the resulting sedimentation. BMPs on private lands are almost 

exclusively prescriptions of practices to be employed in response to site conditions (Rice, 

1992), and usually include a practice and some way of determining when and where the 

practice should be applied. The focus of regulatory activity on the development and 

implementation of BMPs reflects the failure of scientists and land managers to provide 

practical in-stream criteria for regulation of sedimentation from forestry activities (Corner et 

al., 1996). In the national forests, USFS BMPs are instead largely procedural, describing the 

steps to be taken in determining how a site will be managed (Rice, 1992). 

There are many different BMPs for controlling water quality impairments due to forest roads, 

as will be presented in Section 3.1. However, these many practices are actually based on 

relatively few guiding principles (Megahan and King, 2004; Olzewski and Jackson, 2006) and 

are grounded in science or based on scientific principles. These include: 

y Recognize and avoid high-erosion hazard areas; 

y Minimize the total amount of landscape disturbed by roads, bare ground and soil 

compaction; 

y Engineer stable road surfaces, drainage features and stream crossings to reduce erosion; 

y Separate bare ground from surface waters and minimize delivery of road-derived 

sediments to streams; 

y Provide a forested buffer around streams which exclude roads and minimize crossings; 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 71 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y Design and install stream crossings to allow passage of fish, other aquatic biota, and 

large wood; 

y Put BMPs in place to anticipate triggering events; 

y Unless obliterated/removed, all forest roads, crossings and associated BMPs must be 

maintained. 

Ideally, BMPs are selected and applied based upon site-specific needs. These include specific 

concerns and treatments for highly-erosive or landslide-prone locations, roads and crossings on 

steep slopes, or wetlands. Usually a collection of BMPs or BMP system will be used at a site, 

as this will be more effective and provide some redundancy in case of BMP failure. For 

example, combining BMPs for road construction and surface treatments significantly reduces 

the erosion and transport of soil away from forest roads (Swift and Burns, 1999). Relatively 

little information is available on the integrated effects of mitigation measures applied to 

separate components of the road prism (Burroughs and King, 1989). Selecting the individual 

BMPs to combine as a BMP system at a site is a combination of science, art, judgment and 

experience. 

Disagreements about which BMP is “best” arise from a variety of factors. First and foremost, 

site conditions affect impacts and mitigation measures, and site conditions can vary 

tremendously. As discussed in Section 2.3.6, variations in site-specific and regional factors can 

result in highly variable erosion rates, risks of mass failure, etc. Depending on the proximity to 

and sensitivity of the receiving water, different degrees of erosion reduction and/or sediment 

delivery reduction efficiency may be required to prevent adverse impacts. Again, differences in 

effective BMP prescriptions depend on the nature and characteristics of the site. Different and 

evolving performance measures have also changed perceptions about BMP selection. As a 

result of findings in the Alsea watershed of Oregon and elsewhere, most western states enacted 

forest practices regulations by the early 1970s (Bisson et al., 1992) to address changes in 

temperature and fine sediment. New concerns about the effects of logging on peak flows and 

on the abundance of large woody debris in streams began to take shape in the 1970s and 

resulted in renewed research activity in the 1980s. More recently, there has been a research 

focus on the function of small headwater streams in storing and processing sediment and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 72 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

organic matter (Bisson et al, 1992). BMP regulations have changed greatly within a single 

decade (Bisson et al., 1992). Changes in logging systems, reforestation techniques, and 

environmental protection requirements have meant that the concepts of BMPs for forestry have 

always been evolving. 

Most of the factors leading to increased surface erosion from roads are manageable by 

adjusting road design features, employing erosion control practices, and performing proper 

road maintenance (NCASI, 2001). However, these improvements are not accomplished easily 

or cheaply. Ultimately, forest managers and the regulatory agencies must determine how much 

change in existing road systems is sufficient to meet aquatic goals and how to achieve those 

changes most efficiently. This raises the issue of how environmental effectiveness is balanced 

with practicality, because BMPs are defined as what is practicable in view of “technological, 

economic, and institutional considerations” (CEQ, 1971). 

The individual land manager’s value system will affect how they perceive both the benefits 

and the costs of operations. For example, the management practice of minimizing stream 

crossings is often ignored as “impractical”. This was also illustrated by the results of a small 

survey that was conducted to gain insight into the effect of a manager’s value system on 

clearcutting in steep inner gorges and the resulting landslide erosion (Rice, 1992). Statistical 

treatment of the survey results was not appropriate because the questionnaire respondents were 

self-selected (i.e., voluntary). Both public and private respondents gave high ratings to the 

management objectives of harvesting timber on stable land and mitigating high risk sites. 

Industrial foresters were more concerned about being able to harvest timber, while their Forest 

Service counterparts expressed about equal concern for timber harvest and landslide 

prevention. Private foresters’ appraisals of the loss from failing to cut timber on stable terrain 

was nearly twice that of Forest Service people, and they also attached a smaller penalty to 

causing a landslide. Rice concluded that if forest managers became accustomed to rigorously 

evaluating competing values and site conditions, improvements in erosion control could be 

obtained without reducing harvests. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 73 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Another example of the tradeoff between environmental protection and practicality that is 

implicit with BMPs is the prescription for the width of filter strips. Swift (1986) measured the 

distance that sediment traveled downslope below newly constructed forest roads in the 

southern Appalachian Mountains, and found they were less than previously reported. He 

concluded that filter strip standards currently applied to forest roads in that region specified 

greater widths than were necessary with prevailing construction practices. Swift noted that any 

guidelines for filter strip width should be based on extreme sediment flow distances rather than 

an average distance. However, a guideline that protects against all possible cases would require 

impractically wide filter strips. Swift also note that the distances he measured represent only 

the downslope extent of coarse particles of sediment (>0.05 mm), and that storm waters 

muddied by fine particles reached farther downslope. If the soil material exposed and eroded 

from a road contained a high percentage of silt and clay, then the transport of fine particles 

downslope could have an important impact beyond the distances used as guidelines. 

Reductions in soil erosion losses achieved through runoff control and soil stabilization BMP 

techniques may not always be acceptable environmentally (e.g., areas that may contain 

sensitive terrestrial or aquatic species; Grace and Clinton, 2006). In those situations, sediment 

and storm water control practices are essential to reducing the quantity of sediment introduced 

into forest stands and available for transport directly to stream systems. Sediment control 

practices are installed in the path of sediment-laden storm runoff and are used to capture 

sediment as close to the source (e.g., the road prism) as possible. 

3.1 What are the Types of BMPs and how are they Maintained? 

There are a number of comprehensive sources of information regarding BMPs for forest roads 

(USEPA, 2005; Gallagher et al., 2000), and many references discussing specific BMPs. Table 

3-1 is a comprehensive list of BMP control and mitigation measures for: road construction; 

operations and maintenance; closure, decommissioning and obliteration; wetland operations; 

and mitigation for fish habitat based on Gallagher et al. (2000). The table includes descriptions 

of each BMP, qualitative or quantitative measures of their effectiveness in terms of reducing 

erosion, and estimated costs when available. These BMPs are discussed below (Section 3.1) in 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 74 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

the following categories: road planning and design; construction and reconstruction; 

management (maintenance, upgrading and closure); and decommissioning, obliteration and 

removal. Section 3.2 presents information on how well BMPs work, and Section 3.3 addresses 

the costs of BMP installation and maintenance. 

3.1.1 Road Planning and Design 

The planning and design of roads includes reconnaissance and route selection, determining 

road grade and terrain, the concentration of roads, future management, new road construction 

versus improvement of existing roads, and selection of construction methods. The road 

planning philosophy should be to fit the road to the landscape. Site conditions are often more 

important than management practices in determining the erosional consequences of logging or 

road construction (Rice and Lewis, 1992). The most important step in minimizing the impacts 

of roads on streams, including both surface and mass erosion, usually occurs during 

reconnaissance and route selection. This is the step where various measures to control potential 

adverse effects of roads on watershed processes are considered. Road design involves 

translation of field location survey and other data into specific plans to guide construction. 

Roads are now designed to minimize cut and fill volume by constructing roads no wider than 

necessary and by fitting them as closely as possible to the natural topography (Gardner et al., 

1978). Many landslides can be avoided by identifying hazardous slopes and avoiding them, 

and much stream sedimentation can be prevented by constructing roads in locations where 

eroded sediment will not reach streams. For sediment from surface erosion, practices that 

regulate road runoff amount and distribution or that trap runoff prior to it reaching streams are 

particularly effective, in addition to practices that reduce the eroded volume. Fundamentally, 

this includes locating the road farther from the stream (Megahan and Ketcheson, 1996). 

The mechanisms of mass failure point to design solutions to reduce the likelihood of 

landslides: 

y Avoid slopes and locations with a landslide history. 

y Avoid headwall and bedrock hollow locations. 

y Avoid inner valley gorges (the oversteepened slopes adjacent to streams). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 75 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y Avoid large cuts and fills; minimize volume. 

y Don’t incorporate woody debris in fills. 

Any effort to apply BMPs should be governed by an estimate of the erosion hazard. The key to 

reducing adverse environmental effects lies in developing a way to identify high risk sites 

(Peters and Litwin, 1983). Unfortunately, past attempts at identifying high-risk sites, such as 

the erosion hazard rating that was made part of the FPRs for the Coast Forest Practice District 

in California, have been considered failures due to the lack of a sound scientific basis (Rice, 

1992). 

New roads tend to be located in mid-slope and ridgetop locations where channel 

encroachment, riparian impacts, and delivery of fine sediments are minimized (NCASI, 2001). 

Managers must identify inherently unstable slopes and either avoid these locations entirely, or 

construct roads using design and construction techniques that have been demonstrated to be 

effective at preventing landslides or the specific circumstances encountered (Miller et al., 

2001). 

A watershed analysis completed for the LeClerc Creek watershed in northeastern Washington 

provides an example of mass wasting assessment, development and implementation of mass 

wasting hazard management prescriptions, and adjustment (adaptive management) of 

prescriptions with improved information following major runoff events in 1998 and 1999 

(NCASI, 2001b). Forty-six landslides were located and several moderate to high hazard mass 

wasting management units were identified and mapped in 1996 as part of the LeClerc Creek 

Watershed Assessment (McGreer et al., 1997). Subsequent detailed assessment of the area 

resulted in a new prescription that required total obliteration of all roads and no construction of 

new roads that lay within the area of particular hazard, as identified by geomorphic 

characteristics. No subsequent failures have occurred in the watershed. 

Proper road design can also improve drainage issues. Roads can often be fit more closely to the 

topography, with rolling grades providing natural drainage, rather than the long uniform road 

grades used in the past. Roads should be purposefully designed to discharge water frequently, 

to minimize length of direct delivery, to discharge at locations chosen to minimize delivery of 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 76 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

water and sediment to streams, and to minimize concentration of water that could contribute to 

slope gullying or landslides (NCASI, 2001). Drainage of existing road systems can also be 

redesigned to substantially reduce sediment delivery, often to only a fraction of the original 

amount, by increasing the frequency of relief drains or other techniques. 

Another major improvement in road design and drainage involves the size and configuration of 

culverts placed in streams at road crossings. Today, the minimum design requirement of most 

state forest practices rules is 50 to 100 years (IDL, 2000a; ODF, 1994; WFPB, 2000). 

3.1.2 Construction/Reconstruction 

Many states have established BMPs to address construction practices to reduce surface erosion 

from the road prism, avoid landslides associated with roads, reduce sediment delivery to water 

bodies, construct stable stream crossings that do not block passage of fish and other materials, 

and special construction practices for roads in wetlands and bottomland sites. These BMP 

construction categories are discussed in the following sections; additional details for specific 

BMPs are provided in Table 3-1. 

In addition to construction BMPs, methods of forest road construction have also changed. 

Hydraulic excavators, which can precisely excavate and place materials (Bechman, 1980), 

have almost universally replaced bulldozers for road construction on mountain slopes. Soil 

disturbances are usually addressed immediately following, or even during, construction 

activities. Important erosion control practices to consider during construction include (NCASI, 

2001): 

y Keep slope stabilization work as current as possible with road construction. 

y Use at least a six to ten inch minimum depth of aggregate produced from sound 

igneous or metamorphic rock. 

y Thoroughly clear and grub brush, timber, stumps, and other woody debris from 

roadbed and fill areas to prevent potentially serious surface and mass erosion problems. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 77 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y Spread cleared vegetation and woody materials over the soil surface below fills to 

enhance the sediment trapping and “buffer” characteristics of the slope below the road. 

y Keep stream disturbance to an absolute minimum and avoid it altogether during high 

flows. 

y Limit the work area during construction to small sections to limit exposure of disturbed 

area to erosion forces in the event of adverse weather, and keep installation of relief 

drains current with sub-grade construction. 

The best planning and design is useless unless it is incorporated into the finished product 

(Megahan, 1977). Competent supervision of the construction phase is required (NCASI, 2001). 

3.1.2.1 Surface Erosion Control

Practices are available for effective treatment of erosion hazards for all major road prism 

components: cutslopes, running surfaces, road ditches, fillslopes, and even the area downslope 

from roads (NCASI, 2001b). An excellent summary of road erosion control effectiveness is 

provided by Burroughs and King (1989), who calculated that erosion from the entire road 

prism could be reduced by over 90%. Table 3-1 includes descriptions for a variety of BMPs for 

surface erosion control, including slope stabilization practices, road surfacing and daylighting, 

and cutslope and fillslope stabilization. Table 3-2 includes data for the effectiveness of various 

surface erosion controls on different components of the road prism. The erosion reduction 

efficiency of these treatments vary widely. With increasing application rates and percent 

ground cover achieved, treatment of cut and fillslopes with straw, wood chips, rock, 

hydromulching, or erosion mats can reduce erosion by 80 to 100%, depending on the treatment 

applied. For instance, straw applied to fillslopes at a rate of 1 ton/acre reduces fillslope erosion 

by approximately 60%. In the southern Appalachian Mountains, Swift (1986) reported that 

overwinter mulch of straw and asphalt, at the rate applied, was a very poor substitute for grass. 

The majority of road construction sites relied on natural revegetation or dry grass seeding 

without mulching, and this was generally not effective in preventing chronic sediment delivery 

to streams. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 78 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Roadway surfacing can be a particularly important treatment, because tread erosion usually 

comprises 50% or more of total delivered road prism erosion, with increasing importance as 

road traffic increases. Development of wheel ruts in roads approximately doubles erosion; 

surfacing and/or traffic control prevents the formation of ruts (Foltz and Burroughs, 1990; 

Foltz et al., 2000). Treating road travel surfaces reduces tread erosion by 43 to 77% 

(Burroughs and King, 1985; Foltz and Truebe, 1995). Moreover, sediment reduction due to 

rock surfacing can vary by several-fold depending on hardness and quality of the rock (Foltz 

and Burroughs, 1990). Erosion from ditches can be eliminated with rock, and Burroughs and 

King (1989) summarize design principles and criteria. 

Burroughs and King (1989) discussed the potential for erosion reduction by various treatments 

on each component of the road prism. Their research was based on sediment production 

experiments on 100 feet of roadway in northern Idaho at the Intermountain Research Station. 

They found that graveling the travelway reduced sediment production by an average 33%. 

Graveling both the travelway and roadside ditch was estimated to reduce sediment production 

by 57%. If graveling of the travelway and ditch were combined with cutslope protection, 

sediment production was reduced by an estimated 91%. 

An Oregon wet season road use monitoring project made specific BMP recommendations for 

controlling road surface erosion under critical conditions, when conventional BMP 

prescriptions would not adequately control erosion (Mills et al., 2003): 

y Use aggregate containing the minimum percentage of fines needed to bind and pack 

and seal the surfacing. Where there are excess fines; screen aggregate to reduce the 

percentage of fines in the rock and lower sediment delivery. 

y Use at least a six to ten inch minimum depth of aggregate produced from sound 

igneous or metamorphic rock (use more where the subgrade is soft). 

y Reduce the length of road segments that deliver to streams to less than 250 feet by 

adding cross drain culverts or other drainage structures. 

y Prioritize inspection of wet weather active operations during the first moderate rainfalls 

(3 day total rainfall of 1.5- 3 inches) to determine if immediate repairs are needed or if 

ceasing road use is necessary. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 79 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Drainage control BMPs include road outsloping broad-based dips, waterbars, relief culverts, 

cross-drains, ditches and turnouts, and belt diverters (Table 3-1). Drivable broad-based dips 

divert runoff from the road tread onto the hillslope below the road, reducing overland flow 

distances and the resultant erosion (Logan, 2001). Drivable dips are popular because they are 

relatively inexpensive to install, and because they can be retrofitted to existing roads. 

However, these and other road BMPs such as ditch relief culverts, open top culverts, and belt 

diverters are only effective if they are located so that the sediment travel distance below the 

drainage outfall is less than the distance to the nearest stream (Woods et al., 2007). Research 

conducted at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory demonstrated how a number of these 

drainage and erosion control BMPs (outsloped roads with no inside ditches; broad-based dips 

to divert road drainage; outside berms and brush barriers; gravel and/or grass cover; minimized 

road width and curve radius; and stream buffers) could be combined to construct low-cost, 

lower-standard forest roads that still reduced erosion and sediment generation. The Coweeta 

research is reflected in many state BMP programs, especially in the southeast region 

(Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

Analyses of the effectiveness of erosion control BMPs suggests that they should be effective in 

controlling sedimentation at the watershed scale, if correctly and fully implemented. 

Watershed assessment conducted for the Plum Creek Timber Company Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP) indicated that construction of additional drainage structures near stream crossings 

would eliminate 25 to 85% of road sediment delivered to streams in the eleven watersheds that 

were evaluated (NCASI, 2001b). An extensive road system in the Spruce Creek watershed of 

northern Idaho was assessed using the Washington watershed assessment procedures (NCASI, 

2001b). Analysis of site-specific conditions in this watershed revealed that the addition of 

drainage relief structures near streams would reduce sediment delivery from this existing road 

system from 257 tons to 108 tons (McGreer et al., 1998).
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 80 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

3.1.2.2 Landslide Avoidance

Aside from design precautions (Section 3.1.1), other BMPs that can significantly reduce 

likelihood of mass failure include minimizing sidecast, full-bench end-haul construction, and 

avoiding organic matter in fill (Table 3-1). In addition, the following guidance is offered for 

landslide avoidance (NCASI, 2001c): 

y Carefully size culverts and install trash racks to prevent plugging, particularly where 

fill failure could lead to downstream debris flow. 

y Drain water frequently to avoid concentration on or below fills and to help avoid 

further concentration in the event of cutslope failure. 

y Outslope roads where practical, and consider reshaping insloped roads to outsloped 

prisms with surface drains when they become inactive. 

y Eliminate sidecast on steep slopes (those over 50%). 

3.1.2.3 Sediment Delivery Reduction 

Table 3-1 also includes descriptions for a variety of BMPs to reduce sediment delivery to 

streams: removal of direct-entry culverts, control drain outlet erosion, and application of 

sedimentation basins and filter windrows. Reducing the length of road that drains directly to 

streams via ditches at road crossings can substantially reduce total road system sediment 

delivery (ODF, 2000; McGreer et al., 1998). Reducing the length of road segment contributing 

to a relief drain also reduces sediment delivery to streams, because the distance the water and 

sediment travel downslope before being trapped and infiltrated decreases due to decreasing 

source area for water supplied to the road segment in question (i.e., the volume of water and 

sediment discharged is smaller and is therefore trapped or infiltrated sooner; Megahan and 

Ketcheson, 1996; Packer, 1967; Elliot et al., 1997). BMPs should specify the maximum 

spacing of relief culverts for road segments within about 500 feet of any stream channel. 

Where relief culverts or water bars discharge within about 300 feet of any stream channel, 

adequately-sized sediment traps and energy dissipation and/or flow spreading measures should 

be applied to the discharge to prevent the road drainage from integrating with the natural 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 81 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

stream network. Increasing obstructions (e.g., rocks, logs, stumps, slash, etc.) on the hillslope 

below a drain reduces sediment delivery because of increased opportunity for sediment 

deposition and reduced sediment travel distance (Brake et al., 1997; Megahan and Ketcheson, 

1996). However, relying solely on slash berms or piles is not adequate to prevent channel 

development from concentrated discharges, such as relief culverts. Filter windrows constructed 

at the toe of fillslopes reduce sediment leaving the fillslope by approximately 85% (Burroughs 

and King, 1989). 

3.1.2.4 Stream Crossings

The stream crossing is the most critical section of road influencing water quality (Taylor et al., 

1999). The midwestern state forestry BMP manuals suggest that the best way to maintain 

water quality during forest management is to avoid crossing a stream (NCASI, 2007). 

Location, number, type and size of crossing structure, and timing and location of construction 

are all important factors. Table 3-1 includes BMPs for both temporary and permanent 

crossings. Portable bridges, log crossings, pole fords, and temporary culverts are examples of 

temporary crossings. Permanent crossing BMPs include fords (low water crossings), bridges, 

increased-capacity and arched culverts, and diversion proof (fail-safe or fail-soft) crossings. 

Culverts are the most prevalent kind of stream crossing on forest roads, and usually cause the 

most problems in terms of blocking fish passage, plugging and subsequent failure, and chronic 

erosion and sediment delivery. Scouring at culvert outlets should be controlled with energy 

dissipaters. Although trash racks are prescribed to prevent culvert plugging by trees and other 

debris, their use may contribute to fish passage problems. Installation of round culverts should 

be avoided where fish passage is necessary; bridges and arch culverts are preferred for streams 

with migrating fish. 

Washington State FPRs require that new and replacement culverts be installed to ensure free 

and unimpeded passage for fish, and that road maintenance and abandonment plans 

specifically address removing artificial barriers to passage of fish by adhering to specific 

culvert design guidelines (Cupp et al., 1999). For culvert fills at stream crossings, armoring 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 82 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

(e.g., rock riprap) should be required on both the inflow and outflow side of the road (Rashin et 

al., 1999). Construction phase erosion control measures should be applied to all culvert tills at 

stream crossings. Special attention to armoring and revegetation is needed on tills greater than 

ten feet high. The extent to which stream crossing culverts become migration barriers to 

resident fish and other aquatic life, and the implications of such barriers to ecosystem integrity, 

should be fully evaluated. If subsequent evaluations determine that adverse ecosystem effects 

are occurring, measures to mitigate such effects should be developed. Alternatives to using 

culverts for crossings of steep streams, such as temporary or permanent bridges or other 

temporary crossings, should be promoted as a preventative measure. 

3.1.2.5 Wetlands and Bottomlands

The CWA regulates road construction activities in wetland areas because of the potential for 

environmental impacts. If the road is constructed and maintained in accordance with 15 

specific BMPs the USEPA provides an exemption to permitting requirements. The wetland 

BMPs are stated in performance language (i.e., required outcomes) rather than specific 

guidance, and provide no information on how to properly stabilize fill material in wetland road 

construction (Rummer, 1999). Most of the research studies on forest road construction and 

erosion control have been conducted in upland topography where erosion processes are 

significantly different from floodplain conditions. There is little scientific knowledge about the 

water quality effects of forest roads in bottomland stands. 

The available research suggests that erosion with floodwater is a transport-limited process 

(Rummer, 1999). To minimize water quality impacts of forest roads in bottomland stands, 

BMPs should focus on reducing water velocity (i.e., brush barriers, vegetative stabilization) or 

appropriately anchoring soil in higher-velocity areas. Reducing the amount of exposed soil is 

not necessarily the best approach to avoiding water quality impacts, because water quality 

impacts in wetlands and bottomlands are transport-limited, not source-limited. Results of one 

long-term study (Rummer, 1999) suggest that forest roads in bottomland stands are unlikely to 

significantly impact the suspended sediment transport of passing floodwater. The key factor 

affecting sediment generation and transport in bottomlands is flow velocity and direction. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 83 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-1 includes several BMPs specifically for wetlands. These include runoff diversion, 

minimizing rutting, the use of temporary roads and fill removal, and berms. 

3.1.3 Road Management 

Road management includes inspection and maintenance activities, upgrading, temporary 

closure, putting to bed (decommissioning), and road obliteration (Table 3-1). 

 

3.1.3.1 Maintenance

Maintenance is recognized as a critical component of both the transportation and 

environmental performances of roads. Road maintenance is critical in order to provide 

continued access and control environmental impacts (NCASI, 2001). Properly maintained 

roads have a stable surface and an operating drainage system that drains water from roads as 

quickly as possible onto the forest floor instead of directly to streams. Road maintenance 

BMPs executed to minimize surface erosion and mass wasting include: surface grading and 

maintenance of road gravel to prevent rutting; ditch cleaning to insure that water remains in 

ditches and does not erode the ditch or the running surface; monitoring, cleaning, and 

replacement of relief and stream crossing culverts; monitoring and grading of rolling dips; and 

treatment of cut and fillslopes to encourage and retain protective vegetation (NCASI, 2001). 

Roads should be inspected at regular intervals, especially during or following large rainfall or 

snowmelt events and can include an inventory of existing and potential erosion and slope 

failures on all roads. 

Traffic access control through the use of gates is commonly practiced to minimize road surface 

damage during wet periods, to reduce erosion and sediment delivery. The results are often 

substantial; preventing ruts in road surfaces alone can reduce erosion by approximately 50% 

(Burroughs and King, 1989). Lowering the pressure of truck tires is another BMP that has been 

shown to be effective in preventing rutting and reducing erosion. Traffic control BMPs include 

road closure, access restriction, wet weather traffic restriction, and seasonal use roads. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 84 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Traffic and road maintenance are two interrelated components in road management that have 

the potential to influence sediment movement from forest roads (Grace and Clinton, 2006). 

Increased soil erosion has been attributed to traffic in previous research conducted on roads in 

mountainous regions (Bilby et al., 1989; Burroughs and King, 1989; Foltz, 1999; Reid and 

Dunne, 1984). Increased erosion losses can require increased maintenance to maintain 

drainage patterns and prevent (or minimize) the impact on downslope resources. However, in 

an investigation of the influence of traffic and road maintenance on sediment production from 

forest roads in the Oregon Coast Range (Luce and Black, 2001), ditch grading had a greater 

effect on increased soil erosion than traffic. Maintenance operations can increase soil erosion 

by removing armoring layers on the road surface and in the ditch that develop over time (Black 

and Luce, 1999). Road segments where vegetation was cleared from the cutslope and ditch 

produced seven times as much sediment as road segments where vegetation was retained, 

showing the potential reduction in erosion by revegetation following construction and potential 

impact of ditch cleaning during maintenance (Luce and Black, 1999). 

In a study of road surfacing types on sediment yield in the Pacific Northwest, Reid and Dunne 

(1984) found that over a one year period, graveled road segments receiving heavy traffic 

produced 130 times more sediment than road segments receiving no traffic. In this study, 

traffic intensity greatly influenced (7.5 times the rate measured during periods of no traffic) 

soil loss and suspended sediment concentrations in runoff. It was hypothesized that soil loss 

from the road segments was influenced by the frequency of road maintenance and grading. 

3.1.3.2 Upgrading 

Upgrading activities are similar to maintenance, as they also involve ongoing inspection, 

assessment of problems, and control action to avoid or remedy the problems. With upgrading, 

old roads built to lower standards with lower sensitivity to environmental issues can be brought 

up to current standards as forest harvesting occurs in adjacent areas or where priority 

environmental concerns are identified (ODF, 2000; WFPB, 2000). In many cases, major 

reductions in environmental impacts are possible through relocation and improvement of old 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 85 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

roads (NCASI, 2001). General recommendations are provided for improving ineffective and 

partially effective BMPs (Rashin et al., 1999). These recommendations are intended to attain a 

high confidence of achieving water quality standards by preventing or minimizing chronic 

sediment delivery from surface erosion and avoiding physical disturbances and habitat 

degradation in streams: 

y For culvert fills at stream crossings, armoring (e.g., rock riprap) should be required on 

both the inflow and outflow side of the road. 

y Alternatives to using culverts for crossings of steep streams, such as temporary or 

permanent bridges or other temporary crossings, should be promoted as a preventative 

measure. 

y Road location practices should minimize new roads within about 500 feet of streams in 

order to minimize the integration of road drainage with the stream system. 

y The maximum spacing of relief culverts should be reduced for road segments within 

about 500 feet of any stream channel. 

y Where relief culverts or water bars discharge within about 300 feet of any stream 

channel, adequately-sized sediment traps and energy dissipation and/or flow spreading 

measures should be applied to the discharge to prevent the road drainage from 

integrating with the natural stream network. 

y Relying solely on slash berms or piles is not adequate to prevent channel development 

from concentrated discharges, such as relief culverts. 

Perhaps the most acceptable alternative to manage forest roads for soil and water protection is 

upgrading the most critical roads (Grace and Clinton, 2006). In many watersheds, specific road 

segments are responsible for a disproportionately high share of total road sediment delivery 

(NCASI, 2001). If the major stream impacts in a watershed are associated with sediment 

discharged from roads, the means of control is to identify and treat the specific roads that 

contribute the sediment, not merely to reduce road density. Where land managers recognize 

higher hazards for road erosion they can modify road design and maintenance practices to 

minimize impacts (Bourgeois, 1978). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 86 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

3.1.3.3 Closure 

Roads that will not be used again in the near future are often closed. This is a management 

BMP that temporarily removes the road from use and retains it for future use. This is an 

extremely cost-effective measure in cases where environmental concerns do not require 

obliteration (described below). With no traffic, closed roads can reduce soil loss and suspended 

sediment concentrations in runoff by an order of magnitude compared to roads with traffic 

(Reid and Dunne, 1984). At some time in the future, the road may be reconstructed with 

minimal disturbance. Roads that are closed may require periodic inspection and maintenance. 

A key to road closure is achieving self-maintaining drainage and, as part of the closing 

process, roads may be upgraded according to potential impact to riparian and aquatic 

resources. 

3.1.4 Decommissioning/Putting-To-Bed and Obliteration/Removal

There is a continuum of BMPs for temporarily decommissioning roads (also known as “putting 

to bed”) to completely obliterating roads that can be used to decrease the costs and 

environmental impact of forest roads (Table 3-1). Decommissioning can involve closing 

access, reseeding the road surface, removing temporary stream crossings, and opening 

drainage structures that may fail. A decommissioned road is put into an erosion-resistant 

condition but can be re-opened at a later date when access again might be needed. Road 

obliteration, on the other hand, is the partial or complete removal of the road from the 

landscape. Obliteration goes farther than decommissioning in restoring hillslopes, natural 

drainageways, and vegetation. Obliteration is intended to eliminate future road maintenance. 

The road prism is obliterated and returned to a naturally functioning component of the 

landscape. Road removal involves the physical treatment of a roadbed to restore the form and 

integrity of associated hillslopes, channels, and flood plains and their related hydrologic, 

geomorphic and ecological processes and properties (Switalski et al., 2004). 

Long-term road treatments such as decommissioning and obliteration are becoming more 

common. Road decommissioning can lead to improvements in fisheries habitat where sediment 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 87 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

runoff from old forest roads enters streams (TetraTech, 1999). Reduction of sediment delivery 

to streams can be particularly significant where roads in highly erosive materials are located 

adjacent to streams. The practice was used in a watershed in northwest Washington as part of a 

watershed rehabilitation to improve fisheries habitats and water quality and to reduce flooding 

hazards. On unused, 30- to 40-year-old, largely impassable roads and landings, fills were 

stabilized, stream crossings were removed, slopes were recontoured, and drainage patterns 

were reestablished at an average cost of $5,600 per km (range: $2,100 to $10,600; TetraTech, 

1999). Luce et al. (2001) outline fundamental principles for strategies to prioritize road closure 

and decommissioning. The most common priority is the ‘problem’ roads that yield substantial 

mass wasting or severe surface erosion. Such roads represent a small fraction of most road 

systems, and many such roads have already been decommissioned. In some cases, sediment 

modeling has been used to support prioritization for road closures and decommissioning. This 

is often in response to the goal of managing basin-wide sediment yields to be within prescribed 

limits (Luce et al., 2001). 

Where there is significant landslide hazard, old roads may be obliterated. Full road 

recontouring has been used effectively to reduce landslides in northern California, western 

Washington, coastal Oregon, and northern Idaho (Switalski et al., 2004). In Redwood National 

Park, a 12-year storm produced very little sediment from treated roads. In Clearwater National 

Forest, a 50-year storm resulted in no landslides on treated roads. Although road removal 

treatments do not completely eliminate erosion associated with forest roads, they do 

substantially reduce sediment yields from abandoned logging roads (Madej, 2001). Removing 

abandoned forest roads and restoring the natural characteristics of slopes and stream channels 

in the Redwood National Park and State Parks in northern California have substantially 

reduced the delivery of sediment to salmon-bearing streams. However, it has also been noted 

that no form of road removal was able to prevent chronic erosion completely on steep lower 

slope roads (Switalski et al., 2004). 

Methods to remove roads continue to evolve. Useful experience with this BMP has come from 

major federal road removal efforts as part of watershed rehabilitation in Redwood National 

Park, and other locations in Oregon, Washington and Montana (Gallagher et al., 2000). A 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 88 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

critical issue in decisions about road decommissioning is whether disrupting the new 

environmental balance created by the presence and aging of the road is desirable (Gucinski et 

al., 2001). Road removal can cause accelerated erosion losses in the short-term (Switalski et 

al., 2004), and the risk of mass failure may still exist (Luce et al., 2001). Recontouring, the 

highest level of obliteration, involves removing embankments and replacing cuts, removing 

drainage structures, reestablishing soil permeability and subsurface flows, fixing gullies, 

reestablishing vegetations and controlling surface erosion (Moll et al., 1997). Hickenbottom 

(2000) reported that recently recontoured road segments produced significantly more sediment 

than roads recontoured 12 months previously. Although sediment yield was greatly reduced 

one year after recontouring, the recontoured roads were susceptible to erosion immediately 

after treatment. Given that there is little control or ability to maintain areas after recontouring 

or ripping, a well-designed, open, and maintained road may sometimes represent less risk for 

mass wasting (Luce et al., 2001). 

The effectiveness of restoring natural stream and flood plain function by decommissioning and 

obliteration still needs to be addressed. No studies have examined influence of road removal 

on the recovery of aquatic, riparian and/or terrestrial ecosystems (Switalski et al., 2004). 

3.2 How Well do Forest Road BMPs Work? 

The key measure of nonpoint source pollution control success, laid out by USEPA guidance 

and the overall goals of the CWA, was whether the NPS control program could achieve desired 

water quality goals (Madej, 2001). It was assumed that BMP practices including forest road 

BMPs could successfully mitigate sedimentation impacts and BMP implementation would 

protect water quality from nonpoint source pollution. To some degree, it is unknown whether 

current forest practice rules have or will result in achieving PL 92-500’s specific water quality 

targets (Rice, 1992). The need to monitor and evaluate the relative efficacy of BMPs still 

exists. Although a substantial amount of research has been conducted on BMP performance at 

the site level, relatively little work has been undertaken to investigate the effect of forest road 

BMPs on erosion and water quality (Grace, 2002). There is a lack of info on how modern (post 

1980s) road building technologies (including incorporation of BMPs) may reduce mass 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 89 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

wasting and water quality impacts (USEPA, 2005). There is some evidence that modern road 

building practices are reducing the amount of sediment delivered to streams from forest roads. 

Binkley and MacDonald (1994), for example, cite many studies showing reduced impact of 

forestry practices with BMPs, although some degree of impact is usually detected. State 

agencies consistently report there is insufficient monitoring data to make sound assessments 

(Corner et al., 1996). 

Studies of the effectiveness of silviculture BMPs in preventing water quality impairments have 

been undertaken at several different scales (Ice, 2000). For this report, effectiveness studies are 

categorized according to studies of individual sites (which also address smaller road networks 

and associated stream segments), and watershed scale studies. Although site-level research 

usually differentiates BMPs for forest roads from others (e.g., RMZs or harvest activities), the 

effectiveness of forestry BMPs are generally considered together at the watershed scale. Water 

quality impacts observed at this scale therefore reflect the integration of many individual sites 

and practices. However, these impacts are often related to roads and stream crossings, which 

are acknowledged to be predominant sources of sediment to forest streams. 

Initial assessments of BMP effectiveness involved research plots, field evaluations, small 

paired watershed studies, and application of agricultural models like the Universal Soil Loss 

Equation (USLE) to forest conditions (Ice and Whittemore, 1998). These all provided valuable 

information, but they were also limited. Most were designed to provide only a local assessment 

of impacts, often to an individual operation. The assumption was that if impacts could be 

minimized at the site, they would be diluted downstream. However, concerns about cumulative 

effects caused forest managers to explore alternative assessment approaches. Early 

assumptions about downstream dilution, transport of impacts, and stream response were 

challenged. With maturation of CWE assessments, watershed specialists began to recognize 

both the dynamic nature of watersheds and streams, and the potential for and need to address 

operational fall-down of BMPs (Callaham and DeVries, 1987). This led to development of 

BMPs such as "diversion proof road designs" (Hagans and Weaver, 1987) and "debris torrentresistant road crossings" designed to minimize impacts to watersheds during extreme events. In 

recent years, watershed-scale assessments were further stimulated by legal requirements to 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 90 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

develop TMDLs and the growth of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and 

landscape ecology methods capable of addressing spatially complex watershed problems. 

3.2.1 Site Level Forest Road BMPs Effectiveness 

Site level studies of forest road BMP effectiveness examine how well BMPs work in specific 

sections of roadway, crossings, and other features at a specific site or sites. The study methods 

include visual observations (e.g., eroded soil volumes, sediment plume travel distances), 

sediment traps, and monitoring of water quality parameters (TSS and/or turbidity) in runoff. Site 

level studies focus on how well BMPs control the sources of sedimentation (erosion, mass 

wasting and delivery), and are usually able to compare sites with BMPs to control sites lacking 

BMPs. 

A number of methodologies have been developed for monitoring erosion and sediment 

production at sites based on upslope or on-site evaluations (Corner et al., 1992). Corner et al. 

(1996) compared the use of sediment traps, a relatively inexpensive upslope monitoring 

technique, with weekly instream monitoring of TSS. Upslope monitoring, using sediment traps 

above and below disturbed forest areas, has several advantages over instream monitoring. 

Instream monitoring is more time-consuming and expensive compared to the upslope approach. 

Careful observation of on-site processes, such as the formation of sediment trails, can document 

sedimentation processes unaccounted for by either instream or upslope monitoring procedures. 

Qualitative walk-in-the rain monitoring may help identify key problem areas and processes and 

considerably augment quantitative data (MacDonald and Smart, 1993). 

Sediment traps were used by Sugden and Woods (2007) to measure rates of sediment production 

from forest roads in western Montana. They found that rates of road erosion in this region were 

relatively small and were limited by low erodibility of the dominant parent materials and low 

rainfall. The efficiency of five, 0.8 m3 sediment traps in measuring road erosion ranged from 21 

to 84%, with a mean of 56%, which compares favorably with those reported by other 

researchers. Sediment trap efficiency was inversely correlated with the fraction of clay in the 

roadbed. At the site where trap efficiency was 21%, the measured sediment yield had to be 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 91 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

increased by a factor of 2.3. It is important to consider how the accuracy of erosion 

measurements made by different methods depend on factors such as the efficiency of sediment 

traps, as they can substantially affect the quality and comparability of erosion as well as 

sedimentation data. Likewise, methods based on dry-weather observation of sediment plumes are 

subject to possible bias. 

BMP effectiveness studies, taken together, demonstrate that modern BMPs substantially mitigate 

nonpoint pollution from forestry activities at the site scale, although the BMPs are not 100% 

effective (Jackson et al., 2004). The exception to this generalization is unstable locations in key 

problem areas of the PNW (Idaho, northwest California, western Oregon and Washington, and 

southeast Alaska) where conventional BMPs for road construction may not be sufficient to 

prevent adverse effects on stream channels and fish habitat (Binkley and MacDonald, 1994). 

Table 3-2 is a compilation of numerous site level BMP effectiveness studies. Operations 

complying with BMPs led to stream sedimentation problems in fewer than 10% of 40 projects 

studied in Idaho (Harvey et al., 1988). Robinson et al. (1999) indicated that Oregon FPRs were 

likely reducing the size and number of road-associated landslides. Other site-level BMP 

effectiveness studies include the McGreer (1981) Potlatch skid trail erosion study, the North 

Carolina Flatwoods sites (Appelbloom et al., 1998), and the Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) 

study of sediment travel distances. 

Swift (1984b) studied erosion on newly constructed timber sale access roads in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains. After seeding and grading the road surfaces with gravel, soil loss rates 

were greatly reduced, especially from the grass-covered cut and fill slopes. However, some 

erosion from the roadbed continued. Despite the reduced erosion rates after these mitigation 

measures, soil loss from the entire roadway was calculated to be about 20 times the normal rate 

for undisturbed forest. Improving roads for all-weather use by installation of adequate culverts 

and gravel surfaces can have short-term negative effects such as the generation of sediment. 

A number of states have developed programs to monitor water quality and stream habitat 

condition in the proximity of sites (Ice et al., 1997). In the early 1990s, the North Carolina 

Division of Water Quality and the USFS examined the effectiveness of BMPs on a forest road in 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 92 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

the Appalachians (North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1994). A long-existing road, which 

closely paralleled Timbered Branch and its tributaries for about 2 miles and had been a chronic 

source of road sediments to the stream, was retrofitted with a number of measures designed to 

reduce sediment loading. They included ditch outlets, sediment traps, berms, weeps, outslopes, 

humps, and relief culverts. Sediment reduction was assessed qualitatively, and biological 

monitoring was conducted on the affected streams to determine effects on aquatic species. 

Improvements in taxa richness and diversity in the aquatic community were attributed to the 

sediment reduction practices (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

The South Carolina Forestry Commission, in cooperation with Clemson University and the 

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, evaluated the effectiveness of 

silviculture BMPs in protecting water quality in all physiographic regions in South Carolina 

(Adams et al., 1995). Twenty-seven harvested sites from the Coastal Plain to the mountains were 

selected. BMP compliance on the sites ranged from inadequate to excellent, thus bracketing the 

full range of potential effects. BMP effectiveness was determined by Stream Habitat Assessment 

(SHA) and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring. Poor logging practices were linked to 

impaired benthic invertebrate condition and aquatic habitat (Dissmeyer, 1994). Ten sites that 

rated inadequate for BMP compliance experienced negative SHA impacts. On sites where BMP 

compliance was rated as adequate or excellent, SHA indicated that streams were not impacted. 

Sites that passed BMP compliance inspection scored well on the bioassessment. The authors 

concluded that BMP compliance inspections appeared to be a reliable and economical surrogate 

for monitoring BMP effectiveness in South Carolina (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

Seven and one-half miles of Three Forks Road were reconstructed in the Conasauga River 

Watershed in northern Georgia and southeastern Tennessee (Riedel and Vose, 2003). The gravel 

road was reconstructed to reduce slope and break up long grades; center crowns, ditches and 

culverts were removed; cut-and-fill slopes were vegetated; brush barriers were installed on fill 

slopes; settling areas were contained with hay bales, brush barriers and silt fences; and coarse 

run aggregate was added to roads to reduce surface erodibility (Swift and Burns, 1999; Swift, 

1988). Sediment yields post-treatment were initially very high (though less than average pre-
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 93 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

treatment) and rapidly declined to levels well below that of pre-treatment. Road reconstruction 

reduced sediment yield by 70% within 4 months, despite greater precipitation. 

Woods et al. (2007) measured sediment travel distances below drivable drain dips along unpaved 

roads in the metasedimentary Belt Series and glacial till parent materials of western Montana. 

Drivable dips and other road BMPs such as ditch relief culverts, open top culverts, and flapper 

water bars are only effective if they are located so that the sediment travel distance below the 

drainage outfall is less than the distance to the nearest stream. The travel distances measured by 

Woods are lower than those measured in granitic parent material. Due to the limited sediment 

travel distances, most drainage outfalls in these parent materials do not contribute sediment to 

streams. However, the researchers note that dry weather determination of sediment travel 

distances are subject to error, and that fine sediment moves farther. 

Studies of stream crossings and wetlands have been summarized by Rehder and Stednick (2006). 

Thompson et al. (1996) reported sediment production from fords, and sediment production from 

temporary culverts and bridges was investigated by Whitewater (1997) and the USFS (USFS, 

1981). Thompson and Kyker-Snowman (1989) measured the short and long-term impacts of 

“mitigated” and unmitigated stream crossings. Wetland crossing studies reported generally 

minimal water quality impacts, but noted that sedimentation effects were most effectively 

controlled by keeping runoff on the roadway (as opposed to roads in upslope landscapes, where 

BMPs are applied to remove runoff from the road). 

Although silviculture BMPs are grounded in science or are based on scientific principles, a lack 

of science to validate BMP effectiveness has been noted as a shortcoming of many BMPs related 

to forest roads (Grace, 2002). For example, routing runoff onto the forest floor is often presented 

as a trapping mechanism and means to reduce sediment delivery to streams. Through proper 

design, filtering of runoff from forest roads can be induced by directing flow onto the natural 

litter layer of the forest floor. However, in steep terrain, this filtering may not be sufficient to 

arrest sediment-laden flows. In addition, the filtering capacity of forest floor is limited and 

diminishes over time. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 94 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

BMP performance is usually defined in terms of a constant pollution reduction efficiency, as 

presented in Table 3-2. In reality, the performance of BMPs and associated impacts vary 

considerably with geology, terrain, other watershed characteristics, site locations and weather. 

This, combined with various intensities of forestry practices and traffic levels, can lead to 

localized water quality problems that may not be fully controllable by BMPs, especially at the 

cumulative scale of watersheds. 

The difficulty with rating BMP efficiency is that the same practice on different sites, in different 

watersheds, or even with different weather patterns can result in different impacts (Ice et al., 

2004). In order to maximize the performance of BMPs at a site, the BMP prescription must be 

customized to the setting. Specific examples related to site conditions include the following 

(Olszewski and Jackson, 2006): 

y Avoid sidecast road construction in steep, landslide prone regions; 

y Diversion-proof or storm proof roads where gully formation is a significant risk (e.g., 

steep forest roads); 

y Provide adequate rocking or use geotextile reinforcement where surface fines are 

generated by traffic; 

y Remove runoff concentrated by interception of subsurface flow or precipitation from the 

road (using cross drain distance, outsloping, rolling dips, road runoff diversion structures) 

before concentration and excessive rutting occur; 

y Avoid direct delivery of sediment from roads by limiting the road distance draining to 

stream crossings, by applying effective buffer distances and slash/debris/grass buffers; 

y Use energy dissipaters where road runoff energy is high; 

y Apply mitigation measures such as road decommissioning or removal, or upgrading with 

additional BMPs, to reduce risks in legacy watershed situations. 

Customizing the BMPs for forest roads is a popular solution to “problem” roads and roads and 

crossings in highly erosive and high risk locations. However, customized BMPs require greater 

skill and effort on the part of the forest manager and knowledge of where the problems are 

located, both of which increase the difficulty for states to determine whether BMPs have been 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 95 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

properly implemented. In this situation, performance standards that are realistically achievable 

should be used to set goals for the BMPs (Rashin et al., 1999). 

Major storms are the design condition for many BMPs. Some BMPs will function in a 5-10 year 

storm; more on-slope BMPs will fail in a 25 year storm; and, all BMPs may fail in a greater than 

25 year storm (Dissmeyer, 1994). At the level of rare events, natural impacts and processes may 

overwhelm management decisions, and their impacts may be obscured. Assessments of BMP 

effectiveness must therefore wait for “testing storms”, like the severe 1996 floods in Oregon and 

southern Maine.

3.2.2 Watershed Scale Forest Road BMPs Effectiveness 

A number of large studies have focused on how forestry practices including BMP 

implementation has contributed to changes in sedimentation and other water quality 

impairments. Because such impairments are usually a cumulative response to many sediment 

sources and can occur considerably downstream, these studies are generally conducted at the 

watershed scale. These studies test the hypothesis that forestry practices, including the 

application of BMPs, will be effective at minimizing cumulative water quality impairments to 

maintain and restore beneficial uses. A number of these studies have examined how water 

quality impairments due to forest roads are mitigated by BMP implementation. 

Watershed-scale research is much more complex, data-intensive and expensive than site studies. 

Interpreting the results of watershed studies can also be difficult and contentious. Large 

watershed-scale studies have a number of important advantages for monitoring effectiveness of 

BMPs (Ice and Whittemore, 1998). These include: 

y Watershed-scale assessment allows for an integrated or cumulative measure of BMP and 

program effectiveness. 

y It allows BMP effectiveness to be placed in the context of realistic variations in water 

quality throughout a watershed and over time; 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 96 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y It allows for assessment of the conservative/non-conservative nature of water quality 

parameters; 

y It connects upslope hazards with downslope aquatic resource risks; and 

 

y It allows for assessment of unanticipated consequences that might not be identified at the 

site scale. 

Several methods are used to compare the water quality response with BMPs to either undisturbed 

(i.e., no roads) or untreated (no BMPs) reference watersheds. The most common methods 

involve using paired watersheds or before/after comparisons of past and current measures of 

impacts from forest operations. Paired watershed studies may be superior in that they can be 

used to explain the important factor of weather variations (Loftis et al. 2001), although there are 

limits. In the Mica Creek Watershed Study a small thunderstorm cell perched nearly directly 

over one experimental watershed, causing significant runoff, while completely skipping a nearby 

paired watershed (Ice, 2000). Another method that is seeing more widespread use by states is 

trend monitoring of stream habitat conditions, such as the Aquatic Inventory Project in Oregon. 

A possible measure of effectiveness is achieving state water quality standards or stream habitat 

goals (Ice, 2004). Under the CWA, states are required to establish water quality standards to 

protect beneficial uses of water. One trouble with water quality standards is that they have not 

adequately characterized what is achievable and even desirable. Furthermore, states have 

different standards for suspended sediment, turbidity and sedimentation. Turbidity standards 

capture suspended sediment, but not the degradation of stream substrates by fine sediment, and 

there are no criteria that measure hydrologic change (Scurlock, 2007). Efforts by USEPA to 

develop water quality criteria for suspended and bedded sediments (SABS) are noteworthy in 

this regard. SABS are defined by USEPA as particulate organic and inorganic matter that 

suspend in or are carried by the water, and/or accumulate in a loose, unconsolidated form on the 

bottom of natural water bodies (Swietlik, 2003). SABS are a unique water quality problem when 

compared to toxic chemicals, for example, because suspended solids and bedded sediments 

(including the organic fraction) occur naturally in water bodies in natural or background amounts 

and are essential to the ecological function of a water body. However, as documented in Section 

2.2, SABS in excessive amounts constitute a major ecosystem stressor. Impairment of the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 97 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

movement of large wood in stream systems by road crossings is also poorly reflected by water 

quality criteria. Use of ecologically-based water quality criteria to designated impaired waters 

has been stopped by industry groups on legal grounds in several states: Oregon no longer lists 

streams under Section 303(d) on the basis of low instream flow or “habitat modification” 

because these are not “pollutants”. 

In addition, traditional water quality monitoring has proven to be inadequate for detection of 

impairment caused by stormwater runoff (FDEP, 1997). Numerous studies have demonstrated 

that the biotic and chemical “noise” in larger streams renders the water quality effects of forestry 

activities using BMPs undetectable (Jackson et al., 2004). Accurate suspended sediment load 

estimation in small, rain-dominated watersheds like Caspar Creek depends upon frequent 

sampling when sediment transport is high. Sediment concentrations are highly variable and 

inconsistently or poorly correlated with water discharge. Errors of 50-100 percent are probably 

typical when sampling is based on convenience (Lewis, 1998). 

Major watershed-scale studies that have investigated the effectiveness of forestry BMPs include 

the following: 

y Caspar Creek, California 

y Mica Creek, northern Idaho 

y Hinkle Creek, southwest Oregon 

y Alsea watershed, Oregon 

y Six Rivers National Forest, California 

y Alto watershed, east Texas 

y Fernow Experimental Forest, West Virginia

y Coweeta Hydrologic Research Laboratory, Appalachian Mountains

These watershed studies are briefly introduced below. Since a number of the studies have been 

ongoing for as long as 50 years, there is no way to present or even summarize all of their 

findings. A number of books and research summaries have been published for the watershedscale projects (Ice and Stednick, 2004; Ziemer, 1998). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 98 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The Caspar Creek Watershed Study is an important ongoing project to assess BMP effectiveness 

being conducted by the CAL FIRE and the USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station. This study 

provides research level data on how forest practice operations prior to and after the 

implementation of California’s 1973 Z’Berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) have affected 

water quality (Cafferata and Spittler, 1998; Lewis, 1998; Lewis et al., 2001; Ziemer, 1998; 

Ziemer, 2001). Streamflow and suspended sediment have been gauged continuously since 1962 

at both the North and South Fork weirs of Caspar Creek in northwestern California since 1963, 

and at 13 tributary locations in the North Fork since 1986. The North Fork gauging station 

(NFC) was used as a control to evaluate the effects of logging in the South Fork on annual 

sediment loads in the 1970’s. In summer 1967, a main-haul logging road and main spurs were 

built in the South Fork. The road right-of-way occupied 19 ha adjacent to the stream, from which 

993 m3ha-1 of timber was removed. The first of three stages of logging began in the South Fork 

in 1971, during which 59% of the stand volume was selectively cut from 101 ha. In 1972, 69% 

of the stand volume was selectively cut and tractor yarded from an additional 128 ha. In 1973, 

65% of the stand volume was selectively cut from the remaining 176 ha (Rice et al., 1979). 

Aerial photos of the South Fork Caspar taken in 1975 portray 66 recently active landslides 

(Keppeler et al., 2003). Of these, all but 3 were associated with roads, landings or skid trails. Of 

the 38 South Fork landslides documented between 1994 and 2003, 89% are road, landing, or skid 

trail related. An ageing system of logging roads and skid trails continues to deliver sediment to 

the stream channel. In the most conservative treatment of the data, suspended loads increased by 

212 percent over the total predicted for a 6-yr period commencing with the onset of logging 

(Lewis, 1998). Sediment load increases were correlated with flow increases after logging. Field 

evidence suggested that the increased flows, accompanied by soil disruption and intense burning, 

accelerated erosion of unbuffered stream banks and channel headward expansion. 

When the roles of the watersheds were reversed and the same analysis repeated to evaluate 

harvesting in the North Fork under California Forest Practice Rules in the 1990’s, no significant 

increase was found at NFC in either annual suspended or bed load. Logging began in the main 

study portion of the North Fork in 1989 and ended in 1991. The timber volume removed from 

the North Fork was intended to approximate the volume cut from the South Fork in the early 

1970's, but clearcutting with cable yarding was used in the North Fork rather than the selective 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 99 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

harvest with tractor yarding that had been used earlier in the South Fork. Upstream of the North 

Fork gauging station, 48% of the area was clearcut and 4% of the streamside protection zone was 

selectively cut. The size of clearcut blocks in the North Fork ranged from 9 to 60 hectares (ha) 

and occupied 35% to 100% of individual tributaries. New roads, landings, and skid trails occupy 

from 2.1% to 7.0% of individual logged watersheds. Three tributaries in the North Fork were left 

in an untreated control condition. Post-logging measurements continue in the North Fork and 

South Fork watersheds to the present. 

 

It is probable that the sampling methods in the 1960’s and 1970’s resulted in overestimation of 

sediment loads in the South Fork analysis by a factor of 2 or 3 (Lewis, 1998). Therefore, 

comparisons between relative increases are more appropriate. Excess suspended load was 212 to 

331 % (depending on whether an adjustment is made for a North Fork landslide in 1974) after 

logging the South Fork, and 89 % after logging the North Fork, suggesting that the effect of 

logging on suspended sediment load was 2.4 to 3.7 times greater in the South Fork than in the 

North Fork. Flow increases accounted for only part of the variability in sediment production. 

Road systems would typically be expected to account for much of the sediment. However, in this 

case, roads were relatively unimportant as a sediment source because of their generally stable 

locations on upper hillslopes far from the stream channels. 

The effectiveness of Idaho’s forest practice rules is being tested by Potlatch Corporation and 

cooperators at Mica Creek in northern Idaho. In 1990, Potlatch Corporation initiated research at 

the Mica Creek Experimental Watershed to evaluate the cumulative effects of contemporary 

timber harvest practices on water flow, quality, and aquatic ecosystem health. The study consists 

of paired and nested experimental watersheds at three scales. Forest treatments include a 50% 

clearcut watershed and a 50% partial cut watershed (50% canopy removal). Watersheds were 

monitored for a pre-treatment calibration period of six years, a four year post-road period, and a 

five year post harvest + road phase to separate the effects of road construction from harvest 

practices. Monitoring includes basic hydrometeorological variables, streamflow, stream 

temperature, sediment, channel characteristics, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish. Results 

from Mica Creek are just beginning to be reported (Ice et al., 2004b). More recently, the Mica 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 100 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Creek watershed has been transitioning into a working forest, with roads installed in 2006 and 

harvesting beginning in 2007. 

The Alsea Watershed Study in Oregon began in 1957 as a cooperative effort between Oregon 

State University and federal and state agencies to address the effects of timber harvesting on the 

stream environment (Moring and Lantz, 1975; Ringler and Hall, 1975). The Alsea study also 

examined the response of salmon, trout, and other fish species to forest practices, often the most 

basic factor when the public considers the effectiveness of forestry BMPs. Coho salmon biomass 

and net productivity increased after logging, but cutthroat trout populations declined (Ringler 

and Hall, 1975; Moring and Lantz, 1975). This is not unexpected, because cutthroat trout are a 

stream-resident species that requires clean gravel for spawning. Coho salmon, on the other hand, 

are anadromous and can spawn in fine sediments. Although coho biomass and net productivity 

increased in the intensively clearcut watershed, some subtle measures of coho salmon 

performance were negatively affected (reduced condition factor of fingerlings and fry in streams 

at the time of logging, and fecundity of these coho when they returned to spawn). 

Macroinvertebrates may increase in abundance with some timber harvesting practices near 

streams, but the diversity may shift or light- and sediment-intolerant species may decline 

(Newbold et al., 1980). More recent studies in the clearcut watershed (Needlebranch Creek) 

show that coho are relatively unaffected by extreme harvesting practices, but cutthroat trout 

populations show persistent decreases in older age classes (Gregory et al., 2008). It has been 

hypothesized that the reason for the cutthroat response is that habitat quality (pool depth and 

complexity) was reduced during the initial harvest and has not recovered. 

The forestry practices that took place during the Alsea study, extensive clearcutting and lack of 

stream protection, are no longer permitted under Oregon’s FPA, in large part because of the 

lessons learned in this watershed study. Results of the Alsea study were used to develop BMPs 

for timber harvesting in the temperate coniferous forests. 

 

Since 1990, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been working with forest 

landowners to collect information on stream habitat conditions as part of the Aquatic Inventory 

Project. This project has created a database representing 4,000 stream reaches throughout 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 101 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Oregon. With resurveys of the stream reaches, it is possible to assess trends in stream habitat 

conditions. The information has been organized by Oregon State University scientists into a GIS 

database with nearly 100 variables describing stream and habitat attributes (Wing and Skaugset, 

1998). One additional program of note is the Headwater Research Cooperative that is supporting 

research on mostly non-fish-bearing forest headwater streams to assess how they function and to 

determine what are appropriate management practices. 

At the Fernow Experimental Forest in West Virginia, turbidity in runoff was compared between 

a watershed treated with BMPs, an unrestricted harvest watershed where road construction was 

not managed to control water pollution, and an undisturbed control watershed (Reinhart and 

Eschner, 1962). While the BMP watershed showed an increase in the maximum turbidity 

measured from 15 JTUs (Jackson Turbidity Units) for the control to 25 JTUs, the maximum 

turbidity measured for the runoff from the unrestricted harvest watershed was 56,000 JTUs (Ice, 

2004). 

Williams et al. (1999) evaluated BMP effectiveness in the South Carolina Piedmont, which they 

considered the most sensitive physiographic province in the state. The authors studied three 

harvest, site preparation, and regeneration alternatives (with BMPs) for changes in flow, 

sediment, and nutrients, and compared results to a control watershed. They observed statistically 

significant increases in observed parameters in all alternatives, but all waters met state waterquality standards. Further, they demonstrated that forestry BMPs reduced sediment yield to onetenth of that occurring without BMPs (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

A number of watershed studies have compared past and current measures of impacts from forest 

operations. A before/after watershed study in the Six Rivers National Forest in California 

(Knopp et al., 1987) documented a 85% reduction in landslides associated with roads over a 10 

year period, while fine material in stream bottoms was reduced from 22 to 15%. Ice (2004) 

compared the results of watershed studies in the South Carolina Piedmont by Williams et al. 

(1999) and Hewlett (1979). BMPs reduced sediment yield increases tenfold compared to yields 

observed prior to BMPs. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 102 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The majority of watershed scale studies reviewed for this report suggest that the use of BMPs at 

the site level to maintain water quality are effective at reducing cumulative effects with a basin, 

although more research is clearly needed. The paired watershed and before/after comparisons 

show that forest BMPs can reduce water quality impacts from 80 to >99% (Ice, 2004), although 

the continuing presence and use of unpaved roads typically precludes recovery to predisturbance levels (NCASI, 1994). Negative impacts of forest practices should be uncommon 

except in cases where: unstable areas and areas with highly erodible soils, when management 

activities coincide with extreme storm events, and possibly for cumulative effects in downstream 

deposition areas (Binkley and MacDonald, 1994). Extreme storm events can have unavoidable 

effects on both managed and unmanaged landscapes and streams. At level of rare events, natural 

impacts and processes may overwhelm management decisions, and impacts may be obscured 

(Dissmeyer, 1994). Assessments of BMP effectiveness must wait for “testing storms” like the 

1996 floods in Oregon and southern Maine, or the December 2007 flood in Washington.

 

The effectiveness of BMPs in the California coastal region may be an exception to the findings 

summarized above. According to Harris et al. (2005), there are no quantitative data indicating 

that road BMPs have substantially improved instream water quality or salmonid habitat 

conditions in that region. These authors report that it is not known how site-level effects translate 

into benefits to water quality and stream habitat at the stream reach or watershed scales. Little is 

known about the temporal scale at which improvements may occur. Recent studies show that 

restoration of upper watershed locations or non-fish-bearing streams causes short-term impacts 

on local water quality due to post-construction adjustments (Klein, 2003). 

3.3 What are the Costs of Installing and Maintaining These BMPs? 

The costs of installing and maintaining BMPs is a major concern to the forestry industry, since 

BMPs increase the cost of timber harvesting and reduce harvesting revenues. Some cost 

information for forest practice implementation is based on the average increased cost of 

conducting a harvest when management measures, i.e., a suite of practices, are used versus when 

they are not used. The difficulty in separating the costs of implementing individual forest 

practices are emphasized when costs are provided in this way. This difficulty is due to 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 103 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

incorporating the cost of using numerous BMPs into the accomplishment of a single harvesting 

or road construction activity, and spreading the cost for individual practices across the 

accomplishment of multiple activities. For example, the cost of adhering to a state regulation for 

stream crossings might be spread among the costs of planning a harvest to minimize the number 

of stream crossings, designing and constructing forest roads to accommodate the plan and 

minimize instream effect to water quality and fish, and the actual construction of the stream 

crossings. Furthermore, these costs differ with each harvest because the terrain, soils, location of 

harvest site relative to streams, and hydrology are different at each harvest site. Therefore, all 

costs presented here are best regarded as rough estimates. The BMP cost estimates presented 

here have all been updated to 2008 dollars, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price 

Index. Much of the summary of BMP costs presented below was taken from the USEPA report, 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry (USEPA, 

2005). 

Estimates of the per acre cost of implementing BMPs for timber harvests were arrived at based 

on information obtained from published reports on regional studies of the cost of BMP 

implementation and cost estimates based on the regulatory structure of forestry practice 

programs. Studies have been conducted on the cost of implementing forestry practices for water 

quality and soil protection in the Southeast and some western states (Aust et al., 1996; 

Dissmeyer and Foster, 1987; Dubois et al., 1991; Henly, 1992; Lickwar, 1989; Olsen et al., 

1987). Table 3-3 presents costs associated with complying with forest practices in states where 

their implementation is either voluntary or regulated, with differing numbers and types of 

requirements depending on the state (Ellefson et al., 1995). 

The costs of implementing state forest practices arise from various activities including 

conducting timber surveys, preparing management plans, constructing roads, and implementing 

practices specifically designed to protect water quality. Many of these costs are borne whether or 

not a stream or other surface water is located on or near a harvest site, though additional costs 

(e.g., designing and flagging a Streamside Management Area (SMA), constructing stream 

crossings) are incurred where streams are present. Costs also take the form of lost revenue from 

trees that are not harvested to ensure compliance with forest practices. Revenue might be 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 104 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

reduced if merchantable trees are left standing in SMAs or when selective cutting is called for 

rather than clear-cutting. An example of this is presented in a comparison of BMP cost estimates 

made by the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (TIAER; Tanter, 2003). BMP 

cost estimates provided by Haney (1998) are much higher ($131 per acre) than cost estimates 

from other sources ($24 to $30 per acre); the difference was due to the greater value Haney 

attributed to timber in streamside management zones, which is not a cost ordinarily associated 

with forest road BMPs. Although the loss of revenue is a real “cost” to landowners, it is very 

market- and species-dependent and is generally not included in the cost estimates provided here. 

The overall costs of complying with regulatory forestry BMP programs might be borne by forest 

landowners alone or shared among landowners, timber operators, and others. Of course, BMP 

costs in this context ignore the very real benefits of protecting water quality. 

Factors that typically affect the cost of implementing forest practices include the type of terrain 

on which a harvest occurs (with costs for harvesting on steeper terrain typically being higher 

than costs for harvesting on flatter terrain) and the regulatory structure of forest practice rules. 

Compliance in states that have numerous and stringent forest practice regulatory requirements 

generally costs more than compliance in states where regulatory requirements are fewer or less 

stringent, or are voluntary. Some states have single regulations that can add significantly to the 

cost of forest harvesting. An example is the requirement for a detailed forest harvest plan in 

California. This alone places compliance with forest practices in California in a category by 

itself. 

Table 3-3 summarizes estimations of the overall per-harvest cost of complying with forest 

practice regulations in different regions and states. Table 3-4 provides cost estimates for 

implementation of individual management measures in the Southeast and Midwest. The costs 

have been verified with state and federal forest management agencies and have been found to be 

representative of actual expenditures. Although most of the cost information came from case 

studies in the southeastern United States, they are representative of costs incurred nationwide. 

Costs vary depending on the site-specific nature of the timber harvesting area. Table 3-5 

provides estimates of costs for installing individual road construction and erosion control BMPs. 

Costs are provided by region, demonstrating that the costs for installing BMPs can vary 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 105 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

considerably in different parts of the country. Specific factors that affect implementation costs 

are mentioned in the Comments column of the table. 

Costs of installing BMPs are available from a variety of other sources (USEPA, 2005; Blinn et 

al., 1998; Gallagher et al., 2000; Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987). Unfortunately, many of the 

available cost estimates are provided on different bases (cost by area, road length, individual 

treatment or site feature) making it difficult to compare costs for different BMPs as well as 

estimating the total cost of BMPs for a particular location and level of treatment. For 

implementation of standard BMPs, TIAER (2003) summarized four independent estimates of 

total costs that ranged from $24 to $131 per acre; for enhanced BMPs, total cost estimates range 

from $42 to $199 per acre. As previously noted, the BMP cost estimates provided by Haney 

(1998) were much higher than the other sources; this difference is due to the greater value Haney 

attributed to timber in streamside management zones, which is not a cost associated with forest 

road BMPs. 

Road construction costs can vary widely on the National scale, depending on both the road 

standard and site conditions (NCASI, 2001). Road construction costs range from less than 

$12,800 per mile on gentle terrain remote from streams, to over $265,000 per mile on steep 

slopes where the design requires BMPs that prevent landslides and delivery of sediment to 

streams (Scherer, 2000; Clark et al., 2000). The costs of temporary roads currently being 

constructed range from $9,450 to $14,800 per mile in gentle to mountainous terrain (Coghlan 

and Sowa, 1998). Cost of constructing eight unsurfaced minimum standard roads in central West 

Virginia averaged $15,700 per mile (Kochenderfer and Helvey, 1987). Surfacing these roads 

with a 4 inch depth of limestone gravel would add about $19,400 per mile, more than doubling 

the road construction cost. 

Where road BMPs are revised to better achieve water quality standards, it should be kept in mind 

that certain more costly erosion control practices are specifically needed in the vicinity of stream 

crossings and for road segments that drain to streams either directly via ditches or potentially via 

drainage relief discharges (Rashin et al., 1999). Therefore, the additional costs of such practices 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 106 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

do not apply to the entire length of constructed roads, and such costs can be minimized through 

careful road location and drainage design.

Costs for road removal are provided in Switalski et al. (2004). Most common forms include 

roadbed “ripping” ($745-$2,264/mile), restoring stream crossings ($582-$175,000), and fully 

recontouring hillslopes ($5,660-$377,300/mile). The wide variation in the estimates for these 

costs is related to the complexity and variability of stream crossing restoration and full 

recontour. These factors make it easier to compare project costs on a per-cubic meter basis. The 

cost of excavating in Redwood National Park was reported to range from $1 to $3.50 per cubic 

meter (Bagley, 1998). 

No costs estimates were found specifically for BMP maintenance. Broadly, appropriated annual 

maintenance for forest roads in the National Forests ranges from $405 to $810/mile for 

maintenance level 3-5 roads, $81 to $135/mile for maintenance level 2 roads, and $27 to 

$54/mile for maintenance level 1 roads (Coghlan and Sowa, 1998). For comparison, a survey 

conducted by the Illinois Institute for Rural Affairs in 1994 identified average annual costs of 

maintaining a mile of gravel or loose aggregate road at $11,853 for all counties, and $2,961 for 

all townships. Comparison of these expenditures indicates that roads in the National Forests 

receive much less maintenance than other roads. 

3.4 What are the Recent Promising Innovations in Forest Road BMPs? 

The forest road research literature points to stream crossings, including features such as bridges, 

fords, and culverts as causing the most significant sediment problems. Recent innovative 

technologies include portable bridges, mats, pipe bundles, and altered logging equipment (wider 

tires, low tire pressure, dual tires). Portable bridges have been gaining popularity because they 

can be installed with minimal site disturbance and water quality impacts, when compared to 

other types of crossings (Taylor et al., 1999). Studies have shown that these portable bridges are 

a cost effective way to reduce the environmental impacts of stream crossings. The Forest Service 

supports the use of portable bridges to temporarily cross streams. Several states have programs 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 107 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

that loan these portable bridges to loggers such as the North Carolina Forest Service’s Bridgemat 

Loan and Education Program, funded partially through USEPA’s 319(h) grants. 

An emerging focus of the post-flood studies in the Pacific Northwest is the importance of 

designing roads to accommodate disturbances, particularly in the area of road-stream crossings, 

which are implicated in most documented road failures (Gucinski et al., 2001). Road re-design 

that anticipates and accommodates movement of water, sediment, and debris during infrequent 

but major storms should substantially reduce road failures and minimize erosional consequences 

when failures occur. 

Other innovations involve the development of methods to optimize BMPs. One example is 

customized cross drain placement based upon sediment flow analysis, which can reduce both 

sediment production and road construction cost in comparison to the prescriptive approach to 

cross drain placement. CulSed is a computer decision support tool developed by the Rural 

Technology Initiative for cross drain culvert design, that enables users with little technical 

training to find near optimal cross drain locations (Damian, 2003). CulSed is simple to use but 

requires accurate road geometry, stream and digital terrain data for a successful analysis. 

Optimization strategies are also being applied for sediment reduction practices on roads in steep 

forested terrain (Madej et al., 2006). Applied optimization methods can be used to determine the 

most efficient way of minimizing sediment input to streams through road decommissioning. 

Roads can be decommissioned through a variety of techniques, each of which has its own cost 

and sediment savings. The optimization tool can formulate the most cost-efficient strategy for 

restoration across a watershed. Optimized restoration strategies have been shown to save more 

sediment under constrained budgets than the currently used approaches. 

Some innovative BMPs might be effective, but the technology has not yet been developed to 

apply them (Ice, 2004). For example, a BMP for landslide-prone forest lands might be very 

effective if slope positions where the factor of safety for slope failure approaches 1.0 (i.e., no 

safety factor) during extreme precipitation and runoff events could be accurately defined. While 

general guidelines can be provided for these high risk sites, the technology to accurately map 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 108 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

variations in soil depths and subsurface water transmissivity, as well as the spatial resolution 

needed for accurate prediction of critical slope angles, is not yet available (Robinson et al., 

1999). 

Another area of innovation related to forest road BMPs is the evolution of management systems, 

which address the question of how to tailor BMPs in watersheds to prevent cumulative impacts. 

One means of building on the reference stream approach is to couple stream indices with 

measures that index road system inputs (in this example, sediment) to the stream (NCASI, 2001). 

Such systems are being implemented by various states and companies. In these systems, 

instream measures of stream health (physical and/or biological) and evaluations of road sediment 

input are coupled in a management system that establishes levels or indices of sediment input 

that in turn indicate whether the input is acceptable or not. This is actually an evolution of 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring, in which the two resulting measures are compared 

and assessed to determine how much additional control is necessary. The target sediment input 

level must be decreased until the stream condition, as indicated by indices such as percent 

surface fines, channel stability, channel geomorphic type, or similar measures, is judged to be 

acceptable. The advantage of the target/index approach is that it is both adaptive and objective, 

providing feedback to the manager about the success of the BMPs in mitigating impairments. 

There are disadvantages as well. The approach essentially relies upon trial-and-error to obtain 

the desired water quality outcome and is highly reliant on the quality of the data for sediment 

input and instream measures; other scientific methods incorporating forecasting or modeling 

may be more efficient. The target/index approach can also delay remediation and recovery, 

because management action (e.g., improving BMP implementation or upgrading BMPs) to 

reduce sediment inputs will not necessarily occur faster than the response time of the water body 

to the sedimentation stressor. Finally, the approach assumes that the relationship between cause 

(sediment inputs) and effect (stream condition indices) can be discerned. This depends on factors 

such as natural variability and the magnitude of road-related sediment loading relative to other 

sources, which have already been discussed. 

The promise of such management systems is that by understanding erosion and sedimentation 

processes as they apply to the specific circumstances of a watershed, as established by watershed 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 109 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

assessment and road inventory procedures, managers can effectively reduce and control impacts 

to levels established as acceptable by current standards. Uncertainty exists regarding these 

standards and the targets and indices that reflect them, and future research will be needed to 

refine them through time (NCASI, 2001).

3.5 Why do Forest Road BMPs Fail to Protect Water Quality? 

In general, the literature on forest road BMP effectiveness fails to address a seeming paradox: if 

BMPs are available to address erosion and sedimentation problems at most sites and rates of 

implementation are high, then why are there still water quality impairments from forest roads? 

Based upon state data for BMP implementation and effectiveness (Sections 4.2 and 4.3), BMPs 

appear to be highly effective: the BMP implementation rate is nearly 90% nationwide (Ice and 

Stuart, 2001). However, BMPs are apparently not effective enough to prevent documented 

impairments of sensitive aquatic resources. In discussing the results of an audit of forest practice 

rules for Idaho, Zaroban et al. (1997) reported, “On an individual rule basis, we found that when 

properly implemented and maintained, the practices described in the forest practice rules were 

effective 99% of the time”, but also stated, “We also found that half of the timber sales we 

audited had sediment being delivered to streams or stream channels as a result of forest practice 

activity”. Forest roads are commonly cited as problematic by western states. According to the 

2002 USEPA National Assessment Database, California and Montana reported 9,713 forest 

road-related impaired miles of streams. Furthermore, California accounts for approximately 93% 

of all forest road related impaired miles of streams reported in the NAD (Beebe and Ice, 2007). 

Montana also reported forest road related impairments to waterbodies, but this number is 

considerably lower (439-mi, 707-km or 4%). These states demonstrate the same paradox 

regarding the effectiveness of BMPs, because both California and Montana report high rates of 

BMP implementation and compliance with state FPAs. In the most recent surveys, rates of 

compliance with forest road requirements in California and Montana averaged 95.8% and 89%, 

respectively. 

In this regard, it should be acknowledged that the majority of studies documenting water quality 

impairments from forest roads were conducted prior to 2000. As previously mentioned, BMP 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 110 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

programs for forestry in many states are dynamic. The extent to which conditions have changed 

since then is difficult to evaluate, but is an important source of uncertainty that should be 

addressed. 

Based upon the information available for this report, there appear to be a number of reasons why 

BMPs fail to protect the water quality and other beneficial uses of aquatic resources. Most of 

these have already been discussed, and will only be summarized here. 

3.5.1 Lack of Effective Implementation 

In general, water quality problems may be due more to the failure to implement BMPs 

appropriately (Pardo, 1980; Whitman, 1989) than the ineffectiveness of the BMPs themselves 

(TetraTech, 1999). Rates of implementation for forestry BMPs are almost always less than 

100%. This is especially true for road and crossing BMPs; state data consistently show the 

implementation rates for road and crossing BMPs to be among the lowest among all forest 

practice categories. Furthermore, just because BMPs have been implemented does not mean they 

are effective. Monitoring implementation can be straightforward, but BMP effectiveness is 

difficult to judge especially under dry weather conditions. Effective monitoring to detect sources 

of erosion, sediment delivery and obstacles to fish passage is a large and labor-intensive process, 

so may not be emphasized in many management systems. If problems are found and not 

corrected, they will continue and possibly grow worse. 

3.5.2 Erosion Rates and Mass Failures can Exceed Capacity of BMPs to Prevent Generation, 

Transport and/or Delivery of Sediment to Water Bodies 

BMPs, like any pollution control method, are effective up to a limit beyond which treatment 

effectiveness declines and may ultimately fail. In the case of BMPs for forest roads, the limits 

are related to the level of disturbance created by the road, the untreated rates of erosion, drainage 

connection and proximity to the surface water, and other regional and site-specific factors: 

unstable and/or highly erodible sites/locations, “Problem” roads, and excessive harvest rates and 

associated high road use. Erosion and sedimentation control may be ineffective because the 

BMPs in place are inadequate to control the runoff, erosion from the various components of the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 111 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

road prism, stability of cut and fillslopes, downslope sediment travel, plugging and washout of 

culverts, etc. In many cases, control of these problems is technically feasible if the BMPs are 

upgraded to a higher level of protection and performance or are enhanced by adding additional 

BMPs. In some cases, however, control of the problem may not be feasible: location “trumps” 

management practice. Downstream deposition areas involving cumulative effects are particularly 

vulnerable to the negative impacts of forest practices. Rare events are a special case (discussed 

below). 

3.5.3 Legacy Roads and Crossings: Lack of Maintenance, Failure to Upgrade and/or Remove 

How to address and remedy the legacy of past road-building, use and crossings is a serious 

problem. Old roads built with practices prevalent in the 1950’s, 1960’s, and early to mid-1970’s 

are still significant sources of erosion (Cafferata and Spittler, 1998). Perched fill and poor 

watercourse crossings associated with old roads are often referred to as “loaded guns” waiting to 

fail with strong stressing storm events. It is imperative that forest managers develop long-term 

road management plans that inventory these source areas and quickly reduce their numbers with 

an organized schedule based on watershed sensitivity and vulnerability of downstream beneficial 

uses. In general, roads built under older standards are “grandfathered”, or not required to be 

brought up to current design standards until either a segment needs to be reconstructed or the 

road shows immediate signs of failure that would damage waters of the state (Scurlock, 2007). 

Given that “old” roads and crossings make up most of the road network in many forested 

watersheds, it may take decades for the sediment delivery associated with these practices to be 

addressed. Lack of sufficient money for maintenance makes this problem worse. Large-scale 

road removal/obliteration is prohibitively expensive, so only the worst “problem” roads can be 

addressed. 

3.5.4 Cumulative Impacts

Chronic erosion from many individual sites may impair a water body, even though relatively 

little sediment is delivered from each site. Fine grained sediment (usually the most significant 

pollutant from roads) is source limited, so once delivered to the water body it can be transported 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 112 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

relatively far downstream to a deposition location. It is possible for many sites to deliver 

sediment to such a location. Cumulative impacts tend to be greater downstream of larger 

watersheds; watersheds with more forestry activity, higher road density and/or problem roads, 

crossings, etc.; watersheds with older road networks and a greater percentage of legacy roads; 

and watersheds where the rates of chronic sediment delivery and/or mass wasting are higher due 

to regional and site-specific factors. 

3.5.5 Highly Sensitive Aquatic Resources 

In several regions of the country forest streams and rivers downstream from forested watersheds, 

serve as habitat for aquatic species that are often highly sensitive to adverse effects of 

sedimentation. Endangered anadromous salmonids have very specific habitat requirements, 

which have become spatially limited in the Pacific Northwest due to anthropogenic activities not 

limited to silviculture. These include dam construction, fishing pressure, exotic species, resource 

extraction, increased water temperature resulting from climate change (see Poff et al., 2002), and 

loss of riparian vegetation. Substrate requirements for reproduction and other life stages are 

highly sensitive to sediment. 

3.5.6 Rare events 

Extreme storm events can have unavoidable effects on both managed and unmanaged forests, 

watersheds and streams (Binkley and MacDonald, 1994). The likelihood of failure of BMPs 

increases with the magnitude of rare events (Furniss et al., 1991). For example, a culvert sized to 

accommodate flow from a 50-year flood has a 33% chance of failure during it’s 20 year design 

life. In watersheds where culverts and other stream crossings are sized for a 5 or 10 year flood, 

essentially all the crossings may be subject to catastrophic “dambreak” failure in a 50 or 100 

year storm. The likelihood of mass failures on roaded steep, unstable slopes likewise increase 

with the magnitude of rare events, although the probabilities of failure are less well understood. 

Robinson et al. (1999) indicated that Oregon’s FPRs are likely reducing the size of roadassociated landslides as well as the number. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 113 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

3.6 How Can Failing BMPs be Improved? 

There are many possible ways to improve failing BMPs, depending on the specific 

circumstances. The descriptions of BMPs for forest roads (Table 3-1) include recommendations 

to address failing BMPs, including reconstruction and upgrading (Section 3.1.3.2). Adding 

components to BMP systems can help address BMP failure by increasing the overall treatment 

efficiency. Improving inspection and maintenance practices may also improve failing BMPs by 

anticipating and preventing failures. BMPs must be designed to anticipate and accommodate 

events (proactive) in order to be effective. For stream encroachment and culvert problems, 

removal of the road and offending culverts is effective (Luce et al., 2001). Regulatory and other 

management responses to BMP failure are addressed in Section 4. 

In many cases, identifying the location of failures may be the greatest challenge. Although road 

inventories are usually based on dry weather observations, it would be much more effective to 

conduct them during wet weather. Qualitative walk-in-the rain monitoring may help identify key 

problem areas. In fact, public reporting of stream sedimentation, such as local observation of 

highly-turbid streams (Corner, 1992; Juul et al., 1990), is currently one of the most important 

means of learning of problems or potential violations (Irland and Connors, 1994). 

One of the most important components of a comprehensive road management plan is the 

determination of which high-risk roads should be properly abandoned. Under the current 

California Forest Practice Rules, this means leaving a logging road in a condition that provides 

for long-term functioning of erosion controls with little or no continuing maintenance. Proper 

road abandonment usually involves removing watercourse crossing fills, removing unstable road 

and landing fills, and providing for erosion resistant drainage (Weaver and Hagans, 1996). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 114 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008

4. STATE FOREST ROAD BMP PROGRAMS 

Nearly all BMP programs part of state forest practices, including state Forest Practices Acts, 

were initially developed in response to the requirements of Section 208 of the CWA. Each state’s 

BMP program shares the basic objective of meeting the state’s water quality standards and 

maintaining the beneficial uses. State forest practice rules and BMPs are generally considered to 

be minimum standards needed to protect public resources (NCASI, 2001). State BMPs are 

generally prescriptive (as opposed to procedural BMPs used in the NFS) because it is easier to 

assess BMP implementation than to measure compliance with water quality standards (Ice et al., 

1997). Three considerations make the prescriptive approach to BMPs appropriate (Rice, 1992): 

(1) because most forestry-related pollutants are natural substances, their origin may be difficult 

to determine, (2) the practice that results in pollution may be difficult or impossible to correct 

once the pollution has occurred, and (3) the level of pollution is the result of the interaction of a 

practice and the subsequent weather. 

When the 1972 legislation was enacted, only Oregon had passed a FPA that directly addressed 

water quality concerns. In 1974, the USEPA proposed that states adopt nonpoint source pollution 

control programs for forestry activities that were modeled after the FPAs of the Pacific Coast 

states (Rey, 1980). By 1982 most states had developed some type of NPS control program for 

silviculture. All states with significant timberlands now have NPS control programs, and several 

continue to evolve more refined BMPs and implementation elements. Measuring the success of 

BMP programs requires regular and credible surveying of BMP implementation (Prud’homme 

and Greis, 2002). Repeated assessments have shown that compliance with state BMPs and FPRs 

prevents major water quality impacts under most circumstances (Ethridge and Heffernan, 2000). 

There is some controversy about this conclusion, as will be discussed in Sections 4.3 and 4.5. 

State BMPs can also be inefficient (NCASI, 2001), because they are designed to protect 

resources under the general circumstances encountered in the area regulated. The result is that 

state BMPs over-protect in some cases (wasting resources that could be applied to higher 

priorities) and under-protect in others (allowing undesired impacts). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 115 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Although there are many similarities in FPRs and BMPs, there are also substantial differences 

between the state forest practice management systems designed to implement these rules. Some 

states have customized BMPs to regions within the state. States with diverse geographies and 

complex terrain, such as Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, have promoted various forms of 

watershed assessment to tailor BMPs more closely to the watershed and site conditions (NCASI, 

2001). The Scientific Review Panel on California Forest Practice Rules and Salmonid Habitat 

also recommended a watershed analysis approach capable of assessing cumulative effects 

attributable to timber harvesting (Ligon et al., 1999). In some cases, management systems evolve 

around a specific issue or certain species of concern. 

4.1 What are the State Programs that Address Forest Roads? 

As of November 1999, thirty-six states have forest land management laws regulating all aspects 

of forest and timber resources and products derived from these resources (Defenders of Wildlife, 

2000). Alabama, Alaska, California, Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey have the most laws, with 

five or more statutes on the books, whereas all other states have four or fewer laws. There are 

currently at least 105 state forest management laws which can be categorized into nine basic 

types of regulatory legislation: forest management laws, policy and purpose laws, powers and 

duties laws or administrative legislation, land acquisition laws, private landowner laws 

regulating privately owned forest areas, educational and forest research laws, timber laws 

regulating the cutting, harvesting and conservation of timber on state lands, prescribed burning 

and fire prevention laws, and disease and insect control laws. In many states there can be a 

complex legal framework of forestry regulations, and this framework varies considerably from 

one state to another.

For this report, the most relevant category of forestry laws is the forest management category. 

There are at least twenty of these types of laws dealing specifically with the need to manage state 

forest lands according to “multiple use” or sustainability principles (Defenders of Wildlife, 

2000). There are relatively new scientific management methods designed to yield the most 

economic, recreational and social benefits from forest resources for generations of people. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 116 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Benefits from forest resources include soil and water quality, increased and diverse use of timber 

resources, and conservation of wildlife habitats. 

The primary regulations applicable to the impacts of roads on freshwater ecosystems are the 

individual states’ forest practices policies, which generally establish standards for the design of 

forest roads and also serve as the BMPs called for under Section 208 of the CWA. These 

programs vary in their substantive level of protection, their specificity and their enforceability. 

The programs generally fall into four categories: regulatory, nonregulatory without enforcement, 

nonregulatory with enforcement, and combination programs. Though BMP implementation is 

not mandatory under the CWA, states have the option of developing and implementing 

regulatory approaches for that purpose. Regulatory programs exist mostly in western and 

northeastern states such as California and Massachusetts or mountainous states with large timber 

industries such as Kentucky and North Carolina. BMPs are mandatory under regulatory forest 

practice programs. Nonregulatory BMP program without enforcement include states without a 

large timber industry or steep terrain such as Illinois, Oklahoma and Utah. Eighteen states have 

nonregulatory programs with enforcement, where use of BMPs are not mandatory but 

enforcement action can be taken against polluters or landowners who refuse to implement proper 

BMPs (e.g., Montana, Arkansas, and Michigan). Eight states have combination programs that 

mix aspects of regulatory and nonregulatory programs; Georgia is an example of a state having a 

mixed regulatory/nonregulatory program. 

Regional trends in forestry BMP programs are also evident (NCASI, 2007). BMP 

implementation is largely voluntary in southern states (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 

and Virginia), but three states (Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have linked BMP 

implementation to other state regulatory programs, making them quasi-regulatory in some 

circumstances, and BMP implementation became mandatory in Kentucky in July 2000. 

While forestry BMPs have become the foundation of NPS water protection programs in the 

south, forest management programs in the west are overwhelmingly regulatory. Furthermore, 

most states in the western region have developed extensive guidelines for implementation of 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 117 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

forest practices rules (FPRs) related to water quality as well as protocols to monitor compliance 

and effectiveness. These regulatory programs fall under either a FPA (Alaska, California, Idaho, 

New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Washington) or a streamside management act (Montana). 

Conversely, the states of Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming do not have established forest 

practices acts. Even though Utah relies on voluntary BMP implementation, the Utah Forest 

Practice Act of 2001 requires registration of forest operators and notification of intent to conduct 

forest practices. 

In the northeastern states (Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia) all states have developed forestry BMP 

recommendations. However, in general, many states have not put strong, consistent efforts into 

monitoring programs (except Maine and West Virginia). While the use of BMPs may be 

voluntary for some of the northeast states, there still exist legal requirements for forest 

management. Because of these various requirements, characterizing the use of forestry BMPs in 

this region as voluntary or required under law is difficult. In the northeast there is a strong focus 

by states and the forest products industry on education and training, strong ‘regulatory’ or legal 

programs, and, when compared to other regions (i.e., south and west) considerably lower levels 

of harvesting. 

In the Midwest, only Minnesota has enacted a FPA. All states in this region (Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin) have 

developed recommendations for implementing major BMP elements which generally cover the 

areas of timber harvesting, riparian forest management, stream crossings, and forest roads. 

Summaries of the state programs for forest road management are provided in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. 

The 35 states in which BMPs for forest roads are voluntary are presented in Table 4-1, while 

Table 4-2 summarizes the programs in the 15 states in which BMPs for forest roads are 

mandatory. These tables are updated and expanded from ones reported by TetraTech9 (2004). 

 

9

 TetraTech noted a number of limitations associated with the tables upon which Tables 4-1 and 4-2 were based. The 

tabulated information did not necessarily constitute a complete picture of all of the regulatory mechanisms available 

for protecting water quality from the impacts of forest roads. The tables presented only readily available information 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 118 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The tables identify which of ten BMP categories are addressed in each state’s forest practice 

rules, and whether the state engages in training and technical assistance, 

implementation/effectiveness monitoring, and/or compliance and enforcement activities in 

conjunction with the BMP programs. Implementation/effectiveness monitoring in each state is 

covered in Section 4.3. The most recent revision date of each state’s BMPs is identified (dates 

ranging from 1993 to 2003 were found), and other relevant state BMP information (e.g., the 

statutory or administrative rule citation for the forest roads program and the state agency(s) 

administering the forest roads program) is included in the tables. Compliance and enforcement 

mechanisms are identified, which normally occur through referral to state environmental 

protection agency and water pollution control laws. The tables include information on formal 

agreements between state agencies for handling suspected incidents of water pollution from 

forestry operations. 

Based on Tables 4-1 and 4-2, 44 states had some form of BMPs which addressed road 

construction; 40 had BMPs for crossings and road maintenance; 24 had BMPs for road closure; 

and 23 states provided training and technical assistance as part of their forest roads program. 

Many states do not address some of the most critical aspects of reducing water quality impacts 

from roads. A review of state BMPs found that 40% of state BMPs do not address maintenance 

of roads, 80% do not address use of roads in wet weather, and 72% do not address road closure 

(TetraTech, 2004). There are some discrepancies between different sources of information 

regarding state forest practices, and some BMP categories may be under-represented due to 

limited data. Table 4-3 provides a more detailed review of forest practices in five western states 

and selected Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) provisions for roads (Scurlock, 2007). Only 

Washington addresses “orphan” roads and has a timeline to bring old roads up to current 

standards. Not all of the states use 100-year storms for crossing design, or allow passage of fish, 

bedload and debris. There are only limited applications of tools such as watershed analysis or 

cumulative watershed effects (CWE) evaluations. 

 regarding the extent of state BMP programs. Some of the information was obtained from state forestry Web sites 

which provide an overview of each state’s activities, but the full extent of their efforts might not be presented. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 119 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

In the documents reviewed for this report, we found no examples of states where water quality 

agency review, concurrence, or approval of BMPs was required. We also found little information 

about the existence of state program for addressing water quality problems related to forest roads 

including legacy issues. In many states, roads built under older standards are “grandfathered”, or 

not required to be brought up to current design standards until either a segment needs to be 

reconstructed or the road shows immediate signs of failure that would damage waters of the state 

(Scurlock, 2007). In his commentary on the Northwest Forest Plan, Scurlock (2007) points to 

other weaknesses in roads policy on non-federal lands. Common limitations on the effectiveness 

of state forest practices rules to address road-related issues include the following: 

y Although new roads are uniformly discouraged, and are subject to improved design and 

standards, they are not prohibited, even on steep, unstable or otherwise sensitive sites. 

y There is limited enforcement and enforceability of rules/guidance relevant to direct road 

discharges to channels, cross-drain spacing, road surfacing, tire pressure, wet season 

operation, revegetation of exposed surfaces and roadside vegetation remediation. 

y Decommissioning is deemphasized. 

y Most rules have no requirement that roads be brought up to standards on any set timeline, 

and improvements are conducted according to operations convenience (except 

Washington). 

y Lack of general performance standards for road design, rehabilitation and maintenance 

limits effectiveness of implementation (as on federal lands). 

y FPRs do not recognize ecological importance of maintaining low road density where it 

exists, and reducing road density in high density watersheds is not a rational resource 

prioritization. 

When problem areas in state BMP programs are identified, the overwhelming response by the 

various regulatory agencies is to strengthen education and training programs in the specific area 

identified (NCASI, 2007). Many state agencies have developed programs in cooperation with 

university extension programs to improve education and training of loggers. States in the 

northeast region rely heavily on BMP implementation as well as logger education and training 

programs to control NPS pollution during forest management. Increasing education 

opportunities, particularly for loggers and non-industrial private forest landowners, should 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 120 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

increase rates of BMP implementation and compliance across the southeast and other regions. 

Implementation of effective BMPs, once designed, requires continuous education of an everchanging population of forestry practitioners and landowners (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

The voluntary nature of the majority of state BMP programs precludes establishing permit 

conditions. Lacking this mechanism, states have employed logger, forester, forest practice 

purveyor, and landowner education as the primary tool to achieve BMP implementation. 

Training has traditionally been conducted in cooperation with forest industries, forestry 

associations, and state agencies. 

States that report high rates of BMP implementation often attribute this to outreach and 

education programs (NCASI, 2007). On industrial forestlands, the high rates of BMP 

implementation can also be attributed to industrial involvement in sustainable forestry 

certification programs. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American Forest and 

Paper Association requires that member companies adhere to BMPs on company land. Member 

companies of the American Forest and Paper Association are required by the SFI guidelines to 

meet or exceed State BMPs on company-owned forest land (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). In 

addition, some forest products companies impose sanctions on timber producers who fail to 

implement BMPs when logging on other ownerships. Forestry operations that utilize experienced 

and informed land managers generally have high rates of BMP implementation. Thus, many 

states recommend that landowners utilize forestry professionals (e.g., private consultants, 

certified Master Loggers) when planning any forest management operations. Kentucky requires 

that a certified forestry professional be on-site for the entire harvest operation. 

Educating an ever-changing population of small forest landowners is a continual challenge for 

state BMP programs. A survey of state foresters found that landowner knowledge of BMPs and 

landowner attitude towards complying with BMPs was a top barrier to BMP implementation and 

effectiveness. These same state foresters noted that the top two keys to future progress of the 

BMP program are landowner and logger awareness and providing pre-harvest assistance while 

the top funding priorities in their respective programs are education, training, and monitoring. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 121 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Compliance and enforcement of BMP programs vary among states, along with whether the state 

water quality agency is involved. Florida, for example, relies on primarily voluntary compliance 

with state approved forestry BMPs. However, BMPs can be enforced when implementation is 

found to be deficient. When incidence of noncompliance is found at the practice level, a further 

evaluation is made to determine if a significant risk to water quality existed (NCASI, 2007). The 

Florida DOF defines significant risk as, "a situation or set of conditions where non-compliance 

with BMPs has resulted, or may result, in the measurable and significant degradation of physical, 

chemical, or biological integrity of water quality, to the extent that it presents an imminent and 

substantial danger to the designated beneficial use.” When a significant risk has been identified, 

the BMP Forester advises the landowner on how to implement corrective measures. Afterward, a 

follow-up site evaluation is made to reassess compliance. Landowner non-compliance with 

recommendations made by the BMP Forester will result in a referral to the appropriate 

regulatory agency for enforcement action. Under the State’s water quality laws, the Florida 

Department of Environmental Protection can enforce BMPs while the Florida Water 

Management Districts regulate forest roads, stream crossings, and several other forestry related 

activities. 

The Kentucky DOF has a four-step enforcement process and is empowered to issue fines and 

designate noncooperators as ‘bad actors’. Where noncompliance with BMPs is observed, a 

written warning is issued describing which requirement is not in compliance. Upon receiving a 

written warning an operator has an opportunity to meet with the district forester and the 

inspector to discuss how to remedy the infraction. This technical assistance meeting is referred to 

as an informal conference. A logger failing to effectively address an infraction (i.e., written 

warning) can receive a notice of violation. In some instances non-compliance can result in a 

special order being issued that allows the DOF to shut down a portion of the operation until 

compliance is achieved. Where violations pose significant threats to water quality, an emergency 

order can be issued which will shut down the entire operation. The DOF can initiate 

administrative hearings, levy fines, or bring court actions for all violations deemed to have 

impacts or potential impacts on water quality. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 122 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The Alaska DOF, with input from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), 

instructs the forest landowner, timber owner, operator, or forest manager to, “...conduct routine 

or comprehensive water quality monitoring for the purpose of assessing the impacts of 

operations on water quality and protected water uses, and for the purpose of demonstrating the 

effectiveness of best management practices in meeting water quality standards”. Routine 

monitoring includes, at a minimum, visual inspection of streams to assess turbidity levels and 

can also include temperature measurements during harvesting operations. If routine monitoring 

is deemed necessary by DOF during harvesting operations, the guidelines are as follows: (1) 

make water quality observations at one or more locations at regular intervals; (2) use simple, 

qualitative assessment techniques; and (3) report data findings and any measures implemented to 

correct water quality problems to DOF and DEC. 

Publicly owned forests are managed in ways that differ in some ways from forests under private 

ownership. On a national scale, 29 percent of timberland is publicly owned (Smith et al., 2001). 

In the Rocky Mountains and Pacific Coast regions, the majority of timberland is in National 

forests (USEPA, 2005). States with greater than 60% of their forests in public land include 

Arizona, California, Oregon, New Mexico and Washington; Idaho, Utah and Wyoming each 

have more than 80% of their forests in public land. Federally managed forests must meet state 

requirements, but also requirements of the USFS (Rice, 1992). The USFS manages more than 

193 million acres in the NFS. Although most forested watersheds are in satisfactory condition, 

some waterbodies on NFS lands do not meet state water quality standards. Year 2005 data show 

that over 4,300 water quality impairments (in 2,600 waterbodies on NFS lands) are included on 

the Section 303(d) lists in 41 states, representing about 8 % of all water quality impairments 

nationally. Leading causes of the impairments on NFS lands include elevated temperature, 

excess sediment, and habitat modification. 

Significant policy-level progress has been made to recognize the ecological impacts of roads on 

federally managed lands over the last decade. Policy changes can generally be linked directly to 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings for salmon, trout and other native fish, and CWA 

compliance concerns. Under the ESA, guidance has been developed in association with federal 

lands consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the US Fish and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 123 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Wildlife Service. For example, current NMFS guidance recognizes a series of indicators that 

relate directly to the impacts of roads on salmonids (road density and location, substrate 

character and embeddedness, physical barriers, and suspended sediment/intergravel dissolved 

oxygen/turbidity). In many National Forests, watershed restoration is synonymous with removal 

of excess roads (Elliot, 2000). 

On September 28, 2007 the USFS and the USEPA signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

on “Fostering Collaboration and Efficiencies to Address Water Quality Impairments on National 

Forest System Lands”. The purpose of the MOA is to establish greater coordination and 

collaboration between the USFS and the USEPA’s Office of Water to foster efficient strategies 

to address water quality impairments by maintaining and restoring NFS watersheds. The USFS 

has already coordinated and collaborated with states and USEPA on many activities to maintain 

and restore water quality in the National Forest System. For example, the USFS has supported 

states and USEPA in development of more than 300 TMDLs in more than 30 National Forests. 

For several National Forests, the USFS has also assisted states’ efforts to develop a record that 

supports placement of waters in Category 4b. 

In addition to these activities, the USFS uses a variety of watershed management techniques to 

address water resource impairments. The USFS Watershed Management Program includes 

guidance to inventory and assess watershed conditions, identify and prioritize improvement 

needs, restore ecosystem components and functions, apply BMPs, implement pollution 

prevention design strategies, monitor project success, and adapt management measures. For 

example, the USFS is in the process of updating national BMP guidance for administering its 

nonpoint pollution control strategy on NFS lands. This new USFS National BMP Program is 

intended to meet or exceed all state BMP objectives as well as simplify and standardize water 

quality protection measures and monitoring on NFS lands. 

4.2 State BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring 

Measuring the success of BMP programs requires regular and credible surveying of BMP 

implementation (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). However, implementation (or compliance) 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 124 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

monitoring of nonregulatory BMPs is unique to forestry nonpoint source management. While 

other nonpoint-source sectors, such as agriculture, are generally unregulated, the degree of 

compliance with BMPs for agricultural activities is not systematically measured or reported. 

Many states have been monitoring forestry BMP implementation for a major portion of the 25 

years of the nonpoint source program existence. During that time, state forestry agencies have 

approached implementation monitoring in different ways, degrees of detail, precision, and 

statistical strength. 

Under CWA Section 319, states must monitor forestry BMP implementation, to assess whether 

BMPs are being applied, whether they are being applied appropriately (based on the state 

guidelines or rules) and, in some states, whether the BMPs are effective. Data obtained from the 

monitoring surveys has provided valuable information which states have used to improve 

implementation rates and identify problem areas where corrections are warranted (NCASI, 

2007). Summaries of the state forest road BMP implementation surveys are presented in Tables 

4-4 and 4-5. Table 4-4 presents implementation data for states in which BMPs for forest roads 

are voluntary, and implementation data for states with mandatory BMPs are given in Table 4-5. 

These tables show which states are monitoring BMP implementation, and the general nature of 

the results of the most recent surveys. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 include the number of surveys that 

have been conducted, the date of the most recent survey, the survey site sampling design and 

methodology, and who conducts the survey. Results presented in these tables include the percent 

implementation (for all BMPs and specific categories related to roads and crossings), specific 

problematic BMPs, and whether the risk to water quality due to failure to implement BMPs was 

evaluated. The tables also indicate whether the implementation data is maintained and tracked 

and if it accessible to agencies and the public; implementation results from 7 states where BMPs 

for forest roads are voluntary or mandatory are not published. States in which there are formal 

agreements between agencies for handling suspected incidents of water pollution from forestry 

operations are noted in the tables as well. Finally, Tables 4-4 and 4-5 indicate whether the 

surveys evaluate implementation separately for different categories of land owners, and what 

those categories are. In general, BMP implementation has been reported to be highest on public 

land, followed in descending order by forest industry land, corporate non-industrial land, and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 125 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

private non-industrial land (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). BMP implementation data from 

several states are presented in more detail in Sections 4.4 and 4.5. 

A National Association of State Foresters survey of state silviculture nonpoint source control 

programs (Ice and Stuart, 2001) found that the BPM implementation rate is nearly 90% 

nationwide. Overall, rates of BMP implementation or compliance for western states are high, 

exceeding 80%. From recent survey data, the breakdown of statewide (i.e., data averaged across 

land ownership groups and performance measures) implementation was as follows: Alaska 

(89%); California (94%); Idaho (96%); Montana (96%); Oregon (96%); Utah (81%); 

Washington (80%); and Wyoming (97%). Ice et al. (2004) reported that over a 10-year period, 

audit reports show that BMP implementation has increased from 78 to 96% and water quality 

issues have decreased. Implementation rates in other regions are generally comparable, although 

there are also some states reporting lower rates of implementation. 

Careful review of the tabulated summaries also demonstrate the difficulty of discerning actual 

rates of implementation with forest road BMPs. The overall BMP implementation rates can be 

misleading, because while 31 states regularly conduct compliance (or implementation) 

monitoring, only 21 states specifically monitored road BMPs and only 19 monitored stream 

crossings. Where they are monitored, implementation rates for road and crossing BMPs tend to 

be considerably lower than the overall implementation rates. 

Due to differences in methods for measuring BMP implementation, comparisons of rates among 

states cannot generally be made. Past differences in survey design and statistical strength, rigor 

of inspections, and metrics chosen for evaluation within and among states also preclude precise 

reporting of state or regional progress over time. Results range from statistically valid to 

informative but of unknown statistical strength. The numbers of inspected sites and practices can 

vary widely between states and even among different surveys within a state. For similar reasons 

the degrees of implementation achieved by regulatory versus nonregulatory programs are 

difficult to assess (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 126 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Another area of inconsistency with the implementation surveys is how states quantify rates of 

BMP compliance and/or implementation. The state BMP manuals and monitoring reports often 

do not clearly define compliance and implementation. As a result, some states use these words 

interchangeably and readers may interpret them differently. Measures of BMP compliance 

indicate that a forest management action or practice abides by a requirement or recommendation. 

Conversely, implementation rates indicate whether or not a BMP prescription was utilized or 

installed. For these reasons, implementation monitoring is only partially effective in producing 

effective BMP implementation. 

Another major difference among states for BMP implementation/compliance reporting involves 

whether states identify or quantify ‘significant risks to water quality’ when BMPs are not 

implemented or are implemented incorrectly. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 indicate whether the rates of 

implementation were evaluated in terms of threats to water quality. Though this measure can 

often be subjective, this additional piece of information is useful when trying to understand the 

implications of compliance or non-compliance rates. When states report that a specific BMP was 

not implemented or was not implemented correctly, this provides no information regarding the 

impact to water quality. Improperly installed BMPs often do not result in significant risks to 

water quality, and this measure provides some insight when assessing rates of implementation or 

compliance. 

Several regional groups have made efforts to promote consistency among state implementation 

monitoring programs. These include the Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF), which 

developed voluntary BMP implementation monitoring procedures in 1997, and the Northeastern 

Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF) and the USFS-Northern Region Program for State 

and Private Forestry, which jointly developed a protocol for monitoring the implementation and 

effectiveness of forestry BMPs (Welsch et al., 2007). 

4.3 Are Compliance and Effectiveness Monitoring of BMP Programs Actually Capturing 

the Success of These Programs in Addressing Forest Road Runoff? 

It is questionable whether high rates of BMP implementation and compliance truly reflect the 

effectiveness of programs to address forest roads and protect water quality. As stated by Ice et al. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 127 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

(2004), there is unlimited skepticism about the effectiveness of forest nonpoint source control 

programs and limited assessment resources. Compliance rates per se may not be the best 

indicator of program effectiveness (Ellefson et al., 1995). For example, if a state has out-dated or 

inadequate BMPs, compliance with these ineffective practices does not show true water quality 

protection. The majority of compliance monitoring efforts are usually completed on recently 

harvested land. These evaluations may not investigate road maintenance or obliteration practices. 

On-the-ground determinations of BMP implementation are qualitative and judgmental by design, 

adding to the difficulty of comparing or reproducing results. Implementation audits usually occur 

during summer, when conditions are dry and vegetation is leafed out; under these conditions it 

would be unusual to actually observe runoff, erosion, or sediment transport. It is also noteworthy 

that most state surveys are conducted after on-the-ground activities have ceased. Thus, it is 

possible that water-quality impacts could occur but stabilize prior to the site being evaluated. 

Moreover, effectiveness is different than implementation and can be much more difficult to 

accurately measure. Although implementation of BMPs is commonly over 90%, this does not 

correctly identify the effectiveness of the practice (Rehder and Stednick, 2006). Effectiveness is 

how well a BMP system meets its goal, usually a water quality standard. In a monitoring strategy 

document for Washington, Schuett-Hames et al. (1996) noted that monitoring of aquatic resource 

trends was important because protection and restoration of aquatic habitat and species are the 

fundamental management objectives (Ice et al., 2004). In 2000, seventeen states were conducting 

effectiveness monitoring of their BMPs (Ice and Stuart, 2001). No national-level analysis of the 

results of these BMP effectiveness studies has been undertaken. Effectiveness studies may not 

truly measure the effects of roads under the conditions that cause the most significant damage, 

such as during wet weather or under heavy usage. For example, an effectiveness study may not 

necessarily have monitored how road drainage features handle stormwater during wet weather 

events and directly after—they may have only monitored their effects during dry weather when 

stormwater erosion was not taking place. 

Of all the state monitoring implementation, only Texas has prepared an approved Quality 

Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for collecting monitoring data. To fully address the quality of 

the information produced by implementation monitoring requires an evaluation of the sampling 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 128 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

design, methods and conduct of inspections, and analysis of the results. Are sampling programs 

based on random, representative site selections? Are a sufficient number of practices and BMPs 

inspected to yield precise, accurate and representative results? Are the inspections objective, 

reproducible and complete? Durgin et al. (1988) observed that compliance with regulations 

tended to diminish with distance from the point of entry to the harvest area, so this should be 

considered when selecting practices for evaluation. If monitoring results are used to assess trends 

in BMP implementation, are the inspection survey results comparable through time? Many states 

have found it necessary to revise their implementation monitoring programs over time, because it 

is difficult to foresee all of the potential site conditions that will be encountered during 

inspections; protocols require modification and revised protocols must be field tested. An 

example of this refinement is the Interagency Mitigation Monitoring Program (IMMP) pilot 

project implemented in California in 2006. The first phase of the IMMP pilot project (2006) 

revealed that monitoring protocols required modification and revised protocols are being field 

tested in the second phase of the IMMP pilot project in 2007 (NCASI, 2007). 

 

The success of forestry BMP programs can be largely assessed by two measures: are BMPs 

being used, and when BMPs are applied do they reduce impacts so that desired water quality 

goals are achieved? The implementation monitoring discussed above and in Section 4.3 largely 

deals with the first of these questions. A number of states have developed active monitoring 

programs, using water and biological sampling, bioassessment and habitat research, to address 

the second question. 

4.4 BMP Implementation Data: Examples from States

In the following sections, BMP implementation and effectiveness data are presented 

(alphabetically) for eleven states: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, North 

Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. This list includes states from each of the 

forestry regions in the United States. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 129 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

4.4.1 California

California’s forest management rules and sediment control measures for forestry are arguably the 

strictest in the nation. For example, the requirement for a detailed forest harvest plan alone 

places compliance with forest practices in California in a category by itself. California’s rules are 

also extensive: the 2007 FPRs are 212 pages long (NCASI, 2007). This state also has a rich 

legacy of compliance monitoring (NCASI, 2007). These include the following programs: 

y Hillslope Monitoring Program (HMP) pilot project, evaluating FPR implementation and 

effectiveness, conducted in 1993-95 by the CAL FIRE and the California State Board of 

Forestry and Fire Protection (CSBOF); 

y HMP annual statewide evaluations conducted by independent contractors from 1996-

2002; 

y Modified Compliance Report (MCR) monitoring to assess water quality related FPRs, 

conducted from 2001-04 by CAL FIRE and CSBOF; 

y Forest Practice Rule Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring (FORPRIEM), a 

second phase of the MCR program, focused on high risk (non-random) watercourse 

crossings and road segments that drain to crossings, is being implemented in 2007; and 

y The Interagency Mitigation Monitoring Program (IMMP) pilot project was begun in 

2005 to provide information about forest practices at high-risk sites where measures have 

been specially designed to protect water quality. 

The main conclusions from all the monitoring completed to date are that California’s water 

quality-related rule implementation rate is among the highest of any of the western United 

States, and that when properly implemented, the FPRs are effective in protecting water quality. 

Monitoring results have also shown, however, that improvements are needed in watercourse 

crossing design, construction, maintenance and for road drainage, particularly near stream 

crossings. To improve practices on roads and at stream crossings, there have been several efforts 

over the past five years, including the development of a guidebook on how to properly design 

crossings for 100-year flood flows and the passage of wood and sediment. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 130 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

IMMP data collection has focused on high risk (non-random) watercourse crossings and road 

segments that drain to the crossings, since past monitoring work has shown that these are 

particularly high risk sites for sediment delivery to stream channels. The first phase of the IMMP 

pilot project (2006) revealed that monitoring protocols required modification and revised 

protocols are being field tested in the second phase of the IMMP pilot project in 2007. Pilot 

project work completed in 2006 showed that improper installation of high risk crossings and 

drainage structures near crossings is often the major cause of water quality problems. 

Preliminary conclusions from the pilot work are that improved implementation of practices can 

be accomplished with additional timber operator education and more frequent multi-agency 

crossing inspections, both during logging operations and immediately following completion of 

harvesting. 

From 2001 to 2004, the MCR monitored 244 randomly selected 1,000-ft (305-m) road segments 

(i.e., 46 forest road miles). Of the 1,991 road features rated for implementation, only 83 

departures from the FPR requirements were observed, a 95.8% implementation rate. The MCR 

report also indicated that these departures from the FPRs tended to be clustered, with 33 

departures found within five road segments. Departures from FPRs were found for 4% of road 

segments. The most frequent problems (lack of compliance with the FPRs) were found to be 

related to road drainage. Evidence of sediment movement to waterbodies was found for nine 

road related features out of 1,147 features rated for effectiveness (~1%). Approximately 8% of 

the features with evidence of erosion (e.g., rills, gullies, mass failures,) delivered sediment to 

stream channels. Of the nine instances of sediment delivery to channels from roads, five were 

found to be non-compliant with the FPRs. Two involved sediment movement onto “erodible 

materials or failure to discharge into cover” and three were found to have “an inadequate number 

of drainage structures or inadequate spacing.” 

The earlier Hillslope Monitoring Program found overall FRP implementation ratings greater than 

90 percent for landings and for road, skid trail, and watercourse protection zone transects 

(Cafferata and Munn, 2002). Implementation of applicable BMPs at problem points was nearly 

always found to be less than that required by the FPRs. HMP monitoring suggested that the 

forest practice rules were generally found to be sufficient to prevent erosion, and 97% of the 727 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 131 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

erosion problem points identified were associated with departures from rule requirements 

(CBOF, 1999). Watercourse crossings had the lowest overall implementation ratings at 86 

percent. BMPs for crossings were noted as a problem, and a larger proportion of the crossing 

rule implementation ratings were for major departures (significant outlet scour, 35%; some 

degree of plugging, 22%). Watercourse crossing problems were caused by a number of factors, 

including inherent uncertainties in determining and implementing site specific construction and 

abandonment needs, improper maintenance, the finite expected life of culverts, and high risk 

locations for sediment delivery when stream discharge exceeded the design conditions. The 

majority of the evaluated crossings were existing structures that were in place prior to the 

development of the FPRs. Common problems included culvert plugging, stream diversion 

potential, fill slope erosion, scour at the outlet, and ineffective road surface cutoff waterbreaks. A 

need for greater attention focused on improvement of crossing design, construction and 

maintenance was also noted (MSG, 1999). 

Rules related to roads had greater than 90% compliance, and most road rule departures were 

related to drainage and maintenance. The other main problem area identified by the HMP 

program was erosion from roads caused by improper design, construction, and maintenance of 

drainage structures. Nearly half the road transects had one or more rills present and 

approximately 25% had at least one gully. Evidence of sediment transport to at least the high 

flow channel of a watercourse was found on 12.6 and 24.5% of the rill and gully features, 

respectively, with high percentages of delivery to Class III watercourses. These erosion features 

were usually caused by a drainage feature deficiency, and the BMPs at these problem sites were 

nearly always found to be out of compliance. Most of the identified road problems were related 

to inadequate size, number, and location of drainage structures. 

Two of the major conclusions of the HMP monitoring was that “roads and their associated 

crossings were found to have the greatest potential for delivery of sediment to watercourses,” 

and that “where roads are built will remain critical for reducing the likelihood of producing 

significant sediment input to channels.” Recommendations therefore included greater attention to 

and better implementation of rules related to drainage, crossing design, and maintenance. 

Erosion problem points were almost always associated with improperly implemented FPRs. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 132 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Standard BMPs generally appeared to provide adequate water quality protection when they were 

properly implemented, and poor implementation was most common cause of observed water 

quality impacts (MSG, 1999).

There are several cooperative in-stream monitoring projects in watersheds throughout California, 

including: Caspar Creek in Mendocino County, where data has been collected since 1962, Garcia 

River in Mendocino County, South Fork Wages Creek in Mendocino County (CAL FIRE and 

Campbell Timberland Management), Judd Creek in Tehama County (CAL FIRE and Sierra 

Pacific c Industries), and Little Creek in Santa Cruz County (CAL FIRE and Cal Poly-San Luis 

Obispo). These instream projects are an important component of our overall water quality 

monitoring program. They are measuring sediment concentrations in water samples and 

recording the turbidity, or clarity of the water, at automated monitoring stations. This data helps 

provide connections between stream channel conditions and management practices occurring on 

hillslopes in the watershed. 

Watershed-scale monitoring conducted in California has produced mixed results for the 

effectiveness of road BMPs on water quality. Review of 40 years of research in Caspar Creek 

found that while California’s sediment control measures for forestry mitigate some of the 

problems with runoff from roads, these impacts are not eliminated. There are no quantitative data 

for the California coast indicating that road BMPs have substantially improved instream water 

quality or salmonid habitat conditions (Harris et al., 2005). It is not known how site-level effects 

translate into benefits to water quality and stream habitat at the stream reach or watershed scales. 

Little is known about the temporal scale at which improvements may occur. Recent studies show 

that restoration of upper watershed locations or non-fish-bearing streams causes short-term 

impacts on local water quality due to post-construction adjustments (Klein, 2003). 

In the North Coast region, more than 85% of the rivers are listed as impaired under the Clean 

Water Act because of excessive amounts of sediment in stream channels, and all native salmon 

species are listed as threatened with extinction under the Endangered Species Act. In listing 

these streams and fish during the 1990's, the USEPA and the NMFS both identified logging 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 133 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

operations approved under the FPRs as being the primary reason for such listings becoming 

necessary (EPIC, 2002).

There are few regulatory regimes whose adverse impacts to water quality have been more 

comprehensively documented than the California FPRs. The same fundamental problems have 

been noted by a variety of agencies, blue-ribbon panels, scientists, and courts throughout the last 

two decades (EPIC, 2002). Various federal and state agencies, including National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), USEPA, the California Department of Forestry, and the 

California Department of Fish and Game have been critical of the effectiveness of the California 

FPRs (EPIC, 2000). As noted by Leslie Ried of the USFS Redwood Sciences Laboratory, the 

rules have not prevented the cumulative watershed impacts that led to the recent listing of 

multiple northern California streams as impaired by sediment under section 303(d) of the Clean 

Water Act (Reid, 1999). Modern FPRs were unable to prevent nearly a 10-fold increase in 

landsliding rate in the Bear Creek watershed that occurred when Pacific Lumber Company 

increased the rate of logging (PWA, 1998a; Reid, 1998; Reid, 1999b). Results from nearby 

watersheds show similar landslide increases by factors of 3 to 13 (PWA, 1998b; Michlin, 1998; 

PWA, 1999). Even in the absence of major landsliding, the implementation of current forest 

practice rules could be associated with increased turbidity levels in streams. According to Reid 

(1999), the Forest Practice rules were not adequate to prevent forestry-related changes to the 

production and transport of sediment, water, and woody debris in watersheds. Changes in these 

"watershed products" are the most common causes for downstream cumulative impacts. The 

rules were not sufficient to restrict excess sediment production from logging-related activities to 

levels that will not accelerate reservoir sedimentation, increase flooding by channel 

sedimentation, and degrade water quality (Reid, 1999). 

According to an analysis prepared by Reid (1999), standard FPRs were not protective enough to 

avert cumulative impacts. Cumulative impact evaluations submitted with Timber Harvest Plans 

(THPs) and Sustained Yield Plans (SYPs) prepared by Pacific Lumber Company she examined 

did not adequately evaluate the potential cumulative impacts of the plans. The expertise available 

in state and federal agencies did not appear to be appropriately employed during the review 

process. Contributing factors to the failure of FPRs to protect water quality in these cases 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 134 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

included excessive harvesting rates, even in previously-degraded watersheds, and the political 

control of the CAL FIRE. 

In the case of both sediment production and hydrologic change, some impact from forest land 

use is inevitable. Effective management for cumulative impact prevention, according to Reid 

(1999), would require that the intensity of land use in a watershed be maintained below the level 

at which the resulting impacts are no longer acceptable. Such an approach would require that the 

FPRs include provisions that allow regulation of the rate of logging and the density of roads in a 

watershed. Without such provisions, standard rules and BMPs would need to be excessively 

protective to ensure that incremental additions are not damaging. Such an approach would also 

require improvement of cumulative impact assessment methods, including a provision for a 

preliminary watershed assessment to be done by interagency staff. This assessment would 

identify issues of concern, the impacts affecting them, and the causes of those impacts. The 

watershed assessment would provide the background information needed to analyze cumulative 

impacts of future projects anywhere in the watershed and would provide guidance for carrying 

out such analyses. Additionally, Reid (1999) recommended giving authority to staff of relevant 

departments (i.e., Water Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, etc.) for 

decisions falling within the purview of those departments' areas of expertise. 

4.4.2 Colorado 

Roughly 14.5 million acres of forest are located on public lands in Colorado (NCASI, 2007). 

Forest inventory data show substantial timber volumes in the state; however, growth and harvest 

rates are very low (USFS 2000). In 1998, Colorado developed forestry BMPs, referred to as 

forest stewardship guidelines (FSG), to protect water quality. This is a non-regulatory approach 

to forestry BMP implementation. The recommendations included in the Colorado forest 

stewardship guidelines to protect water quality were approved by the Colorado State Forest 

Service in partnership with the Colorado Timber Industry Association (CTIA). The foundation 

of Colorado’s recommendations is based, in large part, on recommendations developed by 

Montana (CO FS, 1998). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 135 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Colorado, along with Arizona, appear to be the only western states that have not conducted 

audits to evaluate rates of BMP implementation and effectiveness. Colorado has been active in 

education outreach, largely through the Central Rockies Sustainable Forestry Education 

Program, which includes a 30 hour course on forest BMPs. Instead of conducting field surveys 

of BMP implementation, Colorado has used anecdotal feedback on BMP implementation rates 

through these workshops (Ice et al., 2004). According to NCASI (2007), the Colorado State 

Forest Service and the Colorado Timber Industry Association hope to initiate a statewide audit of 

BMP implementation at some time in the future. 

4.4.3 Florida

 

Commercial forest land covers 47% of the land area in Florida (FDEP, 1997). Since 1981, the 

Florida Division of Forestry (DOF) has monitored forestry operations for BMP implementation 

by conducting biennial surveys. Through 2005, the DOF has evaluated over 4,400 individual 

forestry operations and recorded statewide implementation ranging from 84% in 1985 to 99% in 

the most recent survey (FL DOF, 2006). Averaged over the years, the FL DOF reports a 

cumulative statewide average of 93.4% for overall forestry BMP implementation.

Sites for the 2005 survey were selected using criteria that provided the FL DOF with a list of 

sites where “...the greatest potential for forestry-related nonpoint source (NPS) pollution exists, 

and where any such impacts are still discernible and measurable at the time of the survey” 

(NCASI, 2007). DOF BMP Foresters evaluated and scored implementation at three levels on 

each site: (1) individual practice(s), (2) categories of practices, and (3) overall. For individual 

practices, implementation was recorded as yes, no, or not applicable. For categories of practices, 

as well as the overall score, implementation was expressed as a percent of all applicable BMPs. 

Each incidence of non-compliance at the practice level was further evaluated to determine if a 

“significant risk to water quality” existed. The FL DOF defines significant risk as, "A situation 

or set of conditions where non-compliance with BMPs has resulted, or may result, in the 

measurable and significant degradation of physical, chemical, or biological integrity of water 

quality, to the extent that it presents an imminent and substantial danger to the designated 

beneficial use.” When a significant risk has been identified, the BMP Forester advises the 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 136 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

landowner on how to implement corrective measures. Afterward, a follow-up site evaluation is 

made to reassess compliance. Landowner non-compliance with recommendations made by the 

BMP Forester will result in a referral to the appropriate regulatory agency for enforcement 

action. 

In 2005, the FL DOF BMP implementation survey examined 4,477 practices on 190 sites in 39 

counties. There were fourteen categories monitored for BMP compliance such as special 

management zones; wetland forestry operations; roads and stream crossings; timber harvesting, 

site preparation and planting; fireline construction; and waste disposal. The landownership 

breakdown was as follows: 24% on non-industrial private forest landowners (46 sites), 62% on 

industrial lands (119 sites), and 13% on public forestlands (25 sites). Overall, 87% of sites 

visited, regardless of ownership, showed complete implementation of all applicable BMPs (FL 

DOF, 2006). The statewide BMP implementation rate average was 99.1%, and rates of 

implementation ranged between 85-100% across the state for individual sites. Most important, 

the 2005 survey reported no instances of non-compliance that would result in a significant risk to 

water quality (FL DOF 2006). For forested wetland harvesting operations, 94% (560 practices on 

70 monitored sites) were found to be in full compliance with recommended forestry BMPs. 

Forest road and stream crossing BMP compliance averaged 98.1% and 100%, respectively. The 

most commonly cited incidence of non-compliance for roads was a failure to “stabilize critical 

road segments” and install drainage structures (FL DOF, 2006). 

In 1996, the Florida Division of Forestry and Department of Environmental Protection 

conducted a biological assessment of four commercially harvested sites before and after harvest 

(Vowell, 2001). Four sites were selected on forest industry land; the methods for selecting the 

study sites were unknown. The sites were scheduled for harvest as part of normal ongoing 

company operations, and the state’s silviculture BMPs were strictly adhered to during all 

operations. Forestry activities took place in 0.05 to 24% of the site watersheds. Forest roads were 

not discussed in the study report, although all sites had roads and 2 sites had stream crossings. 

Upstream and downstream habitat and biological assessments were conducted before and 

immediately after activities were performed, and were continued for 2 years. The investigators 

found no statistically significant differences in parameters measured between the reference and 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 137 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

treated sites. From this limited study, the authors concluded that Florida’s silviculture BMPs 

were effective in protecting water quality, aquatic habitat, and overall stream ecosystem health 

(Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). 

4.4.4 Georgia 

The Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC) is responsible for the development, implementation, 

and monitoring of forestry BMPs in Georgia. BMP implementation and compliance surveys 

were conducted in 1991, 1992, 1998 and 2002. For the 2002 survey, the number of sites 

evaluated in Georgia was based on the amount of timber harvested in each county as determined 

by the USDA Forest Service’s Forest Statistics for Georgia, 1997 report (GA FC 2005). This 

methodology resulted in a pool of 421 potential survey sites with at least one site in each of 

Georgia’s 159 counties. The sample was also targeted to reflect the range in forest ownerships 

using the USFS Forest Statistics report. The ownership classes are categorized into nonindustrial private forestland, forest industry lands, and public lands. Of the 421 potential survey 

sites identified by the GFC, 283 sites (69%) were on non-industrial private forest land, 107 sites 

(26%) were on forest industry lands, and 22 sites (5%) were on public lands. 

Survey sites were evaluated using 108 specific, yes/no questions directly related to BMPs 

recommended in the manual. Rates of implementation and scoring occurred at three levels: (1) 

individual BMP, (2) category of BMP practices, and (3) overall site BMP implementation. The 

SGSF BMP monitoring framework was utilized. For categories of BMP practices and overall site 

BMP implementation, the score was expressed as a percent of all applicable BMPs implemented 

against all applicable BMPs in the category of practice and overall site (NCASI, 2007). 

Therefore, each category of practice and overall site could score between 0% and 100%. 

Included in the 13 categories of BMP practices evaluated by the GFC were stream crossings and 

main haul roads. 

In addition to evaluating rates of BMP implementation, BMP performance was also evaluated in 

terms of ‘water quality risk assessments’ and levels of BMP compliance. The GFC defined a risk 

to water quality as, “a situation or set of conditions that has resulted, or may result, in erosion or 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 138 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

other pollutants entering a water body, an increase in stream temperature, or the physical 

degradation or obstruction of water bodies observed at each BMP question.” Rates of BMP 

compliance are used by the GFC to track temporal changes among sample surveys for specific 

BMPs. 

Overall, BMP implementation and compliance rates were 89.8% and 99.4%, respectively, for the 

2004 GFC BMP survey (GA FC, 2005). Rates of BMP implementation and compliance, 

respectively, were 80.6 and 44.1% for stream crossings, and 88.1 and 93.4% for main haul roads, 

and 95.9% compliance in terms of stream miles. These results suggest that stream crossings are 

the priority area to focus attention regarding water quality (NCASI, 2007). The GFC 2004 

survey more specifically notes that, “The biggest concern and area for the greatest improvement 

is eliminating the skidder fords and debris and dirt type crossings (GA FC, 2005).” Stream 

crossings were problematic in that 115 out of 349 stream crossings were, “...associated with 

skidder fords or debris type crossings. These automatically count as noncompliant since the 

[State] BMPs do not recommend their use. Just eliminating these type crossings offers the 

greatest potential to increase compliance”. The GFC differentiated existing roads and stream 

crossings from ‘newly’ constructed forest roads and crossings. Overall compliance of preexisting roads and stream crossings averaged 94.7% and 62.0%, respectively. Conversely, newly 

constructed road compliance averaged 83.7%. New stream crossings scored only 31.9%. Skidder 

fords made up 52% of the non-compliance observations for new stream crossings. Removing 

skidder fords from the analyses would have raised ‘newly’ constructed stream crossing 

compliance to 66.7%. Still, the compliance rate for stream crossings was well below the overall 

BMP implementation and compliance rates. 

The previous BMP implementation survey was conducted from fall 1997 through summer 1998 

on 386 sites selected from across Georgia in a stratified random sample, and was the first that 

conforms to the BMP monitoring protocol endorsed by the SGSF in 1997. All sites experienced 

some kind of silvicultural treatment in the preceding 2 years, and represented all land ownership 

categories in all geographic and physiographic provinces (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). By 

ownership, 72 % of the sites were non-industrial private, 26 % were forest industry, and 2 % 

were public. By physiographic province, about 6.5 percent were in the mountains, 34.5 % were 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 139 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

in the Piedmont, 19 % were in the upper Coastal Plain, and 40 % were in the lower Coastal 

Plain. A judgment was made for each BMP not properly implemented, or found to have failed, 

as to whether a significant risk to water quality resulted. Results were also expressed in acres, 

miles of road and streams, and number of stream crossings in full compliance for each BMP 

category, for the site as a whole, and for the State overall.

A total of 6,690 individual BMPs were evaluated over about 43,118 acres. Statewide BMP 

implementation compliance was estimated at 78.7 % for all BMP categories in all land 

ownerships and all physiographic regions. By land ownership, BMP compliance was 75.4 % on 

private non-industrial, 86.3 % on forest industry land, and 84 percent on all public land, 

respectively. Compliance rates for stream crossing BMPs were 58.8 % and 76.6 % for main haul 

roads. Stream crossings were of particular concern to the GFC. However, it was also noted that 

many of the out-of-compliance stream crossings existed before silvicultural treatments were 

conducted and were not specifically related to forestry operations. operations. 

4.4.5 Idaho 

Assessments of forestry BMPs in Idaho suggest that hillslope erosion does not contribute 

sediment to streams except where disturbances have occurred adjacent to streams, which in most 

cases has occurred only where activities were found to have been out of compliance with the 

rules (NCASI, 2001). In 2001, Idaho published the results of the state’s fifth statewide Forest 

Practices Water Quality (FPWQ) audit (Hoelscher et al., 2001). That survey was conducted 

during the summer of 2000 on 40 timber sales that were harvested between 1996 and 1999 

(NCASI, 2007). The purpose of the audit was to assess the implementation and effectiveness of 

Idaho’s forest practices described in the 1998 FPA. To evaluate rates of compliance with Idaho’s 

FPRs, the FPWQ audit team was split into two groups. One group evaluated road segments and 

skid trails, road construction, and maintenance. The other group evaluated a Class I stream 

segment to assess compliance with the timber harvest rule. 

On nine sales (23%) the audit team found violations with site-specific riparian prescriptions, 

specifically all roads paralleling the stream in the Stream Protection Zone. Thirty Class I stream 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 140 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

crossings were also evaluated within the 40 timber sales. Eighteen were culverts (existing or 

new), of which five were found to be compliant (27.7%) with Idaho’s FPRs. Reasons for culverts 

being non-compliant fell into two groups, culverts that exceeded requirements for fish passage 

and culvert with excessive drop. The remaining crossing structures (bridges, fords, and 

temporary crossings) were all found to be compliant. Ten out of 12 new stream crossing 

structures provided adequate fish passage within Class I streams and, again, the problematic 

crossings were culverts. Adequate culvert installation has historically been problematic in Idaho, 

with 11 of 18 culverts not meeting the minimum requirements (Hoelscher et al., 2001). To 

improve culvert compliance rates, the audit team recommended that the FPRs specify water 

velocity or drop requirements so that culverts would ensure adequate fish passage. 

The 1992 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Audit (Hoelscher et al., 

1993) concluded that “BMP’s ... were judged to effectively prevent pollutant delivery to streams 

99% of the time,” but that when BMPs were not applied, pollutants, primarily sediment, were 

delivered to streams 75% of the time. Similarly, the 1996 audit (Zaroban et al., 1997) concluded 

that “when properly applied and maintained, the management practices described in the Idaho 

forest practices rules are effective 99% of the time.” The most frequent area of non-compliance 

with BMPs was related to road construction and/or maintenance; 69% of all cases of noncompliance were associated with road rules. Sediment was found to be delivered primarily from 

roads, with comparatively minor contributions from harvest systems. Road rules were cited in 

84% of those cases where sediment delivery occurred. Non-industrial private forest (NIPF) 

landowners, who own twice as much forestland as industrial timber companies in Idaho, do not 

have a good BMP implementation record (TetraTech, 2004). 

4.4.6 Maine 

A review of silvicultural NPS pollution control programs for Maine and eleven other 

northeastern states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia) produced four 

principal findings related to BMP implementation and water quality monitoring (NCASI, 2007). 

First, while recognizing data limitations, states generally rank silvicultural sources of NPS 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 141 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

pollution as insignificant. Second, state agencies in the Northeast generally devote few resources 

to enforcement and monitoring. Third, states in the region rely heavily on BMP implementation 

as well as logger education and training programs to control NPS pollution during forest 

management. Forth, only a handful of surveys evaluating BMP implementation have been 

conducted by states in this region. Since only a handful of state agencies have conducted BMP 

implementation surveys, the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF) and the 

USFS-Northern Region Program for State and Private Forestry jointly developed a protocol for 

monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of forestry BMPs (Welsch et al., 2007). 

The state of Maine has been actively involved in the NAASF and USFS-NR BMP Monitoring 

Protocol, and has collected field data to assist in the protocol’s testing and validation (NCASI, 

2007). Additionally, the state has conducted three BMP implementation and effectiveness 

surveys. The results of the first study were published by Briggs et al. (1998) and two subsequent 

surveys have been conducted by the Maine Forest Service in 2001 and 2005. The study by 

Briggs and colleagues concluded that Maine’s BMPs were highly effective when implemented 

properly. However, implementation of individual BMPs was highly variable across the state 

(Briggs et al., 1998). The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (1994, as cited in 

Stafford et al., 1996) found that 30% of timber harvests reviewed for potential nonpoint source 

pollution exhibited serious potential for erosion and had not followed BMP procedures. 

In 1999, the Maine Forest Service (MFS) developed and tested a new field monitoring 

methodology. The state evaluates BMP implementation on specific principles or prescriptions 

within a harvest area, and evaluates BMP effectiveness by evaluating the impact of harvest 

activities on water quality and is rated in terms of soil movement and delivery to waterbodies. In 

the second round of this survey (based on data collected from June 2001 to November 2003; ME 

DOC, 2005), overall BMP use was either ‘appropriate’ or a ‘good attempt, but needs 

improvement’ on 75% of the sites evaluated. These findings represent a 12% increase over the 

previous round of monitoring by the MFS published in 2001. The MFS 2005 publication also 

reported a ‘minimal attempt’ to implement BMPs on 16% of the monitoring sites; 8% of the sites 

did not attempt to implement BMPs. No evidence of major soil transport or deposition within 

waterbodies was observed on the 150 sites where BMPs were implemented properly. BMPs were 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 142 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

highly effective in preventing soil transport to waterbodies on 82% of the sample sites. This 

represented a 22% improvement over the 2001 MFS report. 

BMP implementation for logging filter strips were used appropriately or with a ‘good attempt, 

but needs improvement’ on 89% of the sites evaluated. Implementation rates for skid trails 

averaged 86%. Implementation rates for temporary stream crossings were much lower, however, 

and only used appropriately on 54% of the harvest sites evaluated. Minimal attempts and failure 

to implement stream crossing BMPs totaled 30%. Incidences of sediment delivery to streams 

were also high for temporary crossings (23%). Categories of correct application and good 

attempt, but needs improvement for haul road stream crossings were somewhat low scoring at 

78% implementation, and only slightly higher than implementation levels for haul road filter 

strips and drainage systems (74%). 

Implementation of forestry BMPs was also evaluated based on forestland ownership. In the ME 

DOC 2005 Report, 88% of the survey sites were selected from the non-industrial private forest 

and industrial forestland categories. Implementation rates (sum of the appropriate use and good 

attempt, but needs improvement categories) varied among these categories from a low of 65% on 

investor forestlands to a high of 88% on public forestlands. The implementation rates of forest 

industry lands scored 81% while non-industrial private forests had an implementation rate of 

70%. The 2005 report also indicated that nearly one-third of the investor forestland sites (~9 

sites) had visible evidence of soil transport to surface waters. 

Some ten years earlier, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (1994, as cited in 

Stafford et al., 1996) found that 30% of timber harvests reviewed for potential nonpoint source 

pollution exhibited serious potential for erosion and had not followed BMP procedures. Historic 

information suggests that watershed disturbance in Maine related to agricultural practices has 

decreased dramatically and that much of the land formerly in active farms has reverted to forests 

(Irland, 2000). However, it is unclear whether this change in land use has affected surface water 

quality. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 143 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

4.4.7 North Carolina 

North Carolina has linked BMP implementation to other State regulatory programs, making it 

quasi-regulatory in some circumstances. The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources (NC 

DFR) established forestry BMPs to ensure that the state’s nine Forest Practice Guidelines (FPGs) 

related to water quality were met by forest management operations in the State (White, 1992). 

Mandatory FPGs are required for exemption of forestry operations from the 1973 North Carolina 

Sediment Pollution Control Act. The FPGs are performance standards that are mandatory and, 

therefore, must be complied with. The state-recommended forestry BMPs are the more specific 

‘on-the-ground methods’ that, when applied correctly, should result in maintaining compliance 

with the FPGs. 

The NC DFR conducted forestry BMP surveys in 1995, 1996, and 2000. The most recent BMP 

implementation survey, conducted by the DFR, was published in 2005 (NCASI, 2007). In that 

survey, rates of BMP implementation for the state averaged 82% (NC DFR, 2005). The survey 

was conducted in all three of North Carolina’s physiographic regions and included 

measurements in all 100 counties. Forestry BMP implementation rates in the Coastal Plain and 

Piedmont (85 and 87%, respectively) exceeded those in the Mountains (69%). Specific BMPs 

examined in the survey were: SMZs, stream temperature, debris entering streams, waste entering 

streams, permanent forest roads, skid trails, stream crossings, access road entrances, and project 

site rehabilitation (NC DFR, 2005). The implemented BMPs scoring consistently highest (>85%) 

for the state as a whole were those related to SMZs, stream temperature management, debris 

entering streams, waste entering streams, and access roads. Conversely, implementation rates for 

stream crossings, skid trails, and site rehabilitation BMPs were consistently lower (65%, 72%, 

and 41%, respectively) across all physiographic regions. FPGs related to water quality 

maintenance for the surveyed sites had an 82% statewide compliance rate. 

NC DFR also assessed the overall threat or risk to water quality posed by a forest management 

practice, as a surrogate measure of BMP effectiveness (NCASI, 2007). The 2005 survey results 

indicated that forestry practices posed a small threat to water quality, averaging only 8%, when 

BMPs were implemented (NC DFR, 2005). This indicates that either the BMP was implemented 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 144 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

incorrectly, and water quality impairments occurred as a result, or the recommended forestry 

BMP was inadequate for a specific situation. Mountain region sites had the highest occurrence of 

water quality risks (~15%). Water quality risks due to BMP non-implementation were 

approximately 42% (NC DFR, 2005). The 2005 North Carolina monitoring survey also indicated 

that the North Carolina Forestry Association’s ProLogger Program, “...can do more in the future 

by focusing training on areas identified in this report that need improvement, such as stream 

crossings, debris entering streams, skid trials and streamside management zones. Also, additional 

training will be needed to improve performance in the mountains and foothills.”

NC DFR conducted earlier forestry BMP surveys in 1995 and 1996 (Hensen, 1996). In the 1996 

survey, overall statewide BMP implementation was rated at 95 percent as either good or 

excellent. Implementation on public land was rated at 100 percent, industry land at 90 percent, 

and non-industrial land at 76 percent. There was no discernable BMP implementation pattern 

based on slope. 

In the early 1990s the North Carolina Division of Water Quality and the USFS examined the 

effectiveness of BMPs on a forest road in the Appalachians (North Carolina Division of Water 

Quality, 1994). A long-existing road, which closely paralleled Timbered Branch and its 

tributaries for about 2 miles and had been a chronic source of road sediments to the stream, was 

retrofitted with a number of measures designed to reduce sediment loading. They included ditch 

outlets, sediment traps, berms, weeps, outslopes, humps, and relief culverts. Sediment reduction 

was assessed qualitatively, and biological monitoring was conducted on the affected streams to 

determine effects on aquatic species. Improvements in taxa richness and diversity in the aquatic 

community were attributed to the sediment reduction practices. 

4.4.8 Minnesota 

In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Sustainable Forest Resources Act (SFRA), the 

only forest practices act in the midwest region. The act established policies and programs to 

ensure sustainable use and management of the states forest resources. The SFRA presents a 

broad strategy for achieving forest sustainability in two areas: site-based timber harvesting/forest 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 145 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

management guidelines and landscape-level forest resource planning and coordination. 

Supporting programs involve BMP monitoring, research, and education. While the other states in 

this region do not have forest practices acts, many do require permits or notification of 

management activities (NCASI, 2007). This is generally required when constructing or repairing 

stream crossings. 

The SFRA statute requires the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to develop 

and administer the implementation monitoring program, with oversight provided by the 

Minnesota Forest Resources Council MFRC. In 2004, the DNR published a report summarizing 

three years of monitoring sites harvested prior to the publication of the States integrated timber 

harvesting and forest management (TH/FM) guidelines (Dahlman and Phillips, 2004). The 

information contained in that report was intended to be used as baseline data for comparison 

with future BMP implementation assessments. Site selection procedures varied among years, due 

to concerns over sample bias. Implementation of TH/FM guidelines was monitored in the 

following forestland ownership categories: state, county, public, forest industry, NIPF, and other 

(tribal, other public and non-forest industrial). The categories of BMPs examined in this report 

include: use of filter strips and riparian management zones, protection of water quality and 

wetlands (waterbody crossings and approaches), and protection of forest soil resources (landings, 

roads, and skid trails). 

During the three survey years, a total of 1,262 filter strips were identified for wetlands and open 

water bodies associated with monitored timber harvest sites (NCASI, 2007). Effective filter strip 

BMP applications were found for 73% of the site evaluations (Dahlman and Phillips, 2004). 

Only 31% of the SMZs for waterbodies within the harvest area met the guidelines for SMZ 

width and basal area, compared to 64% of the riparian management zones (RMZs) for water 

bodies adjacent to the harvest area. Rates of BMP implementation for waterbody SMZs appear 

low in this report. However, the results in this report reflect management practices for sites that 

were harvested prior to the publication of the current TH/FM guidebook (Dahlman and Phillips, 

2004). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 146 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

The DNR also reported monitoring results for 548 road and skid trail crossings (NCASI, 2007). 

There were also 1,033 stream crossing approaches and 80 wetland approaches found. A majority 

of the crossings and approaches (68%) were reported to be ‘winter-only operations.’ 

Furthermore, the majority of crossings for wetlands and open waterbodies were assumed to have 

taken place when the ground was frozen, thereby, limiting impacts to soils and water quality 

(Dahlman and Phillips, 2004). Data collected in the 2002 survey indicated that a majority of 

approaches to waterbodies were in good condition with only 6% showing signs of erosion and 

rutting and only 3.4% having sediment reaching a wetland or waterbody. The implementation of 

BMPs to protect soil resources generally scored well. The TH/FM guidelines recommend that 

forest roads and landings occupy no more than 3% of the harvest area. The statewide averages 

were similar all three years and averaged 3.0% for all ownerships. The TH/FM guidelines for 

forest roads recommend using an appropriate combination of erosion control and water diversion 

practices on all road segments, especially those road segments with grades exceeding 2%. A total 

of 311 road segments with a grade less than 2% were identified during the three years of 

monitoring. More than 85% of the segments had a grade less than 10%, as is recommended in 

the TH/FM guidelines. Monitoring in 2002, however, found that only 41% of these sampled road 

segments were stable. Furthermore, 12% of the sample road segments had sediment that reached 

a wetland or waterbody. As indicated in the 2004 monitoring report, the limited use of erosion 

control structures and water diversion practices, “...is a cause for concern that has been and will 

continue to be addressed in future training programs.” A majority of the monitoring sites (57%) 

were found to have minimal, randomly distributed, and lightly trafficked skid trails across the 

harvest sites. 

Minnesota’s 2004 survey did not calculate a statewide BMP implementation average. The data 

from this report was to be used as a baseline measure for future implementation assessments 

(NCASI, 2007). Activities scoring poorly included use of water diversion techniques and 

approaches to stream crossings. Minnesota reported that common departures or nonimplementation of BMPs was observed for water diversion structures on roads and skid trails. 

Implementation was highest on both public lands and industrial forestlands and lowest on nonindustrial forestlands. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 147 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Implementing BMPs for stream crossings were generally not reported as problematic by states in 

this region. The reasons for this trend are many and include reasons such as: monitoring sites not 

containing waterbodies or managers conducting harvests in a manner where crossing a stream 

was not necessary. Another reason stated in the Minnesota report was that wetland and stream 

crossings were “assumed to be frozen” during harvesting (Dahlman and Phillips, 2004). 

4.4.9 Oregon 

In Oregon, BMP compliance rates from 1987 to 1996 have averaged between 96 and 98% (Dent 

and Robben, 1999). As in many states, the most frequent areas of non-compliance found in the 

1998 Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) monitoring were in road construction and/or 

maintenance (Dent and Robben, 1999). Of 20 road-related practices out of compliance with 

BMPs, 9 resulted in sediment delivery to streams. Non-compliant practices having the greatest 

impacts on streams were related to road drainage or temporary crossings. Of 22 sediment sources 

identified in the 1998 inspections, 19 were associated with roads. Six of the 22 sediment sources 

were estimated to be “incidental” ( less than 1 cubic yard of sediment), 10 were “moderate” (1 to 

10 cubic yards), and 6 were judged to be “significant” (more than 10 cubic yards). 

Additional monitoring by ODF indicated that 31% of the surveyed road length potentially 

delivered sediment to streams, and that two-thirds of that potential delivery length occurred 

immediately upslope of live stream crossings (Skaugset and Allen, 1998). However, less than 

half (40%) of that potential delivery length occurred where surface drain spacing exceeded 

recommended criteria, suggesting that drainage spacing is not sufficient by itself to adequately 

control sediment delivery from roads. For the portions of the road network where sediment 

delivery is occurring, three major issues were identified (Mills et al., 2003): 

y There is a general lack of filtering of drainage waters near streams. A number of cases 

were observed where cross drainage structures were not in place to filter road runoff 

before the runoff reached stream crossings. 

y Steep-gradient roads tend to have cross drainage structures at wider spacing than lower 

gradient roads. Under the current rules, road design and maintenance practices should 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 148 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

y There are inconsistencies in drainage practices between georegions, with special concerns 

in the Siskiyou georegion. 

Most forest roads in Oregon were constructed prior to state rules that marginally improved 

construction standards (Mills et al., 2001). A significant amount of road networks in most 

watersheds remain hydraulically connected to streams (Rhodes and Huntington, 2000; Wemple 

et al., 1996). Although Oregon forest practice regulations since 1978 have required operators to 

locate stormwater management BMPs so that runoff is filtered before entering streams, a report 

prepared on the Kilchis watershed in the Tillamook State Forest found that roads in western 

Oregon generally do not comply with this rule (ODF, 1997). 

ODF monitoring in 1996 showed that about 1/3 of active and inactive roads can (rated as 

“certain” or “possible”) deliver sediment to streams by ditches (FPAC, 2001). That report noted 

the potential for significant amounts of sediment to be delivered from these sources during haul 

operations, especially during wet season. One problem area not directly addressed by FPRs was 

erosion and sediment delivery associated with the use of roads during rainy or thawing periods. 

Current road maintenance rules directed operators to stop hauling when high levels of turbidity 

were observed entering streams. However, there were no rules that addressed the specific level 

of turbidity considered acceptable during wet season hauling. 

4.4.10 Virginia 

The Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DOF) conducts quarterly BMP monitoring 

assessments (VA DOF, 2007). The VA DOF implementation and effectiveness field audits serve 

four functions (NCASI, 2007). First, to quantify levels of effort in attempting to use BMPs and 

whether BMPs utilized meet technical specifications. The second function is to identify current 

levels of BMP implementation as compared to the technical BMP standards. Implementation is a 

measure of the attempt to implement BMPs to the technical specifications described in the BMP 

manual. The third function of the assessments is to identify levels of potential sedimentation. 

Finally, the assessments are also seeking to identify levels of active sedimentation. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 149 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Virginia state law requires landowners or managers to notify the VA DOF at least 3 days prior to 

conducting a timber harvest; therefore, a pool of potential survey sites is readily available. For 

each semiannual survey, the VA DOF randomly selects and visits at least 30 timber harvests 

from their database for field audits. Monitoring is conducted in nine categories: stream crossings, 

water control structures, seeded areas, SMZs, skid trails/road grade, rutting, gravel/mats, oil 

spill/trash, and other.

The most recent BMP monitoring data (annual data) is available for 2006 (VA DOF, 2007). 

Rates of full BMP implementation expressed as a percentage of the total ranged from 1% 

(rutting) to a high of 100% (other category) (VA DOF, 2007). Effort, expressed as a percentage 

of the total needed, ranged from 2% to 119% in 2006. Effort to implement water control 

structures was found to average 59% in 2006. By contrast, effort was high for stream crossings 

(119%), road/trail grade (94%), SMZs (86%), gravel/mats (100%), and oil spills and trash 

(84%). The reason for the high stream crossing effort level can be explained as follows. VA 

DOF personnel determined that 149 ‘total efforts’ were needed for stream crossings and total 

effort for logging sites totaled 178 (VA DOF, 2007). Full implementation scored somewhat low 

for use of water control structures (35%). While strong efforts were made for stream crossing 

BMPs, full implementation was found to only be 68%. While the aforementioned levels of BMP 

implementation appear low, the impacts to water quality were not dramatic. For example, the 

percentage of sampled sites that received a positive evaluation (yes) in the potential and active 

sedimentation categories for 2006 were 9% and 6%, respectively (VA DOF, 2007). This finding 

indicates that while BMP prescriptions were not precisely meeting the VA DOF BMP technical 

specifications, the levels of effort ‘on-the-ground’ were having positive effects on water 

resources during forest management (NCASI, 2007).

Earlier BMP monitoring in Virginia produced very low rates of compliance (Prud’homme and 

Greis, 2002). For example, BMP compliance rates between 1991 and 1999 ranged from only 7 to 

16%. However, this was largely a consequence of the scoring methodology. To be in full 

compliance, 100 % of applicable BMPs at the audit site had to be 100 % implemented and meet 

100 % of the technical specifications of the BMP manual. Effort to implement BMPs was noted 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 150 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

on 90 percent of the sites visited. The field evaluator indicated that 90 % of the sites were 

experiencing no related water-quality impacts, but 38 % exhibited potential for impact. 

4.4.11 Washington 

The State of Washington has a reputation for intensively monitored watersheds and a strong 

emphasis on biological monitoring to measure BMP effectiveness (Harris et al., 2005). However, 

Washington has no regular program to monitor BMP implementation, aside from a number of 

detailed but sporadic studies of rule implementation (Ice et al., 2004). New road construction and 

haul road maintenance BMPs were comprehensively evaluated from 1992-95 in Washington to 

determine their effectiveness (Rashin et al., 1999). The evaluation focused on determining 

whether these BMPs were effective at achieving state water quality standards pertaining to 

sediment-related water quality impacts. Field investigations were conducted to assess surface 

and stream channel erosion processes during the first one to three years following the forest 

practice operations. A number of qualitative and quantitative survey techniques were employed 

in a case study approach to assess surface erosion and chronic sediment delivery to streams, 

physical disturbance of stream channels, and the condition of aquatic habitats and biological 

communities. Practices for installing stream crossings for new road construction were generally 

found to be ineffective or only partially effective at preventing chronic sediment delivery to 

streams. Road drainage BMPs, specifically practices for installing relief culverts, were found to 

be effective at over half of the new road sites evaluated. Practices for construction and 

stabilization of cutslopes on road segments draining to streams were generally found to be 

ineffective or only partially effective at preventing chronic sediment delivery to streams, while 

fillslope construction BMPs (beyond the immediate area of stream crossing fills) were generally 

found to be effective. 

Design BMPs for road drainage, specifically practices for locating and installing relief culverts, 

were found to be effective at six of the new roads (55%), partially effective at four roads (36%), 

and ineffective at one road (9%). Eighteen percent of the 49 individual relief culverts evaluated 

at 5 of the 11 roads referred to above were found to deliver sediment and road drainage to 

streams via channel development or overland flow. Sediment transport distances below these 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 151 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

relief culverts ranged from 36 to 330 feet. Sixty-seven percent of all relief culverts monitored 

had channel development or distinct overland flow sediment plumes developed below their 

outfalls during the first one to three years following road construction. BMPs for construction 

and stabilization of cutslopes on road segments draining to streams were rated ineffective at five 

of the new roads (46%) partially effective at four roads (36%), and effective at two roads (18%). 

The effectiveness of road construction practices was influenced by steps taken to control 

construction phase erosion and promote the establishment of vegetation on cut and till slopes, 

and to control ditch erosion. The majority of road construction sites relied on natural 

revegetation or dry grass seeding without mulching, and this was generally not effective in 

preventing chronic sediment delivery to streams. Fillslope stabilization and active haul road 

maintenance appeared to be effective. 

4.4.12 Summary 

As the cases above illustrate, there are wide variations in state efforts to monitor BMP 

implementation rates and effectiveness. Collectively, these state reports demonstrate that while 

compliance with forestry BMPs is high, most excursions are associated with roads, and that 

when road BMPs are not properly applied, sediment delivery to streams is likely (NCASI, 

2001b). However, even when BMP implementation rates exceed 90% or higher, sediment 

delivery from roads can still occur. The questions then become: “How much sediment is 

delivered?” and “Will this much sediment impair aquatic resources?” Unfortunately, these 

questions are still difficult to answer. Whether current forest practice rules and BMPs will 

achieve the specific water quality targets of the Clean Water Act remains unknown (Rice, 1992). 

4.5 Are Voluntary or Regulatory BMP Programs Effective?

Either type of BMP program (voluntary or regulatory) can be effective. Several factors have 

been used to compare and contrast regulatory and nonregulatory approaches to preventing 

nonpoint pollution from forest management sources (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). These 

include level of compliance, degrees of water-quality protection, costs to landowners, and 

program costs to the state. The evolution of “blended” BMP programs, which seek to capitalize 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 152 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

on the strengths of each approach, provide an indication that one kind of program may not 

necessarily be better than the other. States with regulatory programs like Oregon are seeking 

incentives for voluntary stewardship, while states that based their programs on nonregulatory 

approaches now backing up these efforts with “bad actor” regulations or developing fully 

regulatory BMPs (Ice et al., 1997). 

Different measures of implementation among states, reliability of these data, and other 

differences and inconsistencies preclude objective comparisons between the effectiveness of 

voluntary and regulatory BMP program. One reason for the high rates of BMP implementation 

or FPR compliance reported for the western states has to do with the regulatory framework under 

which foresters must operate. Oversight or approval of a management or harvest plan or, in some 

cases, an approved HCP is required prior to any management activities taking place. For 

example, California requires approval of a THP before operations may begin. Washington 

requires application and notification regarding forest management activities; the degree of detail 

or applicability of the state’s FPRs depends on which class of forest practices fall under which 

activity. Oregon’s notification protocols require the landowner or land manager to supply basic 

information on the type of operation, its location, and the parties involved. Information provided 

in the notification is used to determine whether or not a site inspection or technical assistance 

visit is necessary to avoid potential water quality problems. However, there is also some 

evidence that continually changing, detailed, and complex rules can also reduce compliance in 

some cases. Results from the 2006 BMP compliance survey in Washington appear to 

demonstrate this, as this state has some of the most complex guidelines for forest management. 

Compliance with BMPs is higher in other western states (California, Montana and Oregon), 

where management requirements in the states’ FPRs are less complex and have been in place 

longer. Mandatory programs also on average report lower rates of compliance with BMPs 

guidelines, due in part to their complexity and strictness. 

In the southeast region, mandatory programs report on average lower rates of compliance with 

BMPs guidelines (NCASI, 2007). Rates of BMP compliance reported in Kentucky and Virginia, 

regulatory and quasi-regulatory states, are typically at the low end for the region. It is clear, 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 153 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

however, that regulatory programs with mandatory BMPs often have larger monitoring and 

enforcement programs and, therefore, tend to have higher operating costs (Ellefson et al., 2006). 

Hawks et al. (1993) compared Maryland’s regulatory with Virginia’s nonregulatory program. 

Neither approach was found to be clearly superior to the other in achieving BMP compliance or 

protecting water quality. Both states were reasonably effective in obtaining BMP 

implementation, but Maryland’s regulatory approach was more costly to landowners and to the 

state. 

Another evaluation by NCASI (1994) compared and modeled economic and non-economic costs 

and benefits of existing and hypothetical regulatory scenarios in Virginia and Washington. The 

modeled regulatory program and the most aggressive nonregulatory program scenario were 

predicted to result in nearly equal water quality benefits. The projected costs of the regulatory 

program estimated to be nearly double those of the nonregulatory program. 

Regulatory frameworks used by states to ensure mandatory implementation of BMPs and other 

FPRs can require substantial financial resources. These include tasks such as rule-making (e.g., 

California, Oregon, and Washington have forestry boards and staffs that assess and update state 

FPRs), permit approval, onsite inspections, and enforcement programs. Costs to operate these 

programs can be quite high on non-federal forestlands. For example, in 2003, states in the 

western region spent between $220,000 (Utah) and $13.8 million (California) regulating forest 

practices programs; these states had 337 full-time equivalent regulatory staff, of which 35% were 

used by forest resource management agencies and 26% by air and water pollution control 

agencies (Ellefson et al., 2006; NCASI, 2007).

4.6 How Often do States Revise Their BMPs? 

There is considerable variation in how often states revise their BMPs. The most recent revision 

date of each state’s BMPs is identified in Tables 4-2 and 4-3; dates ranging from 1993 to 2003 

were found. Some states like California, Washington and Oregon continuously revise their 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 154 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

BMPs and several states are currently revising their BMPs or have done so in the past 5 years. 

On the other hand, a few states are still operating under BMPs that are more than a decade old. 

In California, implementation and effectiveness monitoring data have been used to revise BMPs. 

Determining which rules have the poorest implementation and effectiveness and the highest 

frequency of violations both provides input to the California State Board of Forestry (CSBOF) 

on needed rule changes and identifies training needs for CAL FIREs Forest Practice Inspectors, 

Registered Professional Foresters submitting THPs and Licensed Timber Operators (Ice et al., 

2004). As an example of how the monitoring data have been used, the CSBOF adopted rule 

language in 2000 requiring FPR supervision of active timber operations based on information 

provided by the HMP (Ligon et al. 1999). Workshops on proper watercourse crossing design, 

construction, and maintenance were held in 2003 to provide training needs identified by 

monitoring. 

Washington State FPRs were established in 1975 and have been revised 13 times (Holter, 2001). 

The most significant improvements for BMPs relating to fish habitat and water quality protection 

occurred in 1987 (the Timber, Fish and Wildlife Agreement), 1992 (cumulative effects 

assessment/Watershed Analysis), and 2001 (Watershed Analysis/ Endangered Species Act; Ice et 

al., 2004). For the past 15 years, an important feature of Washington’s forest management 

system has been the use of the adaptive management approach to guide BMP development. 

Adaptive management requires the collection of information for feedback on system 

performance, and adaptive management approaches are designed to utilize ongoing management 

as a test from which to learn (Ice and Whittemore, 1998). Probably the two most useful examples 

of adaptive management monitoring at the watershed scale are source searches and watershed 

analysis. Watershed analysis is defined as a structured approach to develop a forest practice plan 

based on a biological and physical inventory" (WFPB, 1993). 

 

In Oregon, Department of Forestry administrative rules continually evolve in response to 

scientific knowledge. Major revisions to the 1973 FPRs were made in 1978, 1983 and 1994 

(FPAC, 2001). 

 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 155 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

In Montana, rule improvements recommended by the Montana Environmental Quality Council 

(EQC, 1988) have precipitated several changes in nonpoint source management program for 

forestry, including formation of a Technical Committee to guide development of a set of 

statewide forestry BMPs. This committee included industrial and nonindustrial landowners, 

logging contractors, Montana Water Quality Bureau staff, representatives of the USFS, and was 

led by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (Ice et al., 2004). 

In Idaho, the rules of the Forest Practices Act require a “default” level of BMPs applicable 

across the state (NCASI, 2001b.). Every four years, the Department of Environmental Quality 

and the Department of Lands conducts an audit of the BMPs to determine if they were effective 

in maintaining water quality. Rule changes are developed to address instances where practices 

have been found to be inadequate. 

Florida first established BMPs in the mid 1970s. In 1992 a BMP technical advisory committee 

was formed and a BMP manual was published in 1993. The manual was revised in 1995 (FDA, 

2004). Some forest road and stream crossing BMPs in the Florida manual appear to be outdated, 

at least in comparison to the western states. However, this can be a difficult judgment to make, 

given the differences in the nature of forestry-related impacts between the west and the 

southeast. 

4.7 Do Existing BMPs Include the Most Technologically Up-to-Date and Useful Practices 

Available? 

BMPs are not uniform from one state to another, and in some states BMPs are based on older 

(pre 1980s) technology. In some cases, BMPs have not yet incorporated new research findings 

and/or lack long-term effectiveness studies (Ice et al., 1997). The low-cost, low-maintenance 

intermittent-use roads pioneered by Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in the 1960s is widely 

accepted and adapted to local conditions by government and industry land managers, and 

strongly recommended by state agencies with the aim of reducing sediment (Swift, 1988). The 

Coweeta research demonstrated outsloped roads and other BMPs (Section 3.1.2.1) that are 

reflected in state BMP programs. However, some of these BMPs may not be suitable for all 

regions, locations or sites. Haupt et al. (1963) documented a case involving mountain haul roads 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 156 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

on granitic soils in Idaho in which severe rainstorms caused more damage to outsloped roads 

than insloped/ditched roads. Based on observed slope failures, Hartsog and Gonsior (1973) 

recommended outsloping only where surfaces were relatively nonerodible. In some unstable 

areas and regions, especially in the Pacific Northwest, conventional BMPs for road construction 

may not be sufficient to prevent adverse effects on stream channels and fish habitat. 

Designing and/or reconstructing stream crossings to avoid diversion potential, to accommodate 

natural disturbances, and to allow unrestricted passage of fish, sediment bed load and large 

wood, are examples of modern BMPs that have not been incorporated by many states. Several 

states still consider log crossings to be acceptable BMPs (Grace, 2002), although they are not 

generally recommended (Taylor et al., 1999). Fords are also generally perceived to have greater 

impacts on water quality than other crossings (Taylor et al., 1999), yet are considered to be 

acceptable BMPs in many states. Fords introduce sediment into streams during construction and 

vehicle crossings, and provide more opportunity for runoff to flow down road approaches into 

streams. 

 4.8 What Processes are Used to Address and Correct Failing BMPs? 

The response of state forestry agencies to BMP violations or complaints varies widely. Some 

follow established, formal interagency agreements that can include referral to enforcement 

agencies. Other states have no formal process for follow-up or referral, but do refer some cases 

to other agencies. Information on the methods and mechanisms used by state forestry agencies to 

address water quality problems related to BMP are noted under the “other information” heading 

in Tables 4-2 and 4-3. It should be reiterated that when problem areas in state BMP programs are 

identified, the overwhelming response by the various regulatory agencies is to strengthen 

education and training programs in the specific area identified. All state forestry agencies 

attempt to work with landowners to correct deficiencies prior to referral to enforcement agencies 

(Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). Persistent noncompliance can result in a variety of enforcement 

actions, which range from mandatory installation of BMP, fines, and orders to cease forestry 

activities. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 157 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

States also use different mechanisms to identify and locate failing BMPs. Examples include 

public reporting of stream sedimentation. Local observation of highly-turbid streams has been 

reported to be one of the most important means of learning of problems or potential violations 

(Corner, 1992; Irland and Connors, 1994; Juul et al., 1990). A number of states acknowledge the 

role of citizen complaints (Corner et al., 1996) in identifying, locating and addressing nonpoint 

source pollution problems. 

4.9 Is Concurrence or Approval by the State Agency Administering the Clean Water Act 

Required For: (a) Forest Road Bmps? (b) Forest Practice Rules Related to Roads and 

Water Quality? (c) Forest Operations or Plans Involving Road Construction and 

Maintenance? 

In several states, agencies administering the CWA are notified of forest operations or plans 

involving road construction and maintenance. Oregon and Idaho have forest practice notification 

programs that are designed to alert state agencies to proposed operations (NCASI, 2001b.). 

Notification allows for pre-harvest inspections where there are priority risks and where special 

protection may be needed. In Oregon, where there are special risks associated with activities in 

areas with a high risk of landslide or near fish-bearing streams and wetlands, written plans are 

required. The Oregon and Idaho FPRs also allow for special protection rules in watersheds that 

are water quality limited. 

In California, it has been suggested that lead-agency responsibility for approval of THPs and 

SYPs lies with the wrong agency (Reid, 1999), and should be shifted from the Department of 

Forestry to the California Resources Agency. Staff of the relevant state departments (i.e., Water 

Quality Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, etc.) should be given authority for 

decisions falling within the purview of those departments' areas of expertise. Reid noted that 

some Department of Forestry staff members perceive their primary mission to be to facilitate 

production of maximum sustained yield of high-quality forest products, Water Quality Control 

Board staff perceive their mission to be protection of water quality, and Department of Fish and 

Game staff perceive their mission to be maintenance of fish and wildlife populations. Some of 

these goals conflict with one another. Decision-making for THPs and SYPs is the responsibility 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 158 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

of the Department of Forestry, yet the most generally valued and utilized "commodity" produced 

by California's forest lands is clean water. 

4.10 What are the Circumstances Producing Effective BMP Implementation? Case Studies 

of Successful State BMP Programs: Washington, Oregon and Idaho 

Forestry BMP programs in the Pacific Northwest are quite advanced in relationship to other 

states. Forestry BMPs vary from state to state on the Pacific coast, and their detail and rigor 

seem to be related to the degree of urbanization and the economic importance of the forest 

products industry in each state (Rice, 1992). While some of the details may differ slightly for 

other regions, the fundamental issues and principles that apply to the West remain applicable 

across the country. Building on state FPR BMP-based systems, western states including 

Washington, Oregon and Idaho have developed watershed analysis systems that address 

watershed conditions on a site-specific basis. Much of the material in this section was taken from 

NCASI (2001), which provides comprehensive descriptions of the FPRs in western states. 

Although aspects of these state programs and their implementation have been criticized (see 

Section 4.5), each of the programs described below has developed analysis and management 

systems which address site-specific forest road impacts which vary widely within each state. 

4.10.1 Washington Watershed Assessment Process 

Writing watershed-specific rules has reached its most detailed level in Washington, where 

watershed analysis is used (Ice et al., 1997). Washington’s watershed analysis approach to 

watershed management is based on biological and physical inventories of watershed conditions. 

It is a collaborative process involving resource scientists and managers representing landowners, 

agencies, tribes, and other interested citizens. Both the assessment and the management process 

based on assessment findings are highly structured and defined within the Forest Practices Act 

and its implementing rules, and are designed to be repeated and adaptive (NCASI, 2001).

In Washington’s system for management of road erosion and sediment delivery impacts, roads 

are field inventoried and the data are used with simple spreadsheet based models that quantify 

erosion and sediment delivery in comparison to estimates of natural background watershed 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 159 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

sediment delivery. When delivery is considered to be too high, an adverse condition exists that 

must be addressed with management prescriptions designed to alleviate the condition. These 

prescriptions are developed by local land managers and agencies, must address the specific areas 

of hazard and resource concern identified by the scientific assessments, and are subject to public 

review and appeal prior to final acceptance of the plan. 

4.10.2 Idaho Cumulative Watershed Effects Process 

The objective of Idaho’s CWE assessment and forest practices management process is to lead 

landowners to conduct future forest practices according to three “staged” criteria (IDL, 2000b): 

1. In watersheds where beneficial uses are not supported as a result of forest practices and 

are not improving, mitigation and rehabilitation activities must be conducted in 

conjunction with current forest practice activities so that, in balance, a generally 

improving trend is maintained until adverse conditions no longer exist. 

2. In watersheds where beneficial uses are not supported as a result of forest practices but 

conditions are improving, activities must be conducted in a way that does not interrupt 

this improving trend. 

3. In watersheds where beneficial uses are supported, forest practices will be designed to 

prevent loss of this support. 

The Idaho assessment procedures are designed to detect the presence of adverse watershed or 

stream conditions, to identify causes for the conditions, and to identify actions that will correct 

and prevent existing and potential future problems. The result of implementation of the CWE 

process in a watershed is the development of mandatory special rules for the watershed, called 

Cumulative Watershed Effects Management Practices, that are authorized by the state’s Forest 

Practices Act and are enforced by the Idaho Department of Lands. As in Washington, roads in 

Idaho watersheds are inventoried, and although based on a qualitative rating of erosion and 

delivery of sediment to streams, road conditions leading to adverse instream conditions must be 

corrected until the qualitative rating score is reduced to within the range considered to be 

acceptable. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 160 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

4.10.3 Oregon Watershed Assessment Process 

The Oregon watershed assessment process is designed to identify how natural processes and 

human activities affect fish habitat and water quality, and to evaluate the cumulative effects of 

land management practices over time. Although the process does not include development of site 

specific watershed management prescriptions, it provides the information necessary for 

development of action plans and monitoring strategies for protecting and improving fish habitat 

and water quality. The assessment provides broad-scale screening and is developed by local 

citizens with some assistance from technical experts using the assessment manual’s “cookbook” 

procedures for compilation and evaluation of information about watersheds. The procedure 

concludes with development of a Watershed Condition Evaluation and Monitoring Plan. A 

standard list of Critical Questions is addressed for each of six watershed characterization 

modules. 

Road erosion and sediment delivery are evaluated as a component of a broad sediment source 

assessment that identifies where human caused sediment increases are most severe, as well as 

priority restoration opportunities. The assessment manual provides highly structured and 

organized procedures for evaluation of landslide hazards, road surface erosion, and stream 

culvert capacity and condition. 

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) also conducts watershed analysis projects in basins 

containing State Forest land. These projects evaluate the interactions between ODF management 

and a watershed’s physical and biological processes. The ODF watershed analyses are performed 

in several steps: 

y The analyst compiles available information to describe current watershed condition. 

y Based on this description, factors limiting important watershed functions are identified 

and assessed. 

y The analysts and ODF resource specialists determine whether riparian and aquatic 

strategies are addressing the appropriate concerns regarding process and function within 

the watershed. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 161 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Information provided by watershed analysis can be used to refine district implementation plans 

and, as necessary, contribute to a comprehensive review of forest management plan goals and 

strategies. In 2008, analyses were finalized for 5 watersheds: Elliot State Forest, Trask 

Watershed, Miami Watershed, Upper Nehalem and Wilson Watershed. As one component of 

these analyses, state-developed Rapid Watershed Risk and Current Condition Surveys were used 

to evaluate the current effects forest roads have on aquatic resources within a particular 

watershed, and capture attributes associated with roads and their potential environmental risks 

(Duck Creek Associates, 2008). 

4.10.4 Special Issue Management Systems 

In some cases, management systems have evolved around a specific issue or certain species of 

concern. Examples of this include Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), the Oregon Plan for 

Salmon and Watersheds, and Washington State’s Forest and Fish Agreement. 

4.10.4.1 Habitat Conservation Plans

The ESA notes that it is unlawful to “take” endangered species, with the definition of “take” 

including, “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect...” 

Regulations under Section 4 of the Act clarify that “harm” in the definition of “take” includes 

“significant habitat modification” that aresults in injury or death to the animal (50 C.F.R. section 

17.3). In one of the few amendments to the 1973 ESA, Congress modified Section 10 in 1982 to 

permit “take” for listed species incidental to such otherwise lawful activities as grazing, farming, 

or logging (16 U.S.C. section 1539 (a)(a)(B)). Each application for such an incidental take 

permit must be accompanied by a HCP (16 U.S.C. section 1539 (a)(2)(A)). The process is 

intended to be proactive and creative, with the landowner taking the initiative to obtain the HCP 

and suggest the habitat conservation measures designed to avoid take. The legal assurances 

provided by an HCP are not without cost – both in terms of the cash outlay necessary for the 

completion of the agreement and the delays and modifications to land uses that might be 

required in exchange for the HCP. The HCP for native fish species developed by Plum Creek 

Timber Company (NCASI, 2001) is one example of an HCP that addresses existing and potential 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 162 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

future road impacts through comprehensive assessment and inventory followed by 

implementation of forceful (and expensive) road maintenance and construction requirements. 

4.10.4.2 Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds

Several “Evolutionarily Significant Units” of salmon and steelhead have been listed in recent 

years under the ESA in numerous rivers of coastal and interior Oregon. Under sponsorship of the 

state’s Governor, Oregon has developed its Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. The key elements 

of the Oregon Plan are: 

y An ecosystem approach that requires systematic consideration of the full range of 

attributes of aquatic health; 

y A focus on reversing factors for decline and meeting objectives that address those factors; 

y Use of adaptive management and a comprehensive monitoring strategy; and 

y Building citizens and constituent groups into the restoration process. 

Several forest land initiatives have been implemented, including development of the watershed 

assessment process (OWEB, 1999), development of standard road inventory and assessment 

procedures, and development of training materials for landowners, including the Forest Road 

Management Handbook (ODF, 2000). These procedures emphasize design and construction of 

culverts to ensure fish passage, along with road maintenance and repairs to prevent surface 

erosion, washouts, and road failure associated landslides. 

Several watershed assessments using the Oregon procedures have been completed and many 

more are in progress. Many members of the Oregon Forest Industry Council and smaller forest 

landowners have voluntarily completed the required inventories and have initiated rehabilitation 

of road systems to address existing adverse circumstances (ODF, 2000). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 163 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

4.10.4.3 Washington Forest and Fish Agreement

In 1986, the timber industry, tribes, the state, and the environmental community agreed to 

resolve contentious forest practice problems through negotiations, resulting in Washington’s 

watershed assessment process and several stream and landscape research efforts. As a result of 

research findings and common findings within many of the completed watershed analyses, the 

Timber/Fish/Wildlife (TFW) program parties, expanded to include federal and local 

governments, began working together again to address ESA listings, 660 streams included on the 

303(d) list of water quality limited water bodies, and the cost and uncertainty attendant upon 

timber acquisitions and harvest activities. Agreement was reached and recommended to the 

Forest Practices Board and the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office in February 1999. The 

recommendations were subsequently adopted as Emergency Forest Practices Rules. These rules 

substantially modified the then-existing FPRs in such important areas as stream classification, 

riparian management requirements, management of unstable slopes, and road management. 

Under the agreement and the subsequent Emergency Rules, the road management policy is to 

maintain or provide passage for fish in all life stages, provide for the passage of some woody 

debris, meet water quality standards, control sediment delivery, protect streambank stability, and 

divert most road runoff to the forest floor. Perhaps the most comprehensive of these new rules is 

that all landowners are now required to develop and submit for public review, and Washington 

Department of Natural Resources approval formal road maintenance and abandonment plans for 

their entire ownership and road system within specified time frames. Requirements to inventory 

all stream crossing culverts and to replace or correct those with fish passage problems are 

included. Culverts not passing the now-required 100 year flood flow must be replaced at the end 

of their useful life. The new rules also contain comprehensive location, design, maintenance, and 

abandonment requirements for prevention of both mass and surface erosion. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 164 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

In 2007, Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) conducted a literature review and evaluated 

data to provide recent examples of water quality impacts from forest roads and to survey the 

effectiveness of forest road BMPs to prevent these impacts. This report summarizes these 

findings, focusing on three areas of interest to USEPA: 

Section 2: Impacts of forest roads on water quality and aquatic resources. 

Section 3: BMPs for forest roads (descriptions, effectiveness, shortcomings and costs). 

Section 4: State BMP programs for forest roads. 

This research builds on previous studies conducted by USEPA, USFS, NCASI, the states, 

forestry and water quality scientists, and other interest groups. Although much has been studied 

and written about forest roads, their relationship to water quality impacts, and the role of BMPs 

in mitigating these impacts, a number of conclusions have emerged from the process of 

reviewing and summarizing this literature. These are listed below:

• Potential effects of roads on water quality include increased loading of sediment due to 

erosion and mass wasting (landslides), increased suspended solids and turbidity, 

increased sediment deposition and bed load, siltation of coarse streambed substrates, 

physical barriers to migration and downstream transport, and altered streamflow and 

pollution from other chemicals associated with road use. 

• Adverse impacts of forest roads on aquatic ecosystems, especially anadromous 

salmonids, are well documented. These impacts arise from a number of factors: erosion 

and sediment delivery to streams, fine sediment accumulation, and obstructions to 

passage of fish and large debris. The greatest impacts occur along the Pacific Coast and 

Northwest. 

• National level assessments of water quality are based on state lists of impaired waters, 

the so-called 305(b) and 303(d) lists. These assessments represent the only available 

National data on the extent and causes of impairment to rivers and streams, lakes, 

wetlands, and other waterbodies. The 2002 National Water Quality Inventory lists 

silviculture as the 12th leading source, responsible for impairment of 19,071 river miles; 

this represents 5% of impaired river miles. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 165 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

• Although the information in the National Assessment Database provides a picture of state 

assessment results, these data cannot be used to compare water quality conditions 

between states or to identify trends in statewide or national water quality.

• Roads can have very different effects on water resources depending on road size, design, 

location, construction, access, usage and maintenance techniques. Although most roads 

will have some effect on their watersheds, a small percentage of road area (or length) is 

often responsible for most of the erosion. A key to understanding this variation is the 

placement of roads in relationship to the erosion and sediment delivery potential of 

various points in the forest landscape. 

• The commonly-cited 80/20 rule (80% of the problems come from 20% of the roads) 

suggests that relatively few forest roads cause most of the problems.

• Soil losses and erosion occurring closer to a stream have greater potential to deliver 

sediment and lead to water quality impairment. In this regard, stream crossings have the 

greatest potential to adversely impact water quality on the forest landscape.

• Adverse environmental effects from forest roads change over time and vary with season 

of construction and use, age, weather, kinds and intensity of maintenance, traffic level, 

and other location factors such as geology, geomorphic location, soils and terrain. 

There are a number of guiding principles for forest road BMPs, including: 

• Recognize and avoid high-erosion hazard areas. 

• Minimize the total amount of landscape disturbed by roads, bare ground and soil 

compaction. 

• Engineer stable road surfaces, drainage features and stream crossings to reduce erosion. 

• Separate bare ground from surface waters and minimize delivery of road-derived 

sediments to streams. 

• Provide a forested buffer around streams which exclude roads and minimize crossings. 

• Design and install stream crossings to allow passage of fish, other aquatic biota, and large 

wood. 

• Put BMPs in place to anticipate triggering events. 

• Unless obliterated/removed, all forest roads, crossings and associated BMPs must be 

maintained. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 166 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

• Although silviculture BMPs are grounded in science or are based on scientific principles, 

a lack of science to validate BMP effectiveness is a shortcoming of many BMPs related 

to forest roads. 

• Rating BMP efficiency is difficult because the performance of BMPs and their associated 

impacts vary considerably with geology, terrain, watershed characteristics, site locations 

and weather. 

• The difficulty with rating BMP efficiency is that the same practice on different sites, in 

different watersheds or even with different weather patterns, can result in different 

impacts. 

• To maximize the performance of BMPs at a site, the BMP prescription must be 

customized to the setting, but customized BMPs require greater skill and effort on the 

part of the forest manager and knowledge of where the problems are located. Both 

increase the difficulty for states to determine whether BMPs have been properly 

implemented. In this situation, performance standards that are realistically achievable 

should be used to set goals for the BMPs. 

There are a number of recent promising innovations in forest road BMPs, including:

• Portable bridges, mats, pipe bundles, and altered logging equipment (e.g., wider tires, 

low tire pressure, dual tires). 

• Development of methods to optimize BMPs. 

• Management systems. 

BMPs for forest roads fail to protect water quality for a variety of reasons, including: 

• Lack of effective implementation. 

• Erosion rates and mass failures can exceed capability of BMPs to prevent generation, 

transport and/or delivery of sediment to water bodies. 

• Legacy roads and crossings (i.e., lack of maintenance, failure to upgrade and/or remove). 

• Cumulative Impacts. 

• Highly sensitive aquatic resources. 

• Extreme storm events. 

There are a number of ways to address failing forest road BMPs, including: 

• Improving inspection and maintenance practices. 

• Identifying the location of failures. 

• Determining which high-risk roads should be properly abandoned. 

• Road reconstruction and upgrading to current standards. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 167 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

• Adding components to BMP systems. 

• 15 states (Alaska, California, Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, 

and West Virginia) have developed regulatory programs that require permits or 

mandatory BMPs. Forest management programs in the western states are 

overwhelmingly regulatory. 

• BMP implementation is largely voluntary in the other 35 states. This includes the 

southern states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia) although 3 states 

(Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia) have linked BMP implementation to other state 

regulatory programs, making them quasi-regulatory in some circumstances, and BMP 

implementation became mandatory in Kentucky in July 2000. 

• 9 states have a nonregulatory BMP program without enforcement. These states typically 

use incentive and education programs to ensure pollution control and include states 

without a large timber industry or steep terrain such as Illinois, Oklahoma, and Utah. 

• 18 states have nonregulatory programs with enforcement where use of BMPs are not 

mandatory but enforcement action can be taken against polluters or landowners who 

refuse to implement proper BMPs. 

• 8 states have combination programs that mix aspects of regulatory and nonregulatory 

programs. 

• As the preceding summaries of state programs demonstrate, not all state BMPs are the 

same. 

For example: 

• 20% of state BMPs do not address maintenance of roads. 

• 80% do not address use of roads in wet weather. 

• 48% do not address road closure. 

• 30 states have conducted implementation and effectiveness monitoring of their BMPs 

since 2000. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 168 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

6. REFERENCES 

Adams, P. W., and J. O. Ringer. 1994. The effects of timber harvesting & forest roads on water 

quantity & quality in the Pacific Northwest: Summary & annotated bibliography. Oregon State 

University, Forest Engineering Department, Corvallis, OR. 147 pp. 

Adams, T.O.; Hook, D.D.; Floyd, M.A. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural best 

management practices in South Carolina. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 19(4): 170–176.

Aitken, W.W. 1936. The reaction of soil erosion to stream improvement and fish life. Journal of 

Forestry. 34:1059-1061.

Alexander, G. R. and E. A. Hansen. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 6: 9-23. 

Amaranthus, M. P., R. M. Rice, N. R. Barr and R. R. Ziemer. 1985. Logging and forest roads 

related to increased debris slides in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 83: 229-233. 

Anderson, H. W., 1954. Suspended Sediment Discharge as Related to Streamflow, Topography, 

Soil, and Land Use. Am. Geophys. Union Trans. 35:268-281. 

Anderson, H. W. 1974. Sediment deposition in reservoirs associated with rural roads, forest 

fires, and catchment attributes. Proc. Int. Symp. on Man's Effect on Erosion and Sedimentation, 

UNESCO-IAHS, Paris, Sept. 1974. p. 87-95. 

Anderson, H.W., Hoover, M.D. and K.G. Reinhart. 1976. Forest and water: Effects of forest 

management on floods, sedimentation and water supply. USDA Forest Service, General 

Technical Report PSW-18. San Francisco, California. 

Appelbloom, T.W., G.M. Chescheir, R.W. Skaggs, and D.L. Hesterberg. 1998. Evaluating 

management practices for reducing sediment production from forest roads. Presented at the 

1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Orlando, Florida, July 12-16. American Society of 

Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 

Arnold, J.F.; Lundeen, L.J. 1968. South Fork Salmon River special survey: soils and hydrology. 

Boise, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 195 p. 

Aust, W.M., R.M. Shaffer, and J.A. Burger. 1996. Benefits and costs of forestry best 

management practices in Virginia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(1):23-29. 

Aust, W.M., Lea, R., and Gregory, J.D. 1991. Removal of floodwater sediments by a clearcut 

tupelo-cypress wetland. Water Resources Bulletin 27(1):111-16. 

Author, M.A., Coltharp, G.B. and D.L. Brown. 1998. Effects of best management practices on 

forest stream water quality in eastern Kentucky. Journal of American Water Resources 

Association. 34(3): 481-495. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 169 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Bagley, S. 1998. The road-ripper’s guide to wildland road removal. Missoula, MT: Wildlands 

Center for preventing roads. www.wildlandscpr.org/WCPRpdfs/roadremovalguide.pdf. 

Beaulac, M.N. and K.H. Reckhow, 1982. An Examination of Land Use-Nutrient Export 

Relationships. Water Resources Bulletin 18(6):1013-1024. 

Bechman, D. 1980. Backhoe or crawler? Journal of Logging, November 1980, p. 2864-2866. 

Beebe and Ice. 2007. unpublished data cited in NCASI, 2007. Compendium of state and 

provincial forestry best management practices. Technical Bulletin or Special Report No. XXX. 

Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Beechie, T.; Beamer, E.; Wasserman, L. 1994. Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt 

production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. 14(4): 797-811. 

Belford, D.A.; Gould, W.R. 1989. An evaluation of trout passage through six highway culverts 

in Montana. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 9(4): 437-445. 

Bellingham Herald. 2007. State, Forest Service Battle over Logging-road Upkeep. November 26, 

2007. 

Benda, L., Veldhuisen, C., Miller, D. and L.R. Miller. 1997. Slope instability and forest land 

managers, a primer and field guide. Seattle, Washington. Earth Systems Institute. 74p. 

Berry, W., Rubinstein, N., Melzian, B. and B. Hill. 2003. The Biological Effects of Suspended 

and Bedded Sediment (SABS) in Aquatic Systems: A Review. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental 

Effects Laboratory, Narragansett, RI and National Health and Environmental Effects Laboratory, 

Midcontinent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN. August 20, 2003. 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix1.pdf. 

Beschta, R.L. 1978. Long-term patterns of sediment production following road construction and 

logging in the Oregon coast range. Water Resources Research. 14:1011-1016. 

Beschta, R.L. 1981. Management implications of sediment routing research. In Measuring and 

assessing the effectiveness of alternative forest management practices on water quality. NCASI 

Technical Bulletin 353. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. New York, NY. 

August 1981. 

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries 

and forestry interactions. In: Salo, E.; Cundy, T., eds. Streamside management: forestry and 

fishery interactions. Contrib. 57. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Forest 

Resources: 191-232. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 170 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

BLM. 2005. Water Quality Law Summary- Chapter 5 Nonpoint Source Water Pollution, 

CWA319, and BMPs. Bureau of Land Management, National Science and Technology Center 

(http://www.blm.gov/nstc/WaterLaws/abstract2.html) 

Bilby, R. E. 1985. Contributions of road surface sediment to a western Washington stream. 

Forest Science 31: 827-838. 

Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The generation and fate of road-surface 

sediment in forested watersheds in southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35: 453- 468. 

Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North 

America. Water Resources Bulletin 29(5): 729-740. 

Binkley, D., and L. MacDonald. 1994. Forests as non-point sources of pollution, and 

effectiveness of best management practices. Technical Bulletin #672, National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement, New York. 57 pp 

Bisson, P. A. and R. E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. 

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4: 371-374. 

Bisson, P. A., and J. R. Sedell. 1984. Salmonid populations in streams in clearcut versus oldgrowth forests of western Washington. Pages 121-129 in W. R. Meehan, T. R. Merrill, Jr., and T. 

A. Hanley, editors. Fish and wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. Institute of Fisheries 

Research Biologists. 

Bisson, P. A., R. E. Bilby, M. D. Bryant, C. A. Dolloff, G. B. Grette, R. A. House, M. L. 

Murphy, K. V. Koski, and J. R. Sedell. 1987. Large woody debris in forested streams in the 

Pacific Northwest: past, present, and future. in E. O. a. T. W. C. Salo, Eds, editor. Streamside 

Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. UW Forestry Publication No. 59, Seattle, WA. 

Bisson, P.A., T.P. Quinn, G.H. Reeves, and S.V. Gregory. 1992. Best Management Practices, 

cumulative effects, and long-term trends in fish abundance in Pacific Northwest river systems. In 

Naiman, R.J. [ed.]. Watershed Management: Balancing sustainability and environmental change. 

New York: Springer-Verlag. 

Bjornn, T.C.; Brusven, M.A.; Molnau, M.P. 1977. Transport of granitic sediment in streams and 

its effects on insects and fish. Bull. 17. Moscow: University of Idaho, Forest, Wildlife and Range 

Experiment Station. 43 p. 

Bjornn, T.C.; Reiser, D.W. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. In: Meehan, 

W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. 

Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 83-138. 

Black, T. A. and C. H. Luce, Changes in erosion from gravel surfaced forest roads through time, 

in Proceedings of the International Mountain Logging and 10

th 

Pacific Northwest Skyline 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 171 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Symposium, edited by J. Sessions and W. Chung, pp. 204-218, International Union of Forestry 

Research Organizations and Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1999. 

Blinn, C., R. Dahlman, L. Hislop, and M. Thompson. 1998. Temporary stream and wetland 

crossing options for forest management. NC-202. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Bontrager, E. 2008. FORESTS: Plum Creek deal could increase development – GAO. Greenwire 

(http://www.eenews.net/gw/) October 14, 2008 

Bourgeois, W.W. 1978. Timber harvesting activities on steep Vancouver Island terrain. In: C.T. 

Youngber (ed). Forest Soils and Land Use. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, 

Department of Forest and Wood Science. pp. 393-409. 

Bowling, L.C.; Lettenmeier, D.P. 1997. Evaluation of the effects of forest roads on streamflow 

in Hard and Ware Creeks, Washington. Water Resour. Ser. Tech. Rep. 155. Seattle: University 

of Washington, Department of Civil Engineering. 189 p. 

Brake, D., Molnau, M. and J.G. King. 1997. Sediment transport distances and culvert spacings 

on logging roads within the Oregon coast mountain range. ASAE International Meeting. 

Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Briggs, R., Cormier, J., and Kimball, A. 1998. Compliance with forestry best management 

practices 

in Maine. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 15(2):57-68.

Brunette, B., and Newlun, N. 1988. Lowered-pressure off-highway tires for road construction. 

USDA, Forest Service, Engineering Staff. Engineering Field Notes 20(September-October):29-

32. 

Buffington, J.M., 1995. Effects of hydraulic roughness and sediment supply on surface textures 

of gravel-bedded rivers. Timber/Fish/Wildlife Report No. TFW-SH10-95-002. Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, Washington, 184p. 

Burke, M. 1988. New reinforced soil walls and fills. USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff. 

Engineering Field Notes 20(September-October):19-25. 

Burns, D.C. 1984. An inventory of embeddedness of salmonid habitat in the South Fork Salmon 

River drainage, Idaho. Boise, ID; McCall, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Boise and Payette National Forests. 30 p. 

Burroughs, E.R., Jr. 1985. Survey of slope stability problems on forest lands in the West. In: 

Swanston, D., tech. ed. Proceedings of a workshop on slope stability: problems and solutions in 

forest management; 1984 February 6-8; Seattle. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-180. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station: 5-16. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 172 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Burroughs, E.R. Jr. and J.G. King. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General 

Technical Report INT-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station. 21 p. 

Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; Chalfant, G.R.; Townsend, M.A. 1976. Slope stability in road construction: 

a guide to the construction of stable roads in western Oregon and northern California. Portland, 

OR: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 102 p. 

Cafferata, P.H., and Munn, J.R. 2002. Hillslope monitoring program: monitoring results from 

1996 through 2001. Monitoring Study Group Final Report prepared for the California State 

Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA. 114 pp. 

Cafferata, P.H., and T.E. Spittler. 1998. Logging impacts of the 1970’s vs. the 1990’s in the 

Caspar Creek watershed. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service. 

Callaham, R.Z., and DeVries, J.J. 1987. Proceedings of the California Watershed Management 

Conference. Wildland Resource Center. University of California: Berkeley, CA. Report 11. 

CBOF. 1999. Hillslope monitoring program: Monitoring results from 1996 through 1998. 

California State Board of Forestry. Sacramento, California. 70 p. 

Cederholm, C. J., L. M. Reid, and E. O. Salo. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment 

on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. Presented to 

the conference Salmon-Spawning Gravel: A Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest? 

October 6-7, 1980. Seattle, WA. 35 pp. 

Chapman, D.W. 1988. Critical review of variables used to define effects of fines in redds of 

large salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 117(1): 1-21. 

Chapman, D.W.; McLeod, K.P. 1987. Development of criteria for fine sediment in the northern 

Rockies ecoregion. Seattle, WA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; final report; EPA 

910/9-87-162. 279 p. 

Chin, A., Rohrer, D.M., Marion, D.A. and J.A. Clingenpeel. 2004. Effects of All-Terrain 

Vehicles on Stream Dynamics. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-74. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. pp. 292-296. 

Chutter, F.M. 1969. The effects of silt and sand on the invertebrate fauna of streams and rivers. 

Hydrobiologia. 34(1): 57-76. 

Clancy, C.G.; Reichmuth, D.R. 1990. A detachable fishway for steep culverts. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. 10(2): 244-246. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 173 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Clark, J., Baitis, K., Stark, J., Sullivan, K. 2000. Landscape/watershed scale management of 

forest road systems. Paper presented at Forest Road Stewardship Workshop, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Clayton, J.L. 1983. Evaluating slope stability prior to road construction. Res. Pap. INT-307. 

Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 6 p. 

Cline, R., G. Cole, W. Megahan, R. Patten, and J. Potyondy. 1981. Guide for predicting 

sediment yields from forested watersheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern and Intermountain Region: Ogden, UT. 

Coble, D.W. 1961. Influence of water exchange and dissolved oxygen in redds on survival of 

steelhead trout embryos. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90(4): 469-474. 

CO FS. 1998. Colorado forest stewardship guidelines to protect water quality – best management 

practices for Colorado. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State Forest Service. Colorado State 

University. 33 pp. 

Coghlan, G., and R. Sowa. 1998. National Forest road system and use. Washington, D.C.: USDA 

Forest Service. 

Cordone, A.J.; Kelley, D.W. 1960. The influence of inorganic sediment on the aquatic life of 

streams. California Fish and Game. 46: 189-228. 

Corn, P.S. and Bury, R.B. 1989. Logging in western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats 

and stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management. 29: 39-57. 

Corner, R.A. 1992. Effect of clearcutting and mechanical scarification on stream sedimentation 

in small mountain watersheds of northeast Washington. MS Thesis. Washington State 

University. Pullman, Washington. 71p. 

Corner, R.A., Bassman, J.H., Moore, B.C. and B.A. Zamora. 1992 Application of on-site 

characterizations for regulating water quality impacts from forestry practices. P. 45 in Proc. 

North American Lake Management Society 12th Annual International Symposium. 

Corner, R.A.; Bassman, J.H.; Moore, B.C. 1996. Monitoring timber harvest impacts on stream 

sedimentation; instream vs. upslope methods. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 11(1): 25-32. 

CEQ. 1971. Environmental Quality. Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, DC. 

Copstead, R. 1997. Water/Road Interaction Series: Summary of Historic and Legal Context for 

Water/Road Interaction. USDA Forest Service, Water/Road Interaction Technology Series, Sam 

Dimas Technology and Development Center, Sam Dimas, California. December. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 174 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Cupp, C.E., Metzler, J., Grost, R.T., and Tappel, P. 1999. Monitoring approach and procedures 

to evaluate effectiveness of culverts in providing upstream passage of salmonids. 

TFW-MAG1-99-006. Olympia: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 53 pp. 

Dahlman, R., and Phillips, M.J. 2004. Baseline monitoring for implementation of the timber 

harvesting and forest management guidelines on public and private forest land in Minnesota: 

combined report for 2000, 2001, and 2002. Minnesota Department of natural Resources. DNR 

Document MP-0904. 43pp. 

Damian, F. 2003. Cross-drain Placement to Reduce Sediment Delivery from Forest Roads to 

Streams. MS Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 207 pp. 

Defenders of Wildlife. 2000. State Forestry Laws. Defenders of Wildlife. Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. July 2000. 55 p. 

Dent, L., and Robben, J. 1999. Forest practices compliance monitoring project: 1998 pilot study 

results. Oregon Department of Forestry. Salem, OR. 

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in 

Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. Miscellaneous Publication 1520. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. July. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., and B. Foster. 1987. Some Economic Benefits of Protecting Water Quality. In 

Managing Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish: A Proceedings. USDA Forest Service General 

Technical Report SO-65, pp. 6-11. 

Douglass, J.E. 1975. Southeastern Forests And The Problem Of Non-Point Sources Of Water 

Pollution. Reprinted from: Ashton, Peter M., and Richard C. Underwood (eds.). 1975. Nonpoint 

sources of water pollution. Southeast. Reg. Conf. Proc. 1975:29-44. Va. Polytech. Inst. & State 

Univ., Blacksburg, Va. 

Dyrness, C.T. 1967. Mass soil movements in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. Research 

Paper PNW-42. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

12p. 

Duck Creek Associates. 2008. Wilson River Watershed Analysis. Prepared for the Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Northwest Oregon Area, Forest Grove District, Forest Grove, OR and 

Tillamook District, Tillamook, OR. Prepared by Duck Creek Associates, Inc. and associated 

consultants, Corvallis, Oregon. March 2008. 

Duncan, S., and J. Ward. 1985. The influence of watershed geology and forest roads on the 

composition of spawning gravel. Northwest Science 59: 204-212. 

Dunham, J.B., Rieman, B.E., 1999, Metapopulation structure of bull trout- Influences of 

physical, biotic, and geometrical landscape characteristics: Ecological Applications, v. 9, no. 2, 

p. 642-655. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 175 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Dubois, M., W.F. Watson, T.J. Straka, and K.L. Belli. 1991. Costs and cost trends for forestry 

practices in the South. Forest Farmer 50(3):26-32. 

Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in environmental planning. San Francisco: W.H. 

Freeman. 818 p. 

Durgin, P. B., R. R. Johnston, and A. M. Parsons, 1988. CSES, Critical Sites Erosion Study, Vol. 

I: Causes of Erosion on Private Timberlands in Northern California. California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, California, 50 pp. 

Eaglin, G. S. and W. A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of logging and roads on substrate and trout in 

streams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 13: 844-846. 

Ellefson, P.V., A. Cheng, R. Moulton. 1995. Regulation of Private Forestry Practices by State 

Governments, Bulletin 605-1995. University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. 

Paul Minnesota. 

Ellefson, P.V., Kilgore, M.A., and Granskog, J.E. 2006. State government regulation of forestry 

practices applied to nonfederal forests: extent and intensity of agency involvement. Journal of 

Forestry 104(8):401-406. 

Elliot, W. 2000. Roads and Other Corridors (Ch. 9). Pages 85-101 in G. Dissmeyer, ed. Drinking 

Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. USDA Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 

Elliot, W.J. and Hall, D.E. 1997. Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) forest applications.

General Technical Report INT-GTR-365. Moscow, ID: Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. 

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall and S.R. Graves. 1999. Predicting Sediment from Forest Roads. Journal 

of Forestry 1999: 23-29. 

Elliot, W.J., Foltz, R.B., and Remboldt, M.D. 1994. Predicting sedimentation from roads at 

stream crossings with the WEPP model. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 

international winter meeting, December 13-16, Atlanta, GA. 

English, D. 2003. Personal communication. Southern Research Station, 2003. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation-position-paper.pdf) 

EPIC. 2000. Deficiencies of the California Forest Practice Rules - What the Agencies Say. The 

Environmental Protection Information Center. (www.wildcalifornia.org/pages). 

EPIC. 2002. Re: Consideration of potential request for reports of waste discharge for timber 

harvest activities on and about: (1) Freshwater Creek, Bear Creek, Stitz Creek and Jordan Creek 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 176 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

and (2) Elk River. Letter from Environmental Protection Information Center to North Coast 

Regional Water Quality Control Board. Santa Rosa, California. March 2002. 

EQC. 1988. House Joint Resolution 49 – Forest Practices and Watershed Effects, Report to the 

51st Montana Legislature. Montana Environmental Quality Council. 93 pp. 

Ethridge, R., and Heffernan, P. 2000. Montana forestry best management practices monitoring – 

The 2000 forestry BMP audit report. Missoula, MT: Montana Department of Natural Resources 

and Conservation, Forestry Division. 69 p. 

Evans, W.A. and Johnston. B. 1980. Fish migration and fish passage: a practical guide to solving 

fish passage problems. Rev. EM-7100-2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service. 163 p. 

Everest, F.H.; Beschta, R.L.; Scrivener, J.C. 1987. Fine sediment and salmonid production—a 

paradox. In: Salo, E.; Cundy, T., eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions: 

Proceedings of a symposium; 1986 February 12-14; Seattle. Contrib. 57. Seattle: University of 

Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 98-142. 

FEMAT. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic and Social 

Assessment. USDA Forest Service, BLM, USFWS, NOAA, EPA and National Park Service. 

Portland, Oregon. 

FDA. 2004. Silviculture – Best Management Practices. Florida Dept of Agriculture & Consumer 

Services. 

FDEP. 1997. Biological assessment of the effectiveness of forestry best management practices. 

Bureau of Laboratories, Division of Administrative and Technical Services, Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection. December 1997. 

Fennessey, L.A. and Jarrett, A.R. 1994. The dirt in the hole: A review of sedimentation basins 

for urban areas and construction sites. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49:317-23. 

FL DOF. 2006. Silviculture best management practices 2005 implementation survey report 

Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services – Division of 

Forestry. 40pp.

Foltz, R.B. 1994. Reducing tire pressure reduces sediment. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station. Moscow, Idaho. <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/library/>. 

Foltz, R.B. 1999. Traffic and no-traffic on an aggregate surfaced road: sediment production 

differences. In: Proc., pp. 195-204, Proceedings of the Seminar on Environmentally Sound 

Forest Roads and Wood Transport, Sinaia, Romania, Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, 

Italy. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 177 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Foltz, R.B.; Burroughs, E.R., Jr. 1990. Sediment production from forest roads with wheel ruts.

In: Proceedings from Watershed Planning and Analysis in Action. Symposium Proceedings of 

IR Conference, Watershed Mgt, IR Div, American Society of Civil Engineers, Durango, CO, 

July 9-11, 1990. pp. 266-275. 

Foltz, R.B.; Evans, G.L.; Truebe, M. 2000. Relationship of forest road aggregate test properties 

to sediment production. In: Flug, M.; Frevert, D.; Watkins, Jr., D.W., eds., Proceedings from the 

Conference on Watershed Management & Operations Management 2000; 2000 June 20-24; Fort 

Collins, CO. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers: 10 p. 

Foltz, R.B.; Trube, M.A. 1995. Effect of Aggregate Quality on Sediment Production from a 

Forest Road. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Low-Volume Roads. Vol. 

1, p. 49-57. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 

FPAC. 2001. Section B – Forest Roads Issue Paper. In Report of the Forest Practice Advisory 

Committee. Oregon Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon and Watersheds. Oregon 

Department of Forestry. Salem, Oregon. 

Furniss, M.J.; Love, M.A.; Flanagan, S.A. 1997. Diversion potential at road-stream crossings. 

Water/Road Interaction Tech. Ser. 9777-1814-SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 12 p. 

Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. In: Meehan, 

W.R., ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. 

Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 297-323. 

Furniss, M.J., M. Love, and A.S. Flanagan. 1997. Water/road interaction: Diversion potential at 

road-stream crossings. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forestry Service, Technology and Development Program, Washington, DC. 

GA FC. 2005. Results of Georgia’s 2004 silvicultural best management practices 

implementation and compliance survey. Macon, GA: Georgia Forestry Commission. 45pp.

Gallagher, A., Ice, G.G. and W. Megahan. 2000. Handbook of control and mitigation measures 

for silvicultural operations. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Research 

Triangle Park, North Carolina. 202p. 

Gardner, R.B.; Hartsoz, W.S.; Dye, K.B. 1978. Road design guidelines for the Idaho Batholith 

based on the China Glenn Road study. Res. Pap. INT-204. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1978. 20 p. 

Gianessi, L.P., Peskin, H.M. and C.A. Puffer, 1986. National database of nonurban-nonpointsource discharges and their effect on the nation’s water quality. Prepared for US EPA by 

Resources for the Future. Washington, DC. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 178 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Gibbons, D.R.; Salo, E.O. 1973. An annotated bibliography of the effects of logging on fish of 

the Western United States and Canada. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-10. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment 

Station. 145 p. 

Gonsior, M.J. and Gardner, R.B. 1971. Investigation of slope failures in the Idaho batholith. Res. 

Pap. INT-97. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest 

and Range Experiment Station. 34 p. 

Government Accounting Office, 2008, Proposed Easement Agreement between the Department 

of Agriculture and Plum Creek Timber Co., October 10, 2008 (B-317292) 

Grace, J.M. III. 2002. Overview of best management practices related to forest roads: The 

southern states. In: Proc.; 2002 ASAE Annual International Meeting / CIGR XVth World 

Congress, 28 - 31 July 2002, Chicago, Illinois, ASAE Paper No. 025013. St. Joseph, MI: ASAE. 

Grace, J.M. III and B.D. Clinton. 2006. Forest road management to protect soil and water. 

ASABE Paper No. 068010. St. Joseph, Michigan. 

Gregory, R.S. 1993. Effect of Turbidity on the Predator Avoidance Behavior of Juvenile 

Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 50: 241-246. 

Gregory, R. S., Servizi, J. A., and Martens, D. W. 1993. “Comment: Utility of the stress index 

for predicting suspended-sediment effects,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management 

13, 868-873. 

Gregory, S.V., Schwartz, J.S., Hall, J.D., Wildman, R.C. and P.A. Bisson. 2008. Long-term 

trends in habitat and fish populations in the Alsea basin, pp. 237-257. In: J.D. Stendick, Ed. 

Hydrological and biological responses to forest practices: the Alsea watershed study. Ecological 

Studies Vol. 199. Springer Science+Business Media. New York. 

Gucinski, H., M. Furniss, R. Ziemer, and M. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: A synthesis of 

scientific information. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Hagans, D.K.; Weaver, W.E.; Madej, M.A. 1986. Long term on-site and off-site effects of 

logging and erosion in the Redwood Creek Basin, northern California. In: Technical Bulletin 

409. New York: National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement: 38-66. 

Hagans, D.K. and Weaver, W.E. 1987. Magnitude, cause and basin response to fluvial erosion, 

Redwood Creek basin, northern California. In Erosion and Sedimentation in the Pacific Rim. 

Beschta, R.L., Blinn, T., Grant, G.E., Ice, G.G., and Swanson, F.J. (Eds.). IAHS Publication No. 

165. International Assoc. of Scientific Hydrology: Wallingford, Oxfordshire. p. 419-428. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 179 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Hall, J.D., and Baker, C.O. 1982. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous 

fish habitat in western North America, rehabilitating and enhancing stream habitat: 1, Review 

and evaluation. General Technical Report, PNW-138. USDA Forest Service. 

Hammond, C.J.; Miller, S.M.; Prellwitz, R.W. 1988. Estimating the probability of landslide 

failure using Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proceedings of the 24th symposium on engineering 

geology and soils engineering; 1988 February 29; Coeur d’Alene, ID. Logan: Utah State 

University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: 319-331. 

Haney, J.C. 1998. Costs of silvicultural best management practices on private forest lands in East 

Texas. MS Thesis, Stephen F. Austin University. Nacogdoches, Texas. 85 p. 

Harr, R. D., W. C. Harper and J. T. Krygier. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after road 

building and clear-cutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11: 436-444.

Harr, R.D., and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: A 

northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18(4):18-22. 

Harris, R.R., J.M. Gerstein, W.W. Weaver, D.J. Lewis and D. Lindquist. 2005. Monitoring the 

effectiveness of road system upgrading and decommissioning at the watershed scale. University 

of California, Center for Forestry, Berkeley, CA. 45 pp.

Hartsog, W.S.; Gonsior, M.J. 1973. Analysis of construction and initial performance of the 

China Glenn Road, Warren District, Payette National Forest. INT-5. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

22 p. 

Harvey, G., Hess, S., Jones, L., Krutina, D., McGreer, D., Reid, W., Stockton, D. and J. 

Thornton. 1988. Final report: forest practices water quality audit – 1988. Idaho Department of 

Health and Welfare. Boise, Idaho. 

Haupt, H.F.; Rickard, H.C.; Finn, L.E. 1963. Effect of severe rainstorms on insloped and 

outsloped roads. Res. Note INT-1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 8 p. 

Hawks, L.J., Cubbage, F.W. and L. Harry, Jr. 1993. Forest water quality protection, a 

comparison of regulatory and voluntary programs. Journal of Forestry. 91(5). 

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamics: an overview for land managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-72. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. 26 p. 

Helms, J.A. [ed.]. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. Bethesda, MD: Society of American 

Foresters. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 180 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom, D.L. [and others]. 1994. Interim protection for latesuccessional forests, fisheries, and watersheds: national forests east of the Cascade crest, Oregon 

and Washington. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society. 245 p. 

Henly, R. 1992. Updated cost study of small landowner timber harvesting plans. FRRAP Staff. 

June.

Henson, M. 1996. Best Management Practices Implementation and Effectiveness Survey on 

Timber Operations in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources, N.C. Division of Forest Resources. Raleigh, NC. 

Hetherington, E.D. 1976. Dennis Creek: A look at water quality following logging in the 

Okanagan Basin. Canadian Forestry Service. BC-X-147. 33p. 

Hewlett, J.D. 1979. Forest water quality: an experiment in harvesting and regenerating Piedmont 

forests, Univ. of Georgia School of Forestry Resources Press. Athens, GA. 

Hewlett, J. D. and J. E. Douglass. 1968. Blending forest uses. USDA Forest Service Res. Paper 

SE-37, Asheville, NC. 15 pp. 

Hickenbottom, J.A. 2000. A comparative analysis of surface erosion and water runoff from 

existing and recontoured Forest Service roads: O’Brien Creek Watershed Lolo National Forest, 

Montana. M.S. thesis. Missoula, MT: University of Montana. 178p. 

Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their 

habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 483-518. 

Hillman, T. W, J. S. Griffith and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by 

juvenile chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 116: 185-195. 

Hoelscher, B., Colla, J., Hanson, M., Heimer, J., McGreer, D., Poirier, S., and J. Rice. 1993. 

Forest practices water quality audit 1992. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, 

Division of Environmental Quality. 27 p. 

Hoelscher, B., DuPont, J., Robertson, C., Hinson, J.M., McGreer, D., and Schult, D. 2001. 

Idaho’s 2000 forest practices water quality audit. Boise, ID: Idaho Department of Environmental 

Quality. 36pp. 

Hollis, C.A., Fisher, R.F., and Beers, Jr., W.L. 1980. Silvicultural considerations for 

management of slash pine in lower Coastal Plain wetlands. In Research and field investigation 

on the impact of southern forestry management practices on receiving water quality and utility . 

Technical Bulletin No. 337. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and Stream 

Improvement, Inc. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 181 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Holter, J. 2001. The history of Washington’s forest practices rules. Olympia, WA: Washington 

Department of Natural Resources. 12 pp. 

Hynes, H.B.N. 1970. The ecology of running waters. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 

555 p. 

Ice, G.G. 2000. A review of waterbodies listed as impaired by silvicultural operations. SAF-00-

03. National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and Society of American Foresters 

(SAF)Society of American Foresters, Bethesda, MD. 

Ice, G.G. 2004. Assessing Best Management Practices Effectiveness In Multiple Dimensions 

And Scales. Presented at American Institute of Hydrology 2004 Annual Conference. Los Vegas, 

Nevada. October, 2004. 

Ice, G.G. and J.D. Stednick (Eds.). 2004. A Century of Forest and Wildland Watershed Lessons. 

Society of American Foresters. Bethesda, MD. 

Ice, G.G., Stuart, G.W., Waide, J.B., Irland, L.C. and P.V. Ellefson. 1997. 25 years of the Clean 

Water Act; How clean are forest practices? Journal of Forestry, 95(7):9-13. 

Ice, G.G. and W.G. Stuart. 2001. State nonpoint source pollution control programs for 

silviculture – sustained success. The National Association of State Foresters 2000 Progress 

Report. National Association of State Foresters. Washington. DC. 

Ice, G.G., P.W. Adams, R.L. Beschta, H.A. Froelich, and G.W. Brown. 2004. Forest 

Management to Meet Water Quality and Fisheries Objectives: Watershed Studies and 

Assessment Tools in the Pacific Northwest. In A Century of Forest and Wildland Watershed 

Lessons. eds. G. G. Ice and J. D. Stednick. Bethesda, MD. Society of American Foresters. 

Ice, G., Dent, L., Robben, J., Cafferata, P., Light, J., Sugden, B., and Cundy, T. 2004b. Programs 

assessing implementation and effectiveness of state forest practice rules and BMPs in the West. 

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus 4:143-169. 

Ice, G.G and R. Whittemore. 1998. Alternatives for Evaluating Water Quality and BMP 

Effectiveness at the Watershed Scale. Presented at the NWQMC National Monitoring 

Conference. Reno, Nevada. July 1998. 

IDL. 2000a. Rules pertaining to the Idaho Forest Practices Act, Title 38, Chapter 13, Idaho code. 

Coeur d’Alene, ID: Idaho Department of Lands. 39 p. 

IDL. 2000b. Forest Practices Cumulative Watershed Effects Process for Idaho; Idaho Forest 

Practices Act. Idaho Department of Lands. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. 

IDT. 1996. Unpublished accident tables, October 7, 1996. Idaho Department of Transportation. 

Office of Highway Safety, 3311 West State Street, Boise, ID 83703-5881. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 182 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Irland, L. 2000. Maine Forests: A Century of Change, 1900-2000 ...and elements of policy 

change for a new century. Maine Policy Review, Winter, 2000: 66-77. 

Irland, L.C. and J.F. Conners. 1994. Controlling forest management impacts on water quality: 

The 12 northeastern states. Land Water. 38:42-45. 

Jackson, W.L. and Beschta, R.L. 1984. Influences of increased sand delivery on the morphology 

of sand and gravel channels. Water Resources Bulletin. 20(4): 527-533. 

Jackson, C. R., Sun, G., Amatya, D., Swank, W.T., Riedel, M., Patric, J., Williams, T., Vose, 

J.M., Trettin, C., Aust, W.M., Beasley, R. S., Williston, H. and G.G. Ice. 2004. Fifty years of 

forest hydrology in the southeast. In: Ice, G.G.; Stednick, J.D. (eds). 2004. A Century of Forest

and Wildland Watershed Lessons. Bethesda, MD, USA: Society of American Foresters. 292 p. 

Juul, S.T.J., Funk, W.F. and B.C. Moore. 1990. The effects of nonpoint pollution on the water 

quality of the west branch of the Little Spokane River WSU Project No. 145-02-13A-3998-2600. 

State of Washington Water Resources Center, Washington State University. Pullman, 

Washington. 155 p. 

Keller, G.R, and Cummins, O.H. 1990. Tire-retaining structures. USDA Forest Service, 

Engineering Staff. Engineering Field Notes 22(March-April) :15-24. 

Keppeler, E., Lewis. J. and T. Lisle. 2003. Effects of forest management on streamflow, 

sediment yields, and erosion, Caspar Creek experimental watersheds. Presented at First 

Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds. Benson, Arizona. October 2003. 

Kidd, W.J., Jr. 1963. Soil erosion control structures on skidtrails. Research Paper INT-1. Ogden, 

UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

King, J.G. 1981. Interim report on research: Horse Creek administrative research project. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. 

King, J.G.; Tennyson, L.C. 1984. Alteration of streamflow characteristics following road 

construction in north-central Idaho. Water Resources Research. 20(8): 1159-1163. 

Klein, R. 2003. Erosion and turbidity monitoring report Sanctuary Forest stream crossing 

excavations in the Upper Mattolr River basin, 2002-2003. Prepared for: Sanctuary Forest, Inc. 

Whitehorn, California. 

Knopp, C.M., Smith, M.E., Barnes, J., Roath, B. and M.J. Furniss.1987. Monitoring 

effectiveness of best management practices on National Forest lands. Pp. 48-54. In: Proc. Of the 

California Watershed Management Conference (Eds: Callaham, R.Z. and J.J. DeVries). Report 

#11, Wildland Resources Center, University of California. Berkeley, California. 

Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians. USDA Forest 

Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper NE-158. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 183 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Kochenderfer, J.N., G.W. Wendel, and H.C. Smith. 1984. Cost of and Soil Loss on “MinimumStandard” Forest Truck Roads Constructed in the Central Appalachians. USDA Forest Service 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper NE-544. 

Kochenderfer, J.N. and J.D. Helvey. 1987. Using gravel to reduce soil losses from minimum 

standard forest roads. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 42(1): 46-50. 

LaHusen, R.G. 1984. Characteristics of management-related debris flows, northwestern 

California. In: O'Loughlin, C.L.; Pearce, A.J., eds. Symposium on effects of forest land use on 

erosion and slope stability; 7-11 May 1984; Honolulu, Hawaii. International Union of Forestry 

Research Organizations; 139-145. 

Latta, W.C. 1962. Periodicity of mortality of brook trout during the first summer of life. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 91(4): 408-411. 

Lee, D.C.; Sedell, J.R.; Rieman, B.E. 1997. Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and 

habitats. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components 

in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume III. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1057-1496. Chapter 4. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 

Lewis, J. 1998. Evaluating the impacts of logging activities on erosion and suspended sediment 

transport in the Caspar Creek watersheds. In: Ziemer, Robert R., technical coordinator. 

Proceedings of the conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story, 6 May 1998; 

Ukiah, California. General Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: 55-69 

Lewis, J., and Rice, R.M. 1989. CSES: Critical sites erosion study. Vol. II - Site conditions 

related to erosion on private timberlands in northern California: final report. Unpublished report. 

California Dept. Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA, 95 p. 

Lewis, J., Mori, S. R., Keppeler, E. T. and Ziemer, R. R. 2001. Impacts of logging on storm peak 

flows, flow volumes and suspended sediment loads in Caspar Creek, California’, in M. S. 

Wigmosta and S. J. Burges (eds.), Land Use and Watersheds: Human Influence on Hydrology 

and Geomorphology in Urban and Forest Areas. Water Science and Application Volume 2, 

American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 85–125. 

Lickwar, P.M. 1989. Estimating the Costs of Water Quality Protection on Private Forestlands in 

the South. Master’s thesis submitted to the University of Georgia. 

Lickwar, P., Hickman, C., and Cubbage, F.W. 1992. Cost of protecting water quality during 

harvesting on private forestlands in the Southeast. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 

16(1):13-20. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 184 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Ligon, F., A. Rich, G. Rynearson, D. Thornburgh, and W. Trush. 1999. Report of the scientific 

review panel on California Forest Practice Rules and salmonid habitat. Prepared for the 

Resources Agency of California and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Sacramento, CA. 

181 pp. 

Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of aggradation and degradation on riffle-pool morphology in natural 

gravel channels, northwestern California. Water Resources Research. 18(6): 1643-1651. 

Lloyd, D. S., J. P. Koenings and J. D. LaPerriere. 1987. Effects of turbidity in fresh waters of 

Alaska. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7: 18-33. 

Loftis, J.C., L.H. MacDonald, S. Streett, H.K. Iyer, and K. Bunte. 2001. Detecting cumulative 

effects: The power of pairing. Journal of Hydrology 251:49-64. 

Logan, R. 2001. Water quality BMPs for Montana forests. Publication EB158. Missoula, MT: 

Extension Forestry, University of Montana. 

Luce, C.H., B.E. Rieman, J.B. Dunham, J.L. Clayton, J.G. King, and T.A. Black. 2001. 

Incorporating aquatic ecology decisions on prioritization of road decommissioning. Water 

Resources Impact 3(3): 8-14. 

Luce, C., and T. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water 

Resources Research 35: 2561-2570. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of traffic and ditch maintenance on forest road 

sediment production. In: Proc., Pp. V64-V74, Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency 

Sedimentation Conference, 25-29 March 2001, Reno, Nevada. 

Lull, H. W., and K. G. Reinhart. 1972. Forests and floods in the Eastern United States. USDA 

Forest Serv., Northeast. Forest Exp. Stn. Res. Pap. NE-226, 94- pp. 

MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.C. 1991. Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects 

of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA/910/9-91-001. Seattle: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. 166 p. 

MacDonald, L.H. and A.W. Smart.1993. Beyond the guidelines: practical lessons for 

monitoring. Environ. Monitor. Assess. 26:203-218. 

Madej, M. A. 1982. Sediment Transport and Channel Changes in an Aggrading Stream in the 

Puget Lowland, Washington. In Sediment Budgets and Routing in Forested Drainage Basins. 

Swanson, et al. Editors. United States Department of Agriculture. Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report 

PNW-141. 

Madej, M. 2001. Erosion and sediment delivery following removal of forest roads. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 26: 175-190. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 185 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Madej, M. A., M. A. Wilzbach, K. W. Cummins, S. J. Hadden, and C. C. Ellis. 2003. 

Composition of Suspended Load as a Measure of Stream Health. Progress Report for California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Contract 1.22-1757. 60 p. 

Madej, M.A., Eschenbach, E.A., Diaz, C. , Teasley, R. and K. Baker. 2006. Optimization 

strategies for sediment reduction practices on roads in steep, forested terrain. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 31:1643–1656. 

MASTF. 1997. Atlantic Salmon Conservation Plan for Seven Maine Rivers. Maine Atlantic 

Salmon Task Force. 309 pp. 

McCashion, J. D. and R. M. Rice. 1983. Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California: 

How much is avoidable? Journal of Forestry 81: 23-26. 

McClelland, D.E., R. B. Foltz, W. D. Wilson, T. W. Cundy, R. Heinemann, J. A. Saurbier, and 

R. L. Schuster, 1997 Assessment of the 1995 and 1996 Floods and Landslides on the Clearwater 

National Forest, Part I: Landslide Assessment. A Report to the Regional Forester, Northern 

Region, U.S. Forest Service, December 1997. 

McClelland, D.E., Foltz, R.B. and C.M. Falter. 1998. The relative effects of landslides resulting 

from episodic storms on a low volume road system in northern Idaho. USDA Forest Service. 

Engineering Field Notes. 30:7-22. 

McCullough, D. 1999 . A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the Water 

Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special Reference to 

Chinook Salmon. Columbia Intertribal Fisheries Commission, Portland, OR. Prepared for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. Published as EPA 910-R-99-010. 

McFadden, J.T. 1969. Dynamics and regulation of salmonid populations in streams. In: 

Northcote, T.G., ed. Symposium on salmonid populations in streams. Vancouver: University of 

British Columbia, Institute of Fisheries: 313-329. 

McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill, and E. Currence. 1994. Spawning Gravel Quality, Watershed 

Characteristics and Early Life History Survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead in Five North 

Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, Port Angeles, WA. and Makah 

Tribe, Neah Bay, WA. Funded by Washington State Dept. of Ecology (205J grant). 

McClelland D. E., R. B. Foltz, W. D. Wilson, T. W. Cundy, R. Heinemann, J. A. Saurbier, and 

R. L. Schuster 1997. Assessment of the 1995 & 1996 floods and landslides on the Clearwater 

National Forest, Part I: Landslide Assessment, A Report to the regional Forester Northern 

Region U.S. Forest Service, December 1997. 

McGreer, D.J. 1981. Skid trail erosion tests—first year results. Unpublished report on file at 

Potlatch Corporation, Lewiston, ID.
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 186 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

McGreer, D.J., Sugden, B., and Schult, D. 1998. Surface Erosion and Mass Wasting Assessment 

and Management Strategies for Plum Creek’s Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan. Technical 

Report #3. Columbia Falls, MT: Plum Creek Timber Company. 50 p. 

McGreer, D.J., Sugden, B., Doughty, K., Metzler, J., and Watson, G. 1997. LeClerc Creek 

Watershed Assessment. Lewiston, ID: Western Watershed Analysts. 300 p. 

MDC. 2004. Maine Forest Practices Act. Revised to include changes through July 1, 2004. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service. Augusta, Maine. 13 p. 

MDC. 2005. Maine forestry best management practices use and effectiveness 2001-2003. Maine 

Department of Conservation, Forest Service. Augusta, ME.

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 p. 

Meehan, W. R. and D. N. Swanston. 1977. Effects of gravel morphology on fine sediment 

accumulation and survival of incubating salmon eggs. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. PNW-220. 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 16 p. 

Megahan, W. F. 1972. Subsurface flow interception by a logging road in mountains of Central 

Idaho. pp. 350-356 in Watersheds in Transition. Proceedings of a symposium on "Watersheds in 

Transition." Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19-22, 1972. AWRA. Urbana, Illinois. 

Megahan, W.F. 1977. Reducing erosional impacts of roads. In: Guidelines for Watershed 

Management, FAO Conservation Guide. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations. 

Megahan, W. F. 1983. Hydrologic effects of clearcutting and wildfire on steep granitic slopes in 

Idaho. Water Resources Research 19: 811-819. 

Megahan, W.F. 1988. Effects of forest roads on watershed function in mountainous areas. In 

Proceedings of the symposium on environmental geotechnics and problematic soils and rocks. 

Balasubramaniam, A.S., Chandra, S., and Bergado, N.P., eds., 335-48. Rotterdam: A.A. 

Balkema. 

Megahan, W. F., N. F. Day, and T. M. Bliss. 1978. Landslide occurrence in the western and 

central northern Rocky Mountain physiographic province in Idaho. Pages 116-139 in 

Youngberg, C.T., ed., Proc. 5th North American Soils Conf., Forest Soils and Land Use. Ft. 

Collins, Colo. 

Megahan, W.F. and G.L. Ketcheson. 1996. Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediments 

from forest roads in Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(2): 371-382.
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 187 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Megahan, W.F. and W.J. Kidd. 1972. Effect of logging roads on sediment production rates in the 

Idaho batholith. Res. Pap. INT-123. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p. 

Megahan, W.F. and J.G. King. 2004. Erosion, sedimentation, and cumulative effects in the 

Northern Rocky Mountains. In: In: Ice, George G.; Stednick, John D., eds. A century of forest 

and wildland watershed lessons. Bethesda, Md.: Society of American Foresters: p. 201-222 

Megahan, W.F.; Potyondy, J.P.; Seyedbagheri, K.A. 1992. Best management practices and 

cumulative effects from sedimentation in the South Fork Salmon River: an Idaho case study. In: 

Naiman, R.B., ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. 

New York: Springer-Verlag: 401-414. 

Megahan, W., M. Wilson, and S. Monsen. 2001. Sediment production from granitic cutslopes on 

forest roads in Idaho, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26: 153-163. 

Michlin, L. 1998. Letter addressed to Mr. Tom Herman, Pacific Lumber Company, dated 8 

October 1998, from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 

MI DNR & DEQ, 1994. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental Quality. Lansing, 

Michigan. 

Milauskas, S.J. 1988. Low-water crossing options for southern haul roads. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 12:11-15. 

Miller, E.L.; Beasley, R.S.; Covert, J.C. 1985. Forest road sediments: production and delivery to 

streams. In: Blackmon, B.G., ed. Proceedings of forestry and water quality: a mid-South 

symposium; 1985 May 8-9; Little Rock, AR. Monticello, AR: University of Arkansas, 

Department of Forest Resources: 164-176. 

Megahan, W.F.; Ketcheson, G.L. 1996. Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediments from 

forest roads in Idaho. Water Resources Bulletin. 32: 371-382. 

Miller, S.M., Cundy, T.W., Murphy, D.L., and Richards, P.D. 2001. Using digital terrain data 

and conditional probability to evaluate landslide hazard. In: Proceedings of the 32nd Annual 

Conference of the International Erosion Control Association. 

Mills, K., L. Dent and J. Robben., 2003. Oregon Department of Forestry Wet Season Road Use 

Monitoring Project Final Report. Oregon Department Of Forestry Forest Practices Monitoring 

Program Technical Report # 17. June, 2003. 

Mills, K., Keith, and J. Hinkle. 2001. Forestry, Landslides and Public Safety: An issue paper 

prepared for the Oregon Board of Forestry. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem. 130 p. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 188 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Moll, J.E. 1996. A guide for road closure and obliteration in the Forest Service. 4E41LO3. 

USDA Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center. 

Moll, J., R. Copstead, and D. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. In Water/ Road 

Interaction Technology Series, USDA Forest Service, Sam Dimas Technology and Development 

Center, Sam Dimas, California. 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. Water 

Resources Research. 30(6): 1925-1932. 

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 1996. 

Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning on bed surface 

mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 1061-

1070. 

Moring, J.D., and R.L. Lantz. 1975. The Alsea Watershed Study: Effects of logging on the 

aquatic resources of three headwater streams of the Alsea River, Oregon. Part I – Biological 

studies. Fisheries Research Report No. 9. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. 

MSG. 1999. Hillslope monitoring program: monitoring results from 1996 through 1998. 

Prepared by the Monitoring Study Group of the California State Board of Forestry and Fire 

Protection. Sacramento, California. June 1999 

Murphy, G., and Pyles, M.R. 1989. Cost-effective selection of culverts for small forest streams. 

Journal of Forestry 87(10):45-50. 

NCASI. 1986. A study of the effectiveness of sediment traps for the collection of sediment from 

small forest plot studies. Technical Bulletin No. 490. Research Triangle Park, NC: National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

NCASI. 1994. Forests as Nonpoint Sources of Pollution and Effectiveness of Best Management 

Practices. Technical Bulletin No. 0672. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

NCASI. 2001. Forest roads and aquatic ecosystems: A review of causes, effects and management 

practices. Pages 70. National Committee for Air and Stream Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon. 

NCASI, 2001b. Appendix B: Management Systems and Effectiveness. Appendix to Forest roads 

and aquatic ecosystems: A review of causes, effects and management practices. National 

Committee for Air and Stream Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon. 

NCASI, 2001c. Appendix C: Examples of Specific Management Practices. Appendix to Forest 

roads and aquatic ecosystems: A review of causes, effects and management practices. National 

Committee for Air and Stream Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 189 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

NCASI, 2007. Compendium of state and provincial forestry best management practices. 

Technical Bulletin or Special Report No. XXX. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council 

for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

NCASI, 2007a. Measurement of Glyphosate, Hexazinone, Imazapyr, and Sulfometuron Methyl 

in Streamwater at the Texas Intensive Forestry Study Sites. Special Report No. 07-01. Research 

Triangle Park, N.C.: National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Newbold, J.D.; Erman, D.C.; Roby, K.B. 1980. Effects of logging on macroinverterbates in 

streams with and without bufferstrips. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 37: 

1076-1085. 

Newcombe, C. P. and J. O. T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: a 

synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. No Amer. Fisheries Man 16 (4):693-

719) 

Newcombe, C.P. and D.D. MacDonald. 1991. Effects of Suspended Sediments on Aquatic 

Ecosystems. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11: 72-82. 

Novotny, V., and H. Olem. 1994. Water quality; Prevention, identification, and management of 

diffuse pollution. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. 

Norris, L.A.; Lorz, H.W.; Gregory, S.V. 1991. Forest chemicals. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. 

Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Spec. Publ. 

19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society: 207-296. 

North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 1994. Timbered branch demonstration/BMP 

effectiveness monitoring project. North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC. 

NC DFR. 2005. Final report for the North Carolina forestry BMP implementation survey 2000 –

2003. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources 

– Division of Forest Resources. 47pp. 

O’Loughlin, C.L. 1972. The stability of steepland forest soils in the coast mountains, southwest 

British Columbia. Doctoral dissertation. Vancouver, BC. University of British Columbia. 147p. 

ODF. 1994. Forest Practice Water Protection Rules. Division 24 and 57. Salem, OR: Oregon 

Department of Forestry. 59 p. 

ODF. 1997. Forest Roads, Drainage, and Sediment Delivery in the Kilchis River Watershed. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. June, 1997. 

ODF. 2000. Forest road management guidebook: Maintenance and repairs to protect fish habitat 

and water quality. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, Oregon. 32 p. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 190 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Olsen, E.D. 1987. A Case Study of the Economic Impact of Proposed Forest Practices Rules 

Regarding Stream Buffer Strips on Private Lands in the Oregon Coast Range. In Managing 

Oregon’s Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 

52-57. 

Olszewski, R. and C.R. Jackson. 2006. Best management practices and water quality. In A 

primer on the top ten forest environmental and sustainability issues in the southern United States. 

NCASI Special Report No. 06-06. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Council for Air and 

Stream Improvement, Inc. 

OWEB. 1999. Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, 

Salem, OR. 

Packer, P.E. 1967. Criteria for designing and locating logging roads to control sediment. Forest 

Science 13(1): 2-18. 

Pardo, R. 1980. What is Forestry’s Contribution to Nonpoint Source Pollution? In U.S. Forestry 

and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? Proceedings of the Water Pollution Control 

Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 31-41. 

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern forest. Journal of Forestry. 74(10): 671-677. 

Patric, J.H. 1980. Effects of Wood Products Harvest on Forest Soil and Water Relations. Journal 

of Environmental Quality 9(1):73-80. 

Patric, J.H. 1984. Some Environmental Effects of Cable Logging in the Eastern Hardwoods. In 

Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luchok, June 5-7, 1984, 

West Virginia University, pp. 99-106. 

 

Pearce, A. J., and A. Watson. 1983. Medium-term effects of two landsliding episodes on channel 

storage of sediment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 8:29-39. 

Peters, J. H. and Y. Litwin, 1983. Factors Influencing Soil Erosion on Timber Harvested Lands 

in California. A Study for the California Department of Forestry by Western Ecological Services 

Company, Novato, California, 94 pp. 

Phillips, R. W., R. L. Lantz, E. W. Claire and J. R. Moring. 1975. Some effects of gravel 

mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and steelhead trout fry. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 3: 461-466. 

Platts, W. S., R. J. Torquemada, M. L. McHenry and C. K. Graham. 1989. Changes in salmon 

spawning and rearing habitat from increased delivery of fine sediment to the South Fork Salmon 

River, Idaho. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118: 274-283. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 191 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Poff, N.L., Brinson, M.M. and J.W.Day, Jr. 2002. Aquatic Ecosystems and Global Climate 

Change: Potential Impacts on Inland Freshwater and Coastal Wetland Ecosystems in the United 

States. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. January 2002. 

Porior, D. 1991. Chain-link retaining walls—alternative facings and forming can save money. 

USDA Forest Service, Engineering Staff. Engineering Field Notes 23(May-June):13-32. 

Provencher, Y., and Me’thot, L. 1994. Controlling the state of the road surface through grading 

management. Technical Report TR-110. Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. 

Prud'homme, B. A., Greis, J. G. 2002. Best management practices in the South. Wear, David N.; 

Greis, John G., eds. 2002. In: Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 

p.

PWA. 1998a. Sediment source investigation and sediment reduction plan for the Bear Creek 

watershed, Humboldt County, California. Report prepared for The Pacific Lumber Company. 

Pacific Watershed Associates, Arcata, CA. 

PWA. 1998b. Sediment source investigation and sediment reduction plan for the North Fork Elk 

River watershed, Humboldt County, California. Report prepared for The Pacific Lumber 

Company. Pacific Watershed Associates, Arcata, California. 

PWA. 1999. Sediment source investigation and sediment reduction plan for the Jordan Creek 

watershed, Humboldt County, California. Report prepared for The Pacific Lumber Company. 

Pacific Watershed Associates, Arcata, CA. 

Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. 1997. An assessment of ecosystem components in the 

interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume II. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 

Rashin, E., Clishe, C., Loch, A. and J. Bell. 1999. Effectiveness of Forest Road and Timber 

Harvest Best Management Practices with Respect to Sediment-related Water Quality Impacts. 

Submitted to Timber/Fish/Wildlife Cooperative Management, Evaluation, and Research 

Committee. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington. 

Reeves, G. H., D. B. Hohler, B. E. Hansen, F. H. Everest, J. R. Sedell, T. L. Hickman, and D. 

Shively. 1997. Fish habitat restoration in the Pacific Northwest: Fish Creek of Oregon. In J. E. 

Williams, C. A. Wood, and M. P. Dombeck (eds.), Watershed restoration: Principles and 

practices, p. 335– 359. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. 

Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995. Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale. Version 2.2. 

Portland, OR: Regional Ecosystem Office. 1995– 689–120/21215 Region 10. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 26 p. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 192 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Rehder, K.J. and J.D. Stednick, 2006. Effectiveness of Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 

for Forest Roads. Report to San Dimas Development and Technology Laboratory, USDA Forest 

Service, San Dimas, CA. September 2006. 

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW–GTR–141. 

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station. 118 p. 

Reid, L.M. 1998. Review of the Sustained Yield Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan for the 

properties of The Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon 

Creek Corporation . Report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency and for 

Congressman George Miller. 

Reid, L. 1999. Forest Practice Rules and Cumulative Watershed Impacts in California. 

Unpublished response to an inquiry from Assemblyman Fred Keeley. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California. 10 p. 

Reid, L.M. 1999b. Review of the Final EIS/EIR and HCP/SYP for the Headwaters Forest 

Project. Report prepared for Congressman George Miller. 

Reid, L.M. 1981. Sediment production from gravel-surfaced forest roads, Clearwater basin, 

Washington; final report FRI-UW-8108. Seattle: University of Washington, College of Fisheries, 

Fisheries Research Institute. 247 p. 

Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water 

Resources Research 20: 1753-1761. 

Reinhart, K.G., and A.R. Eschner. 1962. Effects on streamflow of four different forest practices 

in the Allegheny Mountains. Journal of Geophysical Research 67(6):2433-45. 

Reiter, M., Godbout, K. and G.G. Ice. 2004. Forestry and water quality; Presented at the Forest 

Management Session of the 2003 NCASI West Coast Regional Meeting. 

Rey, M. 1980. The effect of the Clean Water Act on forestry practices. In Proceedings: U.S. 

Forestry and Water and Water Quality: What Course in the 80’s. pp. 11-30. Washington, DC: 

Water Pollution Control Federation. 

Rhodes, J.J.; McCullough, D.A.; Espinosa, F.A., Jr. 1994. A coarse screening process for 

evaluation of the effects of land management activities on salmon spawning and rearing habitat 

in ESA consultations. Tech. Rep. 94-4. Portland, OR: Columbia River Intertribal Fish 

Commission. 127 p. 

Rhodes, J.J. and Huntington, C., 2000. Watershed and Aquatic Habitat Response to the 95-96 

Storm and Flood in the Tucannon Basin, Washington and the Lochsa Basin, Idaho. Annual 

Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 193 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Rice, R.M. 1992. The science and politics of BMPs in forestry: California experiences. In: 

Naiman, R.J., ed. Watershed management: balancing sustainability and environmental change. 

New York: Springer-Verlag: 385-400. 

Rice, R.M. and J. Lewis. 1992. Estimating Erosion Risks Associated With Logging And Forest 

Roads In Northwestern California. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 27, No. 5. 

Rice, R.M.; Lewis, J. 1986. Identifying unstable sites on logging roads. In: 18th IUFRO World 

Congress, division 1, vol. 1; Forest environment and silviculture; Vienna, Austria: IUFRO 

Secretariat: 239-247. 

Riedel, M.S. and J.M. Vose. 2003. Collaborative Research and Watershed Management for 

Optimization of Forest Road Best Management Practices. In: 2003 Proceedings of the 

International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, edited by C. Leroy Irwin, Paul Garrett, 

and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North 

Carolina State University. pp. 148-158 

Ringler, N.H., and J.D. Hall. 1975. Effects of logging on water temperature and dissolved 

oxygen in spawning beds. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 104(1):111-121. 

Roberson, R. 2003. Personal communication. Lewis and Clark National Forest, Montana. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/unmanaged-recreation-position-paper.pdf) 

Robinson, E.G., Mills, K. and J. Paul. 1999. Storm impacts and landslides of 1996. Forest 

Research Technical Report 4. Oregon State Department of Forestry. Salem, Oregon. 145p. 

Robison, E.G. 1997. Interim fish passage and culvert/bridge sizing guidance for road crossings. 

Memorandum, June 27, 1997. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 

Rossman, C. 1991. Roadway surface water deflectors. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, 

Engineering Staff. Engineering Field Notes 23:3-6. 

Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and sediment production at road-stream crossings. Forestry 

Chronicle 23: 62-66. 

Rummer, B. 1999. Water quality effects of forest roads in bottomland hardwood stands. 

Presented at the 1999 ASAE/CSAE-SCGR Annual International Meeting. Toronto, Canada. July 

18-21, 1999. 

Rummer, Robert B.; Stokes, Bryce; Lockaby, Graeme 1997. Sedimentation associated with 

forest road surfacing in a bottomland hardwood ecosystem Forest Ecology and Management 

90(1997) 195-200. 

Scherer, T. 2000. Stream-adjacent road practices to reduce sediment delivery to streams – 

Sprucedale M-line case study. Paper presented at Forest Road Stewardship Workshop, Corvallis, 

OR. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 194 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Schuett-Hames, D., Sturhan, N., Lautz, K., McIntosh, R., Gough, M. and C. Rodgers. 1996. 

Proposal for a TFW Monitoring Strategy to Determine Effectiveness of Forest Practices in 

Protecting Aquatic Resources, TFW-AM9–96–007, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, 

Olympia, WA. 

Scrivener, J.C.; Brownlee, M.J. 1989. Effects of forest harvesting on spawning gravel and 

incubation survival of chum (Oncorhynchus keta) and coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) salmon in 

Carnation Creek, British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 46(4): 

681-696. 

Scurlock, M. 2007. Forest roads, streams and public policy: A Pacific rivers council white paper. 

Pacific Rivers Council. Portland, Oregon. 

Seegrist, D.W. and R. Gard. 1972. Effects of floods on trout in Sagehen Creek, California. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 101(3):478-482. 

Sessions, J.; Balcom, J.C.; Boston, K. 1987. Road location and construction practices: effects on 

landslide frequency and size in the Oregon Coast Range. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 

2(4): 119-124. 

Shepard, B.B.; Leathe, S.A.; Weaver, T.M.; Enk, M.D. 1984. Monitoring levels of fine sediment 

within tributaries to Flathead Lake, and impacts of fine sediment on bull trout recruitment. In: 

Richardson, F.; Hamre, R.H., eds. Wild trout III: Proceedings of the symposium; 1984 

September 24-25; Yellowstone National Park. 146-156. 

Shetter, D.S. 1961. Survival of brook trout from egg to fingerling stage in two Michigan trout 

streams. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 90(3): 252-258. 

Sidle, R.C. 1980. Impacts of Forest Practices on Surface Erosion. Pacific Northwest Extension 

Publication PNW-195, Oregon State Univ. Extension Service. 

Sidle, R.C.; Pearce, A.J.; O’Loughlin, C.L. 1985. Hillslope stability and land use. Water Resour. 

Monogr. 11. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. 140 p. 

Skaugset, A. E. and M. M. Allen. 1998. Forest Road Sediment and Drainage Monitoring Project 

Report for Private and State Lands in Western Oregon. Unpublished report for ODF prepared by 

the FE Department at Oregon State University. 

Smith, W.B., Vissage, J.L., Darr, D.R., and Sheffield, R.M. 2001. Forest resources of the United 

States, 1997. General Technical Report NC-219. St. Paul, MN: USDA-Forest Service. 

Stafford, C., M. Leathers, and R. Briggs. 1996. Forestry-related non-point source pollution in 

Maine: A literature review. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. College of 

Natural Resources, Forestry and Agriculture. University of Maine. CFRU Information Report 

38. Miscellaneous report 399. Orono, Maine. 20 pp. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 195 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Steen, H.K. 1991. The Beginning of the National Forest System. FS-488. USDA Forest Service. 

Stone, E.L. 1973. The impact of timber harvest on soils and water. pp. 427-463. In: report of the 

President's advisory panel on timber and the environment. U.S. Govt. Printing Office. 

Washington D.C. 

Sullivan, K. 1985. Long-term patterns of water quality in a managed watershed in Oregon: 1. 

Suspended sediment. Water Resources Bulletin. 21(6): 977-987. 

Sugden, B.D. and S.W. Woods. 2007. Sediment production from forest roads in western 

Montana. J. American Water Resources Association. 43:1. 193-206. 

Swank, W.T., DeBano, L.F. and D. Nelson, 1989. Effects of Timber Management Practices on 

Soil and Water. In The scientific basis for silvicultural and management decisions in the 

National Forest System. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. General 

Technical Report WO-55. 

Swanson, F.J.; Dyrness, C.T. 1975. Impact of clearcutting and road construction on soil erosion 

by landslides in the western Cascade Range, Oregon. Geology. 3(7): 393-396. 

Swanson, F.J., F.N. Scatena, G.E. Dissmeyer, M.E. Fenn, E.S. Verry, and J.A. Lynch. 2000. 

Chapter 3, Watershed Processes—Fluxes of Water, Dissolved Constituents, and Sediment 

Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. George E. 

Dissmeyer, Editor. Southern Research Station General Technical Report SRS-39. 

Swietlik, W. 2003. Developing water quality criteria for Suspended and bedded sediments 

(SABS) 

Potential Approaches A U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Consultation. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. Washington, DC. 

August 2003. (http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/sab-discussion-paper.pdf) 

Swift, L. W., Jr. 1984a. Gravel and grass surfacing reduces soil loss from mountain roads. For. 

Sci. 30:657—670. 

Swift, L. W., Jr. 1984b. Soil Losses from Roadbeds and Cut and Fill Slopes in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal Of Applied Forestry Vol. 8, No, 4, November 1984. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter Strip Widths for Forest Roads in the Southern Appalachians. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10(1):27-34. 

Swift, L.W. Jr. 1988. Forest access roads: design, maintenance and soil loss. In Swank, D.A. and 

W.T. Crossley (eds). Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. New York: Springer Verlag 

325-338. 

Swift, L.W., Jr., and R.G. Burns. 1999. The Three Rs of Roads: Redesign, Reconstruction, and 

Restoration. Journal of Forestry 97(8):40-44. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 196 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Switalski, T.A., J. A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and 

impacts of road removal. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2(1): 21-28 

Sullivan, K. 1985. Long-term patterns of water quality in a managed watershed in Oregon: 1. 

suspended sediment. Water Resources Bulletin. 21:977-987. 

Sullivan, K.O.; Duncan, S.H. 1981. Sediment yield from road surfaces in response to truck 

traffic and rainfall. Res. Rep.. Centralia, WA: Weyerhaeuser, Western Forestry Research Center. 

46 p 

Tanter, A. 2003. Literature perspectives on the economics of forestry BMPs in Texas. Texas 

Institute for Applied Environmental Research. Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX. May 

2003. 

Taylor, S. 1994. Portable timber bridge for temporary stream crossings. Technical Release 94-

R-7. American Pulpwood Association Incorporated. 

Taylor, S.E.; Rummer, R.B.; Yoo, K.H.; Welch, R.A. and J.D. Thompson. 1999. What We 

Know--and Don't Know--About Water Quality at Stream Crossings. Journal of Forestry, Vol. 97, 

No. 8, August 1999, pgs. 12-17. 

TetraTech. 1999. Report on a literature search on existing date concerning the impact of forest 

roads on water quality and best management practices effectiveness. Prepared for US 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. 

TetraTech. 2004. Report on a literature search presenting current research and regulations related 

to forest roads management. Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Water. Washington, DC. 

Thompson, C.H. and T.D. Kyler-Snowman. 1989. Evaluation on nonpoint source pollution 

problems from crossing streams with logging equipment and off-road vehicles in Massachusetts: 

1987-1988. Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts. 

Amherst, Massachusetts. 

Thompson, J.D.; Taylor, S.E.; Gazin, J.E. 1996. Water quality impacts from low-water stream 

crossings. ASAE Pap. 96-5015. St. Joseph, MI: American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 15 

p. 

Thurow, R.F. 1997. Habitat utilization and diel behavior of juvenile bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) at the onset of winter. Ecology of Freshwater Fish. 6(1): 1-7. 

Trautman, M.B. 1933. The general effects of pollution on Ohio fish life. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society. 63:69-72. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 197 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

USFS. 1981. Interim report on research, Horse Creek Administrative Research Project. 

Unpublished report. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Boise, Idaho. 126-129. 

USFS. 1999. Road analysis: Informing decisions about managing the National Forest 

transportation system. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Miscellaneous 

Report FS-643. Washington, DC. 

USFS. 2000. Water & the forest service. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Washington, DC. FS-660. January 2000. 

USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water. (4503F) EPA841-F-00-006. June 2000. 

USEPA. 2002. National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report. US Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water. (4503F) EPA-841-F-02-003. August 2002 

USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from 

Forestry. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC. EPA 841-B05-001, May 2005. 

Ursic, S.J. 1979. Forestry practices and the water resource of the upper Coastal Plain. In: 

Florida's water resources: implications for forest management: 11th spring symposium of the 

Florida section of SAF; 1979 January 14-20; Miami, Florida. Gainesville, FL University of 

Florida Press: 83-91. 

Ursic, S.J. 1986. Sediment and forestry practices in the South. In: Proceedings of the 4th Federal 

Interagency sedimentation conference; 1986 March 24-27; Las Vegas, NV: Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office: 28-37. Vol. 1. 

Uttormark, P. D.; Chapin, J. D.; Green, K. M. 1974. Estimating nutrient loadings of lakes from 

non-point sources. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1974; EPA-660/3-

74-020. 112 p. 

Van Lear, D.H.; Taylor, G.B.; Hansen, W.F. 1995. Sedimentation in the Chattooga River 

watershed. Tech. Pap. 19. Clemson, SC: Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources. 

61 p. 

VA DOF. 2007. Best Management Practice (BMP) effort, implementation, and effectiveness 

field audit. Charlottesville, VA: Virginia Department of Forestry. Accessed online at: 

http://www.dof.virginia.gov/wq/bmp-audits-trends.shtml. 

Vowell, J.L. 2001. Using stream bioassessment to monitor best management practice 

effectiveness. Forest Ecology and Management 143:237-244. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 1997. Forest practices illustrated. 

Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Natural Resources. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 198 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

WFPB. 1993. Board Manual: Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis. 

Version 2.0, Washington Forest Practices Board, Forest Practices Division, Department of 

Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 

WFPB. 1995. Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis under chapter 222–2 

WAC. Version 3.0. Washington Forest Practices Board, Forest Practices Division, Department 

of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 673 p. 

WFPB. 1997. Board manual: Standard methodology for conducting watershed analysis, Version 

4.0, November, 1997. Washington Forest Practices Board, Washington Department of Natural 

Resources. Olympia, Washington. 

WFPB. 2000. Forest Practices Act Board Manual. Washington Forest Practices Board, 

Washington Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA212 p. 

Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: sources, biological effects and control. American 

Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Weaver, W.E., Hektner, M.M., Hagans, D.K., Reed, L.J., Sonnevil, R.A., and Bundros, G.J. 

1987. An evaluation of experimental rehabilitation work Redwood National Park. Technical 

Report 19. Arcata, CA: National Park Service, Redwood National Park. 

Weaver, T.M.; Fraley, J.J. 1993. A method to measure emergence success of westslope cutthroat 

trout fry from varying substrate compositions in a natural stream channel. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management. 13(4): 817-822. 

Weaver, W.M. and D.K. Hagans. 1996. Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for 

planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland roads. 

Mendocino County Resource Conservation District. Ukiah, California. 161p. 

Weaver, W.E., T.C. Brundage and D.K. Hagans. 1998. Aerial reconnaissance evaluation of 

recent storm effects on upland mountainous watersheds of Idaho: wildland response to recent 

storms and floods in the Clearwater, Lochsa and Boise River watersheds, Idaho. Pacific Rivers 

Council. Eugene, OR. 

Welsh, H.H., Jr. 1990. Relictual amphibians and old-growth forests. Conservation Biology. 4(3): 

309-319. 

Welch, D.S., Smart, D.L., Boyer, J.N., Minkin, P., Smith, H.C., and McCandless, T.L. 1995. 

Forest wetlands: Functions, benefits, and the use of best management practices. NA-PR-01-95. 

Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northeast Area. 

Welsh, H. and L. M. Ollivier. 1998. Stream amphibians as indicators of ecosystem stress: a case 

study from California's redwoods. Ecological Applications 8: 1118-1132. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 199 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Welsch, D., Ryder, R., and Post, T. 2007. Best management practices (BMP) monitoring manual 

– field guide: Implementation and effectiveness for protection of water resources. USDA–Forest 

Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry. NA-FR-02-06. 

Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel network extension by logging roads in 

two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin. 32(6): 1195-1207. 

Wemple, B. C. 1994. Hydrologic Integration of Forest Roads with Stream Networks in Two 

Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Master of Science Thesis. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

White, Fred. 1992. History of forest practices guidelines in North Carolina. Raleigh, NC: North 

Carolina 

 Division of Forest Resources. 7 p.

Whitewater. 1997. Total ecosystem management strategies (TEMS) 1996 annual report. Amasa, 

Michigan. White Water Associates. 24 p. 

Whitman, R. 1989. Clean Water or Multiple Use? Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Control in the National Forests. Ecology Law Quarterly 16:909-966. 

Williams, C.D. 1999. National forest road policy: Problems and solutions. Pacific Rivers 

Council. January, 1999. 

Williams, T.M.; Hook, D.D.; Limpscomb, D.J. 1999. Effectiveness of best management 

practices to protect water quality in the South Carolina Piedmont. In: Haywood, James D., ed. 

Proceedings of the tenth biennial southern silvicultural research conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-30. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 271–276. 

Wing, M. and Skaugset, A.: 1998, ‘GIS casts a line: Examining salmon habitat in Oregon 

streams, Geo Info Systems 8 (7): 36–41. 

Woods, S.W., Sugden, B. and B. Parker. 2007 Sediment travel distances below drivable drain 

dips in western Montana. In press. 

Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest Management and Sediment Production in the South—A Review. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 4(1):27-36. 

Young, M.K.; Hubert, W.A.; Wesche, T.A. 1991. Selection of measures of substrate composition 

to estimate survival to emergence of salmonids and to detect changes in stream substrates. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management. 11(3): 339-346. 

Zaroban, D.W., Love, B., Colla, J., Lesch, G., Heimer, J., Lehner, J., Lukens, B., Poirier, S., Lee, 

B., and David, K. 1997. Forest practices water quality audit 1996. Idaho Department of Health 

and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. Boise, Idaho. 32 p. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 200 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

 

Ziemer, Robert R., technical coordinator. 1998. Proceedings of the conference on coastal 

watersheds: the 

Caspar Creek Story; 6 May 1998; Ukiah, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-168. Albany, CA: 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 149 p.l

Ziemer, R.R. 1998. Flooding and stormflows. In: Ziemer, R.R., tech coord. Proceedings of the 

conference on coastal watersheds: the Caspar Creek story; 1998 May 6; Ukiah, CA. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-168. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 15-24. 

Ziemer, R. R. 2001. Caspar Creek, in T. Marutani, G. J. Brierley, N. A. Trustrum and M. Page, 

(eds.), Source-to-Sink Sedimentary Cascades in Pacific Rim Geo-systems, Matsumoto 

SaboWork Office, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Motomachi, Matsumoto, 

Nagano, Japan, pp. 78–85. 
Asse

Contract # EP-C-05-066, 

ssment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 201 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

TABLES

Table 2-1. Results of Keyword Searches in the TMDL Tracking System Database

Keyword(s) searched Type of TMDL Impairment (pollutant) Number of TMDLs 

silviculture Point/nonpoint (Any) 155 

silviculture, forest, timber, 

forestry 

Point/nonpoint sediment 127 

(none) Nonpoint Sediment 91 

silviculture, forest, timber, 

forestry 

Point/nonpoint turbidity 82 

silviculture, forest, timber, 

forestry 

Point/nonpoint siltation 70 

road, roads, timber Point/nonpoint sediment 70 

road, roads Point/nonpoint sediment 70 

forest road Point/nonpoint (Any) 52 

road, roads, timber Point/nonpoint sediment 46 

road, roads Nonpoint sediment 45 

road, roads, timber nonpoint turbidity 36 

forest roads nonpoint sediment 8 

road, roads, timber nonpoint habitat alteration 1 

road, roads, timber Point/nonpoint habitat alteration 2 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 202 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

Control And Mitigation Measures For Road Construction Temporary Stream Crossings Stream crossings can be designed and installed for temporary use and then removed after use. 

and re-useable crossings are used. The streambed is restored following removal of the crossin

Portable Bridges Portable bridges made of wood, steel, 

and concrete can be used on haul roads and skid trails where permanent structures are not needed. Bridges can be installed and removed with minimal disturbance to the streambank, channel, and adjacent RMA. 

Portable and temporary bridges make suitable lower cost alternatives to permanent bridges, and they can reduce the environmental impacts associated with culvert crossings, stream fords, and roads constructed to detour around crossings. 

Hinged stee$14,205 Concrete br$11,500 Glued-lami$16,100 Stress-laminlong): $14,0Taylor (199and installalaminated bcrossing. Uyields a cosequivalent t

Log crossings and pole fords Log crossings and pole fords are 

temporary stream crossings that are created by placing logs in shallow channels. The surface of log crossings 

may be improved with decking or with log mats. Log crossings are removed immediately after use or before the upstream end becomes clogged with sediment. 

Temporary culverts Temporary placement of culverts 

reduces the chance of culvert failure, and subsequent stream crossing failure and erosion, compared to permanently placed culverts. 

There may be considerable sedimentation from a culvert crossing from the time of installation until removal. Culvert installation can increase sediment loads (King 1981). Sediment loads 100 to 1000 times higher than normal have been reported following culvert installations. 

Use of Cofferdams or Stream Diversions Around Construction Sites 

Flowing water is diverted around the construction site of stream crossings and excavations are water. Instream flows are maintained. Excavation and equipment operation is kept out of streayield which could cause turbidity and excess fines that may clog stream gravels and fill pools 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 203 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Timing Construction Activities Near Streams to Avoid Critical Periods for Aquatic Organisms 

Construction activities near a stream can be timed to avoid disturbances that create increased periods when sensitive aquatic species are present or are more susceptible to increased turbidi

Pioneer Roads Pioneer roads are temporary access ways for construction equipment during construction of p

used to reduce the amount of area disturbed during road construction and to ensure the stabilitroads are confined to the surveyed permanent roadway and are fitted with drainage structures

Mulching, Seeding, and Stabilizing Disturbed Areas 

Areas of disturbed and bare soil, including ditches, cut- and fillslopes, roads, landings, skid trcrossings, and slides, are seeded and treated with erosion control practices. These can include 

seeding, and applying mulch, hydromulch, erosion blankets, straw bales, filter fabric fences, a

Mulching Mulches protect the soil surface from 

rain impact and help prevent surface seal formation until vegetation is established. Mulch improves soil conditions for seed germination by maintaining infiltration capacity, preventing crust formation, shading the soil, and reducing evaporation. 

Research has shown that seeding and mulching effectively control erosion on road cutslopes and fillslopes. Effectiveness of each cover type increases as the percentage of groundcover increases (52 to 95% erosion reduction) 

Megahan et of $7,400 to 

Vegetation Establishment Establishment of vegetation on 

disturbed areas provides a living mulch which effectively reduces erosion and has advantages over a dead or synthetic mulch. However, it takes time for vegetation to become established and seeding is more effective when mulch is applied. 

Dense grass can be used in erosion control of previously bare soils; 86 to 100% sediment reductions with grass. Planting grass reduces erosion on light traffic roads. Grassed roads had 45% lower sediment yield than bare soil roads. 

Erosion Barriers Erosion barriers such as straw bales, 

erosion filter fabric fence, rock dams, and geotextile barriers slow flowing water and cause sediment deposition. 

The best performing slope-protection products reduced sediment 84 to 93% compared to control (seeding without any additional erosion control treatment). 

Channel and Ditch Protection 

Channels and road ditches can be 

protected with channel liners, rock blanket, or riprap. Check dams can be constructed in gullies and channels to prevent scour. Flexible channel liners are made of jute, coir (coconut fiber), straw, excelsior, plastic, nylon, and other synthetics. 

The best performing flexible channel liners significantly reduced sediment yield 82 to 88% compared to control (seed alone). 

Fords (low water crossings) Fords can be used in place of 

conventional culverts and bridges 

Low-water crossings minimize the need for fill, reduce or eliminate 

Costs vary characterist
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 204 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

where the streambed is firm, banks are low, and the water is shallow. Simple fords are made of crushed rock, rock-filled gabions, or concrete structures. 

culvert and bridge costs, and have low maintenance requirements 

Milauskas (following cNatural fordcost $130 to fords (Cast-cost $260 p

Trash Racks (Debris Control Structures) 

Trash racks are used to trap woody debris and trash before they can plug a culvert. Designs vary with materials available. 

Trash racks are located upstream of culverts, to reduce the risk and likelihood of culvert plugging and failure by woody debris and sediment transported down a stream channel. May prevent fish passage. 

Increasing Capacity at Constructed Crossings 

The flow capacity of bridges and culverts is increased to reduce the probability of road washouts in areas where there is a problem of plugging from large wood, debris and sediment. 

Increasing the clearance under bridges and using larger culvert sizes allow debris to pass that might otherwise result in a crossing failure and road washout. Oversizing the culvert increases the expected life of the crossing. Increasing culvert size may reduce low-flow fish passage in certain situations. 

There are aupgrading aHowever, thover time if road washo

Diversion-Proof Crossings Stream-diversion potential at 

crossings is eliminated by constructing crossings at right angles to the stream and by designing both approaches to grade into the stream. By grading the road toward the crossing, failure of the culvert by blockage or overflow does not divert downslope but flows with the channel, potentially removing only the road prism. 

If the stream channel is diverted into the road, ditch, or skid trail during a storm flow, the diverted channel may cut gullies into roads and hillslopes. This may lead to debris torrents and delivery of large sediment loads to streams. Failure dips in the road can be constructed at stream crossings to prevent crossing failure and stream diversion. 

Costs to devcrossings inas well as egrading towReconstrucfailures and exceed the 

Benched Slopes (Terraced Slopes) Level benches or terraces are 

constructed to reduce the amount of soil leaving the cutslope. Eroded soil is deposited on the level part of the bench instead of being transported off the slopes. 

Terraced cutslopes reduced sediment production by 86 to 94%. 

Costs can bof operating benches. 

Minimizing Sidecast Material Sidecasting of road cut material is 

kept to a minimum to reduce the 

Sidecasting road construction methods are not suitable on steep or 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 205 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

amount of bare soil that is exposed and to reduce the volume of uncompacted fill material on unstable landscapes where mass erosion is a problem. This practice is intended to reduce sediment sources from roads. 

moderate slopes near stream channels where loose material could saturate during wet weather and slide further downslope. Summaries of landslide inventories suggest that new road construction methods, including the use of fullbench roads as opposed to sidecast road construction, had resulted in fewer road-related failures. 

Full-Bench/End-Haul Construction Full-bench and end-haul construction 

methods involve cutting the full width of the roadbed into the hill slope. Cut material is hauled to a suitable disposal area. These methods are used where there is a high probability of fillslope failure and sediment delivery to fish-bearing waters if sidecast methods were used. End-hauling is also used to prevent sidecast entering floodplains, wetlands, and other sensitive sites. 

Many landslides in steep areas originate in roadfill. Full-bench construction eliminates fillslopes and can reduce slope failures originating from roads. Road stability is improved by full-bench construction on slopes in excess of 55%. This method reduced the area of bare slopes prone to erosion. 

There is an hauling and placement shillslope is construction

Avoiding Incorporation of Large Organic Material in Road Fill/Base 

Incorporation of slash, logs, and other large organic material in landings and roads can create an increased risk of landslides Decomposition of the organic matter can result in loose fill which is subject to liquefaction and failure. 

Road Surfacing (Gravel, Crushed Rock, Lignosulfonates, Asphalt) 

Forest roads are surfaced with gravel, rock, asphalt, or other suitable materials to provide bearing strength, and to reduce deterioration and erosion of the traveled way. Covering roads with asphalt or gravel can effectively reduce the amount of sediment produced. 

Swift (1984b) demonstrated that covering roads with a 15 cm layer of crushed rock reduced sediment losses by 78%. Kochenderfer and Helvey (1987) showed an 87% reduction in sediment yield from roads covered with a 15 cm thick layer of “3 in. clean limestone rock,” compared to bare soil roads. The authors noted that rock type affected performance. Less information is available for 

Costs vary wmaterial and Swift (1984surfacing roAppalachiaof crushed rper km. Ko(1987) estimconstruction West Virginsurfacing w
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 206 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

sediment reductions for other road surface treatments. Burroughs and King (1989) report that dust oil reduced sediment yield by 85.3% and bituminous surface reduced sediment yield 96.6%, compared to bare soil roads. 

would cost km. 

Daylighting Roads Trees and vegetation that shade the 

road are removed in order to “daylight” roads where there are sections of road that are slow to dry. Removing tree canopy near streams may violate SMZ. 

Wet roads are subject to rutting, which concentrates runoff and leads to increased sediment yields. 

Costs of dayassociated wand vegetat

Maintaining or Planting Trees and Woody Species on Disturbed or Steep Areas 

Native woody species are planted on disturbed areas and steep slopes, including cut- and fillslopes, closed roads, landings, skid trails, fire lines, stream crossings, and slides. Mulch, hydromulch, erosion blankets, straw bales, filter fabric fences, and riprap may be used to provide soil protection until trees are established. A buffer strip of trees can be left above the cutslope and below the fillslope to help stabilize slopes. 

Trees, shrubs, and grasses provide two functions for disturbed areas. In certain landscapes, tree roots can markedly increase slope stability. In other cases, plant foliage and litter provide cover and resistance to surface erosion. 

Weaver et afollowing cwatershed rRedwood Nplanted treeHand-planteach shrub. additional c

Outsloping Roads Outsloped road sections can be used 

to shed water on moderate slopes and low-volume roads, on closed and decommissioned roads, landings, and skid trails. Outsloping is an alternative to insloping with inboard ditches and frequent cross drains. 

Outsloped roads are less likely than ditched roads to have catastrophic failure, because the entire road system is designed to drain, assuming there is adequate maintenance to keep the road tread rut free. Outsloping is becoming an increasingly attractive option in locations where minimal maintenance can be expected. Severe rainstorms caused more damage to outsloped roads than to insloped roads on mountain haul roads in granitic soils in Idaho. 

Weaver et afor outslopeduring wateRedwood Nand a draglilandings at Outsloping cost $5665 

Road Dips (Broad-Based Dips, Rolling Dips) 

Broad-based dips and rolling dips drain water from the road by creating 

Megahan and Ketcheson (1996) found shorter downslope sediment 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 207 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

a reverse grade and an outsloped dip. Dips are used in place of ditch relief culverts. Broad-based dips are constructed by scooping out a shallow dip on the upslope side and building up a short reverse grade (about 3%) on the downslope side of the dip, with a berm crossing the ditch. Rolling dips are usually used on steeper gradient roads (up to 15%, although difficult when 

>10%) and are 

constructed by creating a short 3 to 8% reverse grade and a dip that is shorter and deeper than a broad-based dip. Rolling dips are usually used during road construction and in road closure after hauling and not when the road is actively being used for hauling. 

travel distances for “rock drains” versus relief culverts. 

Water Bars (Log Bars, Earthen Drains, Turnout Ditches) 

Waterbars are supplemental drainage structures not used during active log hauling. A water bar consists of a combination of berm and trough constructed to divert runoff from a road or trail onto vegetated areas or other stabilized outflow. 

Water bars function as cross drains and are very effective at removing water from roads and trails. Diagonal water bars and ditches are more effective in reducing soil erosion on skid trails than are slash dams and slash mulches. Water bars and cross ditches are effective because they divert water off the trail and reduce slope length. 

Lickwar, H(1992) estimmost expenBMPs that Based on an timber harvone water bauthors fouestimated $dollars). 

Stabilizing Cutslopes and Fillslopes Several construction methods are 

used to overcome the instability of slopes, to repair slides, and to correct incipient slide conditions. Failure of road fill sections and road cutslopes can deliver sediment to streams or deposit loose sediment in ditches and block culverts which can lead to road failure. Small rock buttresses can be constructed at the foot of a cutslope to stabilize the 

Reinforced soil walls and fills have been successfully constructed from treated timber and geogrids; straw-, soil-, manure- and seed-faced reinforced fill; and fiberglassreinforced fill (Burke 1988). McNemar (1989) determined that a geogrid retaining wall was the most cost-effective method to repair a steep fill slide. Porior (1991) used logs to face one 

McNemar (geogrid malong and 2.4 costs were nbackhoe wostone, seed Porior (199and 2.4 m hretaining wlong and 2.4 chain-link r
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 208 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

slope from sliding and undercutting. Geotextile filter fabric and chain-link fencing are used to construct earthen retaining walls. These walls are faced with a variety of materials including logs, hay bales, and used tires. Bioengineering techniques are used that incorporate live and dead materials in slope-stabilizing methods. 

chain-link retaining wall and used hay bales to face another in road fill failures. Keller and Cummins (1990) demonstrated that tire retaining walls can be used to provide quick, easy, and inexpensive repairs to failed slopes. 

constructed Keller and Cconstructed reinforced wmeter. Burke (198construction faced walls of facial are

Relief Culverts, Cross Drains, Ditches Road ditches and cross drains are 

installed to control surface and subsurface runoff from trails and roads. Road drainage structures include cross drains and water diversion structures. Cross drains carry water from one side of the road to the other. Commonly used cross drains include pipe culverts, open top culverts, broad-based dips, rolling dips, water bars and flexible belt diverters. Where necessary, drain-outflow water is spread and directed onto stable vegetation, rock riprap, or other outlet structure. 

Proper cross drain sizing and spacing help to minimize surface erosion, saturation of road fills and the distance of sediment transport below drains. Proper drainage helps keep the road surface dry and structurally sound. The closer the spacing between cross drains the lower the rill erosion (50 to 97% control reported) of the road surface. Effective spacing distance decreases with steeper road gradients and with lower topographic position (Packer, 1967). Decreasing the drainage structure spacing from 15 to 8 m resulted in a 62% decrease in erosion on skid trails with 20 to 30% slopes (Kidd, 1963). The installation of frequent culvert cross drains can reduce the number of landslides, the volume of material lost in mass erosion, and sediment delivery to streams from roadassociated landslides originating in road fills (Megahan, Day, and Bliss, 1978). Culverts will either plug or corrode with time. Such failures can result in debris torrents and stream diversions and severe damage to hillslopes and stream channels. Therefore, it is necessary to regularly 

Costs includexcavation as extra maMaterial codownspoutsracks, and o
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 209 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

clean and eventually replace or remove culverts to prevent failures. 

Belt Diverters and Other Surface Water Deflectors 

Surface water deflectors constructed of rubber belt (or PVC belt) are used to divert water from forest roads on steeper grades where dips are less effective. Strips of conveyor belt imbedded in the road surface stand up to intercept water flowing down the road and carry it to a stabilized outfall. The belt is flexible so that it will flatten to allow tires to pass and then rebound to upright. 

Surface water deflectors effectively reduce erosion on roadways and are especially suited for medium- to lowvolume roads with steeper grades (Rossman 1991). Effectiveness depends on spacing between structures, as described in Section 4.21 on relief culverts and ditches. 

Rossman (1following cTwo-ply cometer; Rubbmeter. TypiContractor contracts wmeter. 

Removing Direct Entry Culverts Direct entry culverts deliver sediment 

and water directly to streams where they can be routed downstream. This minimizes opportunities for spreading and settling of sediment and redistribution and infiltration of runoff. Furniss, Flanagan, and McFadin (2000) concluded that direct entry culverts are an important source of sediment to streams. 

While there are no watershed-scale tests of the effectiveness of direct entry culvert removals, NCASI (1986) estimated that effectiveness (reduction in suspended sediment delivery from road drainages) is approximately equivalent to the reduction in area contributing to direct entry. 

Costs involreconstructistructures to entry culverreconstructiseveral timethem at the construction

Controlling Erosion from Drain Outlets 

Outfall protection is installed below drains including riprap, rock-filled pipe, rock gabion, and log-rubble spreader (WDNR, 1997). Rock and other coarse materials are used to absorb energy of flowing drainage water. Synthetic erosion blankets are used as channel liners. 

Sedimentation Basin (Settling Basin) Sedimentation basins are 

impoundments that are designed to receive runoff and remove suspended sediment before the water is discharged to an outlet. Sedimentation basins may be used to treat sediment-laden runoff from road 

While the opportunities for using sedimentation basins in normal forestry operations may be limited, this practice is effective in retaining sediments and thus preventing their entrance into aquatic ecosystems. Fennessey and Jarrett (1994) 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 210 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs 

and landings, gullies, quarries, pits, mines, and other high erosion sites. 

reviewed the literature on effectiveness of sedimentation basins and cite a range of 75 to 95% effectiveness for urban and construction sites. They emphasize that this is “highly dependent on the influent particle size distribution.” 

Filter Windrow (Brush Barrier, Slash Windrow) 

Filter windrows are constructed of slash (from road clearing or logging) placed at the toe of newly constructed or otherwise eroding fillslopes. Slash, consisting of tops, limbs and brush that have been cleared from rights-ofway, is conserved and stockpiled at appropriate sites. Large logs are anchored against stumps, rocks, or trees at the toe of the fillslope. Slash is placed either by machine (backhoe) or by hand on the bottom of the fillslope toe, upslope of the anchor log, to form a neatly compacted windrow. Filter windrows are also used at outlets of culverts, diversion ditches, water bars and dips. Slash is placed at outlets to slow runoff and trap sediment diverted and drained off roads. 

Much of the sediment transported in runoff from roads and road fill can be trapped in a filter windrow. The practice decreases runoff velocity and reduces sediment delivery to water bodies. Effectiveness is measured as trapping efficiency and distance traveled of the definable sediment plume. Average sediment removal efficiency is about 50%, but wide variations are reported. Filter windrows reduce the distance of sediment flows below fillslopes; effectiveness of treatments with filter windrows increased as slope percent increased compared to treatments with no filter windrows 

Control And Mitigation Practices For Road Operation And Maintenance Controlling Traffic (Closing Roads, Restricting Access, Wet Weather Traffic, Seasonal Roads) 

Traffic is restricted on certain forest roads by one or more practices in order to prevent road d

erosion and sedimentation. The traffic control practices and road upgrading practices used dep

and road management goals. Access may be blocked using gates, guard rails, concrete barrier

natural onsite materials (logs and rocks, water bars), or vegetative plantings. When a road is ndesired, it can be obliterated. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 211 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Closing Roads “Closed” roads are temporarily 

removed from use and are retained for future use, but are not obliterated. They may require periodic inspection and maintenance. As part of the closing process, roads may be upgraded according to potential impact to riparian and aquatic resources. Upgrading can include improving stream crossings for fish passage and stormflow, outsloping, stabilizing fills, and installing water bars and cross drains. Roads may be seeded and mulched. 

“No traffic” control roads had an order-of-magnitude lower sediment concentration than roads with traffic. 

Moll (1996costs for acClosure usi(Rocks, logetc.): $50 – Vegetative mulches, grImported Mguardrails, $2000; Pole Fences metal stripsClosure Depipe and weRoad Oblitejunction or $5000 km o

Restricting Access Access is controlled to restrict 

unsuitable and nonessential traffic. 

Restricting access limits erosion and sedimentation because sediment yield from the road surface increases with traffic volume. Sediment yield can be reduced by 75% (light vs. heavy traffic). 

Wet Weather Traffic Wet weather traffic may be restricted 

to prevent rutting and sedimentation. 

Accelerated erosion increases in proportion to traffic. Sediment yield increases one to two times when a road becomes rutted 

Seasonal Roads In cold climates, certain roads may 

have traffic restricted to times when soils are frozen. 

Temporary road closures are particularly important for roads designed for seasonal use only. For example, unsurfaced roads in the California Sierra Nevada Mountains can be used during the summer when precipitation is low and soils are dry. Extensive rutting and erosion would occur if these same roads were used in the winter (absent frozen soil or snow cover), especially if used for purposes other than log hauling and when maintenance is absent. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 212 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Lowered-Pressure Truck Tires (Central Tire Inflation) 

Trucks can be equipped with lowered-pressure tires and central tire inflation to reduce ground pressure on logging haul roads, thereby reducing rutting, sediment yield, and road maintenance. Central tire inflation (CTI) allows the operator to change tire pressure between loweredpressure on haul roads and higherpressure on paved roads. 

Lowered-pressure tires effectively reduce sediment losses from roads (Foltz 1994). Using lowered-pressure tires on rock-haul trucks in southeast Alaska reduced rutting depth by 78% and reduced road grading by 85% compared to use of high-pressure tires (Brunnette and Newlun, 1988). 

Brunnette areported thalowered-prefor four roc$49,000, or included tirCost savingnumber of rfrom daily t

Road Maintenance (Grading) Road grading removes rills and ruts 

that can speed the deterioration of the road surface and grading conserves the road surface by returning materials from the side of the road back onto the traveled way. This restores the road surface for good vehicle travel, helps maintain truck productivity, and minimizes maintenance costs. Grading schedules and spot grading can improve efficiency since excessive road grading is costly and can be detrimental to the road prism stability. 

There is conflicting information in the literature on the effectiveness of road grading in conserving the road prism and in preventing erosion and sediment yield. Megahan (1988) reported that long-term road erosion was inversely proportional to road maintenance. Regular grading can remove rills and ruts that degrade roads. However, grading can initiate an episode of surface erosion by loosening an armored surface. Effectiveness and efficiency can be improved by moving from an automatic (e.g., everyday) grading schedule to one that is based on frequent inspections and that uses spot grading and a flexible schedule 

Most of the associated wcosts. Provedemonstratecould be redby switchinsystematic gthat uses spscheduling slope, shape traffic. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 213 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Inspecting Roads (Road Survey, Erosion and Landslide Inventories) 

Roads are inspected at regular intervals, especially during or following large rainfall or snow melt events. Road inspections can include an inventory of existing and potential erosion and slope failures on all roads. Inspections can be used to provide information about potential sediment sources from roads for planning watershed restoration projects. Skid trails, landings, and obliterated roads are also given thorough inspections. Culverts need to be located and their condition checked for proper sizing, corrosion, separations, bends, and breaks. Culvert inlets and outlets should be checked for plugging, upslope debris, shotgun outlets, and barriers to fish passage. Crossing fills are inspected for diversion potential, condition, and volume. Road inspection may also include a survey of mass erosion potential including failure indicators in the cutslope and road surface, location of tension cracks, and the potential for delivery of sediment from incipient failures. 

Piehl, Pyles, and Beschta (1988) demonstrated the effectiveness of road inspections in a random survey of stream-crossing culverts in the Oregon Coast Range. Harr and Nichols (1993) documented a road condition survey in Canyon Creek Watershed, Washington that effectively identified road upgrade needs including ditch relief, larger culverts at crossings, ditch cleaning, improved culvert gradients and alignments, and installment of flexible downspouts on culverts. The survey also identified roads that subsequently were chosen for closure and decommissioning. 

Costs includfor inspecti

Control And Mitigation Measures For Temporarily Putting-To-Bed, Decommissioning, And Obliterating Roads Temporarily Putting-to-Bed, Decommissioning, and Obliterating Roads 

There is a continuum of practices for temporarily putting roads to bed or completely decomm

roads that can be used to decrease the costs and environmental impact of forest roads. These p

reduce road maintenance costs, to rehabilitate watersheds and associated wildlife and fish habaesthetics of forested landscapes 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 214 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Putting-to-Bed/Decommissioning Putting a road to bed can involve 

closing access, reseeding the road surface, removing temporary stream crossings, and opening drainage structures that may fail. The road is put into an erosion-resistant condition but can be re-opened at a later date when access again might be needed 

Harr and Nichols (1993) documented the practices used and the overall effectiveness of decommissioning forest roads as part of a watershed rehabilitation project in northwestern Washington aimed at improving fish habitat and reducing flood hazards. The road decommissioning work stabilized fills, removed stream crossings, recontoured slopes, and reestablished drainage patterns. During a 50 yr rain-on-snow event, the decommissioned road sections were largely undamaged compared to untreated sections and to nearby mainline haul roads that were severely damaged. 

Harr and Nfollowing clevels of rowork: Inslodips at draw$1615/km; extensive sirecontoured Clearing of pullback, bu

Obliterating Road obliteration is the removal of 

the road from the landscape. Obliteration goes farther than decommissioning in restoring hillslopes, natural drainageways, and vegetation. Obliteration is intended to eliminate future road maintenance. The road prism is obliterated and returned to a naturally functioning component of the landscape. Vegetation is restored by site preparation, seeding, planting woody plants, fertilizing, mulching, and encouraging natural regeneration. 

There has been a large effort at Redwood National Park to restore watersheds that had been logged and that had poorly constructed roads, triggering landslides and severe gullying. Several creeks had received enormous sediment loads and floods, and sediment threatened some of the largest trees in the park. Weaver et al. (1987) documented the wide variety of labor-intensive practices and heavy equipment used to obliterate roads, restore watershed hydrology and vegetation, and to repair erosion damage. 

Weaver et a

extensive coobliteration National Pacosts ranged $74,580/km 

Control And Mitigation Measures For Wetland Operations 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 215 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Maintaining Flow through Roads Maintain flows using porous fills, 

culverts, and bridges and construct roads at ground level. Wetland roads and crossings are kept to a minimum and are constructed at natural ground level where possible. Where fill is necessary, roads are built on porous fills in order to maintain natural subsurface flow regimes. Fill segments have culverts and bridges that allow cross drainage. Culverts and bridges are installed so they do not interfere with duration, direction, or magnitude of flows. 

Only qualitative reports are available on the effectiveness of maintaining flow through roads. 

Cost informavailable bufollowing: cfords; fill grroad relocatfills and cro

Diverting Runoff from Crossing Approaches 

Road approaches to wetlands are designed so that sediment delivery from the road is diverted before entering the wetland. Water bars, dips, turnouts, and other cross drainage structures are used to guide runoff to a stable outfall. Eroding ditches can be treated with rock check-dams, rock blanket, or suitable flexible channel liner. Design and construct ditches that are wide, shallow, U-shaped or flat bottomed, and well vegetated 

Minimizing Rutting on Wetland Roads 

Operations are ceased on forest roads when rutting becomes excessive. Roads are closed with gates or other barricades. 

The presence of wheel tracks on roads can increase rill erosion by concentrating runoff instead of shedding it (Foltz and Burroughs, 1990; Elliot, Foltz, and Remboldt, 1994). However, research in some studies has found little connection between rutting depth and soil movement. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 216 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Using Temporary Roads and Removing Fills 

Use temporary roads and crossings. Remove temporary fills and structures to restore wetland flow patterns. End-haul fills to nonwetland sites. 

Berms on Wetland Roads The creation of a continuous filter 

berm along flat wetland roads allows for infiltration of surface runoff through the berm and keeps sediment from being transported to nearby wetlands or streams. 

Appelboom et al. (1998) tested several control options to reduce delivery of road sediments from a wetland road to adjacent wetlands and streams. They found that a graveled road surface reduced sediment loss by 61%. A grass strip along the side of the road reduced sediment loss from the road by 56%. However, a continuous berm filtered sediment from the road and reduced sediment loss by 99%. 

Water Level Management In wetlands where drainage channels 

are present, riser boards can be used at ditch outlets to provide some control over the water levels in the wetland. Careful operation of these outlets can create soil moisture storage and can reduce stormflows and material losses from the site. 

As early as 1980, Hollis, Fisher, and Beers suggested that drained forest wetlands might actually moderate runoff and sediment loss from sites by creating soil moisture storage. This, along with rapid revegetation and careful application of BMPs, could avoid serious sediment losses. 

Suspending Operations When Rutting Becomes Excessive 

Harvesting operations are halted when soil rutting becomes excessive. Depending on the climate and soil character, skidding can be done when soil compaction potential is low, such as when soils are dry or snow covered and frozen. 

Wetland surface and subsurface flows that can decrease site productivity or cause sediment delivery to water. Aust, Lea, and Gregory (1991) report that “bogging down” and excessive rutting due to skidding on wet sites in the Southeastern Coastal Plain can be minimized by one-pass skid trails. Welch et al. (1995) recommend scheduling harvest during the drier seasons of the year or when soils are frozen in order to avoid rutting. 
ssment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 217 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-1. Best Management Practices for Forest Roads: Descriptions, Measures of Effectiveness, and Cos

Gallagher et al., 2000) 

Best Management Practice Description of Practice Measures of Effectiveness Costs Operating Equipment on Frozen Roads 

Log hauling is restricted to periods when roads are frozen in order to reduce rutting and sedimentation. 

Operating on frozen roads helps to prevent rutting. Sediment yield increases one-to-two times when a road becomes rutted. 

Mitigation And Enhancement Measures For Fish Habitat Fish Passage Stream-crossing culverts, bridges, and 

fords are designed and maintained to allow fish migration, and to pass a minimum peak flow. 

Robison (1997) discusses advantages and disadvantages of alternatives for facilitating fish passage through culverts. Improvement of fish passage is the most poorly documented and evaluated of all stream habitat improvement techniques (Hall and Baker, 1982). 

Relative coimprovemeRobison (19Pyles (1989

AsseContract # EP-C-05-066, 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 218 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-2. Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads 

(Source: US EPA, 2005, Adapted from Megahan, 1980, 1987) 

Stabilization 

Measure 

Portion of Road 

Treated 

Percent Decrease in 

Erosiona

Hydro-mulch, straw mulch, and dry 

seedingb Fill slope 24 to 58 

Tree planting Fill slope 50 

Wood chip mulch Fill slope 61 

Straw mulch Fill slope 72 

Excelsior mulch Fill slope 92 

Paper netting Fill slope 93 

Asphalt-straw mulch Fill slope 97 

Straw mulch, netting, and planted trees Fill slope 98 

Straw mulch and netting Fill slope 99 

Straw mulch Cut slope 32 to 47 

Terracing Cut slope 86 

Straw mulch Cut slope 97 

Wood chip mulch Road fills 61 

Straw mulch Road fills 72 

Grass and legume seeding Road cuts 71 

Gravel surface Surface 70 

Dust oil Surface 85 

Bituminous surfacing Surface 99 a

Percent decrease in erosion compared to similar, untreated sites. b

No difference in erosion reduction between these three treatments. c

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Boise, ID, nd.
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 219 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-3. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP Programs by 

Program Type 

(source: US EPA, 2005) 

Applicability Cost Estimation Reference 

Voluntary-to-mandatory implementation ($) 

Coastal plain 

region: 

Piedmont 

region: 

Mountain 

region: 

=$15.79 per acre 

=$41.02 per acre 

=$60.05 per acre 

Stringent/Enforceable implementation ($) 

Virginia and southeastern 

states (applicable to 

central and northern 

states) 

Coastal plain 

region: 

Piedmont 

region: 

Mountain 

region: 

=$28.88 per acre 

=$51.28 per acre 

=$66.26 per acre 

Aust et al., 1996 

California Average cost 

Inland areas 

Coastal areas 

=$337.37 per acre 

=$109.31-558.68 per 

acre 

=$620.76 per acre 

Henly, 1992 

Oregon, Washington, 

Alaska 

Average cost 

Noncoastal 

areas 

Coastal areas 

=$236.16-503.35 per 

acre 

=$236.16 per acre 

=$503.35 per acre 

Ellefson et al., 1995 

(Division between 

coastal and 

noncoastal based on 

California model) 

Other Western states with forest practice 

regulation. Cost per acre is estimated as the 

average of costs in western states without 

forest practice regulation and the low-end 

cost given for Oregon noncoastal forests: 

Nevada, New Mexico, 

Idaho 

$202.42 per acre 

Western states without forest practice 

regulation. Cost per acre is estimated as onehalf of California’s noncoastal cost: 

Arizona, Colorado, 

Montana, Utah, 

Wyoming, Hawaii 

$168.68 per acre 

Note: All costs in 2008 dollars. 
Asse

Contract # EP-C-05-066, 

ssment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 220 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-4. Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in the Southeast and 

Midwest 

 (source: US EPA, 2005) 

Practice Average 

Cost 

Cost 

Range Comments 

Planning 

Savings from road 

design/location 

 ($520/mil) 

Savings in 

maintenance 

($312/mil) 

Savings were associated with avoiding problem soils, wet areas, and 

unstable slopes. Maintenance savings resulted from revegetating cut and 

fill slopes, which reduced erosion. 

Southern states. 

SMA $5,392 Costs for average tract size of 1,361 ac; include marking and foregone 

timber value. Southern states. 

Road Construction $7,154/mi- 

$57,208 

Lower end for no gravel and few culverts; upper end for complete 

graveling and more culverts. West Virginia. 

$19,974-

$57,208 

Lower end for 1,832-ac forest with slopes <3%; upper end for 1,148-ac 

forest with slopes > 9%. Southern states. 

$309/mi-

$15,659 

Lower end for grass surfacing; upper end for large stone surfacing. 

Appalachia. 

Construction Phase 

(as percent of total 

cost) 

10% 

20-25% 

20-25% 

10% 

30-40% 

Equipment and Material 

Clearing, grubbing, and slash disposal 

Excavation 

Culvert installation 

Rock surfacing 

Road Maintenance $2,976-

$5,318 

Lower end for roads constructed without BMPs; upper end for roads 

constructed with BMPs. Costs over 20 years discounted at 4%. 

$104/ac-

$379/ac 

Lower end for disking only; upper end for shear-rake-pile-disk. Southern 

states. 

Mechanical Site 

Preparation 

$189/ac 

$101/ac-

$243/ac 

Lower end for light preparation, including hand; upper end for chemicalmechanical site preparation. 

 $113/ac-

$479/ac 

Lower end for direct seeding; upper end for tree planting with purchased 

planting stock. 

$67/ac 

Regeneration 

$65/ac-

$81/ac 

Lower end for machine planting; upper end for hand planting. Southern 

states. 

Cost for average sized tract of 1,361 ac; includes seed, fertilizer, mulch. 

Southern states. 

Revegetation $30,688 

$178/ac-

$323/ac 

Lower end for introduced grasses; upper end for native grasses. Includes 

seedbed preparation, fertilizer, chemical application, seed, seedlings. 

Prescribed burning $18/ac $13/ac-

$26/ac 

Lower end for windrow burning; upper end for burning after chemical 

site preparation. Southern states. 

Pesticide application $138/ac $76/ac-

$186/ac 

Lower end for ground application; upper end for aerial application. 

Southern states. 

Fertilizer application $85/ac $58/ac-

$99/ac 

Lower end for ground application; upper end for aerial application. 

Southern states. 

Note: All costs in 2008 dollars. 
of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 221 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 3-5. Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for Individual Road Construction and Erosion 

Region (2008 dollars; source: US EPA, 2005)

Approximate Construction and Implementation Costs per BMP installed, by Region 

BMP 

Northeast Southeast Midwest Rocky Mountains Northwest Southwest Alaska 

Broad-based dip 

$54 $54-$121 $67-$81 $34-$47 $135-$175 $40-$54 Depends on t

terrain (Northoverhead). 

Waterbar $27 (not 

including labor) 

$81-$101 (on skid trails) 

n/a $135 $61-$81 $34-$47 Cost varies w

Mulch $96 $27-$108 (ton) n/a $2,024 (ac) 

(hydro-mulch) 

$540-$675 (ac) $108-$121 (ton) Cost varies w

distance. 

Seed $1,349 (ac) 

(hydro-seed) 

$1-$8 (lb) $1-$13 (lb) $8 (lb) $540-$607 (ac) $270-$540 (ac) $9-$13 (lb) Cost varies w

market price, 

Riprap n/a $7-$13 (yd3) $28 (yd3) $20-$40 (yd3) n/a $26-$50 (yd3) Price varies wGravel $8-$13 (ton) $47,232 

$53,979 (mile, 14’ W x 4”) 

$22-$35 (yd3) $40 (yd3) $24-$30 (yd3) Cost varies w

distance. 

Culvert $567 $675-$2,699 $26 (ft, 18” pipe) $35 (ft, 24” pipe)

$135 (ft, 72” pipe) 

$32 (ft, 18” pipe) $31 (ft, 18” pipe) Cost varies w

Costs provide

Straw Matting $76 (roll, 7.5’ x 

120’) 

n/a $3(yd2) $1-$4 (yd2) $3.40 (yd2) Cost varies w

Geotextiles $510 (700 yd2) $3-$8 (ft) $11-$16 (ft) $1-$3 (ft) n/a $19 (ft) Woven geote

recommende

Hardwood Mats (pallets) 

$162-$270 $162-$270 $229 (10’ x 12’) $162-$270 $162-$270 $162-$270 $209 (10’ x 12’) Cost varies w

Turn-outs $54-$67 $67-$94 $67-94 $67 $67 $54-$67 $96 Cost varies wSilt Fence $32 (24” H x 

100’ L) 

not commonly used 

not commonly used 

$2 (yd2) $5.40 (ft) $2.70 (yd2) Cost varies w

Dust Control $1,349 (mile, 

using calcium chloride) 

$1,349-$4,048 (mile, annually) 

$256 (ton) Varies widely 

Temporary Bridge 

$675-$26,989 $675-$20,242 $270-$33,737 $1,349-2,699 (ft) n/a $1,687-$3,374 

(ft) 

Cost varies wused, width a

Barge (Alaska) 

-- -- -- -- -- -- $1,349 (hr) Barge transpo

Natl. Forest) deliver mater

Note: All costs are per unit provided (ac = acre; ft = linear foot; hr = hour; lb = pound; yd2 = square yard; yd3 = cubic yard; D = depth; H = height; L = length; W = width). 

Where units are not provided, cost is per BMP installed. 

Assessment Contract # EP-C-05-066, 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 222 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

 States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary (adapted from TetraTech, 2004) 

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

AL 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1993 • Licensing requirement for foresters 

• Through cooperative agreement, Alabama 

Division of Environment refers suspected 

water-quality complaints due to forestry 

to the forestry commission. 

• Rely on the Water Pollution Control 

Act for enforcement 

AZ 9 • Arizona state law does not contain 

silvicultural requirements related to 

NPS pollution from forestry activities 

or established BMPs . 

AR 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Division of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ) has regulatory water pollution 

control authority, and a formal 

memorandum of understanding exists 

between the forestry commission and 

DEQ to address complaints or violations 

of water quality suspected to be due to 

forestry.

CO 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1998 

DE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1996 y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y Forestry administrator is responsible 

for preventing pollution to waterways 

and will perform BMP inspections on 

informal field visits 

y Streamside Management Zone not 

required as long as BMPs are 

implemented 

FL 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1993 y “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements 

y State permits are required for forest 

roads, stream and wetland crossings 

y Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection can 

enforce BMPs 

GA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1999 y “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements

y BMPs mandatory for stream 

crossings 

y Persistent forestry-related water pollution 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 223 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

 States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary (adapted from TetraTech, 2004) 

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

violations are referred to the Georgia 

Environmental Protection Division for 

enforcement action 

y Registration of professional foresters 

HI 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements

IL 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

IN 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

• State provides logger BMP training 

IA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

KS 9 9

LA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1998 • Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement

• No formal departmental process exists for 

dealing with specific forestry operations 

suspected of causing water pollution 

ME 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements

y Land Use Regulation Commission 

y Shoreland Zoning Act 

y Natural Resource Protection Act 

y Marine Forest Practices Act 

y General Permitting process for 

stream crossing

y State provides training for Certified 

Logging Professionals and Certified 

Master Loggers and workshops for 

landowners are held throughout the 

state. 

MA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Massachusetts Forest Cutting 

Practices Act 

MI 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

MN 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Sustainable Forest Resources Act 

y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y State provides logger BMP training 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 224 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

 States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary (adapted from TetraTech, 2004) 

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

MS 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2000 • Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

MO 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

NE 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Erosion and sediment control 

program 

y Written plans encouraged 

NJ 9 y No formal legal requirements 

focused on forestry. 

y Permanent steam crossings are 

regulated and require a Stream 

Encroachment Permit. 

y BMP manual can be purchased for 

$5 

NY 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements

• Permit required for stream crossings 

NC 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1994 y Adoption of Forest Practice 

Guidelines (performance standards) 

mandatory, but BMPs for forestry are 

“recommended” 

y Cases of noncompliance are referred 

to department of land resources, 

division of water quality, or division 

of forest resources law enforcement 

y Registration for professional 

foresters is mandatory 

y North Carolina Forestry Association 

(NCFA) ProLogger program 

ND 9 9 9 9 9 9

OH 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Ohio Agricultural and Silvicultural 

Abatement Act 

y Silvicultural Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Plan required 

y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

OK 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1994 y Forestry-related water-quality violations 

are referred to the DEQ for necessary 

enforcement action 

RI y “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 225 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

 States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary (adapted from TetraTech, 2004) 

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

y BMP manual can be purchased for 

$5 

SC 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1994 y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y State Forestry Commission must 

develop an erosion, sediment, and 

stormwater management plan 

y Department of Health and Environmental 

Control may initiate enforcement action 

based on referral

y Memorandum of understanding between 

the Forestry Commission and Department 

of Health and Environmental Control 

(DHEC) defines the role of each agency 

in preventing or correcting water-quality 

impacts from forestry operations. 

y Courtesy Exam Program, a proactive 

means to encourage proper BMP 

implementation, is unique in the southern 

States 

SD 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • South Dakota Nonpoint Source 

Pollution Management Plan 

TN 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1996 y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y Department of Environment and 

Conservation may take appropriate 

enforcement action for water pollution 

due to forestry.

TX 9 9 9 9 9 9 2001 y “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements 

y No formal State interagency agreement 

by which BMP noncompliance is 

addressed. 

y State coordinating committee consisting 

of all regulatory agencies and the forestry 

community provides advice for 

recommended BMPs and seeks 

cooperation of the logger and/or 

landowner in cases of reported or 

discovered BMP noncompliance. 

UT 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Utah Forest Practice Act 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 226 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-1. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

 States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Voluntary (adapted from TetraTech, 2004) 

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

VA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1994 y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y Must notify Virginia Department of 

Forestry before start of logging 

operations. 

y Silvicultural Water Quality Law 

authorizes the Department of Forestry to 

require corrective measures for 

silvicultural operations causing, or with 

potential to cause, sedimentation of State 

waters.

y The Department inspects harvesting 

operations for water quality 

degradation 

WI 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

WY 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Voluntary BMPs plus enforcement 

y Wyoming Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan 

y State provides training in water 

quality protection measures 

y Wyoming retains authority to take 

enforcement actions for violations of 

water quality standards 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 227 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-2. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory (adapted from TetraTech, 2004)

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

AK 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Forest Resources and Practices Act 

y For private, municipal, or non-state 

owned land, a “detailed plan of 

operations” must be submitted to the 

state forester that heads the Division 

of Forestry 

y For state forests, the Commissioner 

must submit a forest management 

plan 

CA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y California (Z’Berg-Nejedly) Forest 

Practice Act 

y Must have a timber harvesting plan 

prepared by a Registered 

Professional Forester 

y Non-industrial forests must have a 

timber management plan that 

addresses erosion 

y The California Coastal Act regulates 

alterations to rivers and streams 

• The Fish and Game Code mandates 

stream alteration permits for nonpoint 

source pollution that results in 

diversion or obstruction of the natural 

flow of any river, stream, or lake 

CT 9 2007 y Connecticut Forest Practices Act 

y BMP manual can be purchased for 

$90 

y Commercial foresters must obtain a 

state certificate 

• Soil Erosion and Sedimentation 

 Control Act 

ID 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2003 y Idaho Forest Practices Act 

y Must post a notice of intent to engage 

in forestry practices 

y Must implement site-specific BMPs 

for stream segments of concern 

KY 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1996 • Kentucky Forest Conservation Act 

• Master Logger training provided by 

Department of Forestry 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 228 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-2. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory (adapted from TetraTech, 2004)

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

MD 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Maryland Erosion and Sediment 

Control Standards and Specifications 

for Forest Harvest Operations 

y Professional foresters must be 

licensed 

y Forest conservation practices 

y Compliance Agreement for the 

Standard Erosion and Sediment 

Control Plan for Forest Harvest 

Operations must be obtained when 

disturbing more than 5,000 square 

feet of land 

MT 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1997 y Montana Streamside Management 

Zone Act 

y 50-foot wide streamside management 

zones for forest streams 

y Mandatory notice before engaging in 

forest practices 

y Inspects SMZs/BMPs on Federal, 

State, and Private Land 

y Refers water quality violations to 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Services 

NV 9 1994 y Nevada Forest Practices Act 

y Requires a permit from the State 

forester for logging or cutting 

operations, which may be denied if 

significant soil erosion and siltation 

will be caused 

y BMP handbook can be purchased for 

$25 

y Forestry statute prohibits skidding, 

rigging, or construction of roads 

within 200 feet of a waterbody 

NH 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Timber Tax Law or Notice of Intent 

to Cut 

• New Hampshire Wetlands Law, 

Basal Area Law 

• Slash Law 

• BMP program contains voluntary 

elements 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 229 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-2. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory (adapted from TetraTech, 2004)

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

NM 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2002 • New Mexico Forest Conservation Act 

• “Combination” BMP program containing 

regulatory and nonregulatory elements

OR 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1995 y Oregon Forest Practices Act and 

Forest Practice Administrative Rules 

PA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 y Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection Chapter 

102 Rules and Regulations, the Clean 

Streams Act 

y Chapter 102 regulations govern 

stream crossings 

y Erosion and sediment pollution 

control plan required for timber 

harvesting operations 

y Road maintenance activity involving 

25 acres of earth disturbance or more 

requires an Erosion and Sediment 

Control Permit 

y Adding or closing a state forest road 

requires permission from State 

Forester

y State provides BMP classroom 

training and on-site assistance 

provided by Service foresters located 

throughout the state 

VT 9 9 9 9 9 9 • No formal Forest Practices Act 

• 1986 amendments to Vermont Water 

Quality Protection Statutes require 

Acceptable management Practices 

(similar to BMPs) 

• Alteration of Streams Law. 

WA 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 2001 y Washington Forest Practices Rules 

and Timber, Fish, and Wildlife 

Agreement. 

y Small forest landowners must submit 

a checklist and road maintenance and 

abandonment plan with application 

for forest practice 

y Forest practice standards mandatory 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 230 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-2. Summary of State Programs for Forest Road Management: 

States in which BMPs for Forest Roads are Mandatory (adapted from TetraTech, 2004)

Types of BMPs Specified 

State 

ConstructionDrainageLocation/SpacingMaintenanceRoad ClosureStabilization/Soils/SlopeStream CrossingsSMZs/Bank Stabilization/ Buffer StripsWet Weather UseWinter Operations

Training/ Technical Assistance Implementation/ Effectiveness Monitoring Compliance/Enforcement 

Year 

of 

Latest 

BMP 

Revision

Other Information 

WV 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 • Logging and Sediment Control Act 

• State certification in logger 

training including BMPs.
Asse

Contract # EP-C-05-066, 

ssment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 231 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-3. Detailed Review of State Forest Practices and Selected Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) 

Provisions for Roads (from Scurlock, 2007) 

State or Corporation 

State Forest Practices and 

Selected HCP Provisions

CA OR WA ID MT Palco Plum 

Creek 

Enforceable Road Design 

Standards? 

Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 

Steep/Unstable Slope Prohibition? No No No No No Yes No 

Steep Slope Building special 

process? 

Yes Yes Yes No No - Yes 

Timeline for Old Roads up to 

Standards? 

No No 2016 

for large 

landowners

No No 500 

mi/year 

2015; 

2010 for high 

priority 

watersheds 

100 year flood passage at new 

crossings? 

Yes No 

50y 

Yes No 

50y 

No 

25y 

Yes No 

50y 

Bedload/debris passage? Yes? No Some No No No 

Upstream and downstream passage 

required? 

(Juveniles and adults) 

Yes Yes Yes Only for 

new 

crossings 

No Yes 

Seasonal/wet weather hauling 

restrictions? 

Yes Some No Yes No Some 

(visible 

turbidity) 

Orphan Roads addressed? No No Yes No No 

Adequately? n/a n/a No n/a n/a 

Watershed analysis/CWE process? No No (yes 

on state 

lands) 

No Yes No ? 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 232 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

AL >6 2006 Random 

(sites less 

than 1 year 

old) 

50 (SW); 64 (NW & NE)

Aerial 

survey 

94 

(SW)

95 

(NW&

NE) 

yes • Al

m

• BM

coof 

• Da

AZ 0 • Ar

fo

AR 3 2005 random 249 88 84 84 yes F, FI, S, 

NIPF 

Roads (close 

out), 

temporary 

stream 

crossings, 

harvesting 

and SMZ 

• Ar

m

• So

re

• BM

sitprth

• Im

lanBM

CO 

DE 

FL >10 2006 Randomly 

selected by 

aerial 

observation 

190 Forester 

on site; 

139 y/n 

question 

survey 

99 99 98 100 94 no PU, FI, 

NIPF 

Stabilize 

critical road 

segments & 

drainage 

structures 

• Fl

BM

• Bi• Ri• So

re

• Ov

fr
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 233 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

GA >3 2005 Targeted 

random 

412 Forester 

on site; 

108 y/n 

question 

survey 

90 91 88 81 yes FI, PU, 

NIPF 

Skidder 

fords, 

Debris and 

dirt type 

crossings 

• G

m

• Ri

• S

re

• Ne

84

HI 

IL 0 • Ill

fo

IN 1 2004 154 Interdisciplina

ry team 

88 81 93 77 79 S, NIPF, 

P+NIPF

Placement 

and 

construction 

of water 

diversion, 

crossing 

structure 

design, 

skidding in 

stream 

channels 

• In

RWB

• Im

ro

IA 0 • Io

fo

KS 

LA >4 2005 Scattered 145 Surveyor on 

site 

96 >3410 62-95 70 35 no FI, 

CNIF, 

PU, 

NIPF 

Permanent 

roads 

(seeding 

and 

• L

AFc

• B

10 Rate of BMP implementation is underestimated since many sites were rated as having no action required or no assessment was availa
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 234 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

mulching) w

p

ME 3 2005 Random 288 75 892 74 86 78 NIPF, FI, 

PU, IF 

Temporary 

stream 

crossings, 

haul road 

BMPs 

• M

im

• In

B

MA • M

reim

MI 0 • M

o

MN 1 2004 Varies by 

year 

315 31-64,

7312

41-85 57 PU, FI, 

NI 

Erosion 

control 

structures, 

water 

diversion, 

crossing 

approaches

• M

m

• Im

m

• M

o

MS >1 2006 Randomly 

selected 

from sites 

identified 

by aerial 

reconnaissance 

203 Water 

quality 

team on 

site; 73 

question 

survey 

90 88 77 88 93 no Roads, 

SMZs, 

temporary 

roads and 

skid trails, 

crossings 

• M

m

• Ri

11 Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF) and the USFS-Northern Region Program for State and Private Forestry P12 Filter strips. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 235 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

MO 2007 Random 5 sites/year Logger 

trainer 

evaluatio

n on site

• St

Pim

• Sm

im

• Da

NE 

NJ • N

reim

NY 2 2000 53 73 78 59 FI, S, NI Road 

drainage, 

stream 

crossings 

• St

YCDPWB

• 20

re

• In

B

NC 4 2005 Sites only 

selected if 

water body 

present 

82 85 85 72 65 yes P, FI, 

NIPF 

Permanent 

roads, 

water bars 

on 

temporary 

roads and 

skid trails, 

and SMZ 

encroachmint 

• No

Rim

• As 

B

• So

re

ND 0 • Ne
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 236 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

d

OH 1 1999 Failure to 

implement streamside 

manageme

nt zones 

and skid 

trail BMPs 

• Oh

B

• D• L

OK 3 2006 random 100 Surveyor 

on site; 

Texas 

BMP 

monitorin

g 

checklist

92 97 90 77 91 100 no FI, PU, 

NIPF 

Road 

drainage and stabilization, 

temporary 

crossings, 

SMZs 

• Ok

Foim

• Ri• S

re

• Da

RI 

SC 7 2005 Random 

selection 

from sites 

identified 

by aerial 

survey 

200 Trained 

forester 

on site 

94 87 92 78 yes P, FI, 

NIPF 

Harvesting 

systems, 

SMZs, 

stream 

crossings, 

road 

stabilization 

and poor 

design 

• So

m

• Ri• Co• m

costti

SD 2004 Targeted 92 Road design 

and water 

diversion, 

drainage 

features near 

stream 

• Bl

AoanDF
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 237 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

crossings im

• Si

ra

TN 3 2005 Random 

selection 

from a 

spatial grid 

215 82 45 yes Stream 

crossings 

• La

coDFo

• Ri• S

re

• Da

TX 6 2005 Random 

selection 

from sites 

identified 

by aerial 

survey and 

forest 

service 

knowledge 

156 1 or 2 

trained 

foresters 

on site 

92 91 93 90 31-

81 

no PU, FI, 

CNIF, 

NIPF 

Roads 

(reshaping 

and 

stabilization)

, stabilizing 

temporary 

stream 

crossings 

• T

im

• M

acTC

• R• S

re

• Im

lowothinmcr

UT 1 2006 40 Audit 

team 

92 64-81 77 86 Road 

drainage, 

• Ut

S
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 238 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-4. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surveys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number of 

BMP 

implementat

ion surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number of 

sites 

Type of 

survey 

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. road/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reported

Identified 

BMP 

implementati

on needs 

diversion 

and wet 

period use 

im

VA >10 2007 Surveyor on site 83 68 no Rutting and seeding, 

water control 

structures, 

stream 

crossings 

• Vi

m

• Ri

WI 3 2004 Random 60 Interdisciplina

ry 

monitorin

g teams 

90 (S)

93(C)

95(IF)

13

71(S)

96(C)

78

(S)

69

(C)

S, C Diversion 

devices, road 

shaping and 

grading, 

maintenance, 

culvert 

sizing 

• W

Rm

WY 1 2005 6 Audit 

team 

97 • W

Dan

B

Ownership codes and definition: F= Federal, FI= Forest industry, S= State, C= County, PU= Public, P=Private, CNIF= CorIF=Investor forestlands, NIPF= Nonindustrial private forest owners, NI= Nonindustrial forest, SM=Small landowners. 13 Overall BMP implementation on industrial forest surveyed in 2002. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 239 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-5. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surve

ys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number 

of BMP 

implemen

tation 

surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number 

of sites 

Type of

survey

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. roads/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reporte

d 

Identified 

BMP 

implement

ation 

needs 

AK 2005 93 (C) 

74 (N) 

Evaluato

r on site; 

score 

sheet 

94(C)

84(N)

Roads 

(retiremint) and 

stream 

crossing 

(landslides, 

blocked 

and washed 

out 

culverts) 

• A

m

• Im

fore

• Si

o

• D

oin

CA 3 2006 Random 187 

(WLPZ)

244 (roads)

357 

(crossings)

Forest 

practice inspectors on 

site; 

9514 69-84 96 83 Drainage, 

culverts 

• Ca

FFB

• Hi

1

• M

m

• Fo

an

CT 

ID 5 2001 Randomly 

selected 

from 

targeted 

“pool” of 

sites 

40 Multiagency 

audit 

teams 

95 57 Culverts 

(fish 

passage) 

• Id

DInIdUo

14 Overall implementation rate for FPRs related to water quality determined in earlier HMR. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 240 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-5. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surve

ys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number 

of BMP 

implemen

tation 

surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number 

of sites 

Type of

survey

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. roads/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reporte

d 

Identified 

BMP 

implement

ation 

needs 

B

• Ri• D

re

KY >1 2006 Randomly 

selected by 

aerial 

observatio

n 

116 Forester 

on site; 

38 y/n 

question 

survey 

56 69 56 35 no PU, FI, 

NIPF 

Roads 

(spacing 

and proper 

implementa

tion of 

drainage 

structures) 

and SMZs

• K

m

• Ri• D

re

MD 1 2007 99 82 83 82 75 • M

Rm

• In

B

• D

MT >7 2007 Stratified 

and 

prioritized 

site 

selection 

44 Interdisciplina

ry team; 

58 

potential 

practices 

rated on 

5-pt. 

scale 

93-96 98 F, FI, 

NIPF 

• M

RB

NV 0 • N

o
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 241 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-5. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surve

ys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number 

of BMP 

implemen

tation 

surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number 

of sites 

Type of

survey

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. roads/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reporte

d 

Identified 

BMP 

implement

ation 

needs 

NH • N

a im

• Pa

N

NM 0 • Ne

reim

• NC

imh

OR >3 2002 Stratified 

random 

189 

94 (fish 

passage) 

Forest 

practice 

forester 

& 2-

person 

field 

survey 

team 

96 87-

100 

4815 71-

95

70-88 Fish 

passage, 

Crossing 

fill 

stability, 

road 

surface 

drainage 

and 

maintenanc

e 

• O

m

• Sa

inn

• 2 

cu

PA 0 • Pe

reim

• Pa

NM

15 Removal of temporary crossings. 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 242 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Table 4-5. Summary of State Forest Road BMP Implementation Surve

ys for States in which BMPs for For

Information and data compiled from Dissmeyer (1994), Grace (2002), Ice et al. (2004), Jones (20Prud’homme and Greis (2002), Simpson et al. (2005), Vowell (2004) 

Latest reported BMP 

implementation rate (%) 

State Number 

of BMP 

implemen

tation 

surveys 

Year of 

most 

recent 

survey 

Sampling 

design 

Number 

of sites 

Type of

survey

Overall forestry 

SMZs 

Permanent roads 

Temp. roads/Skid 

Crossings 

Wetlands 

Formal 

interagency 

State 

agreemints 

Ownership 

classes 

reporte

d 

Identified 

BMP 

implement

ation 

needs 

VT 2 1996 17 Surveyors on 

site 

Implement

ation of 

drainage 

structures 

on forest 

roads and 

skid trails

• V

AWim

• 19

v

• Pa

NM

• In

d

WA 2 2007 Stratified 

random 

97 Field 

teams 

80 86 78 FI, SM • W

REanc

• 20

ri

• Lo• Pr

C1

WV 4 2007 116 85 80 84 86 Drainage 

structures, 

spacing 

btwn. trails 

and water 

bodies, 

haul roads 

in SMZs 

• W

Fim
Asse

Contract # EP-C-05-066, 

ssment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 243 

TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Ownership codes and definition: F= Federal, FI= Forest industry, S= State, C=County, PU= Public, P=Private, C

industrial, IF=Investor forestlands, NIPF= Nonindustrial private forest owners, NI= Nonindustrial forest, SM=Sm

Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 245 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

FIGURES 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 246 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Figure 2-1. Distribution of Forest Land in the Continental United States (from USEPA, 2005) 

Figure 2-2. Cross-Sectional Diagram of the Forest Road Prism and Components (from Moll et al., 1987) 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 247 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Figure 2-3. Legal Basis and Definitions for Roads in the National Forests (from Coughlan and Sowa, 

1998)

Notes: 

1. Forest Roads: Roads wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System and necessary 

 to the protection, administration, and use of the National Forest System and the use and development of its 

 resource (23 USC 101). 

2. Public Roads: Roads under the jurisdiction of, and maintained by, a public authority that are open to public travel. (23 

 USC 101(a)). 

3. Forest Development Roads (FDR): Forest roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service (23 USC 101). 

4. Uninventoried Roads: Short term roads associated with fire suppression, oil, gas or mineral exploration or development, 

 or timber harvest not intended to be a part of the forest development transportation system and not necessary 

 for resource management. Regulations (36 CFR 223.37) require revegetation within 10 years. 

5. Maintained for Public Use: An MOU with FHWA defines FDR’s managed as open to the public as those roads open 

 to unrestricted use by the general public in standard passenger cars, including those closed on a seasonal basis or 

 for emergencies. 

6. Maintenance Level 5: Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and convenience. Normally double lane, 

 paved facilities, or aggregate surface with dust abatement. This is the highest standard of maintenance. 

Maintenance Level 4: Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and convenience at moderate speeds. 

 Most are double lane, and aggregate surfaced. Some may be single lane. Some may be dust abated. 

Maintenance Level 3: Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a standard passenger car. User 

 comfort and convenience are not considered priorities. Typically low speed, single lane with turnouts and native or 

 aggregate surfacing. 

Maintenance Level 2: Roads open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is discouraged. Traffic is 

 minor administrative, permitted or dispersed recreation. Non traffic generated maintenance is minimal. 

Maintenance Level 1: These roads are closed. Some intermittent use may be authorized. When closed, they must be 

 physically closed with barricades, berms, gates, or other closure devices. Closures must exceed one year. When 

open, it may be maintained at any other level. When closed to vehicular traffic, they may be suitable and used for 

 nonmotorized uses, with custodial maintenance. 

7. Public Lands Highways, Forest Highways: A coordinated Federal Lands Highway Program includes Forest Highways, 

 Public Lands Highways, Park Roads, Parkways and Indian Reservation Roads. These are roads under the 

 jurisdiction of and maintained by a public road authority other than the Forest Service and open to public travel (23 

 USC 101).
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 248 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

1:1 line

Figure 2-4. Response of Suspended Sediment Concentrations to Forest Harvesting 

at Experimental Watersheds (from Binkley and Brown, 1993)
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 249 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Figure 2-5. Figure 5 from Chapman (1988). Graph of percent survival of salmonid embryos to emergence 

in relation to percent fines smaller than 0.85 mm. Data provide comparisons of coho salmon survivals in 

the laboratory (lab.) and field (Cederholm et al., 1981), of coho salmon in two different streams (Koski, 

1966; Cederholm et al., 1981), and of chinook salmon in gravels with a range of percentages of particles 

smaller than 9.5 mm (shaded area; Tappel and Bjornn, 1983). 
Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads Page 250 

Contract # EP-C-05-066, TO # 0002 December 4, 2008 

Figure 2-6. Distribution of major forest types in the continental United States. 

Sources and References: Swank et al., 1989. Forest Cover Types map compiled by the U. S. Geological Survey and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Inventory Analysis Program for the National Atlas of the United 

States. Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery with 25 forest categories, 1991 growing season. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 1997. Level III Ecoregions of the Continental United States, Map M-1 (revision of Omernik, 1987). NHEERL, 

Corvallis, Oregon. Ecological Regions of North America, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 1997.