3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 408 

## Chapter 4. Forestry 1

4. 

### Contents 2

1

. Nonpoint Source Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay: Forests Forestry in Perspective......... 409 3

2

. Forestry Practices for Water Quality Protection...

................................................... ............. 413 4

2.1 Introduction...................................

................................................... .............................413 5 2.2 Preharvest Planning ............................

................................................... .......................416 6 2.3 Streamside Management Areas (SMAs).............

................................................... .......422 7

2.4 Forest Road Construction/Reconstruction and For est Road Management...................430 8 2.5 Timber Harvesting ..............................

................................................... .......................436 9 2.6 Site Preparation...............................

................................................... ...........................438 10 2.7 Fire Management ................................

................................................... .......................440 11 2.8 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas ................

................................................... ...............442 12 2.9 Forest Chemical Management .....................

................................................... ..............443 13 2.10 Wetlands Forest Management....................

................................................... ................443 14

3 References.......................................

................................................... ................................... 444 15

163/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 409 

## 1

. Nonpoint Source Pollution and the Chesapeake Bay: 1 

## Forests Forestry in Perspective 2 The Chesapeake Bay Program has published a report o n the health of the Chesapeake Bay almost 3 annually since 1999 (CBP 2009). In that report the program provides information on the primary 4 sources of nitrogen (N) , phosphorus (P) , and sediment—the pollutants of most concern in th e 5 Chesapeake Bay. The list of largest contributors of nutrients to the bay Bay in the annual reports 6 invariably has included agriculture, atmospheric de position, wastewater, and urban/suburban 7 lands. The 2007 report also includes septic systems as a primary contributor. 8
Because forestry operations are on a significantly smaller scale in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 9 as compared to some other areas of the United State s, effects from forestry are modest. Of the 10 states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, only Virgin ia notes silviculture as a source contributing 11 to water quality impairment. Virginia lists silvicu lture as a probable source of impairment for 12 14.8 miles of rivers and streams, or 0.069 percent of the total river and stream miles reported) 13 (USEPA 2008). Silviculture was not listed as a sour ce of impairment to any other waterbody 14 types. 15
Although forest harvesting and other silvicultural activities are generally not identified in state 16 reports as having a significant adverse effect on t he Chesapeake Bay, such activities can and do 17 play an important role in helping to protect water quality in the bay. Bay. Some excerpts from the 18 reports about the importance of forests in the Ches apeake Bay are provided below. 19

• Forests protect and filter drinking water for 75 pe rcent of the bay Bay watershed’s 20 residents and provide valuable ecological services and economic benefits including 21 carbon sequestration, flood control, wildlife habit at and forest products. Retaining and 22 expanding forests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed i s critical to our success in restoring 23 the Chesapeake Bay. Forests are the most beneficial land use for protecting water quality, 24 due to their ability to capture, filter and retain water, as well as absorb pollution from the 25 air (CBP 2008). 26

• In addition to preserving the watershed, well-maint ained forest buffers naturally absorb 27 nutrients and sediments, thus improving water quali ty in neighboring streams. Riparian 28 forest buffers also provide a source of large, wood y material input to streams that helps 29 form and maintain important fish habitat and provid e for channel stability (CBP 2008). 30

• Scientific findings clearly show that well-managed forests are the most beneficial land 31 use for clean water. Experts agree that healthy for ests are directly linked to the health of 32 rivers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and, ultimat ely, the bay. Bay. Large areas of 33 healthy forest and streamside forests are essential to keeping nutrient and sediment 34 pollution out of the rivers and bay Bay (CBP 1999). 35

A relatively new EPA initiative—the Healthy Watersh eds Initiative—focuses on restoring 36 impaired waters, and it augments the Agency’s well- established watershed approach with 37 proactive, holistic, aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection. EPA recognizes the numerous 38 benefits that healthy watersheds provide. For insta nce, forested watersheds protect aquifer 39 recharge zones and surface water sources and reduce water treatment costs: For every 10 percent 40 increase in forest cover in an aquifer’s source are a, chemical and treatment costs decrease by 20 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 410 percent. Healthy watersheds also provide benefits l ike resistance to invasive species; habitat for 1 fish, amphibians, birds, and insects; recreational opportunities such as fishing, water-based 2 recreation, and tourism; and vast carbon storage ca pabilities. Healthy watersheds are also less 3 vulnerable to floods, fires, and other natural disa sters, which reduces costs to communities. 4
The Healthy Watersheds Initiative includes both ass essment and management approaches that 5 encourage states, local governments, watershed orga nizations, and others to take a strategic, 6 systems approach to conserve healthy components of watersheds. The initiative combines 7 understanding of the biological, chemical, and phys ical condition of waterbodies with watershed 8 functional attributes, such as hydroecology, geomorphology, and natural disturbance patterns 9 and, thus, helps us manage watersheds as integrated systems that can be understood through the 10 dynamics of essential ecological attributes. 11
Forested watersheds are well recognized to provide water quality benefits. The economic value 12 of forested watersheds are difficult to assess, how ever. Forest cover intercepts rainfall, protecting 13 soils from erosion; the roots of trees and fo rest litter covering a forest floor prevent soil er osion; 14 trees absorb water, delaying the input of stormwate r runoff to streams; and forest vegetation 15 absorbs nutrients that could otherwise be lost to s urface waters through surface runoff and 16 groundwater. All these water quality services provided by fores ts are valuable to society, but 17 their dollar value varies by the location of the fo rest ( e.g., Is it in a watershed that provides 18 municipal drinking water?), species and sizes of tr ees, condition of the fo rest, climate, rainfall 19 characteristics, and soil characteristics (e.g., er odibility, nutrient content) (CWP no date). The 20 water quality protection service of an acre of fore st, therefore, cannot be assigned a single dollar 21 value. S tudies have been done to try to estimate the value of forest conservation ( Table 4

- 1), 22 resulting in a range of $25 million to $6 billion o f capital costs that have been avoided through 23 watershed protection. 24

Table 4

- 1. Avoided costs of constructing filtration plants through waters hed protection 25 Metropolitan a rea 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 cos t Seattle, WA $150

- 200 million (gross) avoided cost Portland, OR $920,000 spent annually to protect watershed in avo iding a $200 million capital

cost Portland, ME $729,000 spent annually to protect watershed has av oided $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 avoidin g $30 million capital cost and

$750,000 in annual operating costs

Source: CWP N o d ate

Forests, especially well-managed forests, are a key element in any state, local, or federal water 26 quality protection program. Forests and forested la nd, whether in a rural setting, along streams 27 on agricultural land, intermixed with other land us es in suburban settings, or in urban locations, 28 are natural filters for stormwater runoff and one o f the least expensive and most effective means 29 of protecting water quality. 303/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 411 One strategy that states use to achieve well

- managed forests is training programs fo r licensed 1 loggers. Such logger training programs are run by state departme nts of forestry, universities, or 2 nonprofit forestry groups operating, and they are c ritical to the effective use of BMPs on harvest 3 sites. The New York Logger Training is a coopera tive effort of timber harvesters, forest industry, 4 government, educators, and foresters working togeth er to deliver resources that will allow 5 loggers to learn environmentally sound practices an d improved skills (NYLT 2010). The 6 Sustainable Forestry Initiat ive Program in Pennsylvania has developed a compreh ensive training 7 program for loggers. A variety of courses cover top ics from basic compliance with local, state 8 and federal laws, to in

- depth discourses on business management, wildlife, forest management 9

a nd ecology, BMPs for erosion control, and others (L oggertraining 2010). In West Virginia, the 10 West Virginia Division of Forestry provides worksho ps on best management practices (BMPs) 11 for practicing loggers (WVDOF 2010). The logger tra ining program in Virg inia is referred to as 12 the SHARP (Sustainable Harvesting And Resource Prof essional). To achieve SHARP Logger 13 standing, participants must complete a core program of 18 hours of classroom and field training 14 (Virginia Tech 2010). Of those 18 hours, 6 hours co ver sustainable forestry

, and 6 hours are 15 devoted to BMPs. The Sustainable Forestry session combines classroom sessions with field 16 exercises. Participants review the principles of su stainable forestry and then tour a forest site to 17 observe examples of fore st ecology and silviculture. The Harvest Planning and Best 18 Management Practices session includes visiting a forested site, discuss ion of how to use 19 topographic maps and training on the essential elem ents for an environmentally sound harvest 20 plan. 21

Another i mportant development in forest management is the in creasing acceptance and use of 22 sustainable forest management techniques through third

- party forest certification programs . One 23 of the principles of sustainable forestry is to pro tect waterbodies and ripari an zones and to 24 conform to BMP s to protect water quality (SFI 2010). Further information on forest product 25 certification is provided below under Preharvest Planning

. 26
[Note: EPA and the USFS are working together to inc orporate information on conservation and 27 stewardship planning in a later version of this dra ft.] 28
As described fully in the Riparian chapter of this document, forested riparian buffer s can provide 29 some measure of flow regulation under certain water shed conditions. A primary way in which 30 buffers reduce flow velocity is by creating physica l barriers that slow down the flow and allow 31 infiltration absorption of water into soil. They also maintain streamside soils in a condition to 32 absorb water by virtue of their extensive root syst ems and organic litt er production that provide 33 the soil structure necessary for a large quantity o f infiltration. absorption. Rainfall and runoff 34 intensity, soil characteristics, hydrologic regime, and slope of the buffer and runoff source area 35 are once again some of the factors that determine a forested riparian buffer’s ability to regulate 36 stream flow. A narrow forested buffer on a steep, n on-vegetated slope has little ability to regulate 37 flow, whereas a wide forested buffer on a gentle, v egetated slope could help reduce peak flow 38 levels and provide for dry season flow. 39
Leaders of the Chesapeake Bay Program clearly recog nize the importance of forests and forested 40 riparian areas to the bay’s Bay’s health. At its annual meeting in December 2007, th e Chesapeake 41 Executive Council signed the Forestry Conservation Initiative , committing the bay Bay states to 42 permanently conserving an additional 695,000 acres of forested land throughout the watershed 43 by 2020 (CBP 2008). An original goal of 2,010 miles of forest buffer restoration by 2010 was 443/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 412 achieved ahead of time, and a new goal to restore f orests along at least 70 percent of streams and 1 shorelines in the bay Bay watershed was set in 2003. The bay Bay was to have at least 10,000 2 shoreline miles forested by 2010 (CBP 2009). The progress to date is 6,858 miles (2009). 3
Research in N saturation shows that young forests c apture N from atmospheric inputs. Old 4 forests generally do not leak N unless there is a large input source of N, such as from 5 atmospheric pollutants (Kyker

- Snowman no date). The retention of atmospheric N in forested 6 watersheds is directly influenced by species compos ition and many factors that can change that 7 composition, e.g., natural succession, climate chan ge, forest management practices, forest pest 8 infestations (Lovett et al. 2002). Undisturbed and properly managed fore sted ecosystems have 9 considerable capacity to retain and efficiently cyc le reactive N and prevent it from entering 10 waterways. If, however, a forested system experienc es a disturbance

— such as widespread 11

rem oval of vegetation

— its ability to retain N is diminished. Implementing sound forest 12 management practices can minimize such effects (SUN Y 2010)

. 13
Deforestation is the long

- term conversion of forest to another land use or th e long

- term reduction 14 of the tree c anopy cover below a 10 percent threshold. Chesapeak e Bay Program land analyst 15 scientists have a very good idea where deforestatio n is going to occur in the coming years in the 16 bay watershed. Forests that are vulnerable to devel opment and that without actio n would be 17 expected to be developed are critical to protecting the bay watershed. Preventing the loss of those 18 forests is referred to as avoided deforestation , and it has been used as a measure of credit for b ay 19 protection for more than 10 years

. 20

The nutri ent reduction efficiency of avoided deforestation c an be considerable because of the 21 difference in nutrient loading to the Chesapeake Ba y between a natural forest versus typical 22 development. Bay scientists ran a model to compare N contributions to the bay if all high

- value, 23 vulnerable forests that would be protected were los t versus their remaining protected, and the 24 difference was 3.1 million pounds of N prevented fr om flowing into the bay if the forests were 25 all protected. 26
Rather than focusing on silviculture as a source co ntributing significantly to the bay’s Bay’s 27 water quality impairment, the focus on silviculture in the bay Bay is on preserving forests, 28 maintaining forested shorelines and stream stream banks, and restoring forests near bay Bay 29 waters where they have been removed. 30
The lessons from these reports and the message to b e gained from this guidance are 31

• Forests and forested buffers are extremely importan t to maintaining and improving water 32 quality in the Chesapeake Bay. 33

• Maintaining well-managed, protective forested ripar ian buffers in a condition that 34 conserves or enhances their ability to trap polluta nts; protect the water quality of the 35 bay Bay ; and provide high-quality , in-water habitat for aquatic species is vitally 36 important. 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 413 

## 2

. Forestry Practices for Water Quality Protection 1



### 2.1 Introduction 2
The effects of forestry activities on surface water s are of concern to EPA, state, and local 3 authorities because healthy, clean waters are impor tant for aquatic life, drinking water, and 4 recreational use. Surface waters and their ecology can be affected by inputs of sediment, 5 nutrients, and chemicals, and by alterations to str eam flow that can result from forestry activities. 6 The purpose of implementing measures and best management practices ( BMPs ) to protect 7 surface waters during and after forestry activities is to protect important ecological conditions 8 and characteristics of the surface waters in areas with roads and logged, forested areas. Such 9 conditions vary with waterbody type, but, in genera l, the ecological conditions that 10 implementation measures and BMPs are intended to pr otect include the following: 11

• General water quality, by minimizing inputs of poll uted runoff 12

• Water temperature, by ensuring an adequate (but not excessive) and appropriate amount 13 of shade along shorelines and streambanks 14

• Nutrient balance, by providing for an adequate infl ux of carbon and nutrients that serve 15 as the basis of aquatic food chains 16

• Habitat diversity, by ensuring that inputs of large organic debris to the aquatic system are 17 appropriate for the system 18

• Hydrologic processes, by limiting disturbances to s tream flow patterns, both seasonal and 19 annual 20

In a forested watershed, logging has the effect of both compacting and loosening soils from 21 constructing and using roads, using heavy machinery , dragging logs over the ground or 22 otherwise transporting them to yarding areas, and r emoving vegetation. Roads and road ditches, 23 ruts on the ground, and areas cleared of leaf litte r or other soil coverings create opportunities for 24 water channeling and flow diversion, which, if not properly controlled and directed, can generate 25 erosive flows. Thus, the disturbances caused by log ging in a forested watershed can lead to 26 hydrologic changes in the same watershed, which can , in turn, lead to nonpoint source pollution. 27 Forestry activities and their potential effects on forest hydrology and water quality (through 28 nonpoint source pollution) are discussed below. 29
The potential for sediment delivery to streams is a long-term (beyond 2 years) concern from 30 almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads regardless of their level of use or 31 age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other polluta nts of significance—including nutrients, increased 32 temperature, toxic chemicals and metals, organic ma tter, pathogens, herbicides, and pesticides— 33 are also of concern. Problems associated with those pollutants (in the context of forestry 34 activities) generally do not extend beyond 2 years from the time of harvest or are associated with 35 a specific activity, such as an herbicide applicati on. Temperature effects might generally extend 36 beyond 2 years because of the time necessary for re growth to occur in harvested streamside 37 management areas (SMAs). 38
Nevertheless, all these pollutants have the potenti al to affect water quality and aquatic habitat 39 and minimizing their delivery to surface waters, an d groundwater deserves serious consideration 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 414 before and during forestry activities. Forest harve sting can also affect the hydrology of a 1 watershed, and hydrologic alterations within a wate rshed have the potential to degrade water 2 quality. Forestry activities can also affect the ha bitats of aquatic species through physical 3 disturbances caused by constructing stream crossing s, using equipment in stream corridors, and 4 placing in streams slash or other debris generated by forestry activities. The effects of sediment 5 and other pollutants on water quality in forested a reas are discussed below. 6



### Sediment 7 Sediment deposited in surface waters is addressed i n this document because of its potential to 8 affect in-stream conditions and aquatic communities . Sediment is the pollutant most associated 9 with forestry activities. Soil is lost from the for est floor by surface erosion or mass wasting (for 10 example, landslides). 11
Surface erosion generally contributes minor quantit ies of sediment to streams in undisturbed 12 forests, and the quantity of surface erosion depend s on factors mentioned earlier, such as soil 13 type, topography, and amount of vegetative cover (S pence et al. 1996). 14

Rill erosion and channelized flow occur where rainw ater and snowmelt are concentrated by 15 landforms, including berms on roads and roadside di tches. They cause erosion most severely 16 where water is permitted to travel a long distance without interruption over steep slopes because 17 the combination of distance and slope tends to incr ease the volume and velocity of runoff. Sheet 18 erosion, or overland flow, occurs occasionally on e xposed soils where the conditions necessary 19 for it exist—including saturated soil or a rainfall intensity that is greater than the ability of soil to 20 absorb the water—but it is not common on forest soi ls. 21



### Nutrients 22
Nutrients, such as N nitrogen and P phosphorus from fertilizers, soil, and plant material, are 23 primary chemical water quality constituents. They c an enter waterbodies attached to sediments, 24 dissolved in the water, or transported by air. Fore st harvesting can increase nutrient leaching 25 from the soil, although the effect generally subsid es to near precutting levels within 2 years of a 26 harvest. Low to moderate increases in nutrient leve ls could have no or a beneficial effect on an 27 aquatic environment, but excessive amounts of nutri ents can stimulate algal blooms or an 28 overgrowth of other types of aquatic vegetation. Th at can, in turn, lead to an increase in the 29 amount of decomposing plant material in an aquatic system and increased turbidity and 30 biological oxygen demand. The latter effect can dec rease dissolved oxygen concentrations, with 31 potentially detrimental effects to aquatic biota. C hapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical 32 Management , discusses methods for minimizing the adverse effe cts of forestry activities on 33 nutrient balances. 34
Organic debris, discussed below, can be an importan t source of nutrients in an aquatic 35 environment, and SMAs play an important role in org anic debris inputs and maintaining nutrient 36 balances in aquatic forest ecosystems. 373/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 415 

### Organic Debris 1
Organic debris—primarily composed of leaves, twigs, branches, and fallen trees—is an 2 important element of water quality because it provi des nutrients and stream structure that are 3 important to supporting aquatic life. The presence of organic matter in the form of woody

, 4 organic debris is one of the primary influences on the microbial denitrification process. It ranges 5 in size from suspended organic matter in water to f allen trees. Large, woody debris, or LWD, can 6 be whole trees or tree limbs that have fallen into streams. It creates the physical habitat diversity 7 essential to support aquatic life. As a structural element, LWD influences the movement and 8 storage of sediment and gravel in streams and stabi lizes streambeds and banks. Small, organic 9 litter—primarily leaves in deciduous forests and co nes and needles in coniferous forests—is an 10 important source of nutrients for aquatic communiti es. It usually decomposes over a year or 11 more, depending on the forest type. 12
When streamside vegetation is removed, inputs of or ganic debris decrease, and the amount of 13 sunlight reaching the water increases. For a stream that might have relied primarily on sources of 14 nutrients external to the stream (fallen debris), v egetation removal can force the stream to rely 15 primarily on in-stream sources (such as algal growt h and in-stream vegetation). The latter might 16 not be present in high-order streams. 17
Organic debris generated during forestry activities include residual logs, slash, litter, and soil 18 organic matter. Such materials can perform some of the same positive functions as naturally 19 occurring LWD and organic litter. If their abundanc e in a stream is substantially greater than 20 normal, however, they can also block or redirect st reamflow, alter nutrient balances, and 21 decrease the concentration of dissolved oxygen as t hey decompose and consume oxygen. 22
In 2005 EPA published National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint So urces of 23 Pollution from Forestry (USEPA 2005). Little has changed with respect to t he commonly 24 accepted best practices of protecting surface water s from inputs of sediment and nutrients during 25 and after forestry activities since that guidance w as published. The 2005 guidance was based on 26 a comprehensive review of both the scientific liter ature and state forestry practices at the time, 27 and a review of state forestry practices and the re cent literature indicates that the information in 28 the 2005 guidance is still as relevant today as it was when it was published. 29
Recent research on forest harvesting has focused on better understanding how some BMPs work 30 (and why they fail) and on methods that can be used to reduce the cost and effort involved in 31 forest planning and harvesting. One of the greatest risks to water quality from forestry activities 32 come from having unprotected streams. SMAs have pro ven to be an important component of 33 water quality protection in forested areas, and rec ent research has focused on understanding the 34 width requirements and vegetative and soil characte ristics that give SMAs their water-quality 35 protection abilities. 36
The other major risk to water quality from forestry activities comes from sediment-laden runoff 37 from areas disturbed by forestry activities, especi ally roads, landings, and skid trails. Not 38 surprisingly, those have also been the focus of the bulk of the research over the past 5 years. 39 Road building and timber removal are among the most costly aspects of forest harvesting, and 40 much research has focused on reducing the costs of forest harvest planning, road building, and 41 timber removal. 423/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 416 Below is a review of the implementation measures fr om EPA’s 2005 guidance, with new 1 information added to some. Many of the implementati on measures are not updated in this 2 guidance because the 2005 guidance adequately ident ifies and discusses the best practices for 3 protecting water quality from forestry activities. For those implementation measures that are 4 updated, the relevant sections below provide a brie f overview of the BMP-specific guidance 5 provided in EPA’s forestry guidance, some recommend ations suggested by the recent research 6 that could help improve on the advice provided in t he 2005 guidance, and a brief review of some 7 recent research relating to the recommendations. 8



### 2.2 Preharvest Planning 9
Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest harvesting tha t includes the following elements where appropriate:

1. Identify the area to be harvested

, including location of waterbodies and sensitive ar ea s such as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high

- erosion

hazard areas (landslide

- prone areas) within the harvest unit. Include topographic and soil maps with the harvest plan to help identify these f eatures.

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 condit ions when the least effect occurs.

4. Consider potential water quality effects and er osion 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 sev ere erosion by identifying high

erosion

- hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable

.
6. Consider additional contributions from harvesting o r roads to any known existing water quality impairments or problems in watersheds of co ncern.

10
Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for for est 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 comp onents are the following:

• Locate roads, la ndings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent prac ticable steep grades and steep hillslope areas, and to decrease the numb er of stream crossings

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

• Determine road usage and select the ap propriate road standard3/15/20 2-22- 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 cr ossings to prevent failure and control effects from the road system. Key component s are the following:

• Size and site crossing structures to prevent failur e

• For fish

- bearing stream s, design crossings to facilitate fish passage

3. Ensure that the design of road prism and the road s urface 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 sur facing materials suitable to the intended vehicle u se for roads that are planned for all

- weather use.

5. Design road systems to avoid high erosion or landsl ide hazard areas. Identify these areas and consult a qualified specialist for design of an y roads that must be constructed through these areas.

1
Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest harvesting th at includes the 2 following elements where appropriate: 3 (1) Identify the area to be harvested including loc ation of water bodies and sensitive areas such 4 as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic speci es habitat areas, or high-erosion-hazard areas 5 (landslideprone areas) within the harvest unit. 6 (2) Clearly mark these sensitive areas with paint o r flagging tape, or in another highly visible 7 manner, prior to harvest or road construction. 8 (3) Time the activity for the season or moisture co nditions when the least effect occurs. 9 (4) Consider potential water quality effects and er osion and sedimentation control in the 10 selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems , especially for harvesting and site preparation. 11 (5) Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying high-erosion12 hazard areas and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable. 13 (6) Consider additional contributions from harvesti ng or roads to any known existing water 14 quality impairments or problems in watersheds of co ncern. 15

16
Implementation Measure: Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the 17 following elements where appropriate: 18 (1) Locate and design road systems to minimize, to the extent practicable, potential sediment 19 generation and delivery to surface waters. Key comp onents are: 20

• locate roads, landings, and skid trails to avoid to the extent practicable steep grades and 21 steep hillslope areas, and to decrease the number o f stream crossings; 22

• avoid to the extent practicable locating new roads and landings in Streamside 23 Management Areas (SMAs); and 24

• determine road usage and select the appropriate roa d standard. 25 (2) Locate and design temporary and permanent strea m crossings to prevent failure and control 26 effects from the road system. Key components are: 27

• size and site crossing structures to prevent failur e; 283/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 418 • for fish-bearing streams, design crossings to facil itate fish passage. 1 (3) Ensure that the design of road prism and the ro ad surface drainage are appropriate to the 2 terrain and that road surface design is consistent with the road drainage structures. 3 (4) Identify and plan to use road surfacing materia ls suitable to the intended vehicle use for roads 4 that are planned for all-weather use. 5 (5) Design road systems to avoid high erosion or la ndslide hazard areas. Identify these 6 areas and consult a qualified specialist for design of any roads that must be constructed 7 through these areas. 8
9

The Preharvest Planning preharvest planning implementation measure is to ensure that all 10 forestry activities are planned with water quality considerations in mind and conducted to 11 minimize the delivery of nonpoint source pollutants to streams and other surface waters. Road 12 system planning is an essential part of this implem entation measure, and two basic tenets of road 13 planning are to minimize the number of road miles c onstructed and to locate roads so as to 14 minimize the risk of water quality effects. Those t wo tenets of road planning are excellent and 15 important guidelines for forest road network planni ng. Although reducing costs is what has led to 16 much recent research on how road planning can be im proved, minimizing costs is also good for 17 water quality because the fewer road miles and skid trails that are developed to harvest an area, 18 the less the water quality will be affe cted impacts occur

. 19
Managing natural resources in wide-scale areas can be a time-intensive and resource-consuming 20 task that requires a significant amount of data col lection in the field and analysis reduction of the 21 data in the office to provide the necessary informa tion. Forest road design is a difficult task 22 because it is hard to find a good or best road alig nment from a large number of alternatives 23 considering social, economic, and environmental eff ects. 24
Forest roads have been identified as a major source of sediment delivered to streams and 25 wetlands in forests. Soil sediment delivered to str eams affects public resources such as water 26 quality, aquatic and wildlife habitat, and riparian resources. Soil sediment causes problems when 27 three components—source, resource, and delivery—are combined. Roads that are not eroded do 28 not have the source. Roads that are far from stream s do not have the resource. Roads that have 29 adequate drainage structures to deliver the sedimen t onto stable forest floors do not have the 30 delivery. 31
Forest roads have an important role in managing for est resources. They need to be constructed in 32 such a way that forestry workers and machines can g ain access to operational sites and carry out 33 operations safely and efficiently. On the other han d, forest roads are at risk of road surface 34 erosion and are subject to cut-and-fill slope failu res. Therefore, it is important that [whoever] 35 design forest roads by considering cost efficiency and the appropriate management of water and 36 soil. 37

Best Management Practices 38

1. Use a combination of geographic information system (GIS) data, Light Detection and 39 Ranging (LiDAR) data, and one of the many computer optimization techniques modified 40 for use in natural resources and forest harvest pla nning to determine road layouts, road 41 and skid trail combinations, and landing locations that will minimize the amount of road 423/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 419 construction or skid distance, or both, expose the least amount of forest soil, and minimize 1 the risk of water quality degradation from harvesti ng. 2 GIS data is widely available today for many areas o f the country, and where it is not available, it 3 is easy to collect quickly using handheld GIS devic es. LiDAR is a remote sensing technique that 4 is rapidly being incorporated as a common technique in natural resources planning. Computer 5 optimization techniques that were once limited to d etermining how best to manage an airline 6 fleet to minimize costs are being applied to every conceivable situation where a best solution is 7 desired. Forest harvest planning, including road ne twork layout and determining a best 8 combination of roads and skid trails for an area is a field where computer optimization is being 9 used with great success. 10
Designing a road network and determining an ideal c ombination of roads and skid trails to 11 minimize cost and maximize water quality protection is difficult because so many possible 12 layouts exist. Computer optimization techniques per mit forest planners to analyze many more 13 possibilities than manual techniques and can arrive at an optimum solution using any desired set 14 of weighed factors. 15

Discussion 16 The location and operation of forest machinery, and the design and construction of forest roads 17 are important issues in forest planning and account for up to 55 percent of production costs 18 (Epstein et al. 2006). A major challenge of any for estry operation is designing an operation that 19 minimizes the costs of road construction, installin g and operating harvest machinery, and 20 transporting timber, while at the same time protect ing the forest environment. Forest planners are 21 increasingly using computerized approaches to fores t planning to reduce costs, collect the 22 information necessary to plan a harvest, find road and landing layouts that minimize forest 23 disturbance, and determine how best to manage exist ing road networks. 24
Aruga et al. (2005b) used two computer optimization techniques (the genetic algorithm and Tabu 25 search) in combination with linear programming and compared the results obtained with the 26 computer approaches to a manually designed forest r oad profile. They found that the profiles 27 designed by computer cost less than the manually de signed profile, that using such optimization 28 techniques can permit forest road engineers to find good solutions for road system layout in 29 reasonable time, and that it permits them to evalua te more road profile alternatives in less time 30 than manual methods. Aruga et al. also looked at th e effect of the number of road profile control 31 points (used in the optimization programming) on co nstruction costs, and their results indicate 32 that increasing the number of control points reduce s the construction costs. That results from the 33 forest road profile becoming closer to the ground p rofile—and the earthwork volume then being 34 reduced—as the number of control points is increase d (Aruga et al. 2005b). 35
LiDAR is a commercially available remote sensing sy stem that is used in natural resources 36 applications. LiDAR is a laser system that calculat es the 3-dimensional (3D) coordinates of 37 objects from reflections on the earth’s surface (Ak ay et al. 2009). Various forestry activities can 38 be performed rapidly and efficiently using LiDAR re mote sensing technology. From the scans, 39 various structures of individual trees, including c rown width, diameter, volume, and height, can 40 be estimated. The last scan can provide a very high -quality Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with 41 approximately 1-meter (m) spatial resolution and ab out 10 to 20 centimeter (cm) height accuracy 42 (Akay et al. 2009), which is useful for road and la nding layout planning. 433/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 420 Forestry activities can sometimes be done more quickly and less expensively using LiDAR than 1 using ground-based systems for wide-scale areas using LiD AR. LiDAR is one of the fastest 2 growing technologies in the natural resources field and it is expected to provide higher resolution 3 and more accurate data as the technology and GIS te chnologies advance (Akay et al. 2009). Of 4

c ourse, the use of technologies such as LiDAR and GIS needs to be balanced against the current 5 availability of information about a forest stand, their cost, and the size of intended harvest. Small 6 harvest operations, such as those typical of nonind ustrial p rivate forest (NIPF) landowners, might 7 not benefit as much from the use of the technologie s as would larger, corporate forest owners. 8
Aruga (2005) emphasizes the importance of using a D EM and LiDAR data over something such 9

as computer assisted drawings ( CAD ) , which forest engineers widely use to draw road pl ans, 10 road profiles, and cross sections, and to calculate earthwork volumes. But CAD cannot find the 11 best alignment with the lowest total road cost that is made up of construction, maintenance, user, 12 social, and environmental costs. Aruga (2005) recom mends using a high-resolution DEM 13 derived from LiDAR data, with which forest planners can optimize horizontal and vertical 14 alignments of forest roads. Road intersection point s are selected manually, from which the 15 computer program using the DEM and LiDAR data gener ates alternative horizontal and vertical 16 road alignments. The program generates ground profi le and cross sections and calculates 17 earthwork volumes for curved roadways. It also esti mates construction and maintenance costs. 18 The optimization model used by Aruga (2005) can fin d the best solution taking all the factors 19 into account, and it helps forest engineers design a forest road by evaluating many alternatives 20 (Aruga 2005). 21
Aruga et al. (2005a) also used a program to optimiz e forest road alignments but combined it with 22 a method for predicting surface erosion and sedimen t delivered to streams, again using a high23 resolution DEM. Because the program generates fores t road alignments using a high-resolution 24 DEM, it can calculate factors required by standard methodology to predict soil sediment 25 delivered to streams. Aruga et al. (2005a) investig ated the effects of road surface materials, 26 culvert distance to stream, and out-sloped roads on total road costs and soil sediment delivered to 27 streams. Using the model, Aruga et al. (2005a) foun d that using lower-quality rock surfacing on 28 forest roads reduced total costs, but the amount of soil sediment from lower-quality rock 29 surfacing was 1.5 times more than that on a higher- quality rock surface, and recommend that 30 lower-quality rock surfacing not be used near strea ms. They also found that placing near-stream 31 culverts 15 m upstream and using an out-sloped road template significantly reduces total road 32 cost and soil sediment. Using the model permitted A ruga et al. (2005a) to successfully optimize 33 forest road alignments, which reduced total road co st and soil sediment. 34
Other researchers have also been investigating the use of computer programming for forest 35 planning. Epstein et al. (2006) used a mixed-intege r programming system, PLANEX, that 36 incorporates many parameters like the technical cha racteristics of machinery operation, road 37 construction, transport and harvest costs, exit poi nts, and economic variables that restrict the 38 harvest. GIS was used in the process to provide tim ber volumes, topographic information, and 39 information on the existing road network. Forestry companies have applied the technology and 40 have reported that its advantages include operation designs that use fewer roads, which translates 41 into lower total costs and the environmental benefi ts that come from less ground disturbance 42 (Epstein et al. 2006). 433/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 421 Numerous authors have investigated the use of compu ter programs to find optimal road layouts 1 for forest harvesting. Najafi et al. (2008) develop ed a method to evaluate forest road network 2 variants using a systematic grid layout. They colle cted terrain condition and stand data at grid 3 points using GIS and prepared maps of forest potent ial for road construction and maps of forest 4 capacity for harvesting on the basis of the data th ey collected. A primary objective of the work 5 was to determine whether the environmental impacts and costs of road network development 6 could be reduced using GIS technologies. They deter mined that the method can be used to 7 evaluate road networks easily, precisely, and in de tail, with very little cost incurred to gather the 8 grid point data (Najafi et al. 2008). 9
Ghaffarian et al. (2007) used an optimization progr am to find an optimal layout for a forest 10 harvested by skidder in northern Iran. The program showed which roads could be eliminated 11 from the existing forest road network, thus reducin g the potential for road failure and sediment 12 runoff and road maintenance costs, while still perm itting efficient forest harvest (Ghaffarian et 13 al. 2007). 14
Chung et al. (2008) developed a road network optimi zation model and applied it to a 4,760 15 hectare (ha) forest in the upper part of the Mica C reek watershed in Idaho, an area owned by 16 Potlatch Forest Holdings. The model is used to iden tify cost-efficient road networks for timber 17 harvesting given cost constraints and with options for on-road transportation of logged timber on 18 new roads and off-road timber transportation using skidders, taking into consideration terrain 19 conditions and stream locations. Costs that are inp ut to the model and that partially determine the 20 outcome include timber volume, road construction co st, skidding cost, and stream crossing cost 21 (Chung et al. 2008). The latter purposefully tends to favor fewer or simpler stream crossings. 22
The model selects the least-cost activity using cos ts of skidding versus road construction and 23 timber volume. For example, if enough timber volume is in an area or road construction cost is 24 low compared with skidding cost, the road building option is selected so as to decrease the 25 average skidding distance. On the contrary, if timb er volume is not large enough or road cost is 26 high, the skidding option is selected because build ing a new road would not be economically 27 feasible even though the average skidding distance increases. Such a process eventually 28 generates a road network that most cost-efficiently serves the entire area of interest for the 29 purpose of timber harvesting (Chung et al. 2008). 30
Rackley and Chung (2008) used NETWORK2000, a forest transportation planning model, to 31 produce alternative road systems that simultaneousl y minimizes transportation costs and overall 32 sediment delivery using inputs of estimated sedimen t delivery. They applied the methodology to 33 the Mica Creek watershed in northern Idaho, where 1 1 alternative road networks were 34 developed. The results of the modeling effort indic ates that incorporating environmental effects 35 into transportation planning can generate alternati ve road networks that reduce a large amount of 36 estimated sediment delivery at the expense of a rel atively small increase in transportation costs 37 (Rackley and Chung 2008). 38
It is important to be able to include all relevant factors in any computerized system for 39 optimizing forestry operations because, while many methods of finding optimal landing locations 40 and determining the best skidding distance have bee n developed, they simplify harvest units and 41 do not consider many factors that influence landing , skid trail, and road location (Contreras and 42 Chung 2007). They used a computerized model to dete rmine the optimal landing location for 433/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 422 harvesting using raster-based GIS data. The model f inds skid trails from stump to candidate 1 landing locations and selects the best location on the basis of minimizing total skidding distance 2 and spur road costs. The model included harvest uni t boundary shapes, volume distribution, 3 obstacles, terrain conditions, and spur road constr uction as factors taken into account in the 4 optimization task. Using the model, Contreras and C hung (2007) found a range of cost savings 5 associated with the various factors to be from $0 t o $9,443, with an average savings per factor 6 considered of $1,788. Data needed for the model are easy to obtain because LiDAR and GIS can 7 provide most of it (Contreras and Chung 2007). 8

2. Seek technical assistance through your state for estry agency to develop a comprehensive, 9 multi

- resource forest management plan. 10 Authorized by the Cooperative Forestry Assistance A ct of 1978, the Forest Ste wardship Program 11 (FSP) provides technical assistance, through state forestry agency partners, to NIPF owners to 12 encourage and enable active long

- term forest management. A primary focus of the prog ram is 13 developing comprehensive, multi

- resource management p lans that provide landowners with the 14 information they need to manage their forests for a variety of products and services (USDA

- FS 15 2009). 16

Discussion 17
Forest Stewardship Management Plans 18 Since its establishment in 1991 through 2006, the p rogram has produced more than 270,000 19 multi

- resource management plans encompassing more than 31 million acres of NIPF land. Forest 20 stewardship plans lay out strategies for achieving unique landowner objectives and sustaining 21 forest health and vigor. Forest stewardship plans motivate landowners to become more active in 22 planning and managing their forests, greatly increa sing the likelihood that their forests will 23 remain intact, productive, and healthy and that the social, economic, and environmental benefits 24 of the lands will b e sustained for future generations (USDA

- FS 2009). Participation in the FSP is 25 open to any NIPF landowner who is committed to the active management and stewardship of 26 their forested properties for at least 10 years. Th e F SP is not a cost

- share program. 27

Rur al Forestry Assistance 28 The FSP also assists state forestry agencies with a variety of programs to further support NIPF 29 owner planning and management efforts including tre e improvement and seedling production, 30 and landowner education programs. The Rural For estry Assistance component of the FSP 31 provides for tree planting and timber stand improve ment projects on nonfederal forest land the 32 development of discrete, resource targeted manageme nt prescriptions, or practice plans for 33 landowners (USDA

- FS 2009)

. 34

3. At tain recognition of proper forest management practi ces through a Forest Certification 35 Program 36 Forest certification is a relatively new developmen t and deals with the practice of forestry, 37 growth of trees, timber harvesting, and ecological impacts associate d with forest harvesting. 38 Forest certification began to become established in the mid

- to late 1990s and is gaining attention 39 (Mercker and Hodges 2007). 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 423 Discussion 1 The United States is somewhat unique when compared to global forestry because a large 2 percen tage of the total forest area in the United States is under NIPF ownership. The largest 3 portion of the nation’s forestland is east of the M ississippi River, where 88 percent of all NIPF 4 owners are. NIPF landowners in the 13 southeastern states number 5 mil lion and control 89 5 percent of the forest area. Further, nearly 60 perc ent of the nation’s timber production is 6 produced by those 13 states, with 18 percent of the world’s industrial timber products originating 7 from the South (Mercker and Hodges 2007)

. 8

Sev eral prominent certification systems are operationa l today that are relevant to the North 9 American marketplace: 10

• The American Tree Farm System (ATFS) is a program f or small, private, nonindustrial 11 landowners (family forest landowners). ATFS certifi es contig uous parcels from 10 to 12 20,000 acres. 13

• The Forest Stewardship Council is an international system covering forest management 14 practices and the tracking and labeling of certifie d products and paper products with 15 recycled content. 16

• The Sustainable Forestry Init iative Program is a sustainable forest management s tandard 17 targeting large industrial operations in the United States and Canada. 18

• The Canadian Standards Association is a national st andard for sustainable forest 19 management and tracking and labeling certifie d material that covers operations in 20 Canada. 21

Benefits 22 The most commonly cited benefits of forest certific ation programs are market access, credibility, 23 and improved forest management. The Forest Stewards hip Council assumes that consumers will 24 show a prefer ence for products from certified forests and, in tu rn, certified wood will gain a price 25 premium in the marketplace. However, demand for cer tified products has not been as strong in 26 North America as in Western Europe. Overall, consum er concerns about forest management are 27 increasing

, and a number of large retail companies and major b usinesses have implemented 28 purchasing policies that require at least partial s ourcing or selling of certified wood and paper 29 products. However, certification is still not, and mi ght never be, necessary to sell wood 30 (University of Florida 2007). 31
A second potential benefit from certification is as surance that landowners are managing their 32 property in the most sustainable way possible. A th ird

- party audit provides a system for 33 valida ting sustainable management claims. This could assu re public agencies as well as the 34 general public that the landowner is engaged in lon g

- term forest management (University of 35 Florida 2007). Although not widespread at this time , participation in one of the certification 36 programs has been proposed, and in some cases adopt ed, in several local ordinances or land 37 development regulations in the South as a qualifica tion for particular land uses. 38
Forest management, especially for NIPF forest owner s, is often impro ved through the technical 39 expertise from natural resource professionals used to develop, implement, and monitor forest 40 management plans (University of Florida 2007). 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 424 Costs 1 Direct costs, such as a management plan and the fie ld audit, vary greatly among the systems. For 2 example, ATFS and FSP provide free assessment audit s while Forest Stewardship Council and 3 Sustainable Forestry Initiative audits usually requ ire auditor fees and expenses. ATFS relies on 4 volunteer foresters and FSP relies on state forestr y and wildlife agencies for the certification 5 process. On a per acre basis, direct costs will gen erally increase as ownership size decreases and 6

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



### 2.3 Streamside Management Areas (SMAs) 8

Implementation Measure: Establish and maintain an SMA along surface waters , which is sufficiently wide and which includes a sufficient n umber of canopy species to buffer against detrimental changes in the temperature regime of th e waterbody, to provide bank stability, and to withstand wind damage.

9

Implementation Measure: Manage the SMA in such a way as to protect againstsoil disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream of sediments and nutrients generated by forestry activities, includin g harvesting. Manage the SMA canopy species to prov ide a sustainable source of LWD needed for in

- stream channel structure and aquatic species habita t. Implementation Measure : Establish and maintain a streamside management a rea along surface 10 waters, which is sufficiently wide and which includ es a sufficient number of canopy species to 11 buffer against detrimental changes in the temperatu re regime of the water body, to provide bank 12 stability, and to withstand wind damage. 13 Implementation Measure : Manage the SMA in such a way as to protect again st soil 14 disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream o f sediments and nutrients generated by 15 forestry activities, including harvesting. Manage t he SMA canopy species to provide a 16 sustainable source of large woody debris needed for in-stream channel structure and aquatic 17 species habitat. 18
Section 3B of the EPA guidance, National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint So urce 19 Pollution from Forestry (USEPA 2005) presents EPA’s recommendation for SMA s in areas 20 affected by forestry activities such as harvesting and post-harvest site preparation. The 2005 21 guidance describes the implementation measure, disc usses the benefits of SMAs, and presents 22 BMPs that can be used to meet the intent of the imp lementation measure. 23
The recommendations of the 2005 guidance with respe ct to SMAs still hold. Forested areas 24 along streams and rivers are considered vital for p roviding habitat, food, and shelter for wildlife 25 and protecting water quality by reducing nutrient a nd sediment input from upland areas. The 26 Chesapeake Bay Program Forestry Workgroup emphasize d the importance of streamside areas 27 when it developed the 2003 Directive for Expanded Riparian Forest Buffer Goals (CBP 2003). 28 The directive recommends that forest buffers exist on at least 70 percent of all shorelines and 29 streambanks in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. An est imated 60 percent of the shorelines in the 30 watershed are now forested. Protecting the forests along streams in areas harvested for wood 31 products is one of the key components to achieving the goal of the 2003 directive. 323/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 425 Most states incorporate SMAs as a major component o f their forestry practice guidelines, and the 1 recommendations of the states for establishing and protecting SMAs in harvest areas to protect 2 water quality have not changed since publication of the 2005 EPA guidance. A general rule for 3 the width of an SMA is a minimum of 25 to 50 feet, with 5 feet of additional width added for 4 each 1 percent of slope of the contributing land (K lapproth and Johnson 2000). Of course, state, 5 federal, or other applicable guidelines or rules fo r SMAs should be followed where they are 6 applicable. For instance, many states (e.g., Virgin ia, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, and 7 South Carolina) prescribe wider SMAs along waters t hat protect cold water fisheries (Hodges 8 and Visser 2004). 9
With the importance of SMAs for water quality prote ction well-established, over the past 5 to 7 10 years, researchers have been investigating the use of technology for improving the accuracy and 11 ease with which variable-width SMAs can be establis hed, how concentrated runoff flows can be 12 prevented from entering and passing through SMAs to reach streams, and—in response to 13 landowner concerns over lost revenue by not harvest ing in SMAs—the extent to which thinning 14 in SMAs could be permitted while still retaining th e nutrient- and sediment-trapping capabilities 15 of the SMA. Recommendations to augment the informat ion on SMAs in the 2005 EPA guidance 16 are provided below, and the findings of the recent research are summarized. For more 17 information on SMAs, see the Riparian Section. 18

Best Management Practices 19

1. Use GIS to determine SMA boundaries 20

Field-based determination of variable-width SMA bou ndaries is a time-consuming and often 21 inaccurate process that m ight be able to can be accomplished more easily, in less time , and with 22 greater accuracy using GIS data. The width of SMAs is measured hori zontally from the 23 streambank . The areas in which SMAs will be established are o ften sloped, and and it can be 24 difficult to calculate the slope to determine the p roper width of an SMA and accurately 25 determine and mark its boundary. The process is mad e even more difficult by the slope of land 26 often varies varying along a stream course, which requires an SMA with a width that varies with 27 the slope. Using GIS data, slope, and distance to s tream, boundary points for an SMA can be 28 determined more quickly and more accurately . With SMAs of the proper width established 29 before a harvest occurs, chances are improved that water quality protection will meet regulatory 30 requirements

. 31

2. Use high-resolution stream maps when planning SM As to ensure that all streams are 32 protected. 33 When planning for stream protection, it is importan t to use the highest resolution stream map 34 available. Lower resolution maps might not indicate the location of higher-order streams and 35 ephemeral streams. When SMAs are planned, if these streams are left unprotected, water quality 36 could be seriously compromised during and after a h arvest. 37

Discussion 38 SMAs are delineated along streams in forested areas that are to be harvested before the harvest 39 takes place. Generally, the width of an SMA varies by the slope of the terrain perpendicular to a 40 stream, with the width increasing as the adjacent s lope increases. That is because additional 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 426 distance is necessary to prevent more rapidly movin g runoff from reaching a stream channel. The 1 process of establishing a variable-width SMA involv es extensive field mapping, which requires 2 traversing streams, measuring side slopes, determin ing where the limits of the SMA should be, 3 marking the boundaries for easy identification duri ng the harvest, and transferring the boundaries 4 to aerial photos and retransferring them to the for est planning map. Although a variable-width 5 SMA is advantageous for water quality protection, s uch an involved process of establishing them 6 complicates forest operation planning (Williams et al. 2003). Williams et al. (2003) discuss how 7 managers can use GIS as an aid to forestry manageme nt planning by accurately mapping SMAs 8 without the need for on-the-ground field determinat ions. 9
Williams et al. (2003) provide details on how to us e GIS and computer programs to simplify 10 variable-width SMA layout. Basically, the process i nvolves using maps of stream bottom 11 position and the topographic information in a GIS d atabase to accurately and quickly determine 12 the boundary location of variable-width SMAs. Detai ls of the GIS software approach to 13 delineating and mapping variable-width SMAs are pro vided by Williams et al. (2003). 14

Baker et al. (2007) evaluated the influence of stre am map resolution on measures of the stream 15 network and explored how predictions of nutrient re tention potential might be affected by the 16 resolution of a stream map. They noted that stream network maps from a broad range of map 17 resolutions have been employed in watershed studies of riparian areas and were concerned that 18 map resolution could affect important attributes of riparian buffers determined from the maps— 19 for instance, the connectivity between source lands and small stream channels could be missing 20 on coarse-resolution maps. They found that using fi ne-resolution stream maps significantly 21 increased estimates of stream order, drainage densi ty, and the proportion of watershed area near 22 a stream (Baker et al. 2007). 23
When they used stream maps of increasing resolution for the same area, estimates of the mean 24 distance from streams to source areas and mean buff er width were reduced, and the areas found 25 to be unprotected by streamside buffers increased. Increasing the stream map resolution revealed 26 portions of river networks reaching out farther int o landscapes and closer to watershed divides, 27 dissecting the landscape more finely while simultan eously decreasing the average proximity of 28 the stream channels throughout watersheds (Baker et al. 2007). 29
Measures of percent land cover within 100 m of stre ams were found to be less sensitive to stream 30 map resolution, and overall, increasing stream map resolution led to reduced estimates of 31 nutrient retention potential in riparian buffers (B aker et al. 2007). Th at study also demonstrated 32 that stream Stream map resolution can also affect a user’s ability to determine whether sediment 33 retention occurs in riparian zones. In some watersh eds, switching from a coarse resolution to a 34 fine resolution stream map completely changed the p erceptions of the authors of a stream 35 network from one that was well-buffered to one thatwas largely unbuffered. Watershed 36 managers need to consider the possibility that prev ious, broad-scale analyses of riparian buffers 37 that used coarse-resolution stream maps might have overestimated landscape-level buffer 38 prevalence and effectiveness. 393/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 427 Best Management Practice 1
1. Use LiDAR to remotely collect tree stand and top ographic information. 2 Light Detection and Ranging, or LiDAR, is a commerc ially available, remote-sensing technology 3 that is increasingly being used in natural resource s planning. In forest harvest planning, it can be 4 used to obtain detailed information on a forest har vest area, including tree height, crown width 5 and diameter, and volume. Various forestry activiti es can be performed rapidly and efficiently 6 using LiDAR remote sensing technology. LiDAR can pr ovide a very high-quality DEM that is 7 extremely useful for harvest planning as well. 8

Discussion 9

LiDAR can be used to obtain detailed information on a forest harvest area (Akay et al. 2009). 10 LiDAR is now commonly used in natural resources app lications. It is a laser system that 11 calculates the 3D coordinates of objects from refle ctions on the earth’s surface. A LiDAR data 12 set for forested areas is generated by light pulses reflected from different levels of vegetation 13 canopy, including the top of the vegetation surface (first return), intermediate surfaces (second 14 and following returns), and the ground surface (las t return). Various forestry activities can be 15 performed rapidly and efficiently using LiDAR remot e sensing technology. From the first and 16 second returns, various structures of individual tr ees (crown width, diameter, volume, and 17 height) can be estimated. Using the last return, Li DAR can provide a very high-quality DEM 18 with approximately a 1-m spatial resolution and abo ut 10 to 20 cm of height accuracy. Such a 19 DEM can be used to establish the boundaries of vari able-width SMAs without the need for on20 the-ground field mapping. Many forestry activities can be done more quickly and less 21 expensively using LiDAR than by using ground-based systems, and the technology is 22 particularly efficient for establishing a database for forestry activities for wide-scale areas. 23 LiDAR is one of the fastest growing technologies in the natural resources field, and it is expected 24 to provide higher resolution and more accurate data as the technology and GIS technologies 25 advance (Akay et al. 2009). 26

Best Management Practices 27

1. Establish wider-than-recommended SMAs in areas w ith a sparse litter layer. 28 The litter layer on an SMA is critical to stopping sediment- and nutrient-laden runoff from 29 reaching streams. If the litter layer is disturbed, lacking, or very thin, an SMA might have to be 30 wider than recommended by the state forestry agency to adequately stop runoff. 31

2. Establish wider-than-recommended SMAs in areas w here soils have poor infiltration. 32 Similarly, where soils have poor infiltration chara cteristics, the part of sediment and nutrients 33 that would be trapped in soils as runoff infiltrate s can be carried in surface runoff, and the 34 quantity of surface runoff is likely to be greater than in areas with soils with good infiltration 35 characteristics. Extending the width of an SMA wher e soils have poor infiltration provides extra 36 distance between the sediment and nutrient source t o the stream within which runoff can be 37 slowed and stopped to prevent water quality consequ ences. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 428 Discussion 1 Hazlett et al. (2008) report that it is generally t hought that steep slopes have shorter water 2 residence time and less capacity to moderate water quality than low slopes, and they require 3 wider riparian buffers. They measured carbon and N nitrogen concentrations in riparian zone 4 shallow soil water at 30-cm depth during lake resea rch in an undisturbed boreal forest area of 5 Ontario to determine the influence of slope on soil water nutrient concentrations. They modeled 6 slope as used in forest management planning and fou nd that it was not significantly correlated 7 with soil water N nitrogen and carbon concentrations but that only dissolved organic carbon 8 levels were significantly greater on steep slopes. However, they positively correlated forest 9 species composition and soil N nitrogen levels with soil water N concentrations (Hazlett e t al. 10 2008). 11
White et al. (2007) noted that a large portion of s ediment is removed in the first 2 m of forested 12 filter strips whether they are disturbed or not. In their study, only 2–3 percent of the total 13 sediment was removed in each meter beyond the first 2 m. Significant reductions also occur in 14 finer, silt-sized sediment in undisturbed filter st rips, and “it appears that it is within this size 15 fraction that increased filter strip width is the m ost important.” If such fine sediment is a concern, 16 a 16-m filter strip should be sufficient to reduce the 2- to 20- micrometer (μm) particle 17 concentrations in runoff to near zero. Filter strip s will have little effect on surface flow sediment 18 concentrations, however, where delivered sediment i s colloidal size (White et al. 2007). That 19 points again to the importance of considering soil characteristics when determining the 20 appropriate SMA width for water quality protection. 21

White et al. (2007) also recommend that forested fi lter strip width be based on soil infiltration 22 characteristics. They also note a trend toward incr eased sediment retention with increased depth 23 of the litter layer, so it is probable that using h arvesting equipment in an SMA would reduce 24 sediment retention. In areas where coarse sediment is of concern, narrow filter strips should 25 provide sufficient opportunity for settling and sho uld be effective even if relatively little runoff 26 infiltrates the soil. They report that narrow filte r strips can remove coarse-textured sediment (> 27 20 μm in diameter) and that filter strips 16-m wide should remove most 2- to 20-μm sediment 28 from runoff water (White et al. 2007). 29
The studies highlight the potential limitation of u sing only slope as a tool for prescribing SMA 30 width during harvesting for nutrient control. There is a disconnect between guidelines for slope 31 as a modifying factor for buffer width establishmen t and slope as a causal factor affecting 32 riparian zone nutrient concentrations. Hazlett et a l. (2008) highlighted the importance of stand 33 characteristics—in their case the presence of white spruce and alder—as a factor influencing soil 34 N nitrogen concentrations. Vegetation in the SMA and soil pro perties are important factors to 35 consider when determining the width of an SMA for w ater quality protection purposes. 36

Best Management Practice 37
1. Follow pre

- harvest plan when harvesting in SMAs where upland, soil, and vegetative or 38 litter layer characteristics are such that sediment and nutrients would likely be intercepted 39 before reaching streams in a thinned SMA. 40 Where water quality would not be compromised and si te characteristics are such that runoff from 41 harvest sites would be stopped adequately before re aching streams, thinning harvests could be 423/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 429 permitted in SMAs. Where permitted, harvesting in S MAs should always be done using 1 techniques that do not disturb the litter layer or compact soils. Additionally, managers must 2 consider other factors besides water quality protec tion when determining whether to permit 3 thinning in SMAs. Factors such as adequate shade be ing provided post-harvest to regulate stream 4 temperature is especially important in streams wher e fish species, such as trout, are very 5 temperature sensitive. Also, an adequate number of trees to supply woody debris to the stream 6 must be retained to ensure the ecological health of stream biota. 7

Discussion 8 Lauren et al. (2007) investigated the possibility t hat SMA thinning could accommodate both the 9 landowner’s desire to maximize timber revenue and t he need to protect water quality. While it is 10 established that uncut buffer zones between clear c uttings reduce export of nutrients, they also 11 reduce harvested stock and harvest revenue, a commo n and justified concern of landowners. 12 Thinning in buffer zones could increase the volume and revenue of a harvest, but the effect of 13 thinning on nutrient export is not well known. Laur en et al. (2007) compared N nitrogen export in 14 a 90-m, unthinned buffer zone to that in a 10-m, th inned buffer zone and found that the N there 15 was a nitrogen export decreased by 53.4 kilograms (kg) in the 90- m, unthinned buffer zone but 16 by only 4.3 kg in the 10-m, thinned buffer zone. In terestingly, however, was their conclusion that 17 a prescribed target for water quality protection (e .g., reduce N nitrogen export from a watershed 18 by 25 kg in 5 years) can be achieved with several m anagement options, or by combining 19 different management schemes. For example, a buffer zone around a stream could be divided 20 into subzones, such as an area in which clearcuttin g is permitted with restricted site preparation, 21 another zone in which thinning is permitted withoutthe need for site preparation, and a third, 22 completely unmanaged zone. Rivenbark and Jackson (2 004) also noted the possibility that SMAs 23 consisting of subzones could be used to meet water quality goals. If the relative strengths of the 24 types of zones for nutrient and sediment reduction are known for an area, for a given water 25 quality protection goal, a mixture of zones in whic h different harvesting activities are permitted 26 and required could be recommended depending on indi vidual landowner needs and site 27 characteristics (Lauren et al. 2007). 283/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 430 

### 2.4 Forest Road Construction/Reconstruction and For est Road 1 

### Management 2
Implementation Measures:

1. Follow preharvest planning (as described under the implem entation measure for Preharvest Planning) when constructing or reconstru cting the roadway.

2. Follow designs planned under the implementation mea sure for Preharvest Planning for road surfacing and shaping.

3. Install road drainage structures according to desig ns planned under the implementation measure for Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation specifications. Match these drainage structures wit h 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 materi al from roadway clearing.

6. Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or other fa vorable practices on disturbed soils on unstable cuts, fills, and such

.
7. Avoid cons tructing new roads in SMAs to the extent practicabl e.

8. Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw periods on roads not designed and constructed for t hese 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 t o 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 roa ds and seasonal roads to control and direct water away fro m 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 r eplacement 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 i ntegrity.

13. Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatem ent, so that chemical contaminants or pollutants are not introduced into surface waters t o the extent practicable.

14. Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and a ssociated fills and approache s to reduce the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill erosion will occur if the drainage structures becom e obstructed.3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 431 Implementation Measures : 1 (1) Follow preharvest planning (as described under the Implementation Measure for Preharvest 2 Planning) when constructing or reconstructing the r oadway. 3 (2) Follow designs planned under the Implementation Measure for Preharvest Planning for road 4 surfacing and shaping. 5 (3) Install road drainage structures according to d esigns planned under the Implementation 6 Measure for Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation specifications. 7 Match these drainage structures with terrain featur es and with road surface and prism designs. 8 (4) Guard against the production of sediment when i nstalling stream crossings. 9 (5) Protect surface waters from slash and debris ma terial from roadway clearing. 10 (6) Use straw bales, silt fences, mulching, or othe r favorable practices on disturbed soils on 11 unstable cuts, fills, etc. 12 (7) Avoid constructing new roads in streamside mana gement areas to the extent practicable. 13 (8) Avoid using roads where possible for timber hau ling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw 14 periods on roads not designed and constructed for t hese conditions. 15 (9) Evaluate the future need for a road and close r oads that will not be needed. Leave closed 16 roads and drainage channels in a stable condition t o withstand storms. 17 (10) Remove drainage crossings and culverts if ther e is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure 18 from lack of maintenance. 19 (11) Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads and seasonal 20 roads to control and direct water away from the roa dway. Remove all temporary stream 21 crossings. 22 (12) Inspect roads to determine the need for struct ural maintenance. Conduct maintenance 23 practices, when conditions warrant, including clean ing and replacement of deteriorated structures 24 and erosion controls, grading or seeding of road su rfaces, and, in extreme cases, slope 25 stabilization or removal of road fills where necess ary to maintain structural integrity. 26 (13) Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust a batement, so that chemical contaminants or 27 pollutants are not introduced into surface waters t o the extent practicable. 28 (14) Properly maintain permanent stream crossings a nd associated fills and approaches to reduce 29 the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill erosion will occur if 30 the drainage structures become obstructed. 31
EPA’s 2005 forestry guidance emphasizes the importa nce of good road planning for preventing 32 sediment delivery to streams in the Road Constructi on/Reconstruction and the Road 33 Management implementation measures. Road constructi on remains one of the largest potential 34 sources of forest activity-produced sediment, and p roviding road and drainage crossing structures 35 that minimize the potential for sediment delivery t o surface waters from roads, landings, and skid 36 trails is still an essential task for long-term wat er quality protection from forest roads. 37
Road planning and construction can be even more eff ective today by using advances that have 38 been made in computerized techniques to find the be st layouts for roads that can reduce both 39 costs and the potential for road runoff to reach st reams. 40

Forest roads also need to be maintained to correct breakdowns in road drainage structures that 41 can lead to sediment runoff and inputs to streams. When properly planned and constructed, forest 423/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 432 road drainage prevents or minimizes the connection between road runoff and the stream network. 1 When roads are left unmaintained, road drainage pat hs can lead to the stream network. Road 2 drainage hydrologically connected to the stream net work is a direct path for sediment input. 3 Additionally, managers should analyze forest roads that are no longer needed and determine 4 whether returning them to vegetative cover would re duce the risk of sediment runoff. 5

Best Management Practice 6
1. Provide extra road drains, especially near strea ms and stream crossings, to minimize the 7 creation of concentrated runoff flows 8 In addition to protecting the litter layer and exte nding SMAs in areas with poor soil infiltration, it 9 is important to ensure that roads and skid trails n ear drainages and streams are kept 10 hydrologically disconnected from the drainage netwo rk. Such a practice means that road 11 segments near streams and stream crossings could ne ed extra drainage structures installed and 12 runoff directed away from streams to minimize the c hance of sediment-laden runoff reaching a 13
stream. 14

Discussion 15 Preventing concentrated runoff flow from reaching S MAs—or stopping concentrated flows 16 within an SMA if they do reach it—is important to p rotecting water quality. Rivenbark and 17 Jackson (2004) surveyed SMAs in the Georgia piedmon t to determine the efficacy of BMPs in 18 preventing concentrated overland flow. Recording wh ere flow broke through SMAs and where it 19 did not break through to streams, they found that 5 0 percent of breakthroughs were at areas of 20 convergence (swales) and gullies, and 25 percent we re concentrated runoff from roads or skid 21 trails. They determined that breakthroughs tend to occur in areas with a large contributing area, 22 little litter cover, and steep slopes. They recorde d some breakthroughs that traveled 100 feet 23 before being filtered. More than half of breakthrou ghs traveled 50 feet before reaching stream 24 channels and 14 percent traveled more than 100 feetbefore reaching streams, though 75 percent 25 of breakthroughs were stopped within the first 20 f eet of an SMA. Runoff travel distance before 26 dispersal was not really related to slope, and brea kthrough frequency did not differ between sites 27 that were prepared post-harvest and sites that were clearcut and not prepared (Rivenbark and 28 Jackson 2004). 29
Rivenbark and Jackson (2004) noted the importance o f protecting the litter layer in an SMA to 30 prevent concentrated flow from reaching the stream channel. In looking at concentrated flow, 31 White et al. (2007) recorded significant formation of concentrated flow after runoff had traveled 32 6 m through forested filter strips. According to th eir study, removing the litter layer can have a 33 major effect on overland flow travel time, especial ly on steeper slopes. On terrain of the same 34 slope but with a disturbed and undisturbed litter l ayer, runoff from the terrain with the disturbed 35 litter layer traveled 40 seconds per meter faster o n 15–17 percent slopes and 12 seconds per 36 meter faster on 5–7 percent slopes (White et al. 20 07). 37
The effectiveness of SMAs in protecting water quali ty, therefore, could be improved by 38 protecting the litter layer, dispersing road runoff better, introducing hydraulic resistance to likely 39 flow paths, and widening SMA at key locations (Rive nbark and Jackson 2004). Additionally, the 40 width of SMAs could be varied on the basis of physi cal features of the site. For instance, SMAs 41 could be extended in sensitive areas, their width c ould be based on the potential hydrologic load 423/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 433 of upland areas rather than being a set width, they could be wider where the contributing area is 1 large and slopes are steeper, and a sub-SMA—a width beyond the primary SMA—could be 2 established where clearcutting is allowed but groun d cover is not disturbed and burning and 3 herbicide use is prohibited. It could also be benef icial to stack logging slash along SMA 4 boundaries to intercept and slow concentrated flows (Rivenbark and Jackson 2004). 5

Best Management Practices 6
2. Analyze the connectivity of a road network to st reams using computerized models and 7 risk analysis to determine where the risk of sedime nt runoff to streams is greatest and 8 where roads maintenance efforts should be concentra ted, or road sections should be 9 removed or modified. 10 Within a forest road network, a small portion of th e road surface generally contributes 11 disproportionately to water quality deterioration. Finding out which road segments are 12 responsible for water quality deterioration can bes t be accomplished with computerized 13 techniques that can analyze a variety of informatio n about individual road segments to determine 14 those where maintenance or decommissioning will hav e the greatest effect. 15

Discussion 16 The computer programming methods mentioned above ar e best used to plan a forest road 17 network before one has been constructed to minimize costs and environmental damage. 18 Computerized techniques for managing existing fores t road networks, including road 19 maintenance for water quality protection and road d ecommissioning, are also being developed. 20 Because runoff and sediment delivery is the dominan t process by which water resources are 21 affected by forestry activities, the concept of a f orest road system’s hydrological connectivity to 22 a stream network has been the focus of much recent research. By managing runoff delivery 23 pathways and the resultant pattern of hydrological connectivity of the road system to the stream 24 network, the potential adverse effects of forest ha rvesting on in-stream water quality can be 25 limited (Croke and Hairsine 2006). 26
Current understanding the various links between sit e runoff, transport, and movement through 27 the forest system into the river system at any part icular site can be difficult to quantify accurately 28 partly because it is difficult to accurately measur e the amount of sediment and attached nutrients 29 delivered to, stored and remobilized within, and ev entually transported from a river system 30 (Croke and Hairsine 2006). A combined approach of r educing the source strength and enabling 31 the delivery path to trap mobilized sediment, there by reducing connectivity, is a sound approach 32 to managing the sediment delivery problem. 33
Three types of runoff delivery pathways from forest roads exist: stream crossings, gullied 34 pathways, and diffuse pathways (Takken et al. 2008) . Sediment delivery to streams depends on 35 source strength and the characteristics of the deli very path. Importantly, the degree of 36 connectivity of a road to surface waters depends on catchment characteristics such as 37 topography, road placement, drain spacing, and road and drainage density (Takken et al. 2008). 38

Takken et al. (2008) evaluated the risk of road-der ived runoff delivery. They created risk 39 assessment maps using road-stream hydrological conn ectivity to highlight hot spots and to 40 evaluate procedures for road rehabilitation. Examin ing the relatively steep Albert River 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 434 catchment in Australia, they found that diffuse ove rland flow could be minimized with additional 1 road drains, particularly by adding more stream cro ssings per kilometer (km) of road where 2 drainage area is large and roads are lower on the h illslope. Road segments that are highly 3 connected to the stream network, however, were foun d to require the relocation of the road to 4 manage sediment delivery to streams (Takken et al. 2008). 5
Croke et al. (2005) demonstrated that a strong asso ciation exists between runoff pathway and 6 drain type. They found that most (90 percent) of gu llied pathways were at culvert pipes that drain 7 cut-and-fill roads, whereas miter drains and push o uts were predominantly associated with 8 dispersive pathways. They studied main access roads , feeder access roads, and dump access 9 roads. Initial sediment concentrations at road outl ets ranged from 2 grams per liter (g/L) to 15 10 g/L and were highest from well-used main access roa ds compared with less-frequently used 11 feeder access and dump access roads. Road usage alo ne explained 95 percent of the variation in 12 sediment concentrations in runoff from the road sur faces studied. Most (more than 50 percent) 13 sediment in runoff from the road outlets was silt- and clay-sized material, but sediment 14 concentrations in runoff plumes from main access ro ads had about 3.5 times higher 15 concentrations of < 63-μm material than those from feeder access roads (Croke et al. 2005). 16
Croke et al. (2005) concluded that the potential ef fect of road-related sediment on in-stream 17 water quality can best be assessed in terms of the nature and connectivity of the delivery 18 pathway. Forest roads have a delivery pattern large ly determined by runoff source strength and 19 connectivity. Connectivity is the arrangement and location of drainage struct ures such as culverts 20 and miter drains with respect to the natural draina ge system in the catchment (Croke et al. 2005). 21
Examining the hydrological connectivity of a forest road network and stream system can help 22 determine where best to focus efforts to reduce sed iment and nutrient inputs to surface waters. Fu 23 et al. (2007) developed and applied a road erosion and sediment transport model. In the areas in 24 southeastern of Australia that they studied, approx imately 21 kilotons (kt) and 35 kt of sediment 25 were produced annually from road erosion. They foun d that less than 10 percent of the sediment 26 produced was delivered to streams, and about half o f the delivered sediment was derived from 27 only 4 percent of the total road network (Fu et al. 2007). 28

Allison et al. (2004) conducted research to demonst rate that decision analysis can be used to 29 organize the complex nature of forest road decision s using road deactivation as an example 30 decision. Road segments that are candidates for dea ctivation were ranked using factors of 31 interest, which in the case of this study was to re duce the susceptibility of roads to landslides and 32 debris flows. The rankings distinguish between road sections that offer high expected benefit 33 from those that offer moderate to low expected bene fit. Allison et al. (2004) applied the analysis 34 to an area with steep terrain, but it could be appl ied to any terrain type and with various factors 35 of interest. They found in their case that 17 of 17 1, 100-m road segments accounted for 18 36 percent of the cumulative cost of deactivation, but98 percent of the cumulative expected net 37 benefits from road deactivation. The results point out that some road segments have a higher 38 benefit-cost ratio than others and that most of the total potential restoration benefit (reduced 39 sediment delivery to streams, maintenance cost, and such) can be obtained from a small 40 proportion of the total road network and potential cost (Allison et al. 2004). 41
Road decommissioning is expensive, and Eastaugh et al. (2007) assessed the outcomes of 42 different forest road decommissioning options to de termine whether costs and environmental 433/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 435 impacts could be lowered. They present a method of quantifying the degree to which a road is 1 hydrologically connected to a stream network and th e likely effects of different configurations of 2 road construction on water quality. Their method pe rmits the quantification of road/stream 3 connectivity without the need for extensive paramet erization, which reduces both the time and 4 cost of implementing the method. They noted that se veral models exist for predicting road5 derived sediment production and delivery, but those models suffer from the practical 6 disadvantage of being highly parameterized, requiri ng a large number of input data that are often 7 difficult to obtain or accurately estimate. In cont rast, the method used by Eastaugh et al. (2007) 8 uses a high-resolution digital elevation model ( DEM ) based on 1-m spaced LiDAR 9 measurements to represent catchment topography. The road morphology data necessary for the 10 evaluation was collected during an intensive field survey using a global positioning sytem (GPS) 11 receiver to record the location of road edges, culv ert locations, and drain outlets from the road 12 surface (Eastaugh et al. 2007). 13
Eastaugh et al. (2007) applied the model to an actu al road decommissioning and replacement 14 project in southeast Australia. For the application , road areas and drainage outlets were surveyed 15 in the field and flow paths to streams were derived from a 1-meter resolution LiDAR-based 16 DEM. The results of the application demonstrated th at the road decommissioning project 17 examined would have been unlikely to reduce runoff to the stream network and that the overall 18 effect of the decommissioning would likely have bee n a net reduction in stream water quality 19 from increased

sedimentation (Eastaugh et al. 2007). 20

Best Management Practices 21
1. Avoid having traffic on forest roads when road w ater content is high. 22

Truck traffic on forest roads when the water conten t of the road is high leads to deformation of 23 the road surface, which redirects runoff and reduce s the effectiveness of drainage structures. 24

2. Use high-quality aggregate on forest roads near stream crossings. 25 Sediment runoff from roads with high-quality aggreg ate can be much less than from roads with 26 marginal- or low-quality aggregate, or from unprote cted roads; so it is especially important to 27 protect and maintain roads near streams and stream crossings. 28

Discussion 29 Suspended sediment makes up 96 percent of the total sediment load from runoff, and a practical 30 option to limiting it in runoff is to reduce the ge neration rate by surfacing roads with good31 quality aggregate and maintaining road drainage so it functions as intended (Sheridan et al. 32 2006). 33
Sheridan et al. (2006) investigated the effect of t ruck traffic intensity and road water content on 34 runoff water quality from unsealed, gravel-surfaced forest roads. In their studies, traffic 35 explained 36 percent of the variation in erodibilit y and road water content was insignificant, 36 leading them to conclude that for a good-quality, w ell-maintained gravel forest road, the amount 37 of truck traffic affects sediment runoff, but the w ater content of the road at the time of truck 38 traffic does not. A mechanism that explains the res ult of the study is that the primary effect of 39 road water content is on the strength of the road. One of the most commonly observed adverse 40 effects of road use under wet conditions is deforma tion of the cross-sectional profile, resulting in 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 436 longitudinal rutting. That compromises lateral drai nage of the road and concentrates flows along 1 the road surface, bypassing drainage structures and leading to rilling of the road surface and high 2 sediment generation rates (Sheridan et al. 2006). 3

The results of Sheridan et al. (2006) indicate thatgood-quality, well-maintained forest roads 4 might produce less sediment than previously assumed but that maintaining roads is important 5 nevertheless because sediment concentrations from r oads (which average 200–2,000 milligrams 6 per liter) are still 3 to 4 orders of magnitude mor e than base flow concentrations in forest streams 7 (2–5 milligrams per liter). 8
Roadside ditches and other drainage features often produce finer sediment than natural 9 conditions, and roads with only marginal-quality ag gregate containing low-durability fine 10 particles can produce 4 to 17 times more sediment t han those with good-quality aggregate 11 (Witmer et al. 2009). Witmer et al. (2009) recommen d that because of limited budgets and the 12 need for cost-effective water quality protection, a priority listing of unpaved road-stream 13 crossings is needed before restoration and sediment ation reduction strategies can be 14 implemented. 15
Witmer et al. (2009) addressed the problem of deter mining where to focus road rehabilitation 16 efforts by developing a sedimentation risk index (S RI) for unpaved road/stream crossings to help 17 managers determine which road-stream crossings shou ld receive priority for restoration and 18 sedimentation reduction. The SRI created by Witmer et al. uses 12 metrics to weigh factors 19 involving soil erodibility, road sedimentation abat ement features, and steam morphology 20 alteration to arrive at a final index score for eac h stream crossing. All types of stream 21 crossings—round culvert, box culvert, and bridge—ca n be included, and they found no 22 significant difference in SRI scores among crossing structure type, indicating that one type is not 23 necessarily better when it comes to less sediment p roduction than others. Limited budgets make 24 prioritizing unpaved road crossings a key means for efficient sedimentation abatement, and the 25 SRI or a similar rating scheme can be used to make water quality protection more effective 26 (Witmer et al. 2009). 27



### 2.5 Timber Harvesting 28

Implementation Measures:

1. Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations det ermined under the Preharvest Planning implementation meas ure, subject to adjustments made on the basis of pr eharvest

on

- site inspections.

2. Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedime ntation 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. L ocate landings outside SMAs.

4. Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral d rainages from logging debris and slash material. Implementation Measures : 293/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 437 (1) Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations determined under the Preharvest Planning 1 Implementation Measure, subject to adjustments made based on preharvest on-site inspections. 2
(2) Install landing drainage structures to avoid se dimentation to the extent practicable. Disperse 3 landing drainage over sideslopes. 4 (3) Construct landings away from steep slopes and r educe the likelihood of fill slope failures. 5 Protect landing surfaces used during wet periods. L ocate landings outside streamside 6 management areas. 7 (4) Protect stream channels and significant ephemer al drainages from logging debris and slash 8 material. 9
The goal of the Timber Harvesting implementation me asure in the 2005 guidance is to minimize 10 the likelihood of water quality effects resulting f rom timber harvesting. Precautions taken during 11 preharvest planning to minimize road and skid trail miles and follow the contour of the land to 12 the extent feasible are important aspects of protec ting the forest floor from disturbance. Using 13 equipment well suited to the topography and forest type to limit erosion and sedimentation 14 during harvesting operations is also important. 15
When conducting a harvest, it is important to pay a ttention to the potential for soil disturbance 16 from the operation. Doing so can result in improved water quality protection. Disturbances to 17 forest watersheds can have severe adverse effects o n soil and soil nutrients. Forest harvesting is a 18 dominant factor in increasing suspended sediment yi elds, and road construction and skidding can 19 cause serious soil disturbance that results in susp ended sediment increases. Increase suspended 20 sediment yields can occur even when unaccompanied b y soil surface disturbances created by 21 harvesting, because such yields are often coupled w ith water discharge, which transports 22 suspended sediment by stream power. For those reaso ns, it is vitally important that the forest 23 floor be protected from disturbance to the greatestfeasible extent during harvesting. 24

Best Management Practices 25
1. When constructing roads, landings, and skid trai ls, and during harvesting, use methods 26 that maximize protection of the forest floor to the extent feasible. 27
Most sediment and nutrient runoff from forest harve st sites originates in areas where the forest 28 floor has been disturbed and the soil has been expo sed, disturbed, or compacted. Protecting the 29 litter layer and soils of the forest floor where it is possible (that is, where it need not be disturb ed 30 for road construction or skidding) is vital to ensu ring the protection of water quality. Although 31 roads and skid trails are generally maintained or p rotected after a harvest to limit sediment 32 runoff, disturbed areas beyond these can go unnotic ed and not receive the rehabilitation that 33 roads and skid trails do to prevent sediment runoff . Unintentionally disturbed areas also are not 34 usually provided with runoff control features, so a ny runoff originating from them could drain 35 unchecked to streams and rivers. 36

Discussion 37 Protecting the forest floor outside the SMA is impo rtant to protecting water quality of forested 38 streams. Soil erosion generally does not occur in a n undisturbed forest because surface flow is 39 rarely generated on forested slopes during rainfall events because of the infiltration capacity of 40 forest soils (Hotta et al. 2007). Thus, in an unhar vested forest where the source area of suspended 413/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 438 sediment is limited to the stream, suspended sedime nt transport should correspond well with 1 water discharge. Certain forest practices, such as constructing forest roads and skid trails and 2 serious soil surface disturbances such as those cau sed by skidder activity and plowing, increase 3 suspended sediment yields. Most studies have invest igated the effects of the practices associated 4 with harvesting rather than the harvesting itself. Hotta et al. (2007) investigated whether 5 harvesting would increase suspended sediment yields if harvesters took appropriate measures to 6 prevent surface disturbance. Their study was perfor med in an experimental watershed in a steep7 sloped forest near Tokyo, Japan. 8
Hotta et al. (2007) measured suspended sediment yie ld from areas harvested in a manner that 9 used measures to limit soil disturbance as much as possible. They found that annual suspended 10 sediment yields did not increase despite post-harve st increases in annual water yields, indicating 11 that the water capacity of the soil led to only sli ght differences between pre- and post-harvest 12 discharges during heavy rainfall events. Most suspe nded sediment was transported in heavy 13 rainfall events, and there were no concurrent incre ases in suspended sediment yields detected 14 after harvesting. Thus, they concluded that it is p ossible to prevent post-harvest increases in 15 suspended sediment yields through careful harvestin g techniques (Hotta et al. 2007). 16



### 2.6 Site Preparation 17

Impleme ntation Measures:

1. Select a method of site preparation and regeneratio n 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 pr eparation and mechanical tree planting in SMAs.

4. Protect surface waters from logging debris and slas h material.

5. Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment begins to cause excessive soil disturbance that will increase erosion.

6. Locate windrows at a sa fe distance from drainages and SMAs to control move ment 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, ephe meral drainages when conducting mechanical tree pla nting.

Implementation Measures : 18
(1) Select a method of site preparation and regener ation suitable for the site conditions. 19 (2) Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-dis turbing site preparation activities on the 20 contour of sloping terrain. 21 (3) Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in streamside 22 management areas. (4) Protect surface waters from l ogging debris and slash material. 233/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 439 (5) Suspend operations during wet periods if equipm ent used begins to cause excessive soil 1 disturbance that will increase erosion. 2 (6) Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainag es and SMAs to control movement of the 3 material during high-runoff conditions. 4 (7) Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. 5 Conduct bedding in sloping areas on the contour. 6 (8) Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducti ng mechanical tree planting. 7
The Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration implem entation measure in the 2005 guidance 8 discusses how important it is to revegetate harvest ed areas to minimize erosion and runoff from 9 disturbed soils that could degrade water quality. V egetative cover on disturbed soils reduces 10 erosion and slows runoff, and roots stabilize soils . Minimizing disturbance to the forest floor 11 litter layer during all phases of forestry activiti es—from road construction to site preparation 12 operations—minimizes soil compaction and detachment , which helps maintain infiltration and 13 slow runoff. Such factors, in turn, reduce erosion and sedimentation after site preparation is 14 complete. 15
Where soil has been disturbed and the litter layer exposed, and in instances where it would not 16 prevent the regrowth of planted trees or natural re generation, protecting the soil by applying 17 wood chips or slash could be a viable method to bot h protect the soil and prevent the loss of 18 N nitrogen from the soil to surface waters. 19

Best Management Practice 20
1. Apply wood chips or slash to disturbed areas aft er a harvest to reduce nutrient runoff. 21

N Nitrogen is commonly released from a forest after a harvest . The amount of N nitrogen that can 22 be released depends on the vegetative characteristi cs of the forest and the time since its harvest. 23 Applying wood chips derived from logging slash can significantly reduce the release of 24 N nitrogen after a harvest. Adding wood chips to the forest f loor after a harvest probably 25 immobilizes much of the N nitrogen in the forest floor. 26

Discussion 27

N Nitrogen is a pollutant that is generally released after fo rest harvest. Forest harvesting disrupts 28 the N nitrogen cycle, which can affect stream water quality by in creasing nitrate concentrations, 29 reducing pH and acid neutralizing capacity, and mob ilizing aluminum and base cations (Homyak 30 et al. 2008). Disturbance by harvesting increases s oil temperature, which increases microbial 31 activity and increases organic matter decomposition and inorganic N nitrogen production. The 32 production and immobilization of N nitrogen , however, can vary after harvest because of change s 33 in soil organic matter quantity and quality, and mi crobial activity (Hazlett et al. 2007). 34
Homyak et al. (2008) tested whether applying wood c hips derived from logging slash after 35 harvesting would increase the immobilization of N nitrogen and thus reduce nitrate flux to 36 streams. They applied wood chips to the soil surfac e in a 1x treatment, a 2x treatment, and no 37 treatment in a stand of northern hardwoods that was patch clearcut in the Catskill Mountains, 38 New York. Reference plots were left uncut. They fou nd that wood chips applied after harvest can 39 potentially immobilize between 19 and 38 kg N nitrogen /ha in the first year after harvesting, 403/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 440 depending on the rate of wood chip application. In the study, applying wood chips after harvest 1 contributed to water quality protection. They sugge st that additional research on wood chip 2 application as a new BMP after harvesting is warran ted, particularly in regions that receive 3 elevated levels of atmospheric N nitrogen deposition (Homyak et al. 2008). 4
In the Homyak et al. (2008) study, wood chips reduc ed the average nitrate by from 30 to 40 5 percent or from 80 to 100 percent, depending on the method used to measure the nitrate. They 6 also observed a rapid accumulation of N nitrogen in the chips, which supports the claim that 7 wood chips have the potential to immobilize a signi ficant amount of N nitrogen (Homyak et al. 8 2008). 9
Hazlett et al. (2007) tested soils from 2-year-old, 12-year-old, and uncut areas of the boreal 10 forest. They found that soils from the 12-year-old harvest released 75 times the NO 3- and 3 times 11 the inorganic N nitrogen than unharvested soil, and 5 times the NO 3- and 2 times the inorganic 12 N nitrogen as 2-year-old harvest soil. When black spruce need les were incorporated to simulate 13 slash, organic and inorganic N nitrogen production reduced, and microbial biomass N nitrogen 14 increased (Hazlett et al. 2007). 15
Such observations suggest that a practice that incr eases the immobilization of N nitrogen in the 16 forest floor by adding material high in carbon to N nitrogen after logging might reduce nitrate 17 flux to streams and limit associated adverse water chemistry changes. Maintaining logging slash 18 on a harvest site has the potential to immobilize N nitrogen and minimize the risk of off-site 19 N nitrogen losses. Other studies in Japan, the Mediterranean, New Hampshire, and the 20 Appalachian Mountains have shown similar results (H omyak et al. 2008). The study of Hazlett et 21 al. (2007), however, indicates that the effect appe ars to be short-lived, because inorganic 22 N nitrogen was available in the soils of recent clearcuts. 23



### 2.7 Fire Management 24

Implementation Measures:

1. Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sediment ation 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 wildf ire, should be stabilized with water bars or other appropriate techniques if n eeded to control excessive sedimentation or erosion of the fireline.

4. Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should cons ider possible NPS pollution of watercourses, while recognizing the safety and oper ational priorities of fighting wildfires.

Implementation Measures: 25 (1) Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedi mentation due to the combined effect of partial 26 or full removal of canopy and removal of ground fue ls, litter layer and duff. 273/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 441 (2) Prescriptions for wildland fire use should prot ect against excessive erosion or sedimentation 1 to the extent practicable. 2 (3) All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and w ildfire, should be stabilized with water bars 3 and/or other appropriate techniques if needed to co ntrol excessive sedimentation or erosion of 4 the fireline. 5 (4) Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution of 6 watercourses, while recognizing the safety and oper ational priorities of fighting wildfires. 7
The Fire Management implementation measure in the 2 005 forestry guidance emphasizes the 8 importance of using prescribed fire in a way that d oes not remove the litter layer so that erosion 9 is not a problem after a fire. Recent research into the mechanism by which fire can protect a 10 forest from erosion or expose it to erosion has bee n done, and it further emphasizes the 11 importance of fire management to protect a forest f rom post-fire erosion. 12

Best Management Practice 13
1. Ensure that prescribed fires are burned at a low enough intensity and at a burn rate 14 such that the litter layer that remains behind is suffic ient to protect the forest floor from 15 erosion after the fire. 16 The presence of a litter layer on the forest floor is key to reducing and avoiding sediment runoff. 17 A low-intensity prescribed fire is more likely to l eave an intact litter layer and reduce nutrient 18 runoff after a fire than a high-intensity fire. 19

Discussion 20 The importance of protecting the forest floor litte r layer during harvesting was stressed earlier. 21 Because exposure of bare forest soils is the critic al link to sediment and nutrient runoff, it is 22 equally important to maintain the litter layer afte r a prescribed fire. And critical to achieving that 23 is understanding how fire affects the litter layer and soils. 24
The effect of fire on soils depends on temperature reached, the duration of burning, and the 25 amount and timing of post-fire rainfall (Zavala et al. 2009). The amount of litter and plant cover 26 are key factors in reducing post-fire runoff and so il loss. High-intensity, fast-moving crown fires 27 consume part of the litter layer. After such a fire , the litter is generally charred but not consumed, 28 and a thick ash bed is set down on the soil. The pr esence of such a bed on the soil surface is 29 critical immediately after a fire, and persists unt il an outside agent (e.g., rain, wind, vehicles, or 30 animals) remove or redistributes it (Zavala et al. 2009). 31
Most studies in the southern Appalachians have repo rted no stream N nitrogen response to 32 prescribed burning (Knoepp et al. 2009). Those resu lts show that low-severity prescribed fire 33 removes the upper forest floor layer (the Oi layer of the soil O horizon), but retains a large 34 proportion of the portions of the O horizon below t hat (the Oe and Oa horizon layers). This layer 35 protects surface soils from potential erosion and r epresents a large reservoir of plant nutrients. 36
Knoepp et al. (2009) investigated N nitrogen responses on sites in subwatersheds that drained a 37 first-order stream in the Blue Ridge Physiographic province of the southern Appalachian 38 Mountains. All prescribed fires were done in the do rmant season and were low- to moderate39 intensity. All sites lost a significant amount of f orest floor mass due to burning: 82 to 91 percent 403/15/20 2-22- 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 NH 4- N concentrations increased 1 immediately after burning in the top 5 cm of surfac e soils only, but returned to pre-burn levels by 2 mid-summer. Burning had no measurable effect on soi l solution inorganic N nitrogen 3 concentrations. No inorganic N nitrogen was lost from the sites (Knoepp et al. 2009). 4

Elliot and Vose (2005) conducted low- to moderate-i ntensity and low-severity prescribed 5 burning to restore shortleaf pine/mixed-oak forest (Elliot and Vose 2005). (Fires of a low 6 intensity in this study were ones that left the duf f layer (Oe and Oa layers) intact but reduced the 7 litter layer (Oi), exposed little soil, and had hea t penetration only near the soil surface. They 8 measured soil solution and streamwater nutrient con centrations and streamwater sediment 9 concentration (TSS). Soil solution and stream water ( N nitrogen ) did not increase after burning on 10 any of the sites, and they found no differences in TSS between the burn and control streams and 11 no detectable differences between control and burne d sites for concentrations of PO 4 , SO 4 , Ca, 12 Mg, K, or pH in soil solution or stream water. The results suggest that low-intensity, low13 severity fires can be conducted and used as a manag ement tool without negatively affecting 14 water quality (Elliot and Vose 2005). 15



### 2.8 Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 16
Implementation Measures:

1. Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planti ng) promptly after completing the earth

- disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishing vegetative cover.

2. Use mixes of species and trea tments developed and tailored for successful vegeta tion establishment for the region or area.

3. Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on prior ity areas such as disturbed areas in SMAs or the steepest areas of disturbance (e.g., on roads, landings, or sk id trails) near drainages.

Implementation Measures: 17 (1) Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or pl anting) promptly after completion of the 18 earth-disturbing activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishment of 19 vegetative cover. 20 (2) Use mixes of species and treatments developed a nd tailored for successful vegetation 21 establishment for the region or area. 22 (3) Concentrate revegetation efforts initially on p riority areas such as disturbed areas in SMAs or 23 the steepest areas of disturbance (e.g., on roads, landings, or skid trails) near drainages. 24
The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Revegetati on of Disturbed Areas implementation 25 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. 26 Revegetating disturbed areas is still important bec ause it restabilizes the soil, reduces erosion, 27 and helps prevent pollutants from entering surface waters. The practices provided in the 2005 are 28 still the best advice for quickly restoring vegetat ion on disturbed forest areas. 293/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 443 

### 2.9 Forest Chemical Management 1
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 p rescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropri ate 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 appropri ate weather conditions, the spray area, and buffer areas for surface waters.

4. Establish and identify buffer areas for surface wat ers. (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 spil l contingency plan to contain spills.

Implementation Measures: 2 (1) Conduct applications by skilled and, where requ ired, licensed applicators according to the 3 registered use, with special consideration given to effects to nearby surface waters. 4 (2) Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pest icides appropriate for the insect, fungus, or 5 herbaceous species. 6 (3) Prior to applications of pesticides and fertili zers, inspect the mixing and loading process and 7 the calibration of equipment, and identify the appr opriate weather conditions, the spray area, and 8 buffer areas for surface waters. 9 (4) Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for aerial 10 applications.) 11 (5) Immediately report accidental spills of pestici des or fertilizers into surface waters to the 12 appropriate state agency. Develop an effective spil l contingency plan to contain spills. 13 The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Forest Che mical Management implementation 14 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. 15 Chemicals used in forest management include pestici des (insecticides, herbicides, and 16 fungicides) and fertilizers. Mixing, transporting, and applying the chemicals correctly and 17 according to manufacturer directions, and disposing of containers properly will prevent water 18 quality issues related to these substances to a gre at degree. For information relevant to forest 19 chemical management, see the 2005 guidance. 20



### 2.10 Wetlands Forest Management 21

Implementation Measure: Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities (including harvesting; road design, construction, a nd maintenance; site preparation and regeneration; and chemical management) to adequately protect the aquatic functions of for ested3/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 444 wetlands. Implementation Measure : Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestr y activities 1 (including harvesting; road design, construction, a nd maintenance; site preparation and 2 regeneration; and chemical management) to adequatel y protect the aquatic functions of forested 3 wetlands. 4
The 2005 forestry guidance describes the Wetlands F orest Management implementation 5 measure. This document provides no additions to the information in the 2005 guidance. The 6 2005 guidance discusses special harvesting methods for use in forested wetlands, road design 7 and construction practices especially applicable to forested wetlands, wetland crossing practices, 8 site generation and regeneration practices for use in forested wetlands, fire management practices 9 for forested wetlands, and chemical management for working in forested wetlands. The 10 information provided in the 2005 guidance is still EPA’s official guidance for forestry work in 11 wetland environments. 12



## 3 References 13 Akay, A.E., H. Oguz, I.R. Karas, and K. Aruga. 2009 . Using LiDAR technology in forestry 14 activities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 151:117–125. [Akay et al. 2009 -> 2009a] 15
Allison, C., R.C. Sidle, and D. Tait. 2004. Applica tion of decision alanlysis to forest road 16 deactivation in unstable terrain. Environ. Manag. 33(2):173–185. 17
Aruga, K. 2005. Tabu search optimization of horizon tal and vertical alignments of forest roads. 18 J. For. Res. 10:275–284. 19
Aruga, K., J. Sessions, and E.S. Miyata. 2005a. For est road design with soil sediment evaluation 20 using a high-resolution DEM. J. For. Res. 10:471–479. 21
Aruga, K., J. Sessions, and A.E. Akay. 2005b. Heuri stic planning techniques applied to forest 22 road profiles. J. For. Res. 10:83–92. 23

Baker, M.E., D.E. Weller, and T.E. Jordan. 2007. Ef fects of stream map resolution on measures 24 of riparian buffer distribution and nutrient retent ion potential. Landscape Ecology 22:973– 25 992. 26
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 1999. The State of the Chesapeake Bay

. 27 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/c bp_13006.pdf. EPA 903-R99-013. 28 CBP/TRS 222/108. < http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/c bp_13006.pdf. 29 EPA 903

- R99

- 013 >. Accessed February 2/ 8 , 20 / 10. 30
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2003. Expanded Riparian Forest Buffer Goals . Chesapeake 31 Executive Council. Directive No. 03-01. 32

< http://www.chesapeakebay. net/content/publications/cbp_12610.pdf >. http://www.chesape 33 akebay.net/content/publications/ cbp_12610.pdf. Accessed February 2/ 8 , 20 / 10. 343/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 445 CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009b. Bay Health and Restoration Assessment

. 1

< http://www.chesapeakebay.net/indicatorshome.aspx?me nuitem=14871 >. http://www.chesa 2 peakebay.net/indicatorshome.aspx?menuitem=14871. Accessed February 2/ 8 , 2010. /10

. 3
CBP (Chesapeake Bay Program). 2009a. Bay Barometer. A Health and Restoration Assessment 4 of the Chesapeake Bay and Watershed in 2008

. CBP/TRS 293

- 09. 5 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/ publications/ cbp_34915.pdf. EPA-903-R-09-001. 6

< http://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/c bp_34915.pdf >. CBP/TRS 293-09. 7 Accessed February 2/ 8 , 20 / 10. 8
Chung, W., J. Stuckelberger, K. Aruga, and T.W. Cun dy. 2008. Forest road network design 9 using a trade-off analysis between skidding and roa d construction costs. Can. J. For. Res. 10 38: 439–448. 11
Contreras, M., and W. Chung. 2007. A computer appro ach to finding an optimal log landing 12 location an analyzing influencing factors for groun d-based timber harvesting. Can. J. For. 13 Res. 37:276–292. 14

Croke, J.C., and P.B. Hairsine. 2006. Sediment deli very in managed forests: a review. Environ. 15 Rev. 14:59–87. 16
Croke, J. S. Mockler, P. Fogarty, and I. Takken. 20 05. Sediment concentration changes in runoff 17 pathways from a forest road network and the resulta nt spatial pattern of catchment 18 connectivity. Geomorphology 68:257–268. 19

CWP (Center for Watershed Protection). No date. The economic connections between forests and 20 drinking water: A pilot study in the Linganore Creek watershed, Mary land . Center for 21 Watershed P rotection. Ellicott City, MD. 22
Eastaugh, C.S., P.K. Rustomji, and P.B. Hairsine. 2 007. Quantifying the altered hydrologic 23 connectivity of forest roads resulting from decommi ssioning and relocation. Hydrol. 24 Process. 22:2438–2448. 25

Elliot, K.J., and J.M. Vose. 2005. Initial effects Effects of prescribed fire Prescribed Fire on 26 quality Quality of soil solution Soil Solution and streamwater Streamwater in the Southern 27 Appalachian Mountains. S. J. Applied For. 29(1):5–15. 28
Epstein, R., A. Weintraub, P. Sapunar, E. Nieto, et al. 2006. A combinatorial heuristic approach 29 for solving real-size machinery location and road d esign problems in forestry planning. 30 Operations Research 54(6): 1017–1027. 31

Fu, B., L.T.H. Newham, and J.B. Field. 2007. Modell ing erosion and sediment delivery from 32 unsealed roads in southeast Australia. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 79:2679– 33 2688. 34
Ghaffarian, M.R., and H. Sobhani. 2007. Modelling e rosion and sediment delivery from unsealed 35 roads in southeast Australia. Croat. J. For. Eng. 28(2):185–193. 363/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 446 Hazlett, P.W., A.M. Gordon, R.P. Voroney, and P.K. Sibley. 2007. Impact of harvesting and 1 logging slash on nitrogen and carbon dynamics in so ils from upland spruce forests in 2 northeastern Ontario. Soil Biology & Biochem. 39:43–57. 3
Hazlett, P., K. Broad, A. Gordon, P. Sibley, J. But tle, and D. Larmer. 2008. The importance of 4 catchment slope to soil water N and C concentration s in riparian zones: implications for 5 riparian buffer width. Can. J. For. Res. 38:16–30. 6
Hodges, C., and R. Visser. 2004. Compari son of Streamside Management Zone Requirements in 7 the Southeast . Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , Department of Forestry, 8 Blacksburg V A

. 9
Homyak, P.M., R.D. Yanai, D.A. Burns, R.D. Briggs, and R.H. Germain. 2008. Nitrogen 10 immobilization by wood-chip application: Protecting water quality in a northern hardwood 11 forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 255:2589–2601. 12
Hotta, N., T. Kayama, and M. Suzuki. 2007. Analysis of suspended sediment yields after low 13 impact forest harvesting. Hydrol. Process. 21:3565–3575. 14
Klapproth, J.C., and J.E. Johnson. 2000. Understanding the science behind riparian forest 15 buffers: Effects on water quality

. Pub. 420

- 151. Virginia State University, Virginia 16 Cooperative Extension , Petersburg, VA

. 17
Knoepp, J.D., K.J. Elliott, B.D. Clinton, and J.M. Vose. 2009. Effects of prescribed fire in mixed 18 oak forests of the southern Appalachians: forest fl oor, soil, and soil solution nitrogen 19 responses. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 136(3):380–391. 20
Kyker

- Snowman, T. No date. Forests and water: S ome princ iples of management

. 21

< http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/forestr y/Kyker

22 SnowmanForests%20and%20Water%20TSC%20visioning.pd f >. Accessed March 2, 2010. 23

Lauren, A., H. Koivusalo, A. Ahtikoski, T. Kokkonen , and L. Finer. 2007. Water protection and 24 buffer zones: How much does it cost to reduce nitro gen load in a forest cutting? Scand. J. 25 For. Res. 22:537–544. 26
Loggertraining. 2010

. Pennsylvania Timber Harvester/Forest Practitioner T raining Program

. 27

< http://www.loggertraining.com/pa.htm > . Accessed March 4, 2010. 28

Lovett, G.M., K. Weathers, and M. Arthur. 2002. Con trol of nitrogen loss from forested 29 watersheds by soil carbon:nitrogen ratio and tree s pecies composition. Ecosystems 5:712

– 30 718. 31
Mercker, D.C., and D.G. Hodges. 2007. Forest certif ication and nonindustrial private forest 32 landowners: Who will consider certifying and why? J of Extension 45(4). 33

< http://www.joe.org/joe/2007august/rb6.php >. Accessed March 2, 2010. 34

Metafore. 2007. Forest Certification Resource Cente r. < http://www.m etafore.org/ >. Accessed 35 March 2, 2010. 363/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 447 Najafi, A., H. Sobhani, A. Saeed, M. Makhdom, and M .M. Mohajer. 2008. Planning and 1 assessment of alternative forest road and skidding networks. Croat. J. For. Eng. 29(1):63– 2 73. 3
NYLT (New York Logger Training). 2010. What is NYLT? 4

< http://www.nyloggertraining.org/home/ > . Accessed March 4, 2010

. 5
Rackley, J., and W. Chung. 2008. Incorporating fore st road erosion into forest resource 6 transportation planning: a case study in the mica c reek watershed in northern Idaho. Trans. 7 ASABE

51(1):115–127. 8

Rivenbark, B.L., and C.R. Jackson. 2004. Concentrat ed flow breakthroughs moving through 9 silvicultural streamside management zones: Southeastern Piedmont southeastern piedmont

, 10 USA. JAWRA 40(4):1043–1052. 11
SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). 2010. SFI 2010

– 2014 Standard . Sustainable Forestry 12 Initiative, Inc., Washington, DC. 13
Sheridan, G.J., P.J. Noske, R.K. Whipp, and N. Wije singhe. 2006. The effect of truck traffic and 14 road water content on sediment delivery from unpave d forest roads. Hydrol. Process. 15 20:1683–1699. 16
Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. No vitski. 1996. An ecosystem approach to 17 salmonid conservation . TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Corp, Corvalis, OR. Fund ed by 18 National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wi ldlife Service and the U.S. 19 Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NMF S, Portland, OR. 20
SUNY (State University of New York). 2010. How does Forest Harvesting Affect Nitrogen in 21 Streams? State Univ ersity of New York, College of Environmental Scienc e and Forestry. 22

< http://www.esf.edu/pubprog/nitrogen/default.htm >. Accessed March 2, 2010. 23

Takken, I., J. Croke, and P. Lane. 2008. A methodol ogy to assess the delivery of road runoff in 24 forestry environments. Hydrol. Process. 22:254–264. 25
University of Florida. 2007. Forest Certification P rograms. 26

< http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/extension/florida_forestry_ information/planning_and_assistance/f 27 orest_certification_programs.html >. Accessed March 2, 2010. 28

USDA

- FS (United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) . 2009. Forest Stewardship 29 Program. < http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/fsp.shtm l >. Accessed March 2, 30 2010. 31
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. National Management Measures to 32 Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution from Forestry . EPA 841-B-05-001. U.S. 33 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water , Washington, DC

. 34
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. Virginia 2008 Water Quality 35 Assessment Report

. U .S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wate r, Washington, 36 DC. < http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.contro l?p_area=VA >. Accessed March 37 4, 2010 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of W ater

. 383/15/20 2-22- 10 Chesapeake Bay Executive Order Section 502 Guidance — Do Not Cite or Quote —

Chapter 4. Forestry 448 Virginia Tech. 2010. SHARP Logger Program

. < http://www.sharplogger.vt.edu/ > . Accessed 1 March 4, 2010. 2

White, W.J., L.A. Morris, A.P. Pinho, C.R. Jackson, and L.T. West. 2007. Sediment retention by 3 forested filter strips in the Piedmont of Georgia. J. Soil Water Cons. 62(6):453–463. 4
Williams, T.M., D.J. Lipscombb, W.R. English, and C . Nickel. 2003. Mapping variable—width 5 streamside management zones for water quality prote ction. Biomass and Bioenergy 6 24:329

–– 336. 7

Witmer, P.L., P.M. Stewart, and C.K. Metcalf. 2009. Development and use of a sedimentation 8 risk index for unpaved road-stream crossings in the Choctawhatchee watershed. JAWRA 9 45(3):734–747. 10
WVDOF (West Virginia Division of Forestry). 2010. Logging . West Virginia Division of 11 Forestry, Charlesto n, WV. < http://www.wvforestry.com/ > . Accessed March 4, 2010. 12

Zavala, L.M., A. Jordán, J. Gil, N. Bellinfante, an d C. Pain. 2009. Intact ash and charred litter 13 reduces susceptibility to rain splash erosion post- wildfire. Earth Surf. Process. Landforms 14 34:1522–1532. 15