United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Northern

Research Station

General Technical

Report NRS-118

Proposed BMPs for 

Invasive Plant Mitigation 

during Timber Harvesting Operations

Chris B. LeDoux and Danielle K. Martin
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

August 2013 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication August 2012

Trade Name Disclaimer

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and 

convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion 

of others that may be suitable.

Abstract

The invasion and spread of invasive plants is a major problem in forested ecosystems. Invasive 

plants can displace existing vegetation and in some cases take over the site. With the displacement 

of native vegetation come major ecosystem changes that may jeopardize ecological processes 

and functions as well as habitat for wildlife. The disturbance caused during timber harvesting 

processes creates conditions that encourage the establishment and spread of invasive plants. The 

machinery and traffic movement within a job site may introduce and spread seeds, roots, and plant 

parts from one job site to another. In this report, we address the timber harvesting processes and 

the disturbance that is created; explain how seeds, roots, and other parts of invasive plants can 

be spread; address the opportunity costs involved and those responsible; and propose voluntary 

BMPs for invasive plant mitigation during timber harvesting operations.

Authors

CHRIS B. LEDOUX is a supervisory research industrial engineer with the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Northern Research Station at Morgantown, WV.

DANIELLE K. MARTIN is a forest pathologist with the U.S. Forest Service’s Northeastern Area 

State and Private Forestry at Morgantown, WV.


INTRODUCTION

Invasive species are one of the greatest threats to the 

health of forests, rangelands, aquatic and riparian 

systems, and urban forests. They have impacted forest 

fire frequency and intensity, forest tree establishment 

and growth, and altered native species distributions 

and wildlife habitat. Transport of these invasive 

species by human global trade and by forest operations 

has increased the establishment and spread. Forest 

land managers and decisionmakers must find ways to 

mitigate the establishment and spread of these species. 

In 2006, the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area 

(SPA) of the U.S. Forest Service solicited feedback 

through a formal external peer review to prioritize 

research efforts toward mitigating the spread of 

numerous invasive species (Dix and Britton 2010). 

The results from this review identify invasive species 

research and priorities that the Forest Service will 

use for the next 20 years. One of the priorities that 

surfaced from this review was an increased emphasis 

on managing invasive species and ecosystems that 

have been altered by them. Accordingly, in this 

report, we address the timber harvesting processes 

and the disturbance that is created; explain how 

seeds, roots, and other parts of invasive plants can 

be spread; and propose voluntary BMPs for invasive 

plant mitigation during timber harvesting operations. 

Our focus is limited to the invasive plant species that 

could be impacted by and during the timber harvesting 

operations.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Best Management Practices (BMPs) are practical 

proactive approaches, either mandatory or voluntary, 

that can be used during forest management operations 

to accomplish objectives related to soil protection, 

riparian/buffer zone protection, structural retention, 

invasive plant species mitigation, aesthetics, wildlife 

and biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other 

goals. BMPs to mitigate the introduction and spread of 

invasive plant species are available for urban forests 

(Allison et al. 2009, Boos 2009), forage seed (SASK 

Forage Council 2010), storm water management (U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency [n.d.], Lake County 

Stormwater Commission 2004), highway rightsof-way and mowing (Anonymous 2006, Campbell 

2008, New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

2010), plant nurseries (Hamilton County Soil and 

Water Conservation District [n.d.], Smith and Lopes 

2009 ), aquatic environments (Aquatic Ecosystem 

Restoration Foundation 2005, 2009), and forest 

management activities in general (Gagnon 2009, Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources [n.d.], Smallidge 

and Goff 1998, Wisconsin Council on Forestry 2009). 

BMPs and related guidelines have been proposed for 

forestry operations (Invasive Plant Council of B.C. 

2007, Kearns and Chapin 2008, Stringer et al. [n.d.]). 

Limited work has been done on BMPs for invasive 

plants for harvesting operations (LeDoux 2011).

BMPs have proven to effectively limit the spread of 

other organisms during timber harvesting operations. 

For example, BMPs such as vehicle and equipment 

washing, roadside sanitation, temporary road closures, 

and vehicle exclusion have proven to limit the spread 

of Phytophthora laterallis, a pathogen that causes a 

deadly root rot on Port-Orford-cedar (Chamaecyparis 

lawsoniana) (Betlejewski et al. 2003). Evaluations of 

a vehicle washing treatment showed large reductions 

in inoculum on vehicles following washing (Goheen 

et al. 2000) and after roadside sanitation treatment 

(Marshall and Goheen 2000). The effectiveness of 

these sanitation systems can easily be used as a model 

for developing BMPs for invasive plant mitigation. 

Forest Operations Processes

Invasive native and nonnative plant and other species 

are a major threat to forested ecosystems and the 

general balance of nature. However, it is beyond the 

scope of this paper to go into any detail on individual 

species, threats, or consequences of any one invasion 

or invader or their spread. Our intent is to present 

state-of-the-art voluntary BMPs that may mitigate 

the spread of invasive plant species associated with 

logging and forest operations that create the type 

of disturbance suitable for invasion or spread of 

certain plants. We focus on the types of disturbance 

associated with logging and forest operations only 
as opposed to disturbance caused by recreational 

activities, movement of wood products, or other types 

of events. Forest operations such as road and skid 

trail construction, removal of trees during harvest, 

landing construction, skidding of logs, and movement 

of machinery in and out of different operating sites 

create conditions and opportunities for invasive plants 

to invade or spread within a site or from site to site. 

The construction of roads, skid trails, landings, along 

with the skidding of logs, creates soil disturbance 

where mineral soil is exposed, creating conditions 

favorable for invaders. Moving equipment from one 

logging site to another or moving equipment that has 

operated in areas that have invasive plants established 

within a single logging chance provides a vehicle 

where seeds or other plant parts can be transported 

into areas without invaders. Currently, there are no 

mandatory BMPs for logging and forest operations 

that are designed to mitigate the spread or invasion of 

invasive plants. Table 1 defines the timber harvesting 

operations (processes) that create disturbance that can 

lead to invasions.

The construction of haul roads generally results in 

major disturbance where trees are removed from 

the road prism right of way, creating openings 

that allow sunlight to reach the forest floor. The 

actual construction process necessarily involves the 

displacement and movement of soil, rocks, grubbed 

out root wads, and other vegetation. Generally, cut and 

fill methods are used to construct roads of adequate 

Table 1.—Timber harvesting operations that create 

disturbance

1. Haul road/skid trail construction

2. Landing construction and related log extraction activities

3. Trucking and log hauling

4. Moving equipment from job to job

5. Moving logs/stems from infected areas to uninfected 

areas

standards that log trucks can safely negotiate during 

the log hauling process. This means substantial 

quantities of soil must not only be disturbed but 

also moved. Some of the soil from the cut portion 

is used in the fill section. In some cases, the excess 

cut volume must be hauled to some other location 

and deposited. Additionally, gravel or other crushed 

stone products may be trucked into the site to serve 

as the running surface of the road. The traffic and 

equipment involved in the road building process 

may move seeds and plant parts in and out of the 

construction site. The construction of landings and 

log decking areas also creates major disturbance. 

Similar to road construction, landing development 

requires displacement and movement of soil as well 

as plants and plant parts. The surfacing materials used 

at landing and log decking areas may be moved in 

from off site. The constant traffic of log trucks, log 

skidding equipment, and logs being moved in and out 

of the landing creates major disturbance to the site. 

The physical process of moving equipment from one 

job site to another not only can create disturbance, but 

also can contaminate the machines. Operating within 

a single site where portions of the job site are infected 

and then moving to uninfected areas may aggravate 

the situation further. Collectively, the site disturbance 

and movement of seeds and plant parts by the 

processes defined in Table 1 may not only contribute 

to conditions where invaders can get started but also 

may transport those invaders into uninfected areas.

An invasive species inspection by the landowner and/

or by the logger would document the circumstances 

and both parties would sign and date that report. 

Loggers protect themselves by disclosing what they 

see to landowners, and this information could become 

part of the contract. Here we provide proposed 

voluntary scientific guidelines on what loggers and 

landowners could do to mitigate invasion or spread 

during harvesting operations (Fig. 1). Additional 

Targeted Invasive Plant Solutions (T.I.P.S.) for forestry 

operations are summarized in Table 2.
Train staff to identify, 

monitor for, report, 

control, and map new/old 

infestations.a,b

Create equipment 

staging areas where 

seeds won’t get picked 

up. Mow or spray staging 

areas before bringing 

equipment in. Clean up 

staging area afterwards.b

Pre-treat infested 

areas prior to logging/

silvicultural operations. 

Identify and treat existing 

invasive plants prior to 

logging, road building, 

landing, skid trail 

construction.a,b

Mow at best time to 

reduce seed set and 

to minimize spread of 

seed.a,b

Follow the documented 

guidelines in the 

published literature.a,b

Inspect and clean 

equipment of soil, seeds, 

plants.a,b

Wash off equipment 

before moving from site 

to site.a,b

Acquire clean 

construction materials, 

fill dirt, gravel, sand, 

and mulch.a,b

Where possible, keep 

the clearing limits for 

roads, skid trails, and 

landing construction 

to the minimal widths 

acceptable for safety to 

minimize the amount of 

sunlight that could reach 

the forest floor.

Operate in areas that 

are free of invasives 

first, then move toward 

areas that are infested 

so as not to transport 

seeds or plant parts from 

contaminated areas.a

Minimize the length of 

time that bare ground is 

exposed – re-seed/ 

re-vegetate bare ground 

as quickly as possible.a,b

Landings, roads, recent 

disturbance – re-seed/ 

re-vegetate disturbed 

areas quickly.a,b

Document, date, and sign 

the events that occurred.a

Demonstrate that the 

loggers exercised 

reasonable precautions/

procedures in their 

practices.

Figure 1.—Flow diagram of proposed voluntary BMPs for invasive species mitigation during harvest operations 

(a

Invasive Plant Council of BC 2007, bKearns and Chapin 2008, LeDoux 2011).
Table 2.—Targeted Invasive Plant Solutions for forestry operations (Invasive Plant Council of BC 2007)

T.I.P.S. for Forestry Operations

Operation Targeted invasive plant solutions

General These practices are always applicable, regardless of the operation, and are not limited to specific 

operations listed here.

1. Determine priority invasive plant species within your operating area.

2. Stay informed through collaborations with regional experts and assist staff and contractors to identify

and minimize spread of invasive plant species within your operating area.

3. Carry out regular detection surveys and record the locations of invasive plants in your operating area.

4. Keep equipment out of areas infested by invasive plants and keep equipment yards and storage 

areas free of invasive plants.

5. Regularly inspect the undercarriages of vehicles and remove any plant material found.

6. Dispose of plant material at the site of the infestation (if no flowers are present), or bag the plant 

material and dispose of it (locally) in the garbage (if flowers are present).

7. Wash plant seeds and propagules from personal gear, equipment, vehicles, and machinery at 

designated cleaning stations before leaving infested sites and before entering uninfested sites. 

Ensure soil that is being moved does not contain invasive plant seeds or propagules.

8. Minimize unnecessary soil disturbance during road, landing, skid trail, and site preparation. Ensure 

soil that is being moved does not contain invasive plant seeds or propagules.

9. Re-vegetate disturbed areas as soon after disturbance as possible using an appropriate combination 

of scarification, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching. Ensure that seed used to re-vegetate will meet site 

objectives. Use Canada Common #1 Forage Mixture or better.

10. Treat infestations of invasive plants prior to disturbance (pre-treatment).

11. Monitor treatment sites for several years to ensure efficacy. Re-treat as necessary to ensure spread 

does not continue.

12. Avoid moving equipment from an infested area to an uninfested one.*

13. Avoid repeated entries into a site with invasive species.*

14. Schedule harvest to occur during a time of year when invasive species are less likely to spread.* 

15. Consider using helicopter logging or cable systems to lower the risk of spread of invasive species 

compared to ground based logging systems.*

Silviculture & 16. Consult the Invasive Alien Plant Program (IAPP) Application database to determine locations of 

Reconnaissance high-risk infestations.

Surveys 17. Incorporate IAPP spatial data into planning maps (www.nric.ca/).

18. Incorporate detection surveys into existing survey procedures.

19. When you encounter an invasive plant: record the species, date of observation, location 

(UTM coordinates), and estimated area of infestation (ha or m2). IAPP field cards are available for 

use. Provide this information to the regional invasive plant committee coordinator or MFR invasive 

plant specialist, or enter the data independently.

Road Building 20. Inspect gravel pits and material sources for invasive plants, and remove invasive plant seeds and 

& Maintenance materials prior to use.

21. Where possible, begin work in un-infested areas and move toward infested areas.

22. Promptly re-vegetate disturbed areas along roadsides, landings, and cleaned culverts.

23. All machinery and equipment capable of carrying invasive plant propagules should be cleaned prior to 

moving on and off site.

24. Grade roads in directions that do not encourage spread of seeds away from known, priority invasive 

plant sites.

Harvesting & 25. Re-vegetate all harvested openings by re-establishing an appropriate stand of trees following the 

Site Preparation stocking standards prescribed in the Forest Stewardship Plan.

26. Minimize disturbance and the duration of time the site is left un-vegetated. Consider seeding if there 

is a delay in re-vegetation.

27. All machinery and equipment capable of carrying invasive plant propagules should be cleaned prior to 

moving on and off site.

*T.I.P.S. 12-15 were added by the authors.
Costs and Responsibilities

The costs involved in taking the necessary precautions 

to minimize the spread or invasion of invasive plants 

can be substantial and in some cases prohibitive. 

Additionally, there is the issue of who should pay 

such costs. Ideally, the costs of mitigation should 

be subtracted from the gross value of the timber 

being harvested just like all the other harvesting, 

transportation expenses, and other BMP costs 

considered in determining stumpage values. In this 

case, the landowner bears the costs. In other scenarios, 

the federal government, states, tribes, or other 

organizations could bear or share the costs involved. 

In some cases, the government may bear the cost in 

the form of a subsidy payment to the landowner to 

reimburse any net loss of profit to the landowner or 

parties involved. In this section, we use data from 

LeDoux (2006), LeDoux and Whitman (2006), 

and LeDoux and Wilkerson (2006) to illustrate the 

potential opportunity costs involved and how they 

might be handled during the stumpage appraisal 

process. The net profit loss can also be used to 

define the level of subsidy required to reimburse the 

landowner. In extreme cases where invasives would 

take over the entire site and displace the existing 

or potential new stand, it can be argued that the 

opportunity costs are those represented by the future 

value of the timber on those sites if invasives had not 

been allowed to take over. If we use opportunity cost 

data for example stands from the above references, 

the total dollar value loss per acre could range from 

$2,043 to $3,050 per acre for a yellow-poplar stand or 

a mixed hardwood stand, respectively. 

It may cost from $100 to $1,200 per job to clean 

harvesting machines with pressure equipment before 

moving from site to site. The equipment needs to be 

cleaned only if the site it operated in was infected; if 

the site was not infected, a thorough pressure cleaning 

is not needed. Cleaning costs involved in mitigating 

the spread of invasives need to be prorated subject to 

the volume and acreage being harvested. For example, 

pressure cleaning costs in the range of $100 to $200 

per job results in per cord costs of about $0.11 to $0.23 

on a 40-acre tract when volume removals average 

about 2,000 cubic feet per acre. The net prorated cost 

per unit produced can vary widely depending on the 

acreage and volume per acre being harvested. The 

values in Table 3 can be used to illustrate the impact of 

alternative cleaning costs, volume removals per acre, 

and acreage harvested on costs per unit produced. For 

example, low to medium costs per job in the range 

of $200 to $300 can result in cost per unit produced 

of $0.03 to $0.31 per cord when the acres harvested 

range from 40 to 100 with volume removals of 2,200 

to 6,600 cubic feet per acre, respectively. By contrast, 

medium cost per job of $300 may result in cost per 

unit produced of $2.45/cord when the acres harvested 

are 5 with volume removals of 2,200 cubic feet per 

acre. High cost per job of $1,200 can result in cost 

per unit that ranges from $36.00 to $1.80 per cord 

when the acres harvested are 5 and 100 with volume 

removals of 600 cubic feet per acre. High cost per job 

of $1,200 can result in unit cost of $0.16/cord when 

the acreage is 100 and the volume removed 

per acre is 6,600 cubic feet per acre. Clearly, 

the prorated cost per unit produced can vary widely 

Table 3.—Low, medium, and high job cost, volume removal, and acreage impacts on $/cord produced

Volume Removed

$/job (ft3/acre) Acres $/ft3 $/cord

Low 200.00 6,600 100 0.0003 0.03

Medium 300.00 2,200 40 0.0034 0.31

Medium 300.00 2,200 5 0.0273 2.45

High 1,200.00 6,600 100 0.0018 0.16

High 1,200.00 600 100 0.0200 1.80

High 1,200.00 600 5 0.4000 36.00
depending on the size of the tract being harvested and 

the total volume being extracted. These costs would 

ideally be considered while determining the stumpage 

value or bidding price for a potential job along with 

all other costs of owning and operating harvesting 

equipment. Most loggers embed all such costs in their 

bid prices. It is not unusual for timber buyers to define 

tract size desired in their advertising searches for 

available timber that might be for sale. For example, 

an advertisement may read as follows: (WANTED 

TO BUY, Standing Timber, Pine and Hardwood, 

25 acres+, phone number). The arrows in Figures 2 to 

6 point to areas on machines that accumulate soil and 

other debris and that need to be cleaned. Major areas 

are tires, wheels, tracks, rollers, track shoes, radiator 

grids/screens, blades, grapple and articulating unions, 

trailers, knuckles, cutting head pivot points, and 

sprockets, along with the steps into and out of the cab. 

This is not an exhaustive list but shows the areas that 

are most likely to come in contact with the ground and 

most likely to accumulate debris.

Figure 2.—Skidder transporting a load of logs, photo courtesy of Tigercat. Arrows point to areas on machine that accumulate 

soil and other debris and that need to be cleaned.
Figure 3.—Crawler 

dozer, photo courtesy of 

Komatsu. Arrows point 

to areas on machine 

that accumulate soil and 

other debris and that 

need to be cleaned.

Figure 4.—Forwarder transporting a load of logs, photo courtesy of Tigercat. Arrows point to areas on machine that 

accumulate soil and other debris and that need to be cleaned.
Figure 5.—Log truck, 

photo courtesy of 

Forestry Equipment 

Sales in Minnesota. 

Arrows point to areas 

on machine that 

accumulate soil and 

other debris and that 

need to be cleaned.

Figure 6.—Cut-to-length processor, photo courtesy of Tigercat. Arrows point to areas on machine that accumulate soil and 

other debris and that need to be cleaned.
Considerations for Managers

The voluntary BMPs in this document are general 

and state of the art. They are grounded in scientific 

principles but may not be substantiated in rigorous 

studies in the literature. As such, they should be 

viewed and used as a starting place for developing 

more rigorous BMPs for invasive species mitigation. 

However, a logger would be prudent to follow 

these guidelines and share this information with 

the landowner to further mitigate any actions taken 

against the logger by the landowner to account for any 

introduction or spread of invasive plants or conditions 

that are created by the logging operation. The logger 

would be wise to survey, document, and inform 

the landowner of any invasive plant infestations or 

communities of invasive plants within the proposed 

harvest tract before any harvesting operations. The 

logger would also be wise to follow these voluntary 

BMPs, document their activities, and disclose them 

to the landowner. This approach would inform the 

landowner, establish a record of prior conditions, and 

serve as a record of the precautions the logger took to 

practice in a reasonable manner to not aggravate the 

situation.

The T.I.P.S. shown in Table 2 are categorized by 

operation as general, silvicultural and reconnaissance 

surveys, road building and maintenance, and 

harvesting and site preparation. Some of the proposed 

BMPs for invasive plant mitigation in this document 

are borrowed from Table 2 and from Anonymous 

(2002). We arranged the BMPs in a decisionmaking 

flow diagram that follows processes in the order they 

would actually be performed on the job. 

By necessity, the removal of trees during a harvest 

is generally based on some silvicultural prescription. 

Although scheduled openings in the forest canopy 

are desirable to accomplish objectives such as freeing 

up or establishing regeneration, accelerating residual 

tree growth, and creating succession habitat for select 

species of wildlife, they also create an opportunity 

for invasive plants to get established. The removal of 

trees during a harvest creates conditions where more 

sunlight is reaching the forest floor, creating conditions 

favorable for invaders to get established or spread. 

A major void exists in the scientific literature on the 

optimal residual tree spacing required to mitigate 

the challenge of the additional sunlight reaching the 

forest floor. Silviculture guidelines are needed that 

accomplish the above objectives yet mitigate the 

establishment of invasive plants. Although we do not 

propose BMPs to mitigate additional sunlight reaching 

the forest floor, we believe that the cumulative effect 

of following these BMPs would to some degree 

mitigate the challenge of invasives getting started and/

or spreading during timber harvesting operations. 

Periodic Maintenance 

and Invasive Species Mitigation

Daily maintenance on equipment, cleaning mud 

off tracks, wheels, etc. according to the equipment 

manufacturers’ recommendations goes a long way 

toward mitigating the spread of invasives within a 

tract. Fifteen to twenty minutes of daily or every 

other day maintenance can accomplish this. This 

additional periodic maintenance will pay dividends in 

productivity in having machines that are operating and 

not breaking down, offsetting any costs of cleaning the 

equipment. Scheduled maintenance cleanings result 

in higher productivity that offsets any cleaning costs. 

These are not full blown pressure cleanings such as 

those required when moving from one infected site to 

another. A three-person crew with a loader, skidder, 

dozer, and some chainsaws will take 15 to 20 minutes 

to accomplish this cleaning such as at the end of the 

shift. It is not recommended or desirable to clean after 

each hitch or load. Religious cleaning of equipment 

results in optimal maintenance as recommended 

by factory representatives or users manuals. Fewer 

breakdowns due to cleaning offset cleaning costs due 

to increased productivity. This approach concentrates 

seeds, propagules, plant parts, etc. at the landing where 

they can be more easily treated or otherwise disposed 

of. The crew is already on the job so there is really no 

additional cost here.
10

In this report we propose voluntary BMPs that can 

be used to mitigate the introduction and spread of 

invasive plants during timber harvesting operations. 

We illustrate the impact of harvest tract attributes on 

the cost per unit produced on a given operation. We 

address who should be responsible for the costs and 

we argue that the costs should be subtracted from 

the value of the timber along with all other costs 

involved. Preharvest and postharvest surveys should 

be the responsibility of the landowner. It may not be 

necessary to use all of the BMPs all of the time. For 

example, for a given tract that is free of invasives 

except for an area in a bottom where a landing is 

to be located, it may be necessary only to pretreat 

the landing area before any operations. Although 

we propose voluntary BMPs and address cost and 

responsibility issues, we do not provide all the answers 

needed to totally mitigate the introduction and spread 

of invasive plants during timber harvesting operations. 

Clearly, more work needs to be done and additional 

guidelines must be developed and implemented.

LITERATURE CITED

Allison, R.B.; Scriver, B.; Witthun, O. 2009. 

Wisconsin’s Urban Forestry Best Management 

Practices for preventing the introduction and 

spread of invasive species. http://www.waa-isa.

org/pdf/NovDec2009/NovDec09-WUF%20BMPs.

pdf. (Accessed January 4, 2011). 

Anonymous. 2002. Best Management Practices for 

noxious weed prevention and management 

Port-Orford-cedar root disease prevention and 

management of sudden oak death prevention 

and management. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/

invasiveplant-eis/site-specific/Forest-BMPs/

ror-sis-bmps-2002-final.pdf. (Accessed July 1, 

2011).

Anonymous. 2006. Best Management Practices to 

prevent and manage invasive plants. http://

www.fs.fed.us/r6/invasiveplant-eis/site-specific/

Forest-BMPs/siu-bmp-weeds_0306.pdf. 

(Accessed February 18, 2011).

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. 2005. 

Best Management Practices in support of 

fish and wildlife habitat. http://aquatics.

org/management%20practices/documents/ 

aquaticplantmanagement.pdf. (Accessed 

November 15, 2010). 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Foundation. 

2009. Biology and control of aquatic plants: 

a best management practices handbook.

Gettys, L.A.; Haller, W.T.; Bellaud, M., eds. 

http://www.aquatics.org/aerf_handbook.pdf. 

(Accessed January 16, 2011). 

Betlejewski, F.; Casavan, K.C.; Dawson, A.; Goheen, 

D.J.; Mastrofini, K.; Rose, D.L.; White, D.E., eds. 

2003. A range-wide assessment of Port-Orfordcedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana) on federal 

lands. Oregon: USDA-FS and USDI-BLM. 182 p. 

Boos, T. 2009. Best Management Practices for 

invasive species. http://ipaw.org/symposium/

conf2009/BMPs.pdf. (Accessed March 23, 2011).

Campbell, I. 2008. Weed control on highways in 

the Calgary area. Proceedings, 2008 annual 

conference of the Transportation Association 

of Canada, Toronto, Ontario. 14 p. http://www.

tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/

conference/conf2008/docs/a3/campbell.pdf. 

(Accessed November 14, 2010).

Dix, M.E.; Britton, K. 2010. A dynamic invasive 

species research vision: opportunities and 

priorities 2009-29. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-79/83. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Research and Development. 130 p.

Gagnon, J.L. 2009. A guide for Virginia forest 

landowners. Pub. 420-139. http://pubs.ext.

vt.edu/420/420-139/420-139_pdf.pdf. 

(Accessed February 8, 2011).
11

Goheen, D.J.; Marshall, K.; Hansen, E.M.; 

Betlejewski, F. 2000. Effectiveness of vehicle 

washing in decreasing Phytophthora lateralis

inoculum: a case study. SWOFIDSC-00-

2. Central Point, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. Southwest Oregon 

Insect and Disease Service Center. 7 p. 

Hamilton County Soil and Water Conservation 

District. [n.d.]. Suggested control methods 

for terrestrial invasive plants. http://www.

hamiltoncountyswcd.com/InvasiveSpecies/

2008%20Control%20terrestrials.pdf. 

(Accessed November 14, 2010).

Invasive Plant Council of BC. 2007. T.I.P.S. 

Targeted Invasive Plant Solutions. Forestry 

Operations. http://www.bcinvasiveplants.com/

iscbc/publications/TIPS/ForestryOperTIPS.pdf. 

(Accessed June 20, 2008).

Iowa Department of Natural Resources. [n.d.]. 

Iowa’s Forestry Best Management Practices.

http://www.iowadnr.gov/portals/idnr/uploads/

forestry/iowabestmanagementpractices.pdf. 

(Accessed February 2, 2011).

Kearns, K.; Chapin, C. 2008. Best management 

practices for preventing the spread of invasive 

species. In: Midwest Invasive Plant Network 

symposium; 2008 December 10-11; Indianapolis, 

IN. 

Lake County Stormwater Commission. 2004. A 

citizen’s guide to maintaining stormwater 

Best Management Practices for homeowners 

associations and property owners. http://www.

lakecountyil.gov/Stormwater/Publications/BMPs/

Citizens%20Guide%20to%20Maintaining%20Sto

rmwater%20Best%20Management%20Practices.

pdf. (Accessed March 23, 2011).

LeDoux, C.B. 2006. Assessing the opportunity cost 

of implementing streamside management zone 

guidelines in eastern hardwood forests. Forest 

Products Journal. 56(6): 40-44.

LeDoux, C.B. 2011. Harvesting systems for the 

northern forest hardwoods. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

NRS-91. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station. 65 p.

LeDoux, C.B.; Whitman, A. 2006. Estimating the 

capital recovery costs of alternative patch 

retention treatments in eastern hardwoods.

International Journal of Forest Engineering. 

17(1): 21-30.

LeDoux, C.B.; Wilkerson, E. 2006. A case study 

assessing opportunity costs and ecological 

benefits of streamside management zones 

and logging systems for eastern hardwood 

forests. Res. Pap. NRS-1. Newtown Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Northern Research Station. 16 p.

Marshall, K.; Goheen, D.J. 2000. Preliminary 

results of effectiveness monitoring of PortOrford-cedar roadside sanitation treatments in 

southwest Oregon. In: Hansen, E.M.; Sutton, W., 

eds. Proceedings, first international meeting on 

Phytophthoras in forest and wildland ecosystems. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Forest 

Research Laboratory: 125-126.

New Hampshire Department of Transportation. 2010. 

http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/

environment/units/technicalservices/documents/

FactSheet1-Mowing.pdf. (Accessed February 2, 

2011).

SASK Forage Council. 2010. Forage seed: BMPs for 

invasive plant species. http://www.saskforage.

ca/Coy%20Folder/Projects/Invasives/Resources/

Forage_Seed_Factsheet_Online.pdf. (Accessed 

February 10, 2011).

Smallidge, P.; Goff, G. 1998. FORESTRY Best 

Management Practices. http://www2.dnr.cornell.

edu/ext/info/pubs/management/BMPs.htm. 

(Accessed February 14, 2011).
12

Smith, T.; Lopes, P., comps. 2009. Massachusetts 

nursery industry Best Management Practices.

http://extension.umass.edu/floriculture/fact-sheets/

best-management-practices-bmps-nursery-crops. 

(Accessed February 23, 2011).

Stringer, J.W.; Lowe, L.; Smidt, M.; Perkins, C. [n.d.]. 

Field guide to Best Management Practices 

for timber harvesting in Kentucky. FOR-69. 

http://forestry.ky.gov/ForestryPublications/

Forestry%20Publications/Field%20Guide%20to%

20Best%20Management%20Practices%20for%2

0Timber%20Harvesting%20in%20Kentucky.pdf. 

(Accessed January 13, 2010).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. [n.d.]. 

National menu of stormwater Best Management 

Practices. http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/

menuofbmps. (Accessed February 23, 2011).

Wisconsin Council on Forestry. 2009. Wisconsin’s 

Forestry Best Management Practices 

for invasive species. A field manual for 

foresters, landowners, and loggers. http://

council.wisconsinforestry.org/invasives/pdf/

FinalForestryBMPManual_03-26-09.pdf. 

(Accessed February 10, 2011).
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, 

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who 

require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, 

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 

(TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper

LeDoux, Chris B.; Martin, Danielle K. 2013. Proposed BMPs for Invasive Plant 

Mitigation during Timber Harvesting Operations. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-118. 

Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern 

Research Station. 12 p.

The invasion and spread of invasive plants is a major problem in forested 

ecosystems. Invasive plants can displace existing vegetation and in some 

cases take over the site. With the displacement of native vegetation come major 

ecosystem changes that may jeopardize ecological processes and functions as well 

as habitat for wildlife. The disturbance caused during timber harvesting processes 

creates conditions that encourage the establishment and spread of invasive plants. 

The machinery and traffic movement within a job site may introduce and spread 

seeds, roots, and plant parts from one job site to another. In this report, we address 

the timber harvesting processes and the disturbance that is created; explain 

how seeds, roots, and other parts of invasive plants can be spread; address the 

opportunity costs involved and those responsible; and propose voluntary BMPs for 

invasive plant mitigation during timber harvesting operations.

KEY WORDS: timber harvesting processes, BMPs, invasive plants, 

 ecological functions, wildlife habitat, opportunity costs 
Northern Research Station

www.nrs.fs.fed.us