3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 408 

1 Chapter 4. Forestry 

4.

2 Contents 

3 1. Nonpoint Source Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay: ForestsForestry in Perspective......... 409 

4 2. Forestry Practices for Water Quality Protection................................................................... 413 

5 2.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................413 

6 2.2 Preharvest Planning ......................................................................................................416 

7 2.3 Streamside Management Areas (SMAs).......................................................................422 

8 2.4 Forest Road Construction/Reconstruction and Forest Road Management...................430 

9 2.5 Timber Harvesting ........................................................................................................436 

10 2.6 Site Preparation.............................................................................................................438 

11 2.7 Fire Management ..........................................................................................................440 

12 2.8 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas ..................................................................................442 

13 2.9 Forest Chemical Management ......................................................................................443 

14 2.10 Wetlands Forest Management.......................................................................................443 

15 3 References............................................................................................................................. 444 

16 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 409 

1 1. Nonpoint Source Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay: 

2 ForestsForestry in Perspective 

3 The Chesapeake Bay Program has published a report on the health of the Chesapeake Bay almost 

4 annually since 1999 (CBP 2009). In that report the program provides information on the primary 

5 sources of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and sediment—the pollutants of most concern in the 

6 Chesapeake Bay. The list of largest contributors of nutrients to the bayBay in the annual reports 

7 invariably has included agriculture, atmospheric deposition, wastewater, and urban/suburban 

8 lands. The 2007 report also includes septic systems as a primary contributor. 

9 Because forestry operations are on a significantly smaller scale in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

10 as compared to some other areas of the United States, effects from forestry are modest. Of the 

11 states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, only Virginia notes silviculture as a source contributing 

12 to water quality impairment. Virginia lists silviculture as a probable source of impairment for 

13 14.8 miles of rivers and streams, or 0.069 percent of the total river and stream miles reported) 

14 (USEPA 2008). Silviculture was not listed as a source of impairment to any other waterbody 

15 types. 

16 Although forest harvesting and other silvicultural activities are generally not identified in state 

17 reports as having a significant adverse effect on the Chesapeake Bay, such activities can and do 

18 play an important role in helping to protect water quality in the bay.Bay. Some excerpts from the 

19 reports about the importance of forests in the Chesapeake Bay are provided below. 

20 • Forests protect and filter drinking water for 75 percent of the bayBay watershed’s 

21 residents and provide valuable ecological services and economic benefits including 

22 carbon sequestration, flood control, wildlife habitat and forest products. Retaining and 

23 expanding forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is critical to our success in restoring 

24 the Chesapeake Bay. Forests are the most beneficial land use for protecting water quality, 

25 due to their ability to capture, filter and retain water, as well as absorb pollution from the 

26 air (CBP 2008). 

27 • In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maintained forest buffers naturally absorb 

28 nutrients and sediments, thus improving water quality in neighboring streams. Riparian 

29 forest buffers also provide a source of large, woody material input to streams that helps 

30 form and maintain important fish habitat and provide for channel stability (CBP 2008). 

31 • Scientific findings clearly show that well-managed forests are the most beneficial land 

32 use for clean water. Experts agree that healthy forests are directly linked to the health of 

33 rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and, ultimately, the bay.Bay. Large areas of 

34 healthy forest and streamside forests are essential to keeping nutrient and sediment 

35 pollution out of the rivers and bayBay (CBP 1999). 

36 A relatively new EPA initiative—the Healthy Watersheds Initiative—focuses on restoring 

37 impaired waters, and it augments the Agency’s well-established watershed approach with 

38 proactive, holistic, aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection. EPA recognizes the numerous 

39 benefits that healthy watersheds provide. For instance, forested watersheds protect aquifer 

40 recharge zones and surface water sources and reduce water treatment costs: For every 10 percent 

41 increase in forest cover in an aquifer’s source area, chemical and treatment costs decrease by 20 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 410 

1 percent. Healthy watersheds also provide benefits like resistance to invasive species; habitat for 

2 fish, amphibians, birds, and insects; recreational opportunities such as fishing, water-based 

3 recreation, and tourism; and vast carbon storage capabilities. Healthy watersheds are also less 

4 vulnerable to floods, fires, and other natural disasters, which reduces costs to communities. 

5 The Healthy Watersheds Initiative includes both assessment and management approaches that 

6 encourage states, local governments, watershed organizations, and others to take a strategic, 

7 systems approach to conserve healthy components of watersheds. The initiative combines 

8 understanding of the biological, chemical, and physical condition of waterbodies with watershed 

9 functional attributes, such as hydroecology, geomorphology, and natural disturbance patterns 

10 and, thus, helps us manage watersheds as integrated systems that can be understood through the 

11 dynamics of essential ecological attributes. 

12 Forested watersheds are well recognized to provide water quality benefits. The economic value 

13 of forested watersheds are difficult to assess, however. Forest cover intercepts rainfall, protecting 

14 soils from erosion; the roots of trees and forest litter covering a forest floor prevent soil erosion; 

15 trees absorb water, delaying the input of stormwater runoff to streams; and forest vegetation 

16 absorbs nutrients that could otherwise be lost to surface waters through surface runoff and 

17 groundwater. All these water quality services provided by forests are valuable to society, but 

18 their dollar value varies by the location of the forest (e.g., Is it in a watershed that provides 

19 municipal drinking water?), species and sizes of trees, condition of the forest, climate, rainfall 

20 characteristics, and soil characteristics (e.g., erodibility, nutrient content) (CWP no date). The 

21 water quality protection service of an acre of forest, therefore, cannot be assigned a single dollar 

22 value. Studies have been done to try to estimate the value of forest conservation (Table 4-1), 

23 resulting in a range of $25 million to $6 billion of capital costs that have been avoided through 

24 watershed protection.

25 Table 4-1. Avoided costs of constructing filtration plants through watershed protection

Metropolitan area Avoided costs

New York City, NY $1.5 billion spent on watershed protection over 10 years to avoid at least $6 

billion in capital costs and $300 million in annual operating costs

Boston, MA $180 million (gross) avoided cost

Seattle, WA $150-200 million (gross) avoided cost

Portland, OR $920,000 spent annually to protect watershed in avoiding a $200 million capital 

cost

Portland, ME $729,000 spent annually to protect watershed has avoided $25 million in capital 

costs and $725,000 in operating costs

Syracuse, NY $10 million watershed plan is avoiding $45-60 million in capital costs

Auburn, ME $570,000 spent to acquire watershed land is avoiding $30 million capital cost and 

$750,000 in annual operating costs

Source: CWP No date

26 Forests, especially well-managed forests, are a key element in any state, local, or federal water 

27 quality protection program. Forests and forested land, whether in a rural setting, along streams 

28 on agricultural land, intermixed with other land uses in suburban settings, or in urban locations, 

29 are natural filters for stormwater runoff and one of the least expensive and most effective means 

30 of protecting water quality. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 411 

1 One strategy that states use to achieve well-managed forests is training programs for licensed 

2 loggers. Such logger training programs are run by state departments of forestry, universities, or 

3 nonprofit forestry groups operating, and they are critical to the effective use of BMPs on harvest 

4 sites. The New York Logger Training is a cooperative effort of timber harvesters, forest industry, 

5 government, educators, and foresters working together to deliver resources that will allow 

6 loggers to learn environmentally sound practices and improved skills (NYLT 2010). The 

7 Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program in Pennsylvania has developed a comprehensive training 

8 program for loggers. A variety of courses cover topics from basic compliance with local, state 

9 and federal laws, to in-depth discourses on business management, wildlife, forest management 

10 and ecology, BMPs for erosion control, and others (Loggertraining 2010). In West Virginia, the 

11 West Virginia Division of Forestry provides workshops on best management practices (BMPs)

12 for practicing loggers (WVDOF 2010). The logger training program in Virginia is referred to as 

13 the SHARP (Sustainable Harvesting And Resource Professional). To achieve SHARP Logger 

14 standing, participants must complete a core program of 18 hours of classroom and field training 

15 (Virginia Tech 2010). Of those 18 hours, 6 hours cover sustainable forestry, and 6 hours are 

16 devoted to BMPs. The Sustainable Forestry session combines classroom sessions with field 

17 exercises. Participants review the principles of sustainable forestry and then tour a forest site to 

18 observe examples of forest ecology and silviculture. The Harvest Planning and Best 

19 Management Practices session includes visiting a forested site, discussion of how to use 

20 topographic maps and training on the essential elements for an environmentally sound harvest 

21 plan.

22 Another important development in forest management is the increasing acceptance and use of 

23 sustainable forest management techniques through third-party forest certification programs. One 

24 of the principles of sustainable forestry is to protect waterbodies and riparian zones and to 

25 conform to BMPs to protect water quality (SFI 2010). Further information on forest product 

26 certification is provided below under Preharvest Planning.

27 [Note: EPA and the USFS are working together to incorporate information on conservation and 

28 stewardship planning in a later version of this draft.]

29 As described fully in the Riparian chapter of this document, forested riparian buffers can provide 

30 some measure of flow regulation under certain watershed conditions. A primary way in which 

31 buffers reduce flow velocity is by creating physical barriers that slow down the flow and allow 

32 infiltrationabsorption of water into soil. They also maintain streamside soils in a condition to 

33 absorb water by virtue of their extensive root systems and organic litter production that provide 

34 the soil structure necessary for a large quantity of infiltration.absorption. Rainfall and runoff 

35 intensity, soil characteristics, hydrologic regime, and slope of the buffer and runoff source area 

36 are once again some of the factors that determine a forested riparian buffer’s ability to regulate 

37 stream flow. A narrow forested buffer on a steep, non-vegetated slope has little ability to regulate 

38 flow, whereas a wide forested buffer on a gentle, vegetated slope could help reduce peak flow 

39 levels and provide for dry season flow. 

40 Leaders of the Chesapeake Bay Program clearly recognize the importance of forests and forested 

41 riparian areas to the bay’sBay’s health. At its annual meeting in December 2007, the Chesapeake 

42 Executive Council signed the Forestry Conservation Initiative, committing the bay Bay states to 

43 permanently conserving an additional 695,000 acres of forested land throughout the watershed 

44 by 2020 (CBP 2008). An original goal of 2,010 miles of forest buffer restoration by 2010 was 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 412 

1 achieved ahead of time, and a new goal to restore forests along at least 70 percent of streams and 

2 shorelines in the bay Bay watershed was set in 2003. The bay Bay was to have at least 10,000 

3 shoreline miles forested by 2010 (CBP 2009). The progress to date is 6,858 miles (2009).

4 Research in N saturation shows that young forests capture N from atmospheric inputs. Old 

5 forests generally do not leak N unless there is a large input source of N, such as from 

6 atmospheric pollutants (Kyker-Snowman no date). The retention of atmospheric N in forested 

7 watersheds is directly influenced by species composition and many factors that can change that 

8 composition, e.g., natural succession, climate change, forest management practices, forest pest 

9 infestations (Lovett et al. 2002). Undisturbed and properly managed forested ecosystems have 

10 considerable capacity to retain and efficiently cycle reactive N and prevent it from entering 

11 waterways. If, however, a forested system experiences a disturbance—such as widespread 

12 removal of vegetation—its ability to retain N is diminished. Implementing sound forest 

13 management practices can minimize such effects (SUNY 2010).

14 Deforestation is the long-term conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term reduction 

15 of the tree canopy cover below a 10 percent threshold. Chesapeake Bay Program land analyst 

16 scientists have a very good idea where deforestation is going to occur in the coming years in the 

17 bay watershed. Forests that are vulnerable to development and that without action would be 

18 expected to be developed are critical to protecting the bay watershed. Preventing the loss of those 

19 forests is referred to as avoided deforestation, and it has been used as a measure of credit for bay 

20 protection for more than 10 years.

21 The nutrient reduction efficiency of avoided deforestation can be considerable because of the 

22 difference in nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Bay between a natural forest versus typical 

23 development. Bay scientists ran a model to compare N contributions to the bay if all high-value, 

24 vulnerable forests that would be protected were lost versus their remaining protected, and the 

25 difference was 3.1 million pounds of N prevented from flowing into the bay if the forests were 

26 all protected.

27 Rather than focusing on silviculture as a source contributing significantly to the bay’sBay’s

28 water quality impairment, the focus on silviculture in the bayBay is on preserving forests, 

29 maintaining forested shorelines and streamstream banks, and restoring forests near bayBay

30 waters where they have been removed. 

31 The lessons from these reports and the message to be gained from this guidance are 

32 • Forests and forested buffers are extremely important to maintaining and improving water 

33 quality in the Chesapeake Bay. 

34 • Maintaining well-managed, protective forested riparian buffers in a condition that 

35 conserves or enhances their ability to trap pollutants; protect the water quality of the 

36 bayBay; and provide high-quality, in-water habitat for aquatic species is vitally 

37 important. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 413 

1 2. Forestry Practices for Water Quality Protection 

2 2.1 Introduction 

3 The effects of forestry activities on surface waters are of concern to EPA, state, and local 

4 authorities because healthy, clean waters are important for aquatic life, drinking water, and 

5 recreational use. Surface waters and their ecology can be affected by inputs of sediment, 

6 nutrients, and chemicals, and by alterations to stream flow that can result from forestry activities. 

7 The purpose of implementing measures and best management practices (BMPs) to protect 

8 surface waters during and after forestry activities is to protect important ecological conditions 

9 and characteristics of the surface waters in areas with roads and logged, forested areas. Such 

10 conditions vary with waterbody type, but, in general, the ecological conditions that 

11 implementation measures and BMPs are intended to protect include the following: 

12 • General water quality, by minimizing inputs of polluted runoff 

13 • Water temperature, by ensuring an adequate (but not excessive) and appropriate amount 

14 of shade along shorelines and streambanks 

15 • Nutrient balance, by providing for an adequate influx of carbon and nutrients that serve 

16 as the basis of aquatic food chains 

17 • Habitat diversity, by ensuring that inputs of large organic debris to the aquatic system are 

18 appropriate for the system 

19 • Hydrologic processes, by limiting disturbances to stream flow patterns, both seasonal and 

20 annual 

21 In a forested watershed, logging has the effect of both compacting and loosening soils from 

22 constructing and using roads, using heavy machinery, dragging logs over the ground or 

23 otherwise transporting them to yarding areas, and removing vegetation. Roads and road ditches, 

24 ruts on the ground, and areas cleared of leaf litter or other soil coverings create opportunities for 

25 water channeling and flow diversion, which, if not properly controlled and directed, can generate 

26 erosive flows. Thus, the disturbances caused by logging in a forested watershed can lead to 

27 hydrologic changes in the same watershed, which can, in turn, lead to nonpoint source pollution. 

28 Forestry activities and their potential effects on forest hydrology and water quality (through 

29 nonpoint source pollution) are discussed below. 

30 The potential for sediment delivery to streams is a long-term (beyond 2 years) concern from 

31 almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads regardless of their level of use or 

32 age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other pollutants of significance—including nutrients, increased 

33 temperature, toxic chemicals and metals, organic matter, pathogens, herbicides, and pesticides—

34 are also of concern. Problems associated with those pollutants (in the context of forestry 

35 activities) generally do not extend beyond 2 years from the time of harvest or are associated with 

36 a specific activity, such as an herbicide application. Temperature effects might generally extend 

37 beyond 2 years because of the time necessary for regrowth to occur in harvested streamside 

38 management areas (SMAs). 

39 Nevertheless, all these pollutants have the potential to affect water quality and aquatic habitat 

40 and minimizing their delivery to surface waters, and groundwater deserves serious consideration 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 414 

1 before and during forestry activities. Forest harvesting can also affect the hydrology of a 

2 watershed, and hydrologic alterations within a watershed have the potential to degrade water 

3 quality. Forestry activities can also affect the habitats of aquatic species through physical 

4 disturbances caused by constructing stream crossings, using equipment in stream corridors, and 

5 placing in streams slash or other debris generated by forestry activities. The effects of sediment 

6 and other pollutants on water quality in forested areas are discussed below. 

7 Sediment 

8 Sediment deposited in surface waters is addressed in this document because of its potential to 

9 affect in-stream conditions and aquatic communities. Sediment is the pollutant most associated 

10 with forestry activities. Soil is lost from the forest floor by surface erosion or mass wasting (for 

11 example, landslides). 

12 Surface erosion generally contributes minor quantities of sediment to streams in undisturbed 

13 forests, and the quantity of surface erosion depends on factors mentioned earlier, such as soil 

14 type, topography, and amount of vegetative cover (Spence et al. 1996). 

15 Rill erosion and channelized flow occur where rainwater and snowmelt are concentrated by 

16 landforms, including berms on roads and roadside ditches. They cause erosion most severely 

17 where water is permitted to travel a long distance without interruption over steep slopes because 

18 the combination of distance and slope tends to increase the volume and velocity of runoff. Sheet 

19 erosion, or overland flow, occurs occasionally on exposed soils where the conditions necessary 

20 for it exist—including saturated soil or a rainfall intensity that is greater than the ability of soil to 

21 absorb the water—but it is not common on forest soils. 

22 Nutrients 

23 Nutrients, such as Nnitrogen and Pphosphorus from fertilizers, soil, and plant material, are 

24 primary chemical water quality constituents. They can enter waterbodies attached to sediments, 

25 dissolved in the water, or transported by air. Forest harvesting can increase nutrient leaching 

26 from the soil, although the effect generally subsides to near precutting levels within 2 years of a 

27 harvest. Low to moderate increases in nutrient levels could have no or a beneficial effect on an 

28 aquatic environment, but excessive amounts of nutrients can stimulate algal blooms or an 

29 overgrowth of other types of aquatic vegetation. That can, in turn, lead to an increase in the 

30 amount of decomposing plant material in an aquatic system and increased turbidity and 

31 biological oxygen demand. The latter effect can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations, with 

32 potentially detrimental effects to aquatic biota. Chapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical 

33 Management, discusses methods for minimizing the adverse effects of forestry activities on 

34 nutrient balances. 

35 Organic debris, discussed below, can be an important source of nutrients in an aquatic 

36 environment, and SMAs play an important role in organic debris inputs and maintaining nutrient 

37 balances in aquatic forest ecosystems. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 415 

1 Organic Debris 

2 Organic debris—primarily composed of leaves, twigs, branches, and fallen trees—is an 

3 important element of water quality because it provides nutrients and stream structure that are 

4 important to supporting aquatic life. The presence of organic matter in the form of woody, 

5 organic debris is one of the primary influences on the microbial denitrification process. It ranges 

6 in size from suspended organic matter in water to fallen trees. Large, woody debris, or LWD, can 

7 be whole trees or tree limbs that have fallen into streams. It creates the physical habitat diversity 

8 essential to support aquatic life. As a structural element, LWD influences the movement and 

9 storage of sediment and gravel in streams and stabilizes streambeds and banks. Small, organic 

10 litter—primarily leaves in deciduous forests and cones and needles in coniferous forests—is an 

11 important source of nutrients for aquatic communities. It usually decomposes over a year or 

12 more, depending on the forest type. 

13 When streamside vegetation is removed, inputs of organic debris decrease, and the amount of 

14 sunlight reaching the water increases. For a stream that might have relied primarily on sources of 

15 nutrients external to the stream (fallen debris), vegetation removal can force the stream to rely 

16 primarily on in-stream sources (such as algal growth and in-stream vegetation). The latter might 

17 not be present in high-order streams. 

18 Organic debris generated during forestry activities include residual logs, slash, litter, and soil 

19 organic matter. Such materials can perform some of the same positive functions as naturally 

20 occurring LWD and organic litter. If their abundance in a stream is substantially greater than 

21 normal, however, they can also block or redirect streamflow, alter nutrient balances, and 

22 decrease the concentration of dissolved oxygen as they decompose and consume oxygen. 

23 In 2005 EPA published National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Sources of 

24 Pollution from Forestry (USEPA 2005). Little has changed with respect to the commonly 

25 accepted best practices of protecting surface waters from inputs of sediment and nutrients during 

26 and after forestry activities since that guidance was published. The 2005 guidance was based on 

27 a comprehensive review of both the scientific literature and state forestry practices at the time, 

28 and a review of state forestry practices and the recent literature indicates that the information in 

29 the 2005 guidance is still as relevant today as it was when it was published. 

30 Recent research on forest harvesting has focused on better understanding how some BMPs work 

31 (and why they fail) and on methods that can be used to reduce the cost and effort involved in 

32 forest planning and harvesting. One of the greatest risks to water quality from forestry activities 

33 come from having unprotected streams. SMAs have proven to be an important component of 

34 water quality protection in forested areas, and recent research has focused on understanding the 

35 width requirements and vegetative and soil characteristics that give SMAs their water-quality 

36 protection abilities. 

37 The other major risk to water quality from forestry activities comes from sediment-laden runoff 

38 from areas disturbed by forestry activities, especially roads, landings, and skid trails. Not 

39 surprisingly, those have also been the focus of the bulk of the research over the past 5 years. 

40 Road building and timber removal are among the most costly aspects of forest harvesting, and 

41 much research has focused on reducing the costs of forest harvest planning, road building, and 

42 timber removal. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 416 

1 Below is a review of the implementation measures from EPA’s 2005 guidance, with new 

2 information added to some. Many of the implementation measures are not updated in this 

3 guidance because the 2005 guidance adequately identifies and discusses the best practices for 

4 protecting water quality from forestry activities. For those implementation measures that are 

5 updated, the relevant sections below provide a brief overview of the BMP-specific guidance 

6 provided in EPA’s forestry guidance, some recommendations suggested by the recent research 

7 that could help improve on the advice provided in the 2005 guidance, and a brief review of some 

8 recent research relating to the recommendations. 

9 2.2 Preharvest Planning 

Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest harvesting that includes the 

following elements where appropriate:

1. Identify the area to be harvested, including location of waterbodies and sensitive areas 

such as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high-erosionhazard areas (landslide-prone areas) within the harvest unit. Include topographic and soil 

maps with the harvest plan to help identify these features.

2. Clearly mark the sensitive areas with paint or flagging tape, or in another highly visible 

manner, before harvest or road construction.

3. Time the activity for the season or moisture conditions when the least effect occurs.

4. Consider potential water quality effects and erosion and sedimentation control in the 

selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems, especially for harvesting and site 

preparation.

5. Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying higherosion-hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable.

6. Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known existing water 

quality impairments or problems in watersheds of concern.

10 

Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the 

following elements where appropriate:

1. Locate and design road systems to minimize, to the extent practicable, potential sediment 

generation and delivery to surface waters. Key components are the following:

• Locate roads, landings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent practicable steep grades 

and steep hillslope areas, and to decrease the number of stream crossings

• Avoid to the extent practicable locating new roads and landings in SMAs

• Determine road usage and select the appropriate road standard
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 417 

2. Locate and design temporary and permanent stream crossings to prevent failure and 

control effects from the road system. Key components are the following:

• Size and site crossing structures to prevent failure

• For fish-bearing streams, design crossings to facilitate fish passage

3. Ensure that the design of road prism and the road surface drainage are appropriate to the 

terrain and that road surface design is consistent with the road drainage structures.

4. Identify and plan to use road surfacing materials suitable to the intended vehicle use for 

roads that are planned for all-weather use.

5. Design road systems to avoid high erosion or landslide hazard areas. Identify these areas 

and consult a qualified specialist for design of any roads that must be constructed through 

these areas.

1 

2 Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest harvesting that includes the 

3 following elements where appropriate: 

4 (1) Identify the area to be harvested including location of water bodies and sensitive areas such 

5 as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high-erosion-hazard areas 

6 (landslideprone areas) within the harvest unit. 

7 (2) Clearly mark these sensitive areas with paint or flagging tape, or in another highly visible 

8 manner, prior to harvest or road construction. 

9 (3) Time the activity for the season or moisture conditions when the least effect occurs. 

10 (4) Consider potential water quality effects and erosion and sedimentation control in the 

11 selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems, especially for harvesting and site preparation. 

12 (5) Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying high-erosion13 hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable. 

14 (6) Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known existing water 

15 quality impairments or problems in watersheds of concern. 

16 

17 Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the 

18 following elements where appropriate: 

19 (1) Locate and design road systems to minimize, to the extent practicable, potential sediment 

20 generation and delivery to surface waters. Key components are: 

21 • locate roads, landings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent practicable steep grades and 

22 steep hillslope areas, and to decrease the number of stream crossings; 

23 • avoid to the extent practicable locating new roads and landings in Streamside 

24 Management Areas (SMAs); and 

25 • determine road usage and select the appropriate road standard. 

26 (2) Locate and design temporary and permanent stream crossings to prevent failure and control 

27 effects from the road system. Key components are: 

28 • size and site crossing structures to prevent failure; 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 418 

1 • for fish-bearing streams, design crossings to facilitate fish passage. 

2 (3) Ensure that the design of road prism and the road surface drainage are appropriate to the 

3 terrain and that road surface design is consistent with the road drainage structures.

4 (4) Identify and plan to use road surfacing materials suitable to the intended vehicle use for roads 

5 that are planned for all-weather use. 

6 (5) Design road systems to avoid high erosion or landslide hazard areas. Identify these 

7 areas and consult a qualified specialist for design of any roads that must be constructed 

8 through these areas.

9 

10 The Preharvest Planning preharvest planning implementation measure is to ensure that all 

11 forestry activities are planned with water quality considerations in mind and conducted to 

12 minimize the delivery of nonpoint source pollutants to streams and other surface waters. Road 

13 system planning is an essential part of this implementation measure, and two basic tenets of road 

14 planning are to minimize the number of road miles constructed and to locate roads so as to 

15 minimize the risk of water quality effects. Those two tenets of road planning are excellent and 

16 important guidelines for forest road network planning. Although reducing costs is what has led to 

17 much recent research on how road planning can be improved, minimizing costs is also good for 

18 water quality because the fewer road miles and skid trails that are developed to harvest an area, 

19 the less the water quality will be affectedimpacts occur. 

20 Managing natural resources in wide-scale areas can be a time-intensive and resource-consuming 

21 task that requires a significant amount of data collection in the field and analysisreduction of the 

22 data in the office to provide the necessary information. Forest road design is a difficult task 

23 because it is hard to find a good or best road alignment from a large number of alternatives 

24 considering social, economic, and environmental effects. 

25 Forest roads have been identified as a major source of sediment delivered to streams and 

26 wetlands in forests. Soil sediment delivered to streams affects public resources such as water 

27 quality, aquatic and wildlife habitat, and riparian resources. Soil sediment causes problems when 

28 three components—source, resource, and delivery—are combined. Roads that are not eroded do 

29 not have the source. Roads that are far from streams do not have the resource. Roads that have 

30 adequate drainage structures to deliver the sediment onto stable forest floors do not have the 

31 delivery. 

32 Forest roads have an important role in managing forest resources. They need to be constructed in 

33 such a way that forestry workers and machines can gain access to operational sites and carry out 

34 operations safely and efficiently. On the other hand, forest roads are at risk of road surface 

35 erosion and are subject to cut-and-fill slope failures. Therefore, it is important that [whoever] 

36 design forest roads by considering cost efficiency and the appropriate management of water and 

37 soil. 

38 Best Management Practices 

39 1. Use a combination of geographic information system (GIS) data, Light Detection and 

40 Ranging (LiDAR) data, and one of the many computer optimization techniques modified 

41 for use in natural resources and forest harvest planning to determine road layouts, road 

42 and skid trail combinations, and landing locations that will minimize the amount of road 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 419 

1 construction or skid distance, or both, expose the least amount of forest soil, and minimize 

2 the risk of water quality degradation from harvesting. 

3 GIS data is widely available today for many areas of the country, and where it is not available, it 

4 is easy to collect quickly using handheld GIS devices. LiDAR is a remote sensing technique that 

5 is rapidly being incorporated as a common technique in natural resources planning. Computer 

6 optimization techniques that were once limited to determining how best to manage an airline 

7 fleet to minimize costs are being applied to every conceivable situation where a best solution is 

8 desired. Forest harvest planning, including road network layout and determining a best 

9 combination of roads and skid trails for an area is a field where computer optimization is being 

10 used with great success. 

11 Designing a road network and determining an ideal combination of roads and skid trails to 

12 minimize cost and maximize water quality protection is difficult because so many possible 

13 layouts exist. Computer optimization techniques permit forest planners to analyze many more 

14 possibilities than manual techniques and can arrive at an optimum solution using any desired set 

15 of weighed factors. 

16 Discussion 

17 The location and operation of forest machinery, and the design and construction of forest roads 

18 are important issues in forest planning and account for up to 55 percent of production costs 

19 (Epstein et al. 2006). A major challenge of any forestry operation is designing an operation that 

20 minimizes the costs of road construction, installing and operating harvest machinery, and 

21 transporting timber, while at the same time protecting the forest environment. Forest planners are 

22 increasingly using computerized approaches to forest planning to reduce costs, collect the 

23 information necessary to plan a harvest, find road and landing layouts that minimize forest 

24 disturbance, and determine how best to manage existing road networks. 

25 Aruga et al. (2005b) used two computer optimization techniques (the genetic algorithm and Tabu 

26 search) in combination with linear programming and compared the results obtained with the 

27 computer approaches to a manually designed forest road profile. They found that the profiles 

28 designed by computer cost less than the manually designed profile, that using such optimization 

29 techniques can permit forest road engineers to find good solutions for road system layout in 

30 reasonable time, and that it permits them to evaluate more road profile alternatives in less time 

31 than manual methods. Aruga et al. also looked at the effect of the number of road profile control 

32 points (used in the optimization programming) on construction costs, and their results indicate 

33 that increasing the number of control points reduces the construction costs. That results from the 

34 forest road profile becoming closer to the ground profile—and the earthwork volume then being 

35 reduced—as the number of control points is increased (Aruga et al. 2005b). 

36 LiDAR is a commercially available remote sensing system that is used in natural resources 

37 applications. LiDAR is a laser system that calculates the 3-dimensional (3D) coordinates of 

38 objects from reflections on the earth’s surface (Akay et al. 2009). Various forestry activities can 

39 be performed rapidly and efficiently using LiDAR remote sensing technology. From the scans, 

40 various structures of individual trees, including crown width, diameter, volume, and height, can 

41 be estimated. The last scan can provide a very high-quality Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with 

42 approximately 1-meter (m) spatial resolution and about 10 to 20 centimeter (cm) height accuracy 

43 (Akay et al. 2009), which is useful for road and landing layout planning. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 420 

1 Forestry activities can sometimes be done more quickly and less expensively using LiDAR than 

2 using ground-based systems for wide-scale areas using LiDAR. LiDAR is one of the fastest 

3 growing technologies in the natural resources field and it is expected to provide higher resolution 

4 and more accurate data as the technology and GIS technologies advance (Akay et al. 2009). Of 

5 course, the use of technologies such as LiDAR and GIS needs to be balanced against the current 

6 availability of information about a forest stand, their cost, and the size of intended harvest. Small 

7 harvest operations, such as those typical of nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners, might 

8 not benefit as much from the use of the technologies as would larger, corporate forest owners.

9 Aruga (2005) emphasizes the importance of using a DEM and LiDAR data over something such 

10 as computer assisted drawings (CAD), which forest engineers widely use to draw road plans, 

11 road profiles, and cross sections, and to calculate earthwork volumes. But CAD cannot find the 

12 best alignment with the lowest total road cost that is made up of construction, maintenance, user, 

13 social, and environmental costs. Aruga (2005) recommends using a high-resolution DEM 

14 derived from LiDAR data, with which forest planners can optimize horizontal and vertical 

15 alignments of forest roads. Road intersection points are selected manually, from which the 

16 computer program using the DEM and LiDAR data generates alternative horizontal and vertical 

17 road alignments. The program generates ground profile and cross sections and calculates 

18 earthwork volumes for curved roadways. It also estimates construction and maintenance costs. 

19 The optimization model used by Aruga (2005) can find the best solution taking all the factors 

20 into account, and it helps forest engineers design a forest road by evaluating many alternatives 

21 (Aruga 2005). 

22 Aruga et al. (2005a) also used a program to optimize forest road alignments but combined it with 

23 a method for predicting surface erosion and sediment delivered to streams, again using a high24 resolution DEM. Because the program generates forest road alignments using a high-resolution 

25 DEM, it can calculate factors required by standard methodology to predict soil sediment 

26 delivered to streams. Aruga et al. (2005a) investigated the effects of road surface materials, 

27 culvert distance to stream, and out-sloped roads on total road costs and soil sediment delivered to 

28 streams. Using the model, Aruga et al. (2005a) found that using lower-quality rock surfacing on 

29 forest roads reduced total costs, but the amount of soil sediment from lower-quality rock 

30 surfacing was 1.5 times more than that on a higher-quality rock surface, and recommend that 

31 lower-quality rock surfacing not be used near streams. They also found that placing near-stream 

32 culverts 15 m upstream and using an out-sloped road template significantly reduces total road 

33 cost and soil sediment. Using the model permitted Aruga et al. (2005a) to successfully optimize 

34 forest road alignments, which reduced total road cost and soil sediment. 

35 Other researchers have also been investigating the use of computer programming for forest 

36 planning. Epstein et al. (2006) used a mixed-integer programming system, PLANEX, that 

37 incorporates many parameters like the technical characteristics of machinery operation, road 

38 construction, transport and harvest costs, exit points, and economic variables that restrict the 

39 harvest. GIS was used in the process to provide timber volumes, topographic information, and 

40 information on the existing road network. Forestry companies have applied the technology and 

41 have reported that its advantages include operation designs that use fewer roads, which translates 

42 into lower total costs and the environmental benefits that come from less ground disturbance 

43 (Epstein et al. 2006). 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 421 

1 Numerous authors have investigated the use of computer programs to find optimal road layouts 

2 for forest harvesting. Najafi et al. (2008) developed a method to evaluate forest road network 

3 variants using a systematic grid layout. They collected terrain condition and stand data at grid 

4 points using GIS and prepared maps of forest potential for road construction and maps of forest 

5 capacity for harvesting on the basis of the data they collected. A primary objective of the work 

6 was to determine whether the environmental impacts and costs of road network development 

7 could be reduced using GIS technologies. They determined that the method can be used to 

8 evaluate road networks easily, precisely, and in detail, with very little cost incurred to gather the 

9 grid point data (Najafi et al. 2008). 

10 Ghaffarian et al. (2007) used an optimization program to find an optimal layout for a forest 

11 harvested by skidder in northern Iran. The program showed which roads could be eliminated 

12 from the existing forest road network, thus reducing the potential for road failure and sediment 

13 runoff and road maintenance costs, while still permitting efficient forest harvest (Ghaffarian et 

14 al. 2007). 

15 Chung et al. (2008) developed a road network optimization model and applied it to a 4,760 

16 hectare (ha) forest in the upper part of the Mica Creek watershed in Idaho, an area owned by 

17 Potlatch Forest Holdings. The model is used to identify cost-efficient road networks for timber 

18 harvesting given cost constraints and with options for on-road transportation of logged timber on 

19 new roads and off-road timber transportation using skidders, taking into consideration terrain 

20 conditions and stream locations. Costs that are input to the model and that partially determine the 

21 outcome include timber volume, road construction cost, skidding cost, and stream crossing cost 

22 (Chung et al. 2008). The latter purposefully tends to favor fewer or simpler stream crossings. 

23 The model selects the least-cost activity using costs of skidding versus road construction and 

24 timber volume. For example, if enough timber volume is in an area or road construction cost is 

25 low compared with skidding cost, the road building option is selected so as to decrease the 

26 average skidding distance. On the contrary, if timber volume is not large enough or road cost is 

27 high, the skidding option is selected because building a new road would not be economically 

28 feasible even though the average skidding distance increases. Such a process eventually 

29 generates a road network that most cost-efficiently serves the entire area of interest for the 

30 purpose of timber harvesting (Chung et al. 2008). 

31 Rackley and Chung (2008) used NETWORK2000, a forest transportation planning model, to 

32 produce alternative road systems that simultaneously minimizes transportation costs and overall 

33 sediment delivery using inputs of estimated sediment delivery. They applied the methodology to 

34 the Mica Creek watershed in northern Idaho, where 11 alternative road networks were 

35 developed. The results of the modeling effort indicates that incorporating environmental effects 

36 into transportation planning can generate alternative road networks that reduce a large amount of 

37 estimated sediment delivery at the expense of a relatively small increase in transportation costs 

38 (Rackley and Chung 2008). 

39 It is important to be able to include all relevant factors in any computerized system for 

40 optimizing forestry operations because, while many methods of finding optimal landing locations 

41 and determining the best skidding distance have been developed, they simplify harvest units and 

42 do not consider many factors that influence landing, skid trail, and road location (Contreras and 

43 Chung 2007). They used a computerized model to determine the optimal landing location for 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 422 

1 harvesting using raster-based GIS data. The model finds skid trails from stump to candidate 

2 landing locations and selects the best location on the basis of minimizing total skidding distance 

3 and spur road costs. The model included harvest unit boundary shapes, volume distribution, 

4 obstacles, terrain conditions, and spur road construction as factors taken into account in the 

5 optimization task. Using the model, Contreras and Chung (2007) found a range of cost savings 

6 associated with the various factors to be from $0 to $9,443, with an average savings per factor 

7 considered of $1,788. Data needed for the model are easy to obtain because LiDAR and GIS can 

8 provide most of it (Contreras and Chung 2007). 

9 2. Seek technical assistance through your state forestry agency to develop a comprehensive, 

10 multi-resource forest management plan.

11 Authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1978, the Forest Stewardship Program 

12 (FSP) provides technical assistance, through state forestry agency partners, to NIPF owners to 

13 encourage and enable active long-term forest management. A primary focus of the program is 

14 developing comprehensive, multi-resource management plans that provide landowners with the 

15 information they need to manage their forests for a variety of products and services (USDA-FS 

16 2009).

17 Discussion

18 Forest Stewardship Management Plans

19 Since its establishment in 1991 through 2006, the program has produced more than 270,000 

20 multi-resource management plans encompassing more than 31 million acres of NIPF land. Forest 

21 stewardship plans lay out strategies for achieving unique landowner objectives and sustaining 

22 forest health and vigor. Forest stewardship plans motivate landowners to become more active in 

23 planning and managing their forests, greatly increasing the likelihood that their forests will 

24 remain intact, productive, and healthy and that the social, economic, and environmental benefits 

25 of the lands will be sustained for future generations (USDA-FS 2009). Participation in the FSP is 

26 open to any NIPF landowner who is committed to the active management and stewardship of 

27 their forested properties for at least 10 years. The FSP is not a cost-share program.

28 Rural Forestry Assistance

29 The FSP also assists state forestry agencies with a variety of programs to further support NIPF 

30 owner planning and management efforts including tree improvement and seedling production, 

31 and landowner education programs. The Rural Forestry Assistance component of the FSP 

32 provides for tree planting and timber stand improvement projects on nonfederal forest land the 

33 development of discrete, resource targeted management prescriptions, or practice plans for 

34 landowners (USDA-FS 2009).

35 3. Attain recognition of proper forest management practices through a Forest Certification 

36 Program

37 Forest certification is a relatively new development and deals with the practice of forestry, 

38 growth of trees, timber harvesting, and ecological impacts associated with forest harvesting. 

39 Forest certification began to become established in the mid- to late 1990s and is gaining attention 

40 (Mercker and Hodges 2007).
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 423 

1 Discussion

2 The United States is somewhat unique when compared to global forestry because a large 

3 percentage of the total forest area in the United States is under NIPF ownership. The largest 

4 portion of the nation’s forestland is east of the Mississippi River, where 88 percent of all NIPF 

5 owners are. NIPF landowners in the 13 southeastern states number 5 million and control 89 

6 percent of the forest area. Further, nearly 60 percent of the nation’s timber production is 

7 produced by those 13 states, with 18 percent of the world’s industrial timber products originating 

8 from the South (Mercker and Hodges 2007).

9 Several prominent certification systems are operational today that are relevant to the North 

10 American marketplace:

11 • The American Tree Farm System (ATFS) is a program for small, private, nonindustrial 

12 landowners (family forest landowners). ATFS certifies contiguous parcels from 10 to 

13 20,000 acres.

14 • The Forest Stewardship Council is an international system covering forest management 

15 practices and the tracking and labeling of certified products and paper products with 

16 recycled content.

17 • The Sustainable Forestry Initiative Program is a sustainable forest management standard 

18 targeting large industrial operations in the United States and Canada.

19 • The Canadian Standards Association is a national standard for sustainable forest 

20 management and tracking and labeling certified material that covers operations in 

21 Canada.

22 Benefits

23 The most commonly cited benefits of forest certification programs are market access, credibility, 

24 and improved forest management. The Forest Stewardship Council assumes that consumers will 

25 show a preference for products from certified forests and, in turn, certified wood will gain a price 

26 premium in the marketplace. However, demand for certified products has not been as strong in 

27 North America as in Western Europe. Overall, consumer concerns about forest management are 

28 increasing, and a number of large retail companies and major businesses have implemented 

29 purchasing policies that require at least partial sourcing or selling of certified wood and paper 

30 products. However, certification is still not, and might never be, necessary to sell wood 

31 (University of Florida 2007).

32 A second potential benefit from certification is assurance that landowners are managing their 

33 property in the most sustainable way possible. A third-party audit provides a system for 

34 validating sustainable management claims. This could assure public agencies as well as the 

35 general public that the landowner is engaged in long-term forest management (University of 

36 Florida 2007). Although not widespread at this time, participation in one of the certification 

37 programs has been proposed, and in some cases adopted, in several local ordinances or land 

38 development regulations in the South as a qualification for particular land uses.

39 Forest management, especially for NIPF forest owners, is often improved through the technical 

40 expertise from natural resource professionals used to develop, implement, and monitor forest 

41 management plans (University of Florida 2007).
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 424 

1 Costs

2 Direct costs, such as a management plan and the field audit, vary greatly among the systems. For 

3 example, ATFS and FSP provide free assessment audits while Forest Stewardship Council and 

4 Sustainable Forestry Initiative audits usually require auditor fees and expenses. ATFS relies on 

5 volunteer foresters and FSP relies on state forestry and wildlife agencies for the certification 

6 process. On a per acre basis, direct costs will generally increase as ownership size decreases and 

7 might vary from less than $1/acre to many dollars per acre (University of Florida 2007).

8 2.3 Streamside Management Areas (SMAs) 

Implementation Measure: Establish and maintain an SMA along surface waters, which is 

sufficiently wide and which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to buffer against 

detrimental changes in the temperature regime of the waterbody, to provide bank stability, and to 

withstand wind damage.

9 

Implementation Measure: Manage the SMA in such a way as to protect against soil disturbance 

in the SMA and delivery to the stream of sediments and nutrients generated by forestry activities, 

including harvesting. Manage the SMA canopy species to provide a sustainable source of LWD 

needed for in-stream channel structure and aquatic species habitat.

10 Implementation Measure: Establish and maintain a streamside management area along surface 

11 waters, which is sufficiently wide and which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to 

12 buffer against detrimental changes in the temperature regime of the water body, to provide bank 

13 stability, and to withstand wind damage. 

14 Implementation Measure: Manage the SMA in such a way as to protect against soil 

15 disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream of sediments and nutrients generated by 

16 forestry activities, including harvesting. Manage the SMA canopy species to provide a 

17 sustainable source of large woody debris needed for in-stream channel structure and aquatic 

18 species habitat.

19 Section 3B of the EPA guidance, National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source 

20 Pollution from Forestry (USEPA 2005) presents EPA’s recommendation for SMAs in areas 

21 affected by forestry activities such as harvesting and post-harvest site preparation. The 2005 

22 guidance describes the implementation measure, discusses the benefits of SMAs, and presents 

23 BMPs that can be used to meet the intent of the implementation measure. 

24 The recommendations of the 2005 guidance with respect to SMAs still hold. Forested areas 

25 along streams and rivers are considered vital for providing habitat, food, and shelter for wildlife 

26 and protecting water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment input from upland areas. The 

27 Chesapeake Bay Program Forestry Workgroup emphasized the importance of streamside areas 

28 when it developed the 2003 Directive for Expanded Riparian Forest Buffer Goals (CBP 2003). 

29 The directive recommends that forest buffers exist on at least 70 percent of all shorelines and 

30 streambanks in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. An estimated 60 percent of the shorelines in the 

31 watershed are now forested. Protecting the forests along streams in areas harvested for wood 

32 products is one of the key components to achieving the goal of the 2003 directive. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 425 

1 Most states incorporate SMAs as a major component of their forestry practice guidelines, and the 

2 recommendations of the states for establishing and protecting SMAs in harvest areas to protect 

3 water quality have not changed since publication of the 2005 EPA guidance. A general rule for 

4 the width of an SMA is a minimum of 25 to 50 feet, with 5 feet of additional width added for 

5 each 1 percent of slope of the contributing land (Klapproth and Johnson 2000). Of course, state, 

6 federal, or other applicable guidelines or rules for SMAs should be followed where they are 

7 applicable. For instance, many states (e.g., Virginia, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and 

8 South Carolina) prescribe wider SMAs along waters that protect cold water fisheries (Hodges 

9 and Visser 2004).

10 With the importance of SMAs for water quality protection well-established, over the past 5 to 7 

11 years, researchers have been investigating the use of technology for improving the accuracy and 

12 ease with which variable-width SMAs can be established, how concentrated runoff flows can be 

13 prevented from entering and passing through SMAs to reach streams, and—in response to 

14 landowner concerns over lost revenue by not harvesting in SMAs—the extent to which thinning 

15 in SMAs could be permitted while still retaining the nutrient- and sediment-trapping capabilities 

16 of the SMA. Recommendations to augment the information on SMAs in the 2005 EPA guidance 

17 are provided below, and the findings of the recent research are summarized. For more 

18 information on SMAs, see the Riparian Section. 

19 Best Management Practices 

20 1. Use GIS to determine SMA boundaries 

21 Field-based determination of variable-width SMA boundaries is a time-consuming and often 

22 inaccurate process that might be able tocan be accomplished more easily, in less time, and with 

23 greater accuracy using GIS data. The width of SMAs is measured horizontally from the 

24 streambank. The areas in which SMAs will be established are often sloped, andand it can be 

25 difficult to calculate the slope to determine the proper width of an SMA and accurately 

26 determine and mark its boundary. The process is made even more difficult by the slope of land 

27 often variesvarying along a stream course, which requires an SMA with a width that varies with 

28 the slope. Using GIS data, slope, and distance to stream, boundary points for an SMA can be 

29 determined more quickly and more accurately. With SMAs of the proper width established 

30 before a harvest occurs, chances are improved that water quality protection will meet regulatory 

31 requirements. 

32 2. Use high-resolution stream maps when planning SMAs to ensure that all streams are 

33 protected. 

34 When planning for stream protection, it is important to use the highest resolution stream map 

35 available. Lower resolution maps might not indicate the location of higher-order streams and 

36 ephemeral streams. When SMAs are planned, if these streams are left unprotected, water quality 

37 could be seriously compromised during and after a harvest. 

38 Discussion 

39 SMAs are delineated along streams in forested areas that are to be harvested before the harvest 

40 takes place. Generally, the width of an SMA varies by the slope of the terrain perpendicular to a 

41 stream, with the width increasing as the adjacent slope increases. That is because additional 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 426 

1 distance is necessary to prevent more rapidly moving runoff from reaching a stream channel. The 

2 process of establishing a variable-width SMA involves extensive field mapping, which requires 

3 traversing streams, measuring side slopes, determining where the limits of the SMA should be, 

4 marking the boundaries for easy identification during the harvest, and transferring the boundaries 

5 to aerial photos and retransferring them to the forest planning map. Although a variable-width 

6 SMA is advantageous for water quality protection, such an involved process of establishing them 

7 complicates forest operation planning (Williams et al. 2003). Williams et al. (2003) discuss how 

8 managers can use GIS as an aid to forestry management planning by accurately mapping SMAs 

9 without the need for on-the-ground field determinations. 

10 Williams et al. (2003) provide details on how to use GIS and computer programs to simplify 

11 variable-width SMA layout. Basically, the process involves using maps of stream bottom 

12 position and the topographic information in a GIS database to accurately and quickly determine 

13 the boundary location of variable-width SMAs. Details of the GIS software approach to 

14 delineating and mapping variable-width SMAs are provided by Williams et al. (2003). 

15 Baker et al. (2007) evaluated the influence of stream map resolution on measures of the stream 

16 network and explored how predictions of nutrient retention potential might be affected by the 

17 resolution of a stream map. They noted that stream network maps from a broad range of map 

18 resolutions have been employed in watershed studies of riparian areas and were concerned that 

19 map resolution could affect important attributes of riparian buffers determined from the maps—

20 for instance, the connectivity between source lands and small stream channels could be missing 

21 on coarse-resolution maps. They found that using fine-resolution stream maps significantly 

22 increased estimates of stream order, drainage density, and the proportion of watershed area near 

23 a stream (Baker et al. 2007). 

24 When they used stream maps of increasing resolution for the same area, estimates of the mean 

25 distance from streams to source areas and mean buffer width were reduced, and the areas found 

26 to be unprotected by streamside buffers increased. Increasing the stream map resolution revealed 

27 portions of river networks reaching out farther into landscapes and closer to watershed divides, 

28 dissecting the landscape more finely while simultaneously decreasing the average proximity of 

29 the stream channels throughout watersheds (Baker et al. 2007). 

30 Measures of percent land cover within 100 m of streams were found to be less sensitive to stream 

31 map resolution, and overall, increasing stream map resolution led to reduced estimates of 

32 nutrient retention potential in riparian buffers (Baker et al. 2007). That study also demonstrated 

33 that streamStream map resolution can also affect a user’s ability to determine whether sediment 

34 retention occurs in riparian zones. In some watersheds, switching from a coarse resolution to a 

35 fine resolution stream map completely changed the perceptions of the authors of a stream 

36 network from one that was well-buffered to one that was largely unbuffered. Watershed 

37 managers need to consider the possibility that previous, broad-scale analyses of riparian buffers 

38 that used coarse-resolution stream maps might have overestimated landscape-level buffer 

39 prevalence and effectiveness. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 427 

1 Best Management Practice 

2 1. Use LiDAR to remotely collect tree stand and topographic information. 

3 Light Detection and Ranging, or LiDAR, is a commercially available, remote-sensing technology 

4 that is increasingly being used in natural resources planning. In forest harvest planning, it can be 

5 used to obtain detailed information on a forest harvest area, including tree height, crown width 

6 and diameter, and volume. Various forestry activities can be performed rapidly and efficiently 

7 using LiDAR remote sensing technology. LiDAR can provide a very high-quality DEM that is 

8 extremely useful for harvest planning as well. 

9 Discussion 

10 LiDAR can be used to obtain detailed information on a forest harvest area (Akay et al. 2009). 

11 LiDAR is now commonly used in natural resources applications. It is a laser system that 

12 calculates the 3D coordinates of objects from reflections on the earth’s surface. A LiDAR data 

13 set for forested areas is generated by light pulses reflected from different levels of vegetation 

14 canopy, including the top of the vegetation surface (first return), intermediate surfaces (second 

15 and following returns), and the ground surface (last return). Various forestry activities can be 

16 performed rapidly and efficiently using LiDAR remote sensing technology. From the first and 

17 second returns, various structures of individual trees (crown width, diameter, volume, and 

18 height) can be estimated. Using the last return, LiDAR can provide a very high-quality DEM 

19 with approximately a 1-m spatial resolution and about 10 to 20 cm of height accuracy. Such a 

20 DEM can be used to establish the boundaries of variable-width SMAs without the need for on21 the-ground field mapping. Many forestry activities can be done more quickly and less 

22 expensively using LiDAR than by using ground-based systems, and the technology is 

23 particularly efficient for establishing a database for forestry activities for wide-scale areas. 

24 LiDAR is one of the fastest growing technologies in the natural resources field, and it is expected 

25 to provide higher resolution and more accurate data as the technology and GIS technologies 

26 advance (Akay et al. 2009). 

27 Best Management Practices 

28 1. Establish wider-than-recommended SMAs in areas with a sparse litter layer. 

29 The litter layer on an SMA is critical to stopping sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from 

30 reaching streams. If the litter layer is disturbed, lacking, or very thin, an SMA might have to be 

31 wider than recommended by the state forestry agency to adequately stop runoff. 

32 2. Establish wider-than-recommended SMAs in areas where soils have poor infiltration. 

33 Similarly, where soils have poor infiltration characteristics, the part of sediment and nutrients 

34 that would be trapped in soils as runoff infiltrates can be carried in surface runoff, and the 

35 quantity of surface runoff is likely to be greater than in areas with soils with good infiltration 

36 characteristics. Extending the width of an SMA where soils have poor infiltration provides extra 

37 distance between the sediment and nutrient source to the stream within which runoff can be 

38 slowed and stopped to prevent water quality consequences. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 428 

1 Discussion 

2 Hazlett et al. (2008) report that it is generally thought that steep slopes have shorter water 

3 residence time and less capacity to moderate water quality than low slopes, and they require 

4 wider riparian buffers. They measured carbon and Nnitrogen concentrations in riparian zone 

5 shallow soil water at 30-cm depth during lake research in an undisturbed boreal forest area of 

6 Ontario to determine the influence of slope on soil water nutrient concentrations. They modeled 

7 slope as used in forest management planning and found that it was not significantly correlated 

8 with soil water Nnitrogen and carbon concentrations but that only dissolved organic carbon 

9 levels were significantly greater on steep slopes. However, they positively correlated forest 

10 species composition and soil Nnitrogen levels with soil water N concentrations (Hazlett et al. 

11 2008). 

12 White et al. (2007) noted that a large portion of sediment is removed in the first 2 m of forested 

13 filter strips whether they are disturbed or not. In their study, only 2–3 percent of the total 

14 sediment was removed in each meter beyond the first 2 m. Significant reductions also occur in 

15 finer, silt-sized sediment in undisturbed filter strips, and “it appears that it is within this size 

16 fraction that increased filter strip width is the most important.” If such fine sediment is a concern,

17 a 16-m filter strip should be sufficient to reduce the 2- to 20- micrometer (μm) particle 

18 concentrations in runoff to near zero. Filter strips will have little effect on surface flow sediment 

19 concentrations, however, where delivered sediment is colloidal size (White et al. 2007). That 

20 points again to the importance of considering soil characteristics when determining the 

21 appropriate SMA width for water quality protection.

22 White et al. (2007) also recommend that forested filter strip width be based on soil infiltration 

23 characteristics. They also note a trend toward increased sediment retention with increased depth 

24 of the litter layer, so it is probable that using harvesting equipment in an SMA would reduce 

25 sediment retention. In areas where coarse sediment is of concern, narrow filter strips should 

26 provide sufficient opportunity for settling and should be effective even if relatively little runoff 

27 infiltrates the soil. They report that narrow filter strips can remove coarse-textured sediment (> 

28 20 μm in diameter) and that filter strips 16-m wide should remove most 2- to 20-μm sediment 

29 from runoff water (White et al. 2007). 

30 The studies highlight the potential limitation of using only slope as a tool for prescribing SMA 

31 width during harvesting for nutrient control. There is a disconnect between guidelines for slope 

32 as a modifying factor for buffer width establishment and slope as a causal factor affecting 

33 riparian zone nutrient concentrations. Hazlett et al. (2008) highlighted the importance of stand 

34 characteristics—in their case the presence of white spruce and alder—as a factor influencing soil 

35 Nnitrogen concentrations. Vegetation in the SMA and soil properties are important factors to 

36 consider when determining the width of an SMA for water quality protection purposes. 

37 Best Management Practice 

38 1. Follow pre-harvest plan when harvesting in SMAs where upland, soil, and vegetative or 

39 litter layer characteristics are such that sediment and nutrients would likely be intercepted 

40 before reaching streams in a thinned SMA. 

41 Where water quality would not be compromised and site characteristics are such that runoff from 

42 harvest sites would be stopped adequately before reaching streams, thinning harvests could be 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 429 

1 permitted in SMAs. Where permitted, harvesting in SMAs should always be done using 

2 techniques that do not disturb the litter layer or compact soils. Additionally, managers must 

3 consider other factors besides water quality protection when determining whether to permit 

4 thinning in SMAs. Factors such as adequate shade being provided post-harvest to regulate stream 

5 temperature is especially important in streams where fish species, such as trout, are very 

6 temperature sensitive. Also, an adequate number of trees to supply woody debris to the stream 

7 must be retained to ensure the ecological health of stream biota. 

8 Discussion 

9 Lauren et al. (2007) investigated the possibility that SMA thinning could accommodate both the 

10 landowner’s desire to maximize timber revenue and the need to protect water quality. While it is 

11 established that uncut buffer zones between clear cuttings reduce export of nutrients, they also 

12 reduce harvested stock and harvest revenue, a common and justified concern of landowners. 

13 Thinning in buffer zones could increase the volume and revenue of a harvest, but the effect of 

14 thinning on nutrient export is not well known. Lauren et al. (2007) compared Nnitrogen export in 

15 a 90-m, unthinned buffer zone to that in a 10-m, thinned buffer zone and found that the Nthere 

16 was a nitrogen export decreased by 53.4 kilograms (kg) in the 90-m, unthinned buffer zone but 

17 by only 4.3 kg in the 10-m, thinned buffer zone. Interestingly, however, was their conclusion that 

18 a prescribed target for water quality protection (e.g., reduce Nnitrogen export from a watershed 

19 by 25 kg in 5 years) can be achieved with several management options, or by combining 

20 different management schemes. For example, a buffer zone around a stream could be divided 

21 into subzones, such as an area in which clearcutting is permitted with restricted site preparation, 

22 another zone in which thinning is permitted without the need for site preparation, and a third, 

23 completely unmanaged zone. Rivenbark and Jackson (2004) also noted the possibility that SMAs 

24 consisting of subzones could be used to meet water quality goals. If the relative strengths of the 

25 types of zones for nutrient and sediment reduction are known for an area, for a given water 

26 quality protection goal, a mixture of zones in which different harvesting activities are permitted 

27 and required could be recommended depending on individual landowner needs and site 

28 characteristics (Lauren et al. 2007). 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 430 

1 2.4 Forest Road Construction/Reconstruction and Forest Road 

2 Management 

Implementation Measures:

1. Follow preharvest planning (as described under the implementation measure for 

Preharvest Planning) when constructing or reconstructing the roadway.

2. Follow designs planned under the implementation measure for Preharvest Planning for 

road surfacing and shaping.

3. Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under the implementation 

measure for Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation 

specifications. Match these drainage structures with terrain features and with road surface 

and prism designs.

4. Guard against the production of sediment when installing stream crossings.

5. Protect surface waters from slash and debris material from roadway clearing.

6. Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or other favorable practices on disturbed soils on 

unstable cuts, fills, and such.

7. Avoid constructing new roads in SMAs to the extent practicable.

8. Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw 

periods on roads not designed and constructed for these conditions.

9. Evaluate the future need for a road and close roads that will not be needed. Leave closed 

roads and drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand storms.

10. Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure 

from lack of maintenance.

11. Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads and 

seasonal roads to control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove all temporary 

stream crossings.

12. Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance. Conduct maintenance 

practices, when conditions warrant, including cleaning and replacement of deteriorated 

structures and erosion controls, grading or seeding of road surfaces, and, in extreme 

cases, slope stabilization or removal of road fills where necessary to maintain structural 

integrity.

13. Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatement, so that chemical contaminants or 

pollutants are not introduced into surface waters to the extent practicable.

14. Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to 

reduce the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill 

erosion will occur if the drainage structures become obstructed.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 431 

1 Implementation Measures: 

2 (1) Follow preharvest planning (as described under the Implementation Measure for Preharvest 

3 Planning) when constructing or reconstructing the roadway. 

4 (2) Follow designs planned under the Implementation Measure for Preharvest Planning for road 

5 surfacing and shaping. 

6 (3) Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under the Implementation 

7 Measure for Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation specifications. 

8 Match these drainage structures with terrain features and with road surface and prism designs. 

9 (4) Guard against the production of sediment when installing stream crossings. 

10 (5) Protect surface waters from slash and debris material from roadway clearing. 

11 (6) Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or other favorable practices on disturbed soils on 

12 unstable cuts, fills, etc. 

13 (7) Avoid constructing new roads in streamside management areas to the extent practicable. 

14 (8) Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw 

15 periods on roads not designed and constructed for these conditions. 

16 (9) Evaluate the future need for a road and close roads that will not be needed. Leave closed 

17 roads and drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand storms. 

18 (10) Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure 

19 from lack of maintenance. 

20 (11) Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads and seasonal 

21 roads to control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove all temporary stream 

22 crossings. 

23 (12) Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance. Conduct maintenance 

24 practices, when conditions warrant, including cleaning and replacement of deteriorated structures 

25 and erosion controls, grading or seeding of road surfaces, and, in extreme cases, slope 

26 stabilization or removal of road fills where necessary to maintain structural integrity. 

27 (13) Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatement, so that chemical contaminants or 

28 pollutants are not introduced into surface waters to the extent practicable. 

29 (14) Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to reduce 

30 the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill erosion will occur if

31 the drainage structures become obstructed. 

32 EPA’s 2005 forestry guidance emphasizes the importance of good road planning for preventing 

33 sediment delivery to streams in the Road Construction/Reconstruction and the Road 

34 Management implementation measures. Road construction remains one of the largest potential 

35 sources of forest activity-produced sediment, and providing road and drainage crossing structures 

36 that minimize the potential for sediment delivery to surface waters from roads, landings, and skid 

37 trails is still an essential task for long-term water quality protection from forest roads. 

38 Road planning and construction can be even more effective today by using advances that have 

39 been made in computerized techniques to find the best layouts for roads that can reduce both 

40 costs and the potential for road runoff to reach streams. 

41 Forest roads also need to be maintained to correct breakdowns in road drainage structures that 

42 can lead to sediment runoff and inputs to streams. When properly planned and constructed, forest 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 432 

1 road drainage prevents or minimizes the connection between road runoff and the stream network. 

2 When roads are left unmaintained, road drainage paths can lead to the stream network. Road 

3 drainage hydrologically connected to the stream network is a direct path for sediment input. 

4 Additionally, managers should analyze forest roads that are no longer needed and determine 

5 whether returning them to vegetative cover would reduce the risk of sediment runoff. 

6 Best Management Practice 

7 1. Provide extra road drains, especially near streams and stream crossings, to minimize the 

8 creation of concentrated runoff flows 

9 In addition to protecting the litter layer and extending SMAs in areas with poor soil infiltration, it

10 is important to ensure that roads and skid trails near drainages and streams are kept 

11 hydrologically disconnected from the drainage network. Such a practice means that road 

12 segments near streams and stream crossings could need extra drainage structures installed and 

13 runoff directed away from streams to minimize the chance of sediment-laden runoff reaching a 

14 stream. 

15 Discussion 

16 Preventing concentrated runoff flow from reaching SMAs—or stopping concentrated flows 

17 within an SMA if they do reach it—is important to protecting water quality. Rivenbark and 

18 Jackson (2004) surveyed SMAs in the Georgia piedmont to determine the efficacy of BMPs in 

19 preventing concentrated overland flow. Recording where flow broke through SMAs and where it 

20 did not break through to streams, they found that 50 percent of breakthroughs were at areas of 

21 convergence (swales) and gullies, and 25 percent were concentrated runoff from roads or skid 

22 trails. They determined that breakthroughs tend to occur in areas with a large contributing area, 

23 little litter cover, and steep slopes. They recorded some breakthroughs that traveled 100 feet 

24 before being filtered. More than half of breakthroughs traveled 50 feet before reaching stream 

25 channels and 14 percent traveled more than 100 feet before reaching streams, though 75 percent 

26 of breakthroughs were stopped within the first 20 feet of an SMA. Runoff travel distance before 

27 dispersal was not really related to slope, and breakthrough frequency did not differ between sites 

28 that were prepared post-harvest and sites that were clearcut and not prepared (Rivenbark and 

29 Jackson 2004). 

30 Rivenbark and Jackson (2004) noted the importance of protecting the litter layer in an SMA to 

31 prevent concentrated flow from reaching the stream channel. In looking at concentrated flow, 

32 White et al. (2007) recorded significant formation of concentrated flow after runoff had traveled 

33 6 m through forested filter strips. According to their study, removing the litter layer can have a 

34 major effect on overland flow travel time, especially on steeper slopes. On terrain of the same 

35 slope but with a disturbed and undisturbed litter layer, runoff from the terrain with the disturbed 

36 litter layer traveled 40 seconds per meter faster on 15–17 percent slopes and 12 seconds per 

37 meter faster on 5–7 percent slopes (White et al. 2007). 

38 The effectiveness of SMAs in protecting water quality, therefore, could be improved by 

39 protecting the litter layer, dispersing road runoff better, introducing hydraulic resistance to likely

40 flow paths, and widening SMA at key locations (Rivenbark and Jackson 2004). Additionally, the 

41 width of SMAs could be varied on the basis of physical features of the site. For instance, SMAs 

42 could be extended in sensitive areas, their width could be based on the potential hydrologic load 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 433 

1 of upland areas rather than being a set width, they could be wider where the contributing area is 

2 large and slopes are steeper, and a sub-SMA—a width beyond the primary SMA—could be 

3 established where clearcutting is allowed but ground cover is not disturbed and burning and 

4 herbicide use is prohibited. It could also be beneficial to stack logging slash along SMA 

5 boundaries to intercept and slow concentrated flows (Rivenbark and Jackson 2004). 

6 Best Management Practices

7 2. Analyze the connectivity of a road network to streams using computerized models and 

8 risk analysis to determine where the risk of sediment runoff to streams is greatest and 

9 where roads maintenance efforts should be concentrated, or road sections should be 

10 removed or modified. 

11 Within a forest road network, a small portion of the road surface generally contributes 

12 disproportionately to water quality deterioration. Finding out which road segments are 

13 responsible for water quality deterioration can best be accomplished with computerized 

14 techniques that can analyze a variety of information about individual road segments to determine 

15 those where maintenance or decommissioning will have the greatest effect. 

16 Discussion 

17 The computer programming methods mentioned above are best used to plan a forest road 

18 network before one has been constructed to minimize costs and environmental damage. 

19 Computerized techniques for managing existing forest road networks, including road 

20 maintenance for water quality protection and road decommissioning, are also being developed. 

21 Because runoff and sediment delivery is the dominant process by which water resources are 

22 affected by forestry activities, the concept of a forest road system’s hydrological connectivity to 

23 a stream network has been the focus of much recent research. By managing runoff delivery 

24 pathways and the resultant pattern of hydrological connectivity of the road system to the stream 

25 network, the potential adverse effects of forest harvesting on in-stream water quality can be 

26 limited (Croke and Hairsine 2006). 

27 Current understanding the various links between site runoff, transport, and movement through 

28 the forest system into the river system at any particular site can be difficult to quantify accurately

29 partly because it is difficult to accurately measure the amount of sediment and attached nutrients 

30 delivered to, stored and remobilized within, and eventually transported from a river system 

31 (Croke and Hairsine 2006). A combined approach of reducing the source strength and enabling 

32 the delivery path to trap mobilized sediment, thereby reducing connectivity, is a sound approach 

33 to managing the sediment delivery problem. 

34 Three types of runoff delivery pathways from forest roads exist: stream crossings, gullied 

35 pathways, and diffuse pathways (Takken et al. 2008). Sediment delivery to streams depends on 

36 source strength and the characteristics of the delivery path. Importantly, the degree of 

37 connectivity of a road to surface waters depends on catchment characteristics such as 

38 topography, road placement, drain spacing, and road and drainage density (Takken et al. 2008). 

39 Takken et al. (2008) evaluated the risk of road-derived runoff delivery. They created risk 

40 assessment maps using road-stream hydrological connectivity to highlight hot spots and to 

41 evaluate procedures for road rehabilitation. Examining the relatively steep Albert River 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 434 

1 catchment in Australia, they found that diffuse overland flow could be minimized with additional 

2 road drains, particularly by adding more stream crossings per kilometer (km) of road where 

3 drainage area is large and roads are lower on the hillslope. Road segments that are highly 

4 connected to the stream network, however, were found to require the relocation of the road to 

5 manage sediment delivery to streams (Takken et al. 2008). 

6 Croke et al. (2005) demonstrated that a strong association exists between runoff pathway and 

7 drain type. They found that most (90 percent) of gullied pathways were at culvert pipes that drain 

8 cut-and-fill roads, whereas miter drains and push outs were predominantly associated with 

9 dispersive pathways. They studied main access roads, feeder access roads, and dump access 

10 roads. Initial sediment concentrations at road outlets ranged from 2 grams per liter (g/L) to 15 

11 g/L and were highest from well-used main access roads compared with less-frequently used 

12 feeder access and dump access roads. Road usage alone explained 95 percent of the variation in 

13 sediment concentrations in runoff from the road surfaces studied. Most (more than 50 percent) 

14 sediment in runoff from the road outlets was silt- and clay-sized material, but sediment 

15 concentrations in runoff plumes from main access roads had about 3.5 times higher 

16 concentrations of < 63-μm material than those from feeder access roads (Croke et al. 2005). 

17 Croke et al. (2005) concluded that the potential effect of road-related sediment on in-stream 

18 water quality can best be assessed in terms of the nature and connectivity of the delivery 

19 pathway. Forest roads have a delivery pattern largely determined by runoff source strength and 

20 connectivity. Connectivity is the arrangement and location of drainage structures such as culverts 

21 and miter drains with respect to the natural drainage system in the catchment (Croke et al. 2005). 

22 Examining the hydrological connectivity of a forest road network and stream system can help 

23 determine where best to focus efforts to reduce sediment and nutrient inputs to surface waters. Fu 

24 et al. (2007) developed and applied a road erosion and sediment transport model. In the areas in 

25 southeastern of Australia that they studied, approximately 21 kilotons (kt) and 35 kt of sediment 

26 were produced annually from road erosion. They found that less than 10 percent of the sediment 

27 produced was delivered to streams, and about half of the delivered sediment was derived from 

28 only 4 percent of the total road network (Fu et al. 2007). 

29 Allison et al. (2004) conducted research to demonstrate that decision analysis can be used to 

30 organize the complex nature of forest road decisions using road deactivation as an example 

31 decision. Road segments that are candidates for deactivation were ranked using factors of 

32 interest, which in the case of this study was to reduce the susceptibility of roads to landslides and 

33 debris flows. The rankings distinguish between road sections that offer high expected benefit 

34 from those that offer moderate to low expected benefit. Allison et al. (2004) applied the analysis 

35 to an area with steep terrain, but it could be applied to any terrain type and with various factors 

36 of interest. They found in their case that 17 of 171, 100-m road segments accounted for 18 

37 percent of the cumulative cost of deactivation, but 98 percent of the cumulative expected net 

38 benefits from road deactivation. The results point out that some road segments have a higher 

39 benefit-cost ratio than others and that most of the total potential restoration benefit (reduced 

40 sediment delivery to streams, maintenance cost, and such) can be obtained from a small 

41 proportion of the total road network and potential cost (Allison et al. 2004). 

42 Road decommissioning is expensive, and Eastaugh et al. (2007) assessed the outcomes of 

43 different forest road decommissioning options to determine whether costs and environmental 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 435 

1 impacts could be lowered. They present a method of quantifying the degree to which a road is 

2 hydrologically connected to a stream network and the likely effects of different configurations of 

3 road construction on water quality. Their method permits the quantification of road/stream 

4 connectivity without the need for extensive parameterization, which reduces both the time and 

5 cost of implementing the method. They noted that several models exist for predicting road6 derived sediment production and delivery, but those models suffer from the practical 

7 disadvantage of being highly parameterized, requiring a large number of input data that are often 

8 difficult to obtain or accurately estimate. In contrast, the method used by Eastaugh et al. (2007) 

9 uses a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) based on 1-m spaced LiDAR 

10 measurements to represent catchment topography. The road morphology data necessary for the 

11 evaluation was collected during an intensive field survey using a global positioning sytem (GPS) 

12 receiver to record the location of road edges, culvert locations, and drain outlets from the road 

13 surface (Eastaugh et al. 2007). 

14 Eastaugh et al. (2007) applied the model to an actual road decommissioning and replacement 

15 project in southeast Australia. For the application, road areas and drainage outlets were surveyed 

16 in the field and flow paths to streams were derived from a 1-meter resolution LiDAR-based 

17 DEM. The results of the application demonstrated that the road decommissioning project 

18 examined would have been unlikely to reduce runoff to the stream network and that the overall 

19 effect of the decommissioning would likely have been a net reduction in stream water quality 

20 from increased sedimentation (Eastaugh et al. 2007). 

21 Best Management Practices 

22 1. Avoid having traffic on forest roads when road water content is high. 

23 Truck traffic on forest roads when the water content of the road is high leads to deformation of 

24 the road surface, which redirects runoff and reduces the effectiveness of drainage structures. 

25 2. Use high-quality aggregate on forest roads near stream crossings. 

26 Sediment runoff from roads with high-quality aggregate can be much less than from roads with 

27 marginal- or low-quality aggregate, or from unprotected roads; so it is especially important to 

28 protect and maintain roads near streams and stream crossings. 

29 Discussion 

30 Suspended sediment makes up 96 percent of the total sediment load from runoff, and a practical 

31 option to limiting it in runoff is to reduce the generation rate by surfacing roads with good32 quality aggregate and maintaining road drainage so it functions as intended (Sheridan et al. 

33 2006). 

34 Sheridan et al. (2006) investigated the effect of truck traffic intensity and road water content on 

35 runoff water quality from unsealed, gravel-surfaced forest roads. In their studies, traffic 

36 explained 36 percent of the variation in erodibility and road water content was insignificant, 

37 leading them to conclude that for a good-quality, well-maintained gravel forest road, the amount 

38 of truck traffic affects sediment runoff, but the water content of the road at the time of truck 

39 traffic does not. A mechanism that explains the result of the study is that the primary effect of 

40 road water content is on the strength of the road. One of the most commonly observed adverse 

41 effects of road use under wet conditions is deformation of the cross-sectional profile, resulting in 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 436 

1 longitudinal rutting. That compromises lateral drainage of the road and concentrates flows along 

2 the road surface, bypassing drainage structures and leading to rilling of the road surface and high 

3 sediment generation rates (Sheridan et al. 2006). 

4 The results of Sheridan et al. (2006) indicate that good-quality, well-maintained forest roads 

5 might produce less sediment than previously assumed but that maintaining roads is important 

6 nevertheless because sediment concentrations from roads (which average 200–2,000 milligrams 

7 per liter) are still 3 to 4 orders of magnitude more than base flow concentrations in forest streams 

8 (2–5 milligrams per liter). 

9 Roadside ditches and other drainage features often produce finer sediment than natural 

10 conditions, and roads with only marginal-quality aggregate containing low-durability fine 

11 particles can produce 4 to 17 times more sediment than those with good-quality aggregate 

12 (Witmer et al. 2009). Witmer et al. (2009) recommend that because of limited budgets and the 

13 need for cost-effective water quality protection, a priority listing of unpaved road-stream 

14 crossings is needed before restoration and sedimentation reduction strategies can be 

15 implemented. 

16 Witmer et al. (2009) addressed the problem of determining where to focus road rehabilitation 

17 efforts by developing a sedimentation risk index (SRI) for unpaved road/stream crossings to help 

18 managers determine which road-stream crossings should receive priority for restoration and 

19 sedimentation reduction. The SRI created by Witmer et al. uses 12 metrics to weigh factors 

20 involving soil erodibility, road sedimentation abatement features, and steam morphology 

21 alteration to arrive at a final index score for each stream crossing. All types of stream 

22 crossings—round culvert, box culvert, and bridge—can be included, and they found no 

23 significant difference in SRI scores among crossing structure type, indicating that one type is not 

24 necessarily better when it comes to less sediment production than others. Limited budgets make 

25 prioritizing unpaved road crossings a key means for efficient sedimentation abatement, and the 

26 SRI or a similar rating scheme can be used to make water quality protection more effective 

27 (Witmer et al. 2009). 

28 2.5 Timber Harvesting 

Implementation Measures:

1. Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations determined under the Preharvest 

Planning implementation measure, subject to adjustments made on the basis of preharvest 

on-site inspections.

2. Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent practicable. 

Disperse landing drainage over sideslopes.

3. Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope failures. 

Protect landing surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings outside SMAs.

4. Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging debris and 

slash material.

29 Implementation Measures:
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 437 

1 (1) Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations determined under the Preharvest Planning 

2 Implementation Measure, subject to adjustments made based on preharvest on-site inspections. 

3 (2) Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent practicable. Disperse 

4 landing drainage over sideslopes. 

5 (3) Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope failures. 

6 Protect landing surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings outside streamside 

7 management areas. 

8 (4) Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging debris and slash 

9 material. 

10 The goal of the Timber Harvesting implementation measure in the 2005 guidance is to minimize 

11 the likelihood of water quality effects resulting from timber harvesting. Precautions taken during 

12 preharvest planning to minimize road and skid trail miles and follow the contour of the land to 

13 the extent feasible are important aspects of protecting the forest floor from disturbance. Using 

14 equipment well suited to the topography and forest type to limit erosion and sedimentation 

15 during harvesting operations is also important. 

16 When conducting a harvest, it is important to pay attention to the potential for soil disturbance 

17 from the operation. Doing so can result in improved water quality protection. Disturbances to 

18 forest watersheds can have severe adverse effects on soil and soil nutrients. Forest harvesting is a 

19 dominant factor in increasing suspended sediment yields, and road construction and skidding can 

20 cause serious soil disturbance that results in suspended sediment increases. Increase suspended 

21 sediment yields can occur even when unaccompanied by soil surface disturbances created by 

22 harvesting, because such yields are often coupled with water discharge, which transports 

23 suspended sediment by stream power. For those reasons, it is vitally important that the forest 

24 floor be protected from disturbance to the greatest feasible extent during harvesting. 

25 Best Management Practices 

26 1. When constructing roads, landings, and skid trails, and during harvesting, use methods 

27 that maximize protection of the forest floor to the extent feasible. 

28 Most sediment and nutrient runoff from forest harvest sites originates in areas where the forest 

29 floor has been disturbed and the soil has been exposed, disturbed, or compacted. Protecting the 

30 litter layer and soils of the forest floor where it is possible (that is, where it need not be disturbed 

31 for road construction or skidding) is vital to ensuring the protection of water quality. Although 

32 roads and skid trails are generally maintained or protected after a harvest to limit sediment 

33 runoff, disturbed areas beyond these can go unnoticed and not receive the rehabilitation that 

34 roads and skid trails do to prevent sediment runoff. Unintentionally disturbed areas also are not 

35 usually provided with runoff control features, so any runoff originating from them could drain 

36 unchecked to streams and rivers. 

37 Discussion 

38 Protecting the forest floor outside the SMA is important to protecting water quality of forested 

39 streams. Soil erosion generally does not occur in an undisturbed forest because surface flow is 

40 rarely generated on forested slopes during rainfall events because of the infiltration capacity of 

41 forest soils (Hotta et al. 2007). Thus, in an unharvested forest where the source area of suspended 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 438 

1 sediment is limited to the stream, suspended sediment transport should correspond well with 

2 water discharge. Certain forest practices, such as constructing forest roads and skid trails and 

3 serious soil surface disturbances such as those caused by skidder activity and plowing, increase 

4 suspended sediment yields. Most studies have investigated the effects of the practices associated 

5 with harvesting rather than the harvesting itself. Hotta et al. (2007) investigated whether 

6 harvesting would increase suspended sediment yields if harvesters took appropriate measures to 

7 prevent surface disturbance. Their study was performed in an experimental watershed in a steep8 sloped forest near Tokyo, Japan. 

9 Hotta et al. (2007) measured suspended sediment yield from areas harvested in a manner that 

10 used measures to limit soil disturbance as much as possible. They found that annual suspended 

11 sediment yields did not increase despite post-harvest increases in annual water yields, indicating 

12 that the water capacity of the soil led to only slight differences between pre- and post-harvest 

13 discharges during heavy rainfall events. Most suspended sediment was transported in heavy 

14 rainfall events, and there were no concurrent increases in suspended sediment yields detected 

15 after harvesting. Thus, they concluded that it is possible to prevent post-harvest increases in 

16 suspended sediment yields through careful harvesting techniques (Hotta et al. 2007). 

17 2.6 Site Preparation 

Implementation Measures:

1. Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site conditions.

2. Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation activities on the 

contour of sloping terrain.

3. Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in SMAs.

4. Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material.

5. Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment begins to cause excessive soil 

disturbance that will increase erosion.

6. Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMAs to control movement of the 

material during high-runoff conditions.

7. Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. 

Conduct bedding in sloping areas on the contour.

8. Protect small, ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting.

18 Implementation Measures:

19 (1) Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site conditions.

20 (2) Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation activities on the 

21 contour of sloping terrain.

22 (3) Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in streamside 

23 management areas. (4) Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 439 

1 (5) Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment used begins to cause excessive soil 

2 disturbance that will increase erosion.

3 (6) Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMAs to control movement of the 

4 material during high-runoff conditions. 

5 (7) Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. 

6 Conduct bedding in sloping areas on the contour. 

7 (8) Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting.

8 The Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration implementation measure in the 2005 guidance 

9 discusses how important it is to revegetate harvested areas to minimize erosion and runoff from 

10 disturbed soils that could degrade water quality. Vegetative cover on disturbed soils reduces 

11 erosion and slows runoff, and roots stabilize soils. Minimizing disturbance to the forest floor 

12 litter layer during all phases of forestry activities—from road construction to site preparation 

13 operations—minimizes soil compaction and detachment, which helps maintain infiltration and 

14 slow runoff. Such factors, in turn, reduce erosion and sedimentation after site preparation is 

15 complete. 

16 Where soil has been disturbed and the litter layer exposed, and in instances where it would not 

17 prevent the regrowth of planted trees or natural regeneration, protecting the soil by applying 

18 wood chips or slash could be a viable method to both protect the soil and prevent the loss of 

19 Nnitrogen from the soil to surface waters. 

20 Best Management Practice 

21 1. Apply wood chips or slash to disturbed areas after a harvest to reduce nutrient runoff. 

22 NNitrogen is commonly released from a forest after a harvest. The amount of Nnitrogen that can 

23 be released depends on the vegetative characteristics of the forest and the time since its harvest. 

24 Applying wood chips derived from logging slash can significantly reduce the release of 

25 Nnitrogen after a harvest. Adding wood chips to the forest floor after a harvest probably 

26 immobilizes much of the Nnitrogen in the forest floor. 

27 Discussion 

28 NNitrogen is a pollutant that is generally released after forest harvest. Forest harvesting disrupts 

29 the Nnitrogen cycle, which can affect stream water quality by increasing nitrate concentrations, 

30 reducing pH and acid neutralizing capacity, and mobilizing aluminum and base cations (Homyak 

31 et al. 2008). Disturbance by harvesting increases soil temperature, which increases microbial 

32 activity and increases organic matter decomposition and inorganic Nnitrogen production. The 

33 production and immobilization of Nnitrogen, however, can vary after harvest because of changes 

34 in soil organic matter quantity and quality, and microbial activity (Hazlett et al. 2007). 

35 Homyak et al. (2008) tested whether applying wood chips derived from logging slash after 

36 harvesting would increase the immobilization of Nnitrogen and thus reduce nitrate flux to 

37 streams. They applied wood chips to the soil surface in a 1x treatment, a 2x treatment, and no 

38 treatment in a stand of northern hardwoods that was patch clearcut in the Catskill Mountains, 

39 New York. Reference plots were left uncut. They found that wood chips applied after harvest can 

40 potentially immobilize between 19 and 38 kg Nnitrogen/ha in the first year after harvesting, 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 440 

1 depending on the rate of wood chip application. In the study, applying wood chips after harvest 

2 contributed to water quality protection. They suggest that additional research on wood chip 

3 application as a new BMP after harvesting is warranted, particularly in regions that receive 

4 elevated levels of atmospheric Nnitrogen deposition (Homyak et al. 2008). 

5 In the Homyak et al. (2008) study, wood chips reduced the average nitrate by from 30 to 40 

6 percent or from 80 to 100 percent, depending on the method used to measure the nitrate. They 

7 also observed a rapid accumulation of Nnitrogen in the chips, which supports the claim that 

8 wood chips have the potential to immobilize a significant amount of Nnitrogen (Homyak et al. 

9 2008). 

10 Hazlett et al. (2007) tested soils from 2-year-old, 12-year-old, and uncut areas of the boreal 

forest. They found that soils from the 12-year-old harvest released 75 times the NO3- 11 and 3 times 

the inorganic Nnitrogen than unharvested soil, and 5 times the NO3- 12 and 2 times the inorganic 

13 Nnitrogen as 2-year-old harvest soil. When black spruce needles were incorporated to simulate 

14 slash, organic and inorganic Nnitrogen production reduced, and microbial biomass Nnitrogen

15 increased (Hazlett et al. 2007). 

16 Such observations suggest that a practice that increases the immobilization of Nnitrogen in the 

17 forest floor by adding material high in carbon to Nnitrogen after logging might reduce nitrate 

18 flux to streams and limit associated adverse water chemistry changes. Maintaining logging slash 

19 on a harvest site has the potential to immobilize Nnitrogen and minimize the risk of off-site 

20 Nnitrogen losses. Other studies in Japan, the Mediterranean, New Hampshire, and the 

21 Appalachian Mountains have shown similar results (Homyak et al. 2008). The study of Hazlett et 

22 al. (2007), however, indicates that the effect appears to be short-lived, because inorganic 

23 Nnitrogen was available in the soils of recent clearcuts. 

24 2.7 Fire Management 

Implementation Measures:

1. Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedimentation because of the combined effect 

of partial or full removal of canopy and removal of ground fuels, litter layer, and duff.

2. Prescriptions for wildland fire use should protect against excessive erosion or 

sedimentation to the extent practicable.

3. All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and wildfire, should be stabilized with water bars 

or other appropriate techniques if needed to control excessive sedimentation or erosion of 

the fireline.

4. Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution of 

watercourses, while recognizing the safety and operational priorities of fighting wildfires.

25 Implementation Measures:

26 (1) Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedimentation due to the combined effect of partial 

27 or full removal of canopy and removal of ground fuels, litter layer and duff.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 441 

1 (2) Prescriptions for wildland fire use should protect against excessive erosion or sedimentation 

2 to the extent practicable. 

3 (3) All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and wildfire, should be stabilized with water bars 

4 and/or other appropriate techniques if needed to control excessive sedimentation or erosion of 

5 the fireline.

6 (4) Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution of 

7 watercourses, while recognizing the safety and operational priorities of fighting wildfires. 

8 The Fire Management implementation measure in the 2005 forestry guidance emphasizes the 

9 importance of using prescribed fire in a way that does not remove the litter layer so that erosion 

10 is not a problem after a fire. Recent research into the mechanism by which fire can protect a 

11 forest from erosion or expose it to erosion has been done, and it further emphasizes the 

12 importance of fire management to protect a forest from post-fire erosion. 

13 Best Management Practice 

14 1. Ensure that prescribed fires are burned at a low enough intensity and at a burn rate 

15 such that the litter layer that remains behind is sufficient to protect the forest floor from 

16 erosion after the fire. 

17 The presence of a litter layer on the forest floor is key to reducing and avoiding sediment runoff. 

18 A low-intensity prescribed fire is more likely to leave an intact litter layer and reduce nutrient 

19 runoff after a fire than a high-intensity fire. 

20 Discussion 

21 The importance of protecting the forest floor litter layer during harvesting was stressed earlier. 

22 Because exposure of bare forest soils is the critical link to sediment and nutrient runoff, it is 

23 equally important to maintain the litter layer after a prescribed fire. And critical to achieving that

24 is understanding how fire affects the litter layer and soils. 

25 The effect of fire on soils depends on temperature reached, the duration of burning, and the 

26 amount and timing of post-fire rainfall (Zavala et al. 2009). The amount of litter and plant cover 

27 are key factors in reducing post-fire runoff and soil loss. High-intensity, fast-moving crown fires 

28 consume part of the litter layer. After such a fire, the litter is generally charred but not consumed,

29 and a thick ash bed is set down on the soil. The presence of such a bed on the soil surface is 

30 critical immediately after a fire, and persists until an outside agent (e.g., rain, wind, vehicles, or

31 animals) remove or redistributes it (Zavala et al. 2009). 

32 Most studies in the southern Appalachians have reported no stream Nnitrogen response to 

33 prescribed burning (Knoepp et al. 2009). Those results show that low-severity prescribed fire 

34 removes the upper forest floor layer (the Oi layer of the soil O horizon), but retains a large 

35 proportion of the portions of the O horizon below that (the Oe and Oa horizon layers). This layer 

36 protects surface soils from potential erosion and represents a large reservoir of plant nutrients. 

37 Knoepp et al. (2009) investigated Nnitrogen responses on sites in subwatersheds that drained a

38 first-order stream in the Blue Ridge Physiographic province of the southern Appalachian 

39 Mountains. All prescribed fires were done in the dormant season and were low- to moderate40 intensity. All sites lost a significant amount of forest floor mass due to burning: 82 to 91 percent 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 442 

of the Oi layer and 26 to 46 percent of the Oe + Oa layer. Soil NH4- 1 N concentrations increased 

2 immediately after burning in the top 5 cm of surface soils only, but returned to pre-burn levels by 

3 mid-summer. Burning had no measurable effect on soil solution inorganic Nnitrogen

4 concentrations. No inorganic Nnitrogen was lost from the sites (Knoepp et al. 2009). 

5 Elliot and Vose (2005) conducted low- to moderate-intensity and low-severity prescribed 

6 burning to restore shortleaf pine/mixed-oak forest (Elliot and Vose 2005). (Fires of a low 

7 intensity in this study were ones that left the duff layer (Oe and Oa layers) intact but reduced the 

8 litter layer (Oi), exposed little soil, and had heat penetration only near the soil surface. They 

9 measured soil solution and streamwater nutrient concentrations and streamwater sediment 

10 concentration (TSS). Soil solution and stream water (Nnitrogen) did not increase after burning on 

11 any of the sites, and they found no differences in TSS between the burn and control streams and 

no detectable differences between control and burned sites for concentrations of PO4, SO412 , Ca, 

13 Mg, K, or pH in soil solution or stream water. The results suggest that low-intensity, low14 severity fires can be conducted and used as a management tool without negatively affecting 

15 water quality (Elliot and Vose 2005). 

16 2.8 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

Implementation Measures:

1. Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after completing the 

earth-disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishing 

vegetative cover.

2. Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful vegetation 

establishment for the region or area.

3. Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on priority areas such as disturbed areas in 

SMAs or the steepest areas of disturbance (e.g., on roads, landings, or skid trails) near 

drainages.

17 Implementation Measures:

18 (1) Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after completion of the 

19 earth-disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishment of 

20 vegetative cover. 

21 (2) Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful vegetation 

22 establishment for the region or area. 

23 (3) Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on priority areas such as disturbed areas in SMAs or 

24 the steepest areas of disturbance (e.g., on roads, landings, or skid trails) near drainages. 

25 The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Revegetation of Disturbed Areas implementation 

26 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. 

27 Revegetating disturbed areas is still important because it restabilizes the soil, reduces erosion, 

28 and helps prevent pollutants from entering surface waters. The practices provided in the 2005 are 

29 still the best advice for quickly restoring vegetation on disturbed forest areas. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 443 

1 2.9 Forest Chemical Management 

Implementation Measures:

1. Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed applicators according to the 

registered use, with special consideration given to effects to nearby surface waters.

2. Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect, fungus, 

or herbaceous species.

3. Before applying pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading process and the 

calibration of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather conditions, the spray area, 

and buffer areas for surface waters.

4. Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for 

aerial applications.)

5. Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface waters to the 

appropriate state agency. Develop an effective spill contingency plan to contain spills.

2 Implementation Measures:

3 (1) Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed applicators according to the 

4 registered use, with special consideration given to effects to nearby surface waters. 

5 (2) Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect, fungus, or 

6 herbaceous species. 

7 (3) Prior to applications of pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading process and 

8 the calibration of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather conditions, the spray area, and 

9 buffer areas for surface waters. 

10 (4) Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for aerial 

11 applications.) 

12 (5) Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface waters to the 

13 appropriate state agency. Develop an effective spill contingency plan to contain spills.

14 The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Forest Chemical Management implementation 

15 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. 

16 Chemicals used in forest management include pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, and 

17 fungicides) and fertilizers. Mixing, transporting, and applying the chemicals correctly and 

18 according to manufacturer directions, and disposing of containers properly will prevent water 

19 quality issues related to these substances to a great degree. For information relevant to forest 

20 chemical management, see the 2005 guidance. 

21 2.10 Wetlands Forest Management 

Implementation Measure: Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities 

(including harvesting; road design, construction, and maintenance; site preparation and 

regeneration; and chemical management) to adequately protect the aquatic functions of forested 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 444 

wetlands.

1 Implementation Measure: Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities 

2 (including harvesting; road design, construction, and maintenance; site preparation and 

3 regeneration; and chemical management) to adequately protect the aquatic functions of forested 

4 wetlands.

5 The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Wetlands Forest Management implementation 

6 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. The 

7 2005 guidance discusses special harvesting methods for use in forested wetlands, road design 

8 and construction practices especially applicable to forested wetlands, wetland crossing practices, 

9 site generation and regeneration practices for use in forested wetlands, fire management practices 

10 for forested wetlands, and chemical management for working in forested wetlands. The 

11 information provided in the 2005 guidance is still EPA’s official guidance for forestry work in 

12 wetland environments. 

13 3 References 

14 Akay, A.E., H. Oguz, I.R. Karas, and K. Aruga. 2009. Using LiDAR technology in forestry 

15 activities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 151:117–125. [Akay et al. 2009 -> 2009a] 

16 Allison, C., R.C. Sidle, and D. Tait. 2004. Application of decision alanlysis to forest road 

17 deactivation in unstable terrain. Environ. Manag. 33(2):173–185. 

18 Aruga, K. 2005. Tabu search optimization of horizontal and vertical alignments of forest roads. 

19 J. For. Res. 10:275–284. 

20 Aruga, K., J. Sessions, and E.S. Miyata. 2005a. Forest road design with soil sediment evaluation 

21 using a high-resolution DEM. J. For. Res. 10:471–479. 

22 Aruga, K., J. Sessions, and A.E. Akay. 2005b. Heuristic planning techniques applied to forest 

23 road profiles. J. For. Res. 10:83–92. 

24 Baker, M.E., D.E. Weller, and T.E. Jordan. 2007. Effects of stream map resolution on measures 

25 of riparian buffer distribution and nutrient retention potential. Landscape Ecology 22:973–

26 992. 

27 CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 1999. The State of the Chesapeake Bay. 

28 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13006.pdf. EPA 903-R99-013. 

29 CBP/TRS 222/108. <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_13006.pdf. 

30 EPA 903-R99-013>. Accessed February 2/8, 20/10. 

31 CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2003. Expanded Riparian Forest Buffer Goals. Chesapeake 

32 Executive Council. Directive No. 03-01. 

33 <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_12610.pdf>.http://www.chesape

34 akebay.net/content/publications/ cbp_12610.pdf. Accessed February 2/8, 20/10. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 445 

1 CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009b. Bay Health and Restoration Assessment. 

2 <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicatorshome.aspx?menuitem=14871>.http://www.chesa

3 peakebay.net/indicatorshome.aspx?menuitem=14871. Accessed February 2/8, 2010./10. 

4 CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009a. Bay Barometer. A Health and Restoration Assessment 

5 of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2008. CBP/TRS 293-09. 

6 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/ publications/cbp_34915.pdf. EPA-903-R-09-001. 

7 <http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_34915.pdf>. CBP/TRS 293-09. 

8 Accessed February 2/8, 20/10. 

9 Chung, W., J. Stuckelberger, K. Aruga, and T.W. Cundy. 2008. Forest road network design 

10 using a trade-off analysis between skidding and road construction costs. Can. J. For. Res.

11 38: 439–448. 

12 Contreras, M., and W. Chung. 2007. A computer approach to finding an optimal log landing 

13 location an analyzing influencing factors for ground-based timber harvesting. Can. J. For. 

14 Res. 37:276–292. 

15 Croke, J.C., and P.B. Hairsine. 2006. Sediment delivery in managed forests: a review. Environ. 

16 Rev. 14:59–87. 

17 Croke, J. S. Mockler, P. Fogarty, and I. Takken. 2005. Sediment concentration changes in runoff 

18 pathways from a forest road network and the resultant spatial pattern of catchment 

19 connectivity. Geomorphology 68:257–268. 

20 CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). No date. The economic connections between forests and 

21 drinking water: A pilot study in the Linganore Creek watershed, Maryland. Center for 

22 Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD.

23 Eastaugh, C.S., P.K. Rustomji, and P.B. Hairsine. 2007. Quantifying the altered hydrologic 

24 connectivity of forest roads resulting from decommissioning and relocation. Hydrol. 

25 Process. 22:2438–2448. 

26 Elliot, K.J., and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial effectsEffects of prescribed firePrescribed Fire on 

27 qualityQuality of soil solutionSoil Solution and streamwaterStreamwater in the Southern 

28 Appalachian Mountains. S. J. Applied For. 29(1):5–15. 

29 Epstein, R., A. Weintraub, P. Sapunar, E. Nieto, et al. 2006. A combinatorial heuristic approach 

30 for solving real-size machinery location and road design problems in forestry planning. 

31 Operations Research 54(6): 1017–1027. 

32 Fu, B., L.T.H. Newham, and J.B. Field. 2007. Modelling erosion and sediment delivery from 

33 unsealed roads in southeast Australia. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 79:2679–

34 2688. 

35 Ghaffarian, M.R., and H. Sobhani. 2007. Modelling erosion and sediment delivery from unsealed 

36 roads in southeast Australia. Croat. J. For. Eng. 28(2):185–193. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 446 

1 Hazlett, P.W., A.M. Gordon, R.P. Voroney, and P.K. Sibley. 2007. Impact of harvesting and 

2 logging slash on nitrogen and carbon dynamics in soils from upland spruce forests in 

3 northeastern Ontario. Soil Biology & Biochem. 39:43–57. 

4 Hazlett, P., K. Broad, A. Gordon, P. Sibley, J. Buttle, and D. Larmer. 2008. The importance of 

5 catchment slope to soil water N and C concentrations in riparian zones: implications for 

6 riparian buffer width. Can. J. For. Res. 38:16–30. 

7 Hodges, C., and R. Visser. 2004. Comparison of Streamside Management Zone Requirements in 

8 the Southeast. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Department of Forestry, 

9 Blacksburg VA.

10 Homyak, P.M., R.D. Yanai, D.A. Burns, R.D. Briggs, and R.H. Germain. 2008. Nitrogen 

11 immobilization by wood-chip application: Protecting water quality in a northern hardwood 

12 forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 255:2589–2601. 

13 Hotta, N., T. Kayama, and M. Suzuki. 2007. Analysis of suspended sediment yields after low 

14 impact forest harvesting. Hydrol. Process. 21:3565–3575. 

15 Klapproth, J.C., and J.E. Johnson. 2000. Understanding the science behind riparian forest 

16 buffers: Effects on water quality. Pub. 420-151. Virginia State University, Virginia 

17 Cooperative Extension, Petersburg, VA.

18 Knoepp, J.D., K.J. Elliott, B.D. Clinton, and J.M. Vose. 2009. Effects of prescribed fire in mixed 

19 oak forests of the southern Appalachians: forest floor, soil, and soil solution nitrogen 

20 responses. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 136(3):380–391. 

21 Kyker-Snowman, T. No date. Forests and water: Some principles of management. 

22 <http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/forestry/Kyker23 SnowmanForests%20and%20Water%20TSC%20visioning.pdf>. Accessed March 2, 2010.

24 Lauren, A., H. Koivusalo, A. Ahtikoski, T. Kokkonen, and L. Finer. 2007. Water protection and 

25 buffer zones: How much does it cost to reduce nitrogen load in a forest cutting? Scand. J. 

26 For. Res. 22:537–544. 

27 Loggertraining. 2010. Pennsylvania Timber Harvester/Forest Practitioner Training Program. 

28 <http://www.loggertraining.com/pa.htm>. Accessed March 4, 2010.

29 Lovett, G.M., K. Weathers, and M. Arthur. 2002. Control of nitrogen loss from forested 

30 watersheds by soil carbon:nitrogen ratio and tree species composition. Ecosystems 5:712–

31 718.

32 Mercker, D.C., and D.G. Hodges. 2007. Forest certification and nonindustrial private forest 

33 landowners: Who will consider certifying and why? J of Extension 45(4). 

34 <http://www.joe.org/joe/2007august/rb6.php>. Accessed March 2, 2010.

35 Metafore. 2007. Forest Certification Resource Center. <http://www.metafore.org/>. Accessed 

36 March 2, 2010.
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 447 

1 Najafi, A., H. Sobhani, A. Saeed, M. Makhdom, and M.M. Mohajer. 2008. Planning and 

2 assessment of alternative forest road and skidding networks. Croat. J. For. Eng. 29(1):63–

3 73. 

4 NYLT (New York Logger Training). 2010. What is NYLT?

5 <http://www.nyloggertraining.org/home/>. Accessed March 4, 2010.

6 Rackley, J., and W. Chung. 2008. Incorporating forest road erosion into forest resource 

7 transportation planning: a case study in the mica creek watershed in northern Idaho. Trans. 

8 ASABE 51(1):115–127. 

9 Rivenbark, B.L., and C.R. Jackson. 2004. Concentrated flow breakthroughs moving through 

10 silvicultural streamside management zones: Southeastern Piedmontsoutheastern piedmont, 

11 USA. JAWRA 40(4):1043–1052. 

12 SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). 2010. SFI 2010–2014 Standard. Sustainable Forestry 

13 Initiative, Inc., Washington, DC.

14 Sheridan, G.J., P.J. Noske, R.K. Whipp, and N. Wijesinghe. 2006. The effect of truck traffic and 

15 road water content on sediment delivery from unpaved forest roads. Hydrol. Process.

16 20:1683–1699. 

17 Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitski. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 

18 salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Corp, Corvalis, OR. Funded by 

19 National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. 

20 Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NMFS, Portland, OR. 

21 SUNY (State University of New York). 2010. How does Forest Harvesting Affect Nitrogen in 

22 Streams? State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. 

23 <http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/nitrogen/default.htm>. Accessed March 2, 2010.

24 Takken, I., J. Croke, and P. Lane. 2008. A methodology to assess the delivery of road runoff in 

25 forestry environments. Hydrol. Process. 22:254–264. 

26 University of Florida. 2007. Forest Certification Programs. 

27 <http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/extension/florida_forestry_information/planning_and_assistance/f

28 orest_certification_programs.html>. Accessed March 2, 2010.

29 USDA-FS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service). 2009. Forest Stewardship 

30 Program. <http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/fsp.shtml>. Accessed March 2, 

31 2010.

32 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 

33 Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution from Forestry. EPA 841-B-05-001. U.S. 

34 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

35 USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Virginia 2008 Water Quality 

36 Assessment Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, 

37 DC. <http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control?p_area=VA>. Accessed March 

38 4, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 
3/15/202-22-10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote — 

Chapter 4. Forestry 448 

1 Virginia Tech. 2010. SHARP Logger Program. <http://www.sharplogger.vt.edu/>. Accessed 

2 March 4, 2010.

3 White, W.J., L.A. Morris, A.P. Pinho, C.R. Jackson, and L.T. West. 2007. Sediment retention by 

4 forested filter strips in the Piedmont of Georgia. J. Soil Water Cons. 62(6):453–463. 

5 Williams, T.M., D.J. Lipscombb, W.R. English, and C. Nickel. 2003. Mapping variable—width 

6 streamside management zones for water quality protection. Biomass and Bioenergy

7 24:329– – 336. 

8 Witmer, P.L., P.M. Stewart, and C.K. Metcalf. 2009. Development and use of a sedimentation 

9 risk index for unpaved road-stream crossings in the Choctawhatchee watershed. JAWRA

10 45(3):734–747. 

11 WVDOF (West Virginia Division of Forestry). 2010. Logging. West Virginia Division of 

12 Forestry, Charleston, WV. <http://www.wvforestry.com/>. Accessed March 4, 2010.

13 Zavala, L.M., A. Jordán, J. Gil, N. Bellinfante, and C. Pain. 2009. Intact ash and charred litter 

14 reduces susceptibility to rain splash erosion post-wildfire. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms

15 34:1522–1532.