National Management Measures

to Control Nonpoint Source

Pollution from Forestry

UNITED STATES

EN

VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
United States Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

(4503F)

EPA-841-B-05-001

April 2005

UNITED STATES

EN

VIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY
National Management Measures to

Control Nonpoint Source Pollution

from Forestry

Nonpoint Source Control Branch

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

Office of Water

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

April 2005

DISCLAIMER

This document provides guidance to States, Territories, authorized 

Tribes, commercial and non-industrial private forest owners and 

managers, and the public regarding management measures that may be used 

to reduce nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. At times 

this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions which 

contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute 

for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. 

Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, 

Territories, authorized Tribes, or the public and may not apply to a 

particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, State, 

Territory, and authorized Tribe decision makers retain the discretion to 

adopt approaches to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry 

activities on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where 

appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry i 
ii National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 1-1


The Purpose and Scope of This Guidance .................................................. 1-1


What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? ........................................................... 1-4


Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution .......................................... 1-5


Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program .................................................... 1-6


Nonpoint Source Program—Section 319 of the Clean Water Act ..................... 1-6


National Estuary Program—Section 320 of the Clean Water Act ..................... 1-7


Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ................................................................ 1-7


Total Maximum Daily Loads—Section 303 of the Clean Water Act .................. 1-9


Forest Stewardship .................................................................................. 1-10


CHAPTER 2: WATER QUALITY AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES ...................... 2-1


Forested Watershed Hydrology ................................................................... 2-2


Forestry Activities and Forest Hydrology ..................................................... 2-3


Road Construction and Road Use ................................................................... 2-4


Timber Harvesting .......................................................................................... 2-5


Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration ........................................................ 2-7


Prescribed Burning ......................................................................................... 2-8


Forestry Pollutants and Water Quality Effects .............................................. 2-8


Sediment ....................................................................................................... 2-9


Increased Temperature ................................................................................. 2-11


Nutrients ...................................................................................................... 2-12


Organic Debris ............................................................................................. 2-12


Forest Chemicals ......................................................................................... 2-13


Hydrologic Modifications .............................................................................. 2-13


Physical Barriers ................................................................................... 2-14


Cumulative Effects ................................................................................... 2-15


Mechanisms to Control Forestry Nonpoint Source Pollution ...................... 2-16


Management Measures ................................................................................ 2-17


Best Management Practices ......................................................................... 2-17


Best Management Practice Systems ............................................................. 2-18


Cost Estimates for Forest Practice Implementation ................................... 2-19


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry iii 
Contents 

CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................ 3-1


Scope of This Chapter ............................................................................... 3-1


Management Measure Effectiveness .......................................................... 3-2


Examples of Management Measure Effectiveness ........................................... 3-3


3A: PREHARVEST PLANNING ............................................................................. 3-5


Management Measure Description ............................................................. 3-6


Benefits of Preharvest Planning .................................................................. 3-7


Best Management Practices ....................................................................... 3-9


Harvest Planning Practices ............................................................................. 3-9


Road System Planning Practices .................................................................... 3-9


Road Location Practices .......................................................................... 3-9


Road Design Practices ........................................................................... 3-12


Road Surfacing Practices ...................................................................... 3-14


Road Stream Crossing Practices ............................................................ 3-14


Scheduling Practices ............................................................................. 3-16


Preharvest Notification Practices .................................................................. 3-16


3B: STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT AREAS ............................................................. 3-17


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-17


Benefits of Streamside Management Areas .............................................. 3-19


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-23


3C: ROAD CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION ....................................................... 3-25


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-25


General Road Construction Considerations ................................................... 3-25


Road Surface Shape and Composition ......................................................... 3-27


Slope Stabilization ........................................................................................ 3-32


Road Construction, Fish Habitat, Stream Crossings, and Fish Passage .......... 3-34


Wetland Road Considerations ....................................................................... 3-36


Benefits of Road Construction Practices ................................................... 3-37


Road Construction and Stream Crossing BMP Costs .................................... 3-38


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-39


Road Surface Construction Practices ........................................................... 3-39


Road Surface Drainage Practices ................................................................. 3-41


Road Slope Stabilization Practices ................................................................ 3-47


Stream Crossing Practices ........................................................................... 3-48


Fish Passage Practices ................................................................................ 3-54


3D: ROAD MANAGEMENT ............................................................................... 3-57


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-57


Road Reconstruction ................................................................................... 3-58


Road Decommissioning ............................................................................... 3-59


Benefits of Road Management ................................................................. 3-59


iv National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Contents 

Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-61


Road Maintenance Practices ........................................................................ 3-61


Wet and Winter Road Practices .................................................................... 3-63


Stream Crossing and Drainage Structure Practices ....................................... 3-64


Road Decommissioning, Obliteration, and Closure Practices ......................... 3-64


3E: TIMBER HARVESTING ............................................................................... 3-69


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-69


Benefits of Timber Harvesting Practices ................................................... 3-72


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-73


Harvesting Practices .................................................................................... 3-73


Practices for Landings ................................................................................. 3-74


Ground Skidding Practices ........................................................................... 3-75


Cable Yarding Practices ................................................................................ 3-76


Other Yarding Methods ................................................................................. 3-77


Winter Harvesting ........................................................................................ 3-79


Petroleum Management Practices ................................................................ 3-80


3F: SITE PREPARATION AND FOREST REGENERATION .............................................. 3-81


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-81


Mechanical Site Preparation in Wetlands ....................................................... 3-84


Benefits of Site Preparation Practices ....................................................... 3-84


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-86


Site Preparation Practices ............................................................................. 3-86


Forest Regeneration Practices ...................................................................... 3-87


3G: FIRE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................ 3-89


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-89


Cost of Prescribed Burning ...................................................................... 3-90


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-90


Prescribed Fire Practices .............................................................................. 3-90


Prescribed Fire in Wetlands .......................................................................... 3-90


Wildfire Practices ......................................................................................... 3-91


Fireline Practices .......................................................................................... 3-91


Fireline Rehabilitation .................................................................................... 3-92


3H: REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS .......................................................... 3-93


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-93


Benefits and Costs of Revegetation Practices ........................................... 3-93


Best Management Practices ..................................................................... 3-95


3I: FOREST CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT ................................................................ 3-99


Management Measure Description ........................................................... 3-99


Cost of Forest Chemical Applications ..................................................... 3-102


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry v 
Contents 

Best Management Practices ................................................................... 3-103


3J: WETLANDS FOREST MANAGEMENT ............................................................ 3-107


Management Measure Description ......................................................... 3-107


Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, section 232.3: Activities Not


Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities

Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities Do Not


Forestry in Wetlands: Section 404 .......................................................... 3-108


Requiring a Section 404 Permit .................................................................. 3-109


Best Management Practices ................................................................... 3-110


Wetland Harvesting Practices ..................................................................... 3-110


Wetland Road Design and Construction Practices ....................................... 3-112


Practices for Crossing Wetlands in Winter ............................................ 3-115


Wetland Site Preparation and Regeneration Practices .................................. 3-116


Wetland Fire Management Practices ..................................................... 3-117


Chemical Management Practices ................................................................ 3-118


EPA and Corps of Engineers Memorandum to the Field ........................... 3-118


Mechanical Site Preparation Activities and CWA Section 404 ...................... 3-118


Require a Section 404 Permit ..................................................................... 3-119


Require a Section 404 Permit ..................................................................... 3-120


Best Management Practices ................................................................. 3-121


CHAPTER 4: USING MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO PREVENT AND SOLVE


NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN WATERSHEDS .. 4-1


The EPA Watershed Approach .................................................................... 4-2


Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 4-3


Definition ....................................................................................................... 4-3


The Importance of Considering and Analyzing Cumulative Effects ................... 4-4


Problems in Cumulative Effects Analysis ........................................................ 4-5


Approaches to Cumulative Effects Analysis ................................................ 4-7


1. EPA The Synoptic Approach ...................................................................... 4-8


Synoptic Indices ...................................................................................... 4-8


Landscape Indicators .............................................................................. 4-9


2. Washington State Watershed Analysis ....................................................... 4-9


3. Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) .. 4-9


4. California Department of Forestry Questionnaire ...................................... 4-10


5. Phased Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment ............................... 4-10


Forest Watershed Management: An Example ............................................ 4-13


1. Inventory Basic Watershed Resources ..................................................... 4-13


2. Apply Best Management Practices ........................................................... 4-13


3. Monitor and Analyze Results ................................................................... 4-14


vi National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Contents 

CHAPTER 5: MONITORING AND TRACKING TECHNIQUES ......................... 5-1


Overview ................................................................................................... 5-1


Monitoring Program Fundamentals ............................................................. 5-2


Monitoring BMP Implementation ................................................................ 5-4


Monitoring BMP Effectiveness .................................................................... 5-5


Importance of BMP Monitoring .................................................................. 5-6


Quality Assurance and Quality Control ........................................................ 5-6


Definitions of Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................... 5-6


Importance of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs ...................... 5-6


EPA Quality Policy .......................................................................................... 5-7


Review of State Management Practice Monitoring Programs ...................... 5-7


Objectives of the Audits .................................................................................. 5-7


Criteria Used to Choose the Audit Sites ........................................................... 5-8


Geographic Distribution ........................................................................... 5-9


Time Since Harvest ................................................................................. 5-9


Minimum Size ......................................................................................... 5-9


Proximity to Watercourse ....................................................................... 5-10


Representation of Ownership ................................................................. 5-10


Randomness ......................................................................................... 5-10


Audit Focus: BMP Implementation and BMP Effectiveness ............................ 5-10


Number of Sites Investigated ........................................................................ 5-10


Number of BMPs Evaluated .......................................................................... 5-11


Composition of the Investigation Teams ........................................................ 5-11


BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Rating Systems ............................... 5-12


Audit Results ............................................................................................... 5-12


EPA Recommendations for Forestry Practice Audits ...................................... 5-13


Volunteer Water Monitoring .......................................................................... 5-14


Volunteer Monitoring Resources ............................................................ 5-15


Best Management Practices Evaluation Program: U.S. Forest Service,


Pacific Southwest Region ........................................................................ 5-16


Important Points to Note About the BMPEP .................................................. 5-18


REFERENCES .............................................................................R-1


GLOSSARY ............................................................................... G-1


APPENDICES 

Appendix A: EPA Forestry Resources ........................................................ A-1


Appendix B: Sources of Technical Assistance ............................................ B-1


Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs ........................... C-1


Appendix D: Non-Industrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management .................. D-1


Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs ...................................... E-1


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry vii 
Contents 

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Timberland ownership by region ................................................................... 1-10


Figure 1-2. Forested lands in the United States ............................................................... 1-11


Figure 2-1. Distribution of the cost of regulatory programs among different groups in


representative states .................................................................................... 2-22


Figure 3-1. Comparison of sediment concentrations in runoff from various forest


conditions to drinking water standard ............................................................. 3-8


Figure 3-2. An example of laying out sample road systems for comparison


purposes ..................................................................................................... 3-11


Figure 3-3. Maximum recommended stable angles for (a) backslopes and


(b) fill slopes ................................................................................................ 3-13


Figure 3-6. Mitigation techniques used for controlling erosion and sediment


Figure 3-9. Comparison of sedimentation rates (as tons of sediment in runoff per


Figure 3-10. Percent reduction in sediment runoff from a forest road surface with

Figure 3-13. Multiple culverts for fish passage in streams that have a wide range

Figure 3-22. Protective filter strip maintained between road and stream to

Figure 3-23. Details of hay bale installation, used to prevent sediment from skid

Figure 3-4. Alternative water crossing structures ............................................................ 3-15


Figure 3-5. Calculation of slope—an important step in determining SMA width ............... 3-18


to protect water quality and fish habitat ........................................................ 3-28


Figure 3-7. Illustration of road structure terms ................................................................ 3-29


Figure 3-8. Types of road surface shape ........................................................................ 3-29


acre per inch of rainfall) from different forest road surfaces .......................... 3-31


different treatments ...................................................................................... 3-31


Figure 3-11. Sediment yield from plots using various forms of ground covering ................ 3-32


Figure 3-12. Culvert conditions that block fish passage .................................................... 3-35


of flows ....................................................................................................... 3-35


Figure 3-14. Broad-based dip installation ......................................................................... 3-41


Figure 3-15. Typical road profiles for drainage and stability ............................................... 3-42


Figure 3-16. Design and installation of relief culvert .......................................................... 3-43


Figure 3-17. Details of installation of open-top and pole culverts ...................................... 3-44


Figure 3-18. Grading and spacing of road turnouts ........................................................... 3-44


Figure 3-19. Sediment trap constructed to collect runoff from ditch along cutslope ........... 3-45


Figure 3-20. Brush barrier placed at toe of fill to intercept runoff and sediment ................. 3-46


Figure 3-21. Silt fence installation .................................................................................... 3-46


trap sediment and provide shade and streambank stability ............................ 3-47


trails and roads from entering surface waters ............................................... 3-48


viii National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Contents 

Figure 3-24. Portable bridge for temporary stream crossing ............................................. 3-50


Figure 3-25. A stream ford. Hard and stable approaches to a ford are necessary .............. 3-50


Figure 3-26. Design and installation of pipe culvert at stream crossing ............................. 3-51


Figure 3-27. Proper installation of culvert in the stream is critical to preventing plugging


or undercutting ............................................................................................ 3-52


Figure 3-28. Procedure for installing culvert when excavation in channel section of


stream could cause sediment movement and increase turbidity .................... 3-53


Figure 3-29. Details of ice bridge construction for temporary stream crossing


in winter....................................................................................................... 3-54


Figure 3-30. Road-related storm damage by type in the Detroit Ranger District ................. 3-62


Figure 3-31. Install visible traffic barriers where appropriate to prevent off-road


vehicle and other undesired disturbance to recently stabilized roads .............. 3-66


Figure 3-32. Construct trails using the same drainage structures as closed forest roads ... 3-66


Figure 3-33. Broad-based dips reduce the potential for erosion ........................................ 3-67


Figure 3-34. General large woody debris stability guide based on Salmon Creek,


Washington .................................................................................................. 3-75


Figure 3-35. Typical cable yarding operation ..................................................................... 3-77


Figure 3-36. Common pattern of shovel logging operations .............................................. 3-78


Figure 3-37. Balloon harvesting practices on a steep slope ............................................... 3-79


Figure 3-38. Deposited, suspended, and total sediment losses in experimental


watersheds during water years 1976 and 1977 for various site 

preparation techniques ................................................................................. 3-82


Figure 3-39. Predicted erosion rates using various site preparation techniques for


physiographic regions in the southeastern United States ............................... 3-83


Figure 3-40. Erosion rates for site preparation practices in selected land resource


areas in the Southeast .................................................................................. 3-83


Figure 3-41. Sediment loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,


to August 31, 1981 ...................................................................................... 3-84


Figure 3-42. Nutrient loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,


to August 31, 1981 ...................................................................................... 3-84


Figure 3-43. Comparison of the effectiveness of seed, fertilizer, mulch, and netting


in controlling cumulative erosion from treated plots on a steep road fill 

in Idaho ....................................................................................................... 3-94


Figure 3-44. Soil losses from a 35-foot-long slope ........................................................... 3-96


Figure 3-45. Establish buffer zones of appropriate width during aerial applications


of forest chemicals to protect water quality, people, and animals ................ 3-103


Figure 3-46. Comparison of impervious (a) and pervious (b) roadfill sections ................. 3-115


Figure 3-47. Elements of a road crossing through a swamp wetland, cross section ........ 3-116


Figure 4-1. Representation of MacDonald’s process for assessing cumulative effects ..... 4-11


Figure E-1. Ratings of the effectiveness of various types of programs for


accomplishing specific forestry objectives ...................................................... E-5


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry ix

Contents 

TABLES

Table 1-1. Leading Pollutants and Sources Causing Impairment in Assessed Rivers, 

Lakes, and Estuaries ...................................................................................... 1-2


Table 1-2. Miles of Rivers and Streams Affected by Sources ........................................... 1-3


Table 2-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Stream Crossing Structures ..................... 2-11


Table 2-2. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP


Programs by Program Type .......................................................................... 2-20


Table 2-3. Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in the


Southeast and Midwest ................................................................................ 2-21


Table 2-4. Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for Individual


BMPs, by Region ......................................................................................... 2-23


Table 3-1. Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable


Miniyarder on Soil in Georgia .......................................................................... 3-6


Table 3-2. Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths .......................................................... 3-18


Table 3-3. Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths ...................................................... 3-18


Table 3-4. Storm Water Suspended Sediment Delivery for Treatments ........................... 3-20


Table 3-5. Average Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel


After Harvesting ........................................................................................... 3-20


Table 3-6. Comparison of Effects of Two Methods of Harvesting on


Water Quality ............................................................................................... 3-20


Table 3-7. Average Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs per MBF ................ 3-21


Table 3-8. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for


Streamside Management Areas .................................................................... 3-22


Table 3-9. Cost Effects of Three Alternative Buffer Strips ............................................... 3-22


Table 3-10. Goals of Two Main Types of LWD Projects .................................................... 3-24


Table 3-11. Effects of Several Road Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield


in Idaho ....................................................................................................... 3-26


Table 3-12. Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments in Controlling Soil Losses in


West Virginia ................................................................................................ 3-31


Table 3-13. Reduction in the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20 Feet


Long by Grass and Forest Debris .................................................................. 3-32


Table 3-14. Comparison of Downslope Movement of Sediment from Roads for


Various Roadway and Slope Conditions ........................................................ 3-33


Table 3-15. Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads ............................ 3-33


Table 3-16. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Road


Construction ................................................................................................ 3-38


Table 3-17. Cost of Gravel and Grass Road Surfaces ...................................................... 3-38


x National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Contents 

Table 3-18. Costs of Erosion Control Measures in Idaho ................................................. 3-38


Table 3-19. Sediment Loss Reduction from Reinforcement at Road Stream


Crossings .................................................................................................... 3-53


Table 3-20. Comparison of Road Repair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and


Without BMPs .............................................................................................. 3-60


Table 3-21. Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Watershed Treatments Associated


with Roads .................................................................................................. 3-60


Table 3-22. Comparative Costs of Reclamation of Roads and Removal of Stream


Crossing Structures ..................................................................................... 3-61


Table 3-23. Example of Recommended Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope .......... 3-67


Table 3-24. Soil Disturbance from Roads for Alternative Methods of Timber


Harvesting ................................................................................................... 3-71


Table 3-25. Soil Disturbance from Logging by Alternative Harvesting Methods ................ 3-72


Table 3-26. Relative Effects of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and


Compaction in Pacific Northwest Clear-cuts ................................................. 3-73


Table 3-27. Percent of Land Area Affected by Logging Operations ................................... 3-73


Table 3-28. Skidding/Yarding Method Comparison .......................................................... 3-73


Table 3-29. Costs Associated with Various Methods of Yarding ....................................... 3-79


Table 3-30. Analysis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site


Productivity in the Southeast ........................................................................ 3-85


Table 3-31. Site Preparation Comparison ........................................................................ 3-85


Table 3-32. Comparison of Costs of Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM)


vs. Broadcast Burning .................................................................................. 3-86


Table 3-33. Range of Prescribed Fire Costs .................................................................... 3-90


Table 3-34. Economic Impact of Implementation of Proposed Management


Measures on Road Construction and Maintenance ........................................ 3-94


Table 3-35. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed,


Fertilizer, and Mulch ..................................................................................... 3-94


Table 3-36. Estimated Costs for Revegetation ................................................................. 3-95


Table 3-37. Peak Concentrations of Forest Chemicals in Soils, Lakes, and Streams


After Application ........................................................................................ 3-100


Table 3-38. Nitrogen Losses from Two Subwatersheds in the Umpqua Experimental


Watershed ................................................................................................. 3-102


Table 3-39. Average Costs for Chemical Management ................................................... 3-103


Table 3-40. Recommended Harvesting Systems by Forested Wetland Site .................... 3-111


Table 3-41. Temporary Wetland Crossing Options ......................................................... 3-113


Table 3-42. Recommended Regeneration Systems by Forested Wetland Type ............... 3-117


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry xi

Contents 

xii National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Nation’s aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although environmental protection programs in the United States have successfully improved water quality 

during the past 25 years, many challenges remain. Significant strides have been made in 

reducing the effects of discrete pollutant sources, such as factories and sewage treatment 

plants (called point sources). But aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, mostly because of 

complex problems caused by polluted runoff, known as nonpoint source pollution. 

Every 2 years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports to Congress on 

the status of the Nation’s waters. The 1998 National Water Quality Inventory (USEPA, 

2000) reports that the most significant source of water quality impairment to rivers and 

streams and lakes, ponds, and reservoirs is agriculture, and the most significant source of 

impairment to estuaries is municipal point sources of pollution (Table 1-1). Other important sources of impairment or alterations that can impair water quality include hydrologic 

modifications like dams and channelization (a leading cause of impairment to rivers and 

streams and lakes, ponds, and reservoirs), urban runoff and storm sewer discharges 

(leading sources of impairment to all surface waters), and pollutants deposited from the 

atmosphere (a leading source of impairment to estuaries). The five leading pollutants 

impairing the Nation’s waters are siltation, nutrients (from fertilizers and animal waste), 

bacteria, toxic metals, and organic enrichment that lowers dissolved oxygen (USEPA, 

2000).1

 Siltation is the leading cause of water quality impairment to rivers and streams 

and the third leading cause of impairment to lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. Nine states list 

silviculture as a leading source of impairment to rivers and streams.2

The Purpose and Scope of This Guidance

This guidance document is intended to provide technical assistance to state water quality 

and forestry program managers, nonindustrial private forest owners, industrial forest 

owners, and others involved with forest management on the best available, most economically achievable means of reducing the nonpoint source pollution of surface and 

groundwaters that can result from forestry activities. The guidance provides background 

information about nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities, including where it 

This guidance is designed to 

provide current information to 

state forestry program 

managers and foresters, 

commercial forest managers, 

private foresters and loggers, 

and nonindustrial private 

forest owners on nonpoint 

source pollution from forestry 

activities. 

1 The term pollutant means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological 

materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste 

discharged into water (Clean Water Act [Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter III, Section 1329]). The term pollution means the man-made or maninduced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water (Clean Water Act [Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter V, Sec. 

1362(19)]). 

2 Nine states list silviculture as a major source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams: Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, 

Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia; 11 states/tribes list silviculture as a minor/moderate source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams: Coyote 

Valley Reservation, Florida, Hawaii, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin; 6 states list silviculture 

as a source of impairment to assessed rivers and streams without specifying whether it is a major or minor/moderate source: Alaska, Colorado, Montana, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington. (Source: USEPA, 2000; National Water Quality Inventory, Appendix A-5.) 
1-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction

comes from and how it enters our waters. It presents the most current technical information about how to minimize and reduce nonpoint source pollution to forest waters, and it 

discusses the broad concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems on a 

watershed level. By assessing and addressing water quality problems at the watershed 

level, state program managers and others involved with forest management can integrate 

concerns about forestry activities with those of other resource management activities to 

identify conflicting requirements and provide balance between short-term impacts and 

long-term benefits (Table 1-2). This approach can maximize the potential for overall 

improvement and protection of watershed conditions and provide multiple environmental 

benefits. 

The causes of nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities, the specific pollutants of 

concern, and general approaches to reducing the effect of such pollutants on aquatic 

resources are discussed in the Overview (Chapter 2). Also included in Chapter 2 is a 

general discussion of best management practices (BMPs) and the use of combinations of 

individual practices (BMP systems) to protect surface and groundwaters. Management 

measures for forest management and management practices that can be used to achieve 

the management measures are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 summarizes watershed 

planning principles and the application of management measures in a watershed context. 

Chapter 5 provides an overview of nonpoint source monitoring and tracking techniques. 

Because this document is national in scope, it cannot address all practices or techniques 

specific to local or regional soils, climate, or forest types. Field research on management 

practices is ongoing in different parts of the country and under different harvesting 

circumstances to provide more guidance on how the practices mentioned in this guide 

and other management practices should be applied under specific circumstances. State 

laws and programs, or regional guidances published by the U.S. Forest Service, for 

instance, will have the criteria for site-specific management practice implementation. 

EPA encourages states to review their existing laws and programs for their relevance to 

forestry activities and to implement the management measures in this guidance within the 

context of state laws and programs wherever possible. In some cases very few adjustments to state laws and programs will be necessary to fully meet EPA’s management 

measures. In other cases, major revisions or an entirely new program focus may be 

necessary. This guidance should prove useful in directing states toward those improvements that are necessary to protect water quality from forestry activities. Consult with 

This guidance does not replace 

the 1993 Guidance Specifying

Management Measures for

Sources of Nonpoint Pollution

in Coastal Waters. The 1993 

guidance still applies to coastal 

states. 

Table 1-1. Leading Pollutants and Sources Causing Impairment in Assessed Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries (USEPA, 2000) 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-3

Chapter 1: Introduction

state or local agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service 

(USDA-FS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Cooperative State, 

Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); soil and water conservation 

districts; state forestry agencies; local cooperative extension services; and professional 

forestry organizations for additional information on nonpoint source pollution controls 

for forestry activities applicable to your local area. Resources and Internet sites related to 

forestry are listed in Appendices A and B. 

This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes; commercial and 

nonindustrial private forest owners and managers; and the public regarding management 

measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. 

At times this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions that contain legally 

binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements 

on EPA, states, territories, authorized tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. EPA, state, territory, and authorized tribe 

decision makers retain the discretion to adopt on a case-by-case basis approaches to 

control nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities that differ from this guidance 

where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future. 

Table 1-2. Miles of Rivers and Streams Affected By Sources (USEPA, 2000). 
1-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction

Readers should note that this guidance is entirely consistent with the Guidance Specifying

Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 

1993), published under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). This guidance, however, does not supplant or replace the 1993 

coastal management measures guidance for the purpose of implementing programs under 

section 6217. 

Under CZARA, states that participate in the Coastal Zone Management Program under 

the Coastal Zone Management Act are required to develop coastal nonpoint pollution 

control programs that ensure the implementation of EPA’s management measures in their 

coastal management area. The 1993 guidance continues to apply to that program. 

This document modifies and expands upon supplementary technical information contained in the 1993 coastal management measures guidance both to reflect circumstances 

relevant to differing inland conditions and to provide current technical information. It 

does not set new or additional standards for section 6217 or Clean Water Act section 319 

programs. It does, however, provide information that government agencies, private sector 

groups, and individuals can use to understand and apply measures and practices to 

address sources of nonpoint source pollution from forestry. 

What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?

Nonpoint source pollution usually results from precipitation, atmospheric deposition, 

land runoff, infiltration, drainage, seepage, or hydrologic modification. As runoff from 

rainfall or snowmelt moves, it picks up and carries natural pollutants and pollutants 

resulting from human activity, ultimately dumping them into rivers, lakes, wetlands, 

coastal waters, and groundwater. Technically, the term nonpoint source is defined to 

mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the legal definition of point source

in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act of 1987: 

The term point source means any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, 

well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding 

operation, or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may 

be discharged. This term does not include agricultural storm water and return 

flows from irrigated agriculture. 

Although diffuse runoff is typically treated as nonpoint source pollution, runoff that 

enters and is discharged from conveyances such as those described above is treated as a 

point source discharge and therefore is subject to the permit requirements of the Clean 

Water Act. In contrast, nonpoint sources, including runoff from forestry activities, are not 

subject to federal permit requirements. Point source discharges usually enter receiving 

water bodies at some identifiable site and carry pollutants whose generation is controlled 

by some internal (e.g., industrial) process or activity, not by the weather. Point source 

discharges like municipal and industrial wastewaters, runoff or leachate from solid waste 

disposal sites, and storm sewer outfalls from large urban centers are regulated and 

permitted under the Clean Water Act. 

Although water program managers understand and manage nonpoint sources in accordance with legal definitions and requirements, the nonlegal community often characterizes nonpoint sources in the following ways: 

Nonpoint sources, i.e., 

sources not defined by statute 

as point sources as described 

above, include return flow 

from irrigated agriculture, 

other agricultural runoff and 

infiltration, urban runoff from 

small or non-sewered urban 

areas, flow from abandoned 

mines, hydrologic modification, and runoff from forestry 

activities. 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-5

Chapter 1: Introduction

• Nonpoint source discharges enter surface and/or groundwaters in a diffuse manner at 

irregular intervals related mostly to weather. 

• The pollutants arise over an extensive land area and move overland before they 

reach surface waters or infiltrate into groundwaters. 

• The extent of nonpoint source pollution is related to uncontrollable climatic events 

and to geographic and geologic conditions and varies greatly from place to place and 

from year to year. 

• Nonpoint sources are often more difficult or expensive to monitor at their point(s) of 

origin than point sources. 

• Abatement of nonpoint sources is focused on land and runoff management practices, 

rather than on effluent treatment. 

• Nonpoint source pollutants can be transported and deposited as airborne contaminants. 

The nonpoint source pollutant of greatest concern with respect to forestry activities is 

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

concern from almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads regardless of 

their level of use or age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other pollutants of significance, 

including nutrients, temperature, toxic chemicals and metals, organic matter, pathogens, 

herbicides, and pesticides, are also of concern, and problems associated with these other 

pollutants (in the context of forestry activities) generally do not extend beyond 2 years 

from the time of harvest or are associated with a specific activity, such as an herbicide 

application. Nevertheless, all of these pollutants have the potential to affect water quality 

and aquatic habitat, and minimizing their delivery to surface waters and groundwater 

deserves serious consideration before and during forestry activities. Forest harvesting can 

also affect the hydrology of a watershed, and hydrologic alterations within a watershed 

have the potential to degrade water quality. 

Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution

During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water pollution 

(1972–1987), EPA and the states focused most of their water pollution control activities 

on traditional point sources. They regulated these point sources (and continue to regulate 

them) through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit 

program established by section 402 of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(Clean Water Act). Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and EPA also have regulated discharges of dredged and fill materials into 

wetlands. 

As a result of the above activities, the United States has greatly reduced pollutant loads 

from point source discharges and has made considerable progress in restoring and 

maintaining water quality. However, the gains in controlling point sources have not 

solved all of our water quality problems. Studies and surveys conducted by EPA, other 

federal agencies, and state water quality agencies indicate that most of the remaining 

water quality impairments in our rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and 

wetlands result from nonpoint source pollution and other nontraditional sources, such as 

urban storm water discharges and overflows from combined sewers (sewers that carry 

both wastewater and storm water runoff). Summarized below are some legislative and 

programmatic efforts to control nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. 
1-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

In November 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments 

(CZARA). These amendments were intended to address several concerns, including the 

effect of nonpoint source pollution on coastal waters. 

To more specifically address the effects of nonpoint source pollution on coastal water 

quality, Congress enacted section 6217, Protecting Coastal Waters (codified as 16 U.S.C. 

section 1455b). Section 6217 requires that each state with an approved Coastal Zone 

Management Program develop a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program and submit 

it to EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval. The purpose of the program is “to develop and implement management measures 

for nonpoint source pollution to restore and protect coastal waters, working in close 

conjunction with other state and local authorities.” 

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs are not intended to replace existing coastal 

zone management programs and nonpoint source management programs. Rather, they are 

intended to serve as an update and expansion of existing programs and are to be coordinated closely with the coastal zone management programs that states and territories are 

already implementing in keeping with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The 

legislative history indicates that the central purpose of section 6217 is to strengthen the 

links between federal and state coastal zone management and water quality programs and 

to enhance state and local efforts to manage land use activities that degrade coastal 

waters and habitats. 

Section 6217(g) of CZARA requires EPA to publish, in consultation with NOAA, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other federal agencies, “guidance for specifying 

management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.” Section 

6217(g)(5) defines management measures as 

economically achievable measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and classes of nonpoint sources of 

pollution, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable 

through the application of the best available nonpoint source control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, and other 

alternatives. 

EPA published Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint

Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993). In that document, management measures for 

urban areas; agricultural sources; forestry; marinas and recreational boating; 

hydromodification (channelization and channel modification, dams, and streambank and 

shoreline erosion); and wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems were 

defined and described. The management measures for controlling forestry nonpoint 

source pollution discussed in Chapter 3 of this document are based on those outlined by 

EPA in the coastal management measures guidance. 

Nonpoint Source Program—Section 319 of the Clean Water Act 

In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the growing 

national awareness of the increasingly dominant influence of nonpoint source pollution 

on water quality, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to focus greater national effort 

on nonpoint sources. Under this amended version, called the 1987 Water Quality Act, 

The Federal Coastal Nonpoint 

Pollution Control Program 

(6217) is designed to enhance 

state and local efforts to 

manage land use activities that 

degrade coastal habitats and 

waters. 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-7

Chapter 1: Introduction

Congress revised section 101, “Declaration of Goals and Policy,” to add the following 

fundamental principle: 

It is the national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of 

pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditious manner so as to 

enable the goals of this Act to be met through the control of both point and 

nonpoint sources of pollution. 

More important, Congress enacted section 319 of the 1987 Water Quality Act, which 

established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Under 

section 319, states, tribes, and territories address nonpoint source pollution by assessing 

the causes and sources of nonpoint source pollution and implementing management 

programs to control them. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to states, tribes, and 

territories to assist them in implementing management programs or portions of management programs that have been approved by EPA. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $237,476,800 for this purpose. 

Section 319 nonpoint source pollution control programs are an important element of 

coastal states’ efforts to comply with section 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 

Programs. Under section 6217, coastal states are directed to coordinate development of 

their coastal waters protection programs with their section 319 programs and related 

programs developed under other sections of the Clean Water Act, and two primary means 

of complying with section 6217 are through changes made to section 319 and Coastal 

Zone Management Programs. 

National Estuary Program—Section 320 of the Clean Water Act 

EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the Clean Water 

Act. This program focuses on point source and nonpoint source pollution in geographically targeted, high-priority estuarine waters. In this program, EPA assists state, regional, 

and local governments in developing comprehensive conservation and management plans 

that recommend priority corrective actions to restore estuarine water quality, fish populations, and other designated uses of the waters. 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of 

dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities 

regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (such 

as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways and airports), and 

conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming and forestry. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers and EPA jointly administer the section 404 program. The Corps administers the 

day-to-day program, including permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations; develops policy and guidance; and enforces section 404 provisions. EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications; determines the scope 

of geographic jurisdiction; and approves and oversees state assumption. EPA also identifies activities that are exempt, enforces section 404 provisions, and has the authority to 

elevate or veto Corps permit decisions. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies have important 

advisory roles. 

Section 319 requires states to 

assess nonpoint source 

pollution and implement 

management programs, and 

authorizes EPA to provide 

grants to assist state nonpoint 

source pollution control 

programs. 
1-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction

Clean Water State Revolving Fund

The Water Quality Act of 1987, the last full reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, replaced the act’s 

Clean Water Construction Grants Program with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The 

CWSRF is a state-based program to provide assistance to municipalities to construct wastewater 

treatment works, nonpoint source pollution control projects, and estuary protection. Congress insured 

that CWSRF could address all state water quality program priorities. CWSRF programs provided an 

average of $3.4 billion per year over the past 5 years, primarily in low-interest loans, to fund such 

water quality protection projects as well as watershed management projects. The CWSRF have 

provided more than $38.7 billion in funding over the life of the program. 

Nationally, interest rates for CWSRF loans in 2002 averaged 2.5 percent, compared to market rates 

that averaged 5.1 percent. A CWSRF-funded project would therefore cost about 21 percent less than a 

project funded at the market rate. CWSRF loans can fund 100 percent of the project cost and provide 

flexible repayment terms up to 20 years. 

States are required to match the federal funds received from CWSRF, but this match requirement is not 

passed on to loan recipients. Furthermore, the money received as a CWSRF loan can be leveraged as 

matching funds to obtain funding under other federal programs, such as 319 grants and USDA costshare programs. This is because much of the CWSRF funds are recycled through loans, so fewer 

federal requirements apply to them compared to other federal funding sources. 

CWSRF loans provide more than $200 million annually to control pollution from nonpoint sources and 

to protect estuaries, and total funding for these purposes has exceeded $1.6 billion. Some innovative 

funding examples follow. 

 The Ohio EPA and Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, are using Ohio’s 

CWSRF to help Master Loggers and Certified Foresters purchase logging and tree planting equipment. Financed equipment includes bulldozers, tracked forwarders and hydro-bunchers, bridges, 

and mulching machines. Ohio hopes that this type of funding will support the successful use of 

BMPs on logging operations. 

 The California CWSRF provided funds to landowners in the Tahoe Basin to assist them with the 

removal of dead and dying trees in a manner that minimized erosion and fully protected water 

quality. The area had a high risk of fire due to the large quantities of natural fuel for fires located on 

public and private lands throughout the basin. 

 The Nature Conservancy of Ohio received three CWSRF loans totaling $264,000 for riparian zone 

conservation. The funds are used to protect 383 acres along Ohio’s Brush Creek. The Nature 

Conservancy purchased 62 acres and obtained conservation easements on 321 acres. Protection 

measures include planting the riparian corridor with hardwood trees for streambank stabilization. 

“Restoring and preserving these riparian areas is an important part of controlling contaminated 

runoff that threatens water quality and stream habitat,” said the director of Ohio EPA. 

 Ohio EPA has worked to fund both point and nonpoint source projects through the newly 

developed Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program (WRRSP). The WRRSP provides lowinterest loans to communities for wastewater treatment plant improvements if the communities 

also sponsor water resource restoration projects. Provided that both projects qualify, CWSRF 

provides the financial support for both projects and reduces a community’s interest rate on the 

total amount borrowed. As a result, the total amount repaid on the CWSRF loan for both projects is 

less than what would have been repaid on the wastewater treatment plant project alone. Ohio 

communities used $24 million of CWSRF loan funds to protect and restore 1,850 acres of riparian 

lands and wetlands and 38 miles of Ohio’s stream corridors in 2000 and 2001. The WRRSP was 

designed to help prevent the loss of biodiversity and to maintain ecological health, and it has 

supported the acquisition of conservation easements, restoration of habitats, and modification of 

dams. The CWSRF program has assisted a variety of borrowers such as municipalities, 

communities of all sizes, farmers, homeowners, businesses, and nonprofit organizations. CWSRF 

recipients often partner with banks, nonprofits, local governments, and other federal and state 

agencies to leverage the maximum financing for their communities. 

Sources: USEPA, undated a, undated b, 2002a, 2002b. 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-9

Chapter 1: Introduction

The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be 

permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the Nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. In other words, an 

applicant for a permit is asked to show that 

• Wetland effects have been avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

• Potential effects on wetlands have been minimized. 

• Compensation has been provided for any remaining unavoidable effects through 

activities such as wetlands restoration and creation. 

Regulated activities are controlled by a permit review process. An individual permit is 

required for potentially significant effects. However, for most discharges that will have 

only minimal adverse effects, the Army Corps of Engineers often grants general permits. 

These may be issued on a nationwide, regional, or state basis for particular categories of 

activities (for example, minor road crossings, utility line backfill and bedding) as a means 

to expedite the permitting process. 

Section 404(f) exempts normal forestry activities that are part of an established, ongoing 

forestry operation. This exemption does not apply to activities that represent a new use of 

the wetland and that would result in a reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circulation of waters of the United States, including wetlands. In addition, section 404(f) 

provides an exemption of discharges of dredged or fill material for the purpose of constructing or maintaining forest roads, where such roads are constructed or maintained in 

accordance with BMPs to ensure that the flow and circulation patterns and chemical and 

biological characteristics of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the reach of the 

navigable waters is not reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment 

will be otherwise minimized. (More information on wetlands and forestry, including a list 

of the aforementioned BMPs, is provided in Chapter 3, section J.) 

Total Maximum Daily Loads—Section 303 of the Clean Water Act 

A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is a statement of the total quantity of a pollutant 

that can be released to a water body or stretch of stream or river on a daily basis to 

maintain the water quality standard for the pollutant. A single water body might have 

many TMDLs, one for each pollutant of concern. A TMDL is the sum of the individual 

wasteload allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural 

background sources, plus a margin of safety for an individual body of water. TMDLs can 

be expressed in terms of mass of pollutant per unit time, to aquatic organisms toxicity, or 

other appropriate measures that relate to state water quality standards. 

The process of creating TMDLs was established by Clean Water Act section 303(d) to 

guide the application of state standards to protect the designated “beneficial uses” (e.g. 

fishing, swimming, drinking water, fish habitat, aesthetics) of individual water bodies. 

Beginning in 1992, states, territories and authorized tribes were to submit lists of impaired waters (i.e., waters that do not meet water quality standards) to EPA every two 

years. Beginning in 1994, lists were due to EPA on April 1 of even-numbered years. 

States, territories, and authorized tribes rank the listed waters by priority, taking into 

account the severity of the pollution and the water body’s designated uses. 
1-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction

A TMDL is established to identify reduction targets for two types of water pollution 

sources in rivers and streams: 

• Point source pollution 

• Nonpoint source pollution 

While point sources of water pollution are regulated by discharge permits, nonpoint 

sources are controlled by the installation of BMPs, either voluntarily or by regulatory 

requirement, depending on the state. 

A TMDL is a process as well as an outcome. The following are components of TMDL 

development: 

• Problem identification 

• Identification of water quality indicators and target values 

• Source assessment 

• Linkage between water quality targets and sources 

• Allocations 

• Follow-up monitoring and evaluation plan 

• Assembling the TMDL 

Forest harvesting; road construction, maintenance, and use; and abandoned roads in 

forests are the primary sources of sediment and other pollutants to water bodies from 

forestry activities. If a state determines that a priority water body is impaired by a pollutant that partially or wholly arises from forestry activities, the state develops a TMDL for 

the water body and in it determines the maximum allowable quantity of the pollutant that 

may be released from forestry activities. Some means of ensuring that no more than this 

quantity is released must then be implemented. BMPs are one method that could be used 

in conjunction with other methods chosen. 

Forest Stewardship

Forest stewardship, including implementation of the management measures and 

BMPs in this guidance or similar ones (for 

instance, state-recommended BMPs) to 

minimize water quality impairment due to 

forest harvesting and associated activities, 

is the responsibility of those who own and 

harvest the land. In the United States, 

timberland ownership is divided among 

public agencies, the commercial forest 

industry, and other private timberland 

owners. On a national scale, 71 percent of 

timberland is owned privately and 29 

percent publicly (Smith et al., 2001). The 

distribution of ownership among different 

public and private entities differs widely by region, as summarized in Figure 1-1. Figure 

1-2 shows the distribution of forested land throughout the country. 

Figure 1-1. Timberland ownership by region (Smith et al., 2001). 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 1-11

Chapter 1: Introduction

This guidance is oriented toward the implementation of management measures and BMPs 

that will promote the protection of water quality, but it does not focus on assessing the 

quality of water that results from forestry activities. Other requirements, notably state 

water quality standards and designated uses, apply to all ownership categories and types 

of land-based activities. Thus, while different management measures and BMPs are 

recommended for forestry activities and agriculture, for instance, maintaining state water 

quality standards is the responsibility of those who undertake both activities. 

Finally, it is important to mention that forests, especially well-managed forests, are a key 

element in any state, local, or federal water quality protection program. Forests and 

forested land, whether in a rural setting, along streams on agricultural land, intermixed 

with other land uses in suburban settings, or in urban locations, are natural filters for 

storm water runoff and one of the least expensive and most effective means of protecting 

water quality. It is the hope of EPA that the management measures and BMPs contained 

in this guidance, and the suggestions for their implementation, will help all persons 

involved with forestry activities and forest management to maintain the quality of the 

Nation’s surface and groundwaters. 

Figure 1-2. Forested lands of the United States. 
1-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 1: Introduction
CHAPTER 2: WATER QUALITY AND

FORESTRY ACTIVITIES CTIVITIESCTIVITIES

Nonpoint source pollution remains a major challenge to meeting water quality standards 

and designated uses in much of the Nation. Chapter 1 defines and describes nonpoint 

source pollution. The potential for sediment delivery to streams is a long-term (beyond 

2 years) concern from almost all forestry harvesting activities and from forest roads 

regardless of their level of use or age (i.e., for the life of the road). Other pollutants of 

significance, including nutrients, increased temperature, toxic chemicals and metals, 

organic matter, pathogens, herbicides, and pesticides, are also of concern, and problems 

associated with these other pollutants (in the context of forestry activities) generally do 

not extend beyond 2 years from the time of harvest or are associated with a specific 

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

beyond 2 years because of the time necessary for regrowth to occur in harvested streamside management areas (SMAs). Nevertheless, all of these pollutants have the potential to 

affect water quality and aquatic habitat and minimizing their delivery to surface waters 

and groundwater deserves serious consideration before and during forestry activities. 

Forest harvesting can also affect the hydrology of a watershed, and hydrologic alterations 

within a watershed also have the potential to degrade water quality. Forestry activities 

can also affect the habitats of aquatic species through physical disturbances caused by 

construction of stream crossings, equipment use within stream corridors, and placement 

of slash or other debris generated by forestry activities within streams. The effects of 

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

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

local authorities because healthy, clean waters are important for aquatic life, drinking 

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

sediment, nutrients, and chemicals, and by alterations to stream flow that can result from 

forestry activities. The purpose of implementing management measures and best management practices (BMPs) to protect surface waters during and after forestry activities is to 

protect important ecological conditions and characteristics of the surface waters in roaded 

and logged forested areas. These conditions vary with water body type, but in general the 

ecological conditions that management measures and BMPs are intended to protect 

include the following: 

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

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


amount of shade along shorelines and streambanks.


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

serve as the basis of aquatic food chains. 

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


system are appropriate for the system.


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-1 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

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

A great deal has been learned over the past 20 to 30 years about effective ways to reduce 

nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities. Developing more effective ways to 

control nonpoint source pollution in forested settings requires a basic understanding of 

forest hydrology and how forestry activities affect it. This chapter discusses the hydrologic processes of forested watersheds, the interaction of forestry activities with those 

processes, the general causes of nonpoint source pollution due to forestry activities, the 

specific pollutants and water quality concerns related to forestry activities, and general 

approaches to reducing the generation of pollutants. The information helps the reader 

understand how the management measures and BMPs discussed in Chapter 3 can minimize nonpoint source pollution and why proper implementation of BMPs is so critical to 

maintaining water quality in our forests. 

Forested Watershed Hydrology 

A watershed is an area that, due to its natural drainage pattern, collects precipitation and 

deposits it into a particular body of water. In western regions of the country these land 

areas are often called “drainages,” and throughout the Nation they’re sometimes referred 

to as river or stream “basins” (CWP, 2000). Streamflow is a critical element in understanding watershed processes and the effects of land use on those processes because it is 

the primary medium through which water, sediment, nutrients, organic material, thermal 

energy, and aquatic species move. 

Streamflow is produced by vadose zone flow and groundwater seepage. Vadose zone flow 

is the flow that occurs between the ground surface and saturated soil, or the water table 

where groundwater lies. Rainfall and snowmelt supply and replenish both, but in a 

forested area only a portion of rainfall and snowmelt reaches surface waters. A portion is 

evaporated back to the atmosphere from the surface of leaves, other vegetative surfaces, 

and the ground. Some is absorbed by vegetation and either metabolized or transpired 

back to the atmosphere; and another portion is retained by the soil. Factors such as 

climate, soil type, topography, elapsed time since the last precipitation event, and amount 

of vegetation determine the portion of rainfall or snowmelt that actually reaches surface 

waters. The same factors, as well as soil structure (for instance, the presence of 

macropores created by animals or decayed roots, etc.) and geomorphology (e.g., depth to 

bedrock and type of underlying rock), determine how quickly moisture that infiltrates the 

soil reaches surface waters. If soil is already saturated or the quantity of rainfall or 

snowmelt is sufficient to exceed the soil’s capacity to absorb moisture, surface runoff will 

occur, though it is not common in forested areas. 

Surface runoff in a forested area is more likely to be caused by changes within a watershed than by excessive precipitation, and it is of concern because it has far more erosive 

power than subsurface flow. There is little storage of water that flows over a forest floor, 

whereas subsurface storage in soil can be substantial. For this reason, surface water flows 

down hillslopes more than 10 times faster than it flows through soil. Obstacles on the 

ground, such as leaf litter and woody debris, help slow surface runoff, but other factors 

can increase its velocity or volume. Such factors include a loss of vegetative cover that 

would contribute to evaporation and evapotranspiration, soil compaction, impervious 

surfaces, and cutslopes of roads or other soil disturbances where subsurface flow can be 

2-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

transformed into surface flow. Both the extent to which precipitation is delivered directly 

to the ground and prevented from infiltrating the soil and the amount of subsurface flow 

that is converted to overland flow are important factors that can affect the timing and 

volume of streamflow. When more water is delivered to streams faster than usual, stream 

flow peaks sooner and higher than normal, and instream erosion can occur. 

Stormflow response in small basins depends primarily on hillslope processes, whereas 

that in large basins depends primarily on the geomorphology of the stream channel 

network. Consequently, land use changes and other site factors as mentioned above (e.g., 

soil compaction) affect streamflow in small basins more than in large basins. In any 

watershed, however, streamflow response to a given rain event largely depends on the 

capacity of the vegetation and soil to intercept rainfall or snowmelt. Saturated soil and 

little vegetative cover would tend to lead to a much faster streamflow response than dry 

soil and complete vegetative cover. 

Streamflow during a season, the variability of streamflow within a season, and the 

variability of streamflow between seasons strongly influence channel form and processes. 

These factors also strongly affect aquatic and riparian species. In a stable stream—that is, 

one in equilibrium—each channel segment carries off sediment contributed from upstream locations and from tributaries. When the sediment input rate is greater than the 

energy in the stream to carry off sediment, sediment accumulates and a channel aggrades. 

When a stream has more energy than what is necessary to carry the sediment the water is 

carrying, it can pick up extra sediment and incise the stream. 

Forested riparian buffers can provide some measure of flow regulation under certain 

watershed conditions (Desbonnet et al., 1994). A primary way in which buffers reduce 

flow velocity is by slowing flow velocity and allowing absorption of water into soil. 

They also maintain streamside soils in a condition to absorb water by virtue of their 

extensive root systems that provide the soil structure necessary for a large quantity of 

absorption. Rainfall and runoff intensity, soil characteristics, hydrologic regime, and 

slope of the buffer and runoff source area are once again some of the factors that 

determine a forested riparian buffer’s ability to regulate stream flow. A narrow forested 

buffer on a steep, nonvegetated slope has little ability to regulate flow, whereas a wide 

forested buffer on a gentle, vegetated slope could help reduce peak flow levels and 

provide for dry season flow. 

Forestry Activities and Forest Hydrology 

When one factor in a system changes, other factors may be affected as well. In a forested 

watershed, logging has the effect of both compacting and loosening soils due to the 

construction and use of roads, use of heavy machinery, logs being dragged over the 

ground or otherwise transported to yarding areas, and vegetation being removed. Roads 

and road ditches, ruts on the ground, and areas cleared of leaf litter or other soil coverings 

create opportunities for water channelling and flow diversion, which, if not properly 

controlled and directed, can generate erosive flows. Thus, the disturbances caused by 

logging in a forested watershed can lead to hydrologic changes within the same watershed, which can in turn lead to nonpoint source pollution. Forestry activities and their 

potential effects on forest hydrology and water quality (through nonpoint source pollution) are discussed below. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-3 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

A note on the concept of disturbance ecology is in order here. A forest is not an ecosystem that has been in perfect equilibrium from its beginning as a grassland to its mature 

state, modified only by the slow successional changes that occur naturally. Numerous 

disturbances occur along the way, ranging from those on a small scale (such as a treefall) 

to those on a large scale (such as a wildfire). Forests react to these disturbances in ways 

that can increase biodiversity and promote overall forest health. For many years people 

have managed forests—including protection from disturbance and unnatural disturbance 

(such as harvesting and altering land use)—without paying attention to the natural 

disturbance regime of the particular forest. An ecosystem approach to forest management 

is evolving as more is learned about natural disturbance, and forest management approaches are being developed that benefit both forests and people by creating disturbance 

in spatial and temporal patterns that closely resemble those of natural disturbances. Thus, 

forest management activities can be done such that the disturbances they cause benefit 

the forest ecosystem. Managing a forest this way, however, requires good knowledge of 

the forest ecosystem dynamics and consideration of all past, present, and future disturbance-creating activities within the forest ecosystem that could cumulatively create more 

disturbance—and thus unintended damage—than the project being considered, for 

instance road construction or a harvest. 

Road Construction and Road Use 

Roads are generally considered to be the major source of sediment to water bodies from 

harvested forest lands. They have been found to contribute up to 90 percent of the total 

sediment production from forestry activities (Megahan, 1980; Patric, 1976; Rothwell, 

1983). There is some evidence that modern road building practices, such as locating 

roads on ridgetops instead of middle slopes, removing excavated material to an offsite 

location, and using full bench construction is reducing the amount of sediment delivered 

to streams from forest roads (Copstead, 1997). Erosion from roads can be disproportionately high because roads lack vegetative cover, are exposed to direct rainfall, have a 

tendency to channel water on their surfaces, and are disturbed repeatedly when used. 

Erosion from roads can be exacerbated by instability on cut-and-fill slopes, water flow 

over the road surface or through a roadside ditch, flow from surrounding areas becoming 

concentrated and channelled by a road surface, and lack of a protective surfacing. Much 

of the sediment load to streams that is associated with roads can be attributed to older 

roads, which may have been constructed with steep gradients and deep cut-and-fill 

sections and which may have poorly maintained drainage structures. 

Numerous factors need to be considered to protect water quality from the potential 

effects of forest roads. Stream crossings of both older and modern forest roads and old 

forest roads that were placed near streams are the most troublesome source of sediment 

to streams. While roads contribute more to erosion on forested land on a per-area basis 

(e.g., quantity of eroded soil per acre of road versus per acre of undisturbed forest), they 

also occupy a disproportionately small amount of a forested area. Evidence indicates that 

the total amount of eroded soil from roads is not much if any greater than the total 

amount of soil eroded from the non-roaded surface of a forested area (Gucinski et al., 

2001). A related factor is that a small percentage of road area may be responsible for 

most of the erosion from roads. Rice and Lewis (1986, cited in Gucinski et al., 2001) 

found that major erosional features of roads occupied only 0.6 percent of the length of 

roads. A final factor to consider is that soil loss from roads tends to be greatest during and 

immediately after road construction because of the unstabilized road prism and 

2-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

disturbance by passage of heavy trucks and equipment (Swift, 1984). Consideration of 

these factors to reduce water pollution from roads is provided in Chapter 3, section C, 

Road Construction/Reconstruction, and section D, Road Management. 

Careful planning and proper road layout and design, however, can minimize erosion and 

substantially reduce the effects of roads on streams. The effect that a forest road network 

has on sediment input and flow changes in stream networks depends in part on how interconnected the road and stream networks are. Roads generally are hydrologically connected 

to stream networks where subsurface groundwater flow is converted to channelled overland 

flow at road cuts, and road surface runoff drains directly to stream channels. Overland flow 

is delivered to streams much more quickly than subsurface flow, so the conversion of 

subsurface flow to overland flow and the connectivity of road networks to stream networks 

can have an effect on stormflow patterns in streams (Jones and Grant, 1996; Montgomery, 

1994; Wemple et al., 1996). Careful road system planning, taking watershed processes, soil 

type, topography, and vegetative characteristics into account, and designing with natural 

drainage patterns to minimize hydrologic connections of the road network to streams and 

maximize opportunities for filtering surface drainage, can reduce these effects. Chapter 3, 

section A, Preharvest Planning, discusses these factors. 

Timber Harvesting 

Timber harvesting generally involves the use of forest roads (the effects of which are 

discussed separately above and in Chapter 3), skid trails (along which felled trees are 

dragged), yarding areas (where cut timber is collected for transport away from the harvest 

site), and machinery associated with harvesting, skidding, and yarding. Soil disturbance, 

soil compaction, and vegetation removal on the harvest site, skid trails, and yarding areas 

can contribute to water quality problems. Methods for minimizing the water quality 

effects of timber harvesting are discussed in Chapter 3, section E, Timber Harvesting. 

The association between timber harvesting—especially clear-cut harvesting—and mass 

erosion events has been and continues to be controversial. Studies of landslides done up 

to the 1980s, primarily in the Pacific Northwest, found an association between clearcutting and landslides, but the findings of the studies were inconclusive due to the way 

data were collected (Hockman-Wert, undated). Studies were often conducted using aerial 

photographs and concentrated on the steepest slopes. Aerial images cannot account for 

mass erosion that occurs under forest cover, and later research indicated that as much as 

50 percent of mass erosion movements are unaccounted for on aerial photographs. While 

some studies found clear-cuts to lead to more landslides on steep slopes, when more 

gentle slopes were investigated the occurrence of landslides was found to be as common 

on forested sites as on clear-cut sites. 

There is a general consensus that harvesting on steep slopes increases the landslide 

hazard for a period of time after the harvest. It is not clear, however, whether more or 

larger landslides occur due to harvesting. In an issue paper written for the Oregon Board 

of Forestry and to provide background information for policy decisions related to harvesting and public safety, Mills and Hinkle (2001) discuss the latest scientific evidence 

related to landslides and timber harvesting. They report that in three of four study areas 

higher landslide densities were found in stands that had been harvested within the previous nine years than in mature (i.e., more than 100 years old) forest stands, and that stands 

30 to 100 years old had lower landslide densities than mature stands. They also report 

that the studies showed that average landslide volume was similar regardless of stand age. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-5 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

Furthermore, landslides are known to be natural occurrences and important elements in 

stream ecology in that they are a primary means by which wood and gravel are delivered 

to streams to create fish habitat (Shaffer, undated). It may be, then, that landslides occur 

in steep areas regardless of land use history, but that harvesting may concentrate the 

occurrence of landslides into the 10 years after harvesting. 

Geology, soil type, soil depth, and topography might have much more to do with 

determining whether a site is susceptible to landslides than land use history (Shaffer, nd). 

Underlying geology plays a role because porous bedrock drains water from soils quickly, 

while impermeable bedrock keeps water in the soil. Different types of bedrock, such as 

shales or granite, weather into different types of soils that will either promote or resist 

sliding. Soil type determines whether a soil binds well to itself and to bedrock to resist 

sliding or is easily dislodged to promote sliding. Soil depth determines how much soil 

volume there is above bedrock to absorb water before the soil becomes saturated and 

what the weight of soil available for sliding is. Water contributes to sliding not only by 

acting as a lubricant between soil and bedrock, but also by adding considerable weight to 

the soil. Two inches of rain in 24 hours adds 10 pounds of water in every square foot of 

soil. On flat topography, saturated soil will result in puddling or overland flow. On gently 

sloping topography, soil might “creep” downhill at the rate of a few inches a year. On 

steep topography, the combined weight of water and soil under saturated conditions can 

trigger a slide. Finally, vegetation provides soil binding to resist sliding, and root decay 

can make soils less cohesive. Root cohesion—the ability of roots to hold soil to a slope— 

is at its lowest about 10 years after a harvest (or some other event that kills trees, such as 

a wind storm after an ice storm). Depending on all of these factors—geology, soil type, 

soil depth, and topography, combined with the elements of precipitation and land use 

history—a landslide could occur before or after soil becomes saturated, before or after a 

harvest, and either slowly and progressively or suddenly and massively. 

Finally, research on the effectiveness of different harvesting methods (e.g., clear-cutting 

or selective cutting) or logging practices to reduce landslide occurrence does not exist 

(Mills and Hinkle, 2001). The effectiveness of BMPs for minimizing the hazard of 

landslides from timber harvest sites is also not known. 

Recent research in Canada has demonstrated that clear-cut harvesting can lead to increased mercury concentrations in runoff (McIlroy, 2001). Mercury is carried through the 

atmosphere from areas with sources such as coal combustion and incinerators, and 

can be deposited in forested areas. When those forested areas are clear-cut harvested, the additional runoff generated after the trees are removed might lead to 

increased mercury concentrations in the runoff. The Canadian study indicated that 

the effect is accentuated by heavy, clear-cut harvesting in large watersheds, and that 

the problem might be avoided by selective harvesting. Further study of the potential 

problem is needed to clearly portray the association, if any, between forest harvesting and mercury. 

Another potential adverse effect of timber harvesting is an increase in stream water temperature—a water quality criterion for physical water quality—that can result if too much 

streamside vegetation is removed. Small streams are affected more by a loss of shade than 

are large streams. One reason that streamside buffer strips, or SMAs, are maintained is to 

minimize or prevent water temperature increases. Stream temperature maintenance is 

important for aquatic biota. For instance, stream temperature has been found to affect the 

time required for salmonid eggs to develop and hatch (Chamberlin et al., 1991). Fish and 

2-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

aquatic invertebrates are cold-blooded adapted to ranges of water temperature, and 

can be adversely affected by the water temperature exceeding the high temperature of 

the range for which they are adapted. Maintaining streamside vegetation in an amount 

sufficient to provide shade that maintains the stream temperature within the proper 

range is a key goal of the Streamside Management Area Management Measure (see 

Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas). 

Timber harvesting along a stream can also affect stream ecology by removing overhanging trees and branches from which twigs, leaves, branches, and sometimes entire trees fall 

into the stream channel. Overhanging vegetation contributes organic material in the form 

of leaves and needles, and large woody debris, or LWD, to surface waters. These materials serve as a source of energy and provide nutrients for aquatic life and provide habitat 

diversity. They are a primary source of nutrients in small, low-order streams high in 

watersheds where aquatic vegetation might not be abundant and upstream sources of 

nutrients are limited. Farther downstream, instream sources of nutrients, such as aquatic 

plants and organic matter transported from upstream sources, are more abundant and 

organic debris from overhanging trees is a less important source of energy and nutrients. 

LWD is still important in these streams, however, for the habitat diversity it creates. LWD 

creates eddies, provides shelter and anchoring points for small aquatic animals, and 

forms areas of relatively calm water in flowing streams and rivers. SMAs protect these 

important ecological processes and benefits, without which stream waters might be 

prevented from attaining the water quality criterion of supporting aquatic life. 

Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

Site preparation is done to prepare a harvested site for regeneration. It can be accomplished mechanically using wheeled or tracked machinery, by the use of prescribed 

burning, or with applications of chemicals (herbicides, fertilizers, and pesticides). These 

techniques may be used alone or in combination. These operations can affect water 

quality if chemicals used and/or spilled during site preparation operations or soils disturbed during site preparation are transported to surface waters. 

The chemicals associated with forestry operations that are of most concern from a water 

quality perspective are petroleum compounds, lubricants, and other machinery-related 

chemicals. Herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers pose little threat to water quality if used 

and applied according to the specific directions for the chemical being applied and state 

and EPA guidelines. The herbicides and pesticides used in forestry operations are generally specific to the target vegetation and pose little threat to aquatic organisms, and they 

generally are short-lived in the environment. Fertilizers pose little threat to aquatic 

environments because they are used very infrequently for forestry operations, perhaps as 

little as two applications on a harvest site in 50 years. 

Mechanical site preparation by large tractors that shear, disk, drum-chop, or root-rake a 

site can result in considerable soil disturbance over large areas (Beasley, 1979). Site 

preparation techniques can result in the removal of vegetation left after a harvest and 

forest litter, soil compaction and a loss of infiltration capacity, and soil exposure and 

disturbance. All of these effects can lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. They 

are most pronounced soon after a harvest and decrease over time, usually within 2 years, 

as vegetative cover returns to the harvested site. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-7 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

Forest regeneration methods can be divided into two general types: (1) regeneration 

from sprouts and seedlings, either planted seedlings or those present naturally on a 

harvest site, and (2) regeneration from seed, which can be natural seed in the soil or 

seed from a broadcast application after a harvest. Loss of soil from a harvest site is 

obviously undesirable from a water quality perspective, and also because of the 

lowered soil productivity and tree regeneration that can result. Protecting a harvest site 

from undue disturbance during site preparation, therefore, is desirable both from water 

quality (reduced erosion) and site productivity perspectives. Means to protect soils 

from erosion and undue disturbance during site preparation and forest regeneration 

are discussed in Chapter 3, section F, Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration, and 

section H, Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. 

Prescribed Burning 

Prescribed burning is a method used to prepare a site for regeneration after a harvest, 

however because the methods for minimizing water quality effects due to fire are somewhat specialized, it is treated separately in this document (see Chapter 3, section G, Fire 

Management). Prescribed burning of slash can increase erosion on some soils by eliminating protective cover and altering soil properties (Megahan, 1980). Burning can have 

the effect of making some soils water repellent, which will tend to increase runoff (Reid, 

1993; Ziemer and Lisle, 1998). This effect can penetrate to a depth of 6 inches and persist 

for 6 or more years after a fire. Burning enhances infiltration in other soils. Which soils 

will be affected in what way cannot be consistently predicted, and the effect is evidently 

dependent on the type of vegetation in the area burned. Burning also releases nutrients, 

immediately increasing nitrogen available to plants, but produces an overall effect of 

decreasing nitrogen in the forest floor (Reid, 1993). Little effect occurs on soils not 

affected by fire. 

The degree of erosion following a prescribed burn depends on soil erodibility; slope; 

timing, volume, and intensity of precipitation after a burn; fire severity; cover remaining 

on the soil; and speed of revegetation. Erosion resulting from prescribed burning is 

generally less than that resulting from roads and skid trails and from site preparation 

techniques that cause severe soil disturbance (Golden et al., 1984). However, serious 

erosion can occur following a prescribed burn if the slash being burned is collected or 

piled and soil on the harvest site is disturbed in the process of preparing for the burn. 

The effects of fire on a watershed depend on burn severity and hydrologic events that 

follow a fire (Robichaud et al., 2000). Burn severity is related to the amount of vegetation 

loss and heat-related changes in soil chemistry due to a fire. In general, wildfire has a 

more severe effect on watershed processes than prescribed burning because it is more 

intense than a prescribed burn. Prescribed burns are generally set under conditions such 

that they can be controlled and the fire will burn lower and less intensely than would a 

wildfire. Given the potential effects that a severe burn can have on watershed processes, 

prescribed burning can be used effectively both for site preparation and to reduce the 

chances of wildfire—and the often more severe effects that the latter can have on watershed processes. 

Forestry Pollutants and Water Quality Effects 

The discussion above focused on forestry activities, the potential they have for generating 

nonpoint source pollution and pollutants, and the watershed processes that can be affected 

2-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

by forestry activities. Below is a discussion of the pollutants that can be generated 

from forestry activities and the potential effects that these pollutants can have on water 

quality. 

The nonpoint source pollution problem of greatest concern with respect to forestry 

activities is the addition of sediment to surface waters. Without adequate precautions, however, many water quality issues can arise from forestry operations: 

•	 Sediment concentrations can increase because of accelerated erosion. 

•	 Nutrients in water can increase after their release from decaying organic matter on 

the ground or in the water, or after a prescribed burn. 

•	 Organic and inorganic chemical concentrations can increase because of harvesting 

and fertilizer and pesticide applications. 

•	 Slash and other organic debris can accumulate in waterbodies, which can lead to


dissolved oxygen depletion.


•	 Water temperatures can increase because of removal of riparian vegetation. 

•	 Streamflow can increase because of reduced evapotranspiration and runoff channeling. 

The discussions below of the individual pollutants that can be generated by forestry 

activities present the range of effects that might occur during and after road construction 

or use or a harvest. The particular effects of a forestry activities in a specific watershed 

will depend on the unique interaction of the characteristics of the area where the activities 

occur, time of year, harvesting method, and the BMPs used. 

Sediment 

Sediment deposited in surface waters is of concern in this guidance because of its potential to affect instream conditions and aquatic communities. Sediment is the pollutant most 

associated with forestry activities. Sediment is the solid material that is eroded from the 

land surface by water, ice, wind, or other processes and then transported or deposited 

away from its original location. Soil is lost from the forest floor by surface erosion or 

mass wasting (for example, landslides). 

Surface erosion generally contributes minor quantities of sediment to streams in undisturbed forests, and the quantity of surface erosion depends on factors mentioned previously, such as soil type, topography, and amount of vegetative cover (Spence et al., 1996). 

Rill erosion and channelized flow occur where rainwater and snowmelt are concentrated by landforms, including berms on roads and roadside ditches. They cause erosion 

most severely where water is permitted to travel for a long distance without interruption over steep slopes, because the combination of distance and slope tends to increase 

the volume and velocity of runoff. Sheet erosion, or overland flow, occurs occasionally 

on exposed soils where the conditions necessary for it, including saturated soil or a 

rainfall intensity that is greater than the ability of soil to absorb the water, but it is not 

common on forest soils. 

Mass wasting—including slumps, earthflows, and landslides—occurs most often in 

mountainous regions where surface erosion is minor (Spence et al., 1996). It can contribute large quantities of sediment to streams—and stream ecology and fish populations may 

depend on this sediment; but it occurs episodically, usually following heavy rains. Clearcutting can promote landslides on steep slopes where other factors, such as type and 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-9 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

depth of soil and type of bedrock, are favorable for landsliding. These other factors 

have a lot to do with whether a landslide will occur at a site, and tree removal 

increases the chance that a landslide will occur on a site that is prone to landsliding 

within a 10-year timeframe after a harvest (Mills and Hinkle, 2001). If topographic 

and geologic conditions at a site are favorable for landslides, then landslides are 

likely to occur at the site whether it is harvested or not, though harvesting may 

certainly affect the timing, volume, and composition of a slide. Many landslides 

occur on completely forested areas (Hockman-Wert, undated) and landslides are 

important to stream ecology in that they provide wood and gravel important to the 

creation of fish habitat (Shaffer, undated). 

Gucinski and others (2000) reviewed the scientific information available on forest 

roads and forest road-related issues in a paper, Forest Roads: A Synthesis of the 

Scientific Information, for the U.S. Forest Service. The authors review information 

related to the direct physical and ecological effects, the indirect landscape effects, 

and the direct and indirect socioeconomic effects of forest roads. The reviewers 

conclude that forest roads can lead to mass failures if road fills and stream crossings 

are improperly located, culverts are too small to pass flood waters and debris, roads 

are sited poorly, surface and subsurface drainage is modified by a road, or water is 

diverted from a road to unstable soil areas. Furthermore, the reviewers emphasize 

that on most roads only a small percentage of a road’s surface, as little as 1 percent 

or less, contributes to mass wasting. Many of the studies reviewed were conducted 

on roads that were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s. While studies of roads 

constructed with more modern road-building technologies, including technologies 

that incorporate the BMPs discussed in Chapter 3, Road Construction/Reconstruction (section C) and Road Management (section D), are not widely available yet, use 

of the modern technologies may lead to reduced mass wasting and water quality 

impacts from roads in general in the future. 

Forest road stream crossings can be sites of sedimentation and hydrologic change if 

an inappropriate type and size of crossing is installed. A culvert that is too small will 

not permit the passage of debris and water during flood events, and can lead to 

instream erosion and culvert blowout. A culvert, ford, or bridge that is improperly 

installed can cause erosion at the site of the crossing. Problems associated with 

stream crossings can be avoided by proper planning (Wiest, 1998). Crossings can 

be located where gradient or channel alignment are relatively uniform and selected 

to be large enough for floodwaters and instream debris to pass through. The advantages and disadvantages of various stream crossing structures are summarized in 

Table 2-1. Management measures and BMPs for preventing problems at stream 

crossings associated with forestry activities are discussed in Chapter 3, sections C, 

Road Construction/Reconstruction, and D, Road Management. 

An excessive quantity of sediment in a water body can cause or lead to a variety of 

problems. Sediment can reduce a water body’s ability to support aquatic life when it fills 

the spaces between rocks and grains of sand where many organisms live, forage, and 

spawn, hindering these activities. Fine sediments, of the size that can be deposited 

between grains of sand, are most threatening to fish. If deposited on fish eggs, fine 

sediments can reduce egg-to-fry survival and fry quality by suffocating eggs and forming 

a physical barrier to emerging larvae. Different species have different tolerances to fine 

sediment due to the fry having different head diameters. Coarse sediment can cap a 

2-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-11

Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities

gravel streambed and restrict the emergence of alevins (Murphy and Miller, 1997).

Murphy and Miller (1997) found that fine sediment deposited in spawning gravels

after timber harvest contributed to a 25 percent reduction in chum salmon escapement.

High sediment concentrations in the water can cause pools—preferred by some

salmon species such as coho—to fill with sediment and reduce or destroy essential

rearing habitat. When streams are affected by high sediment deposition, these

formerly productive low-gradient reaches become wide and shallow and recovery of

fish habitat can take decades (Frissell, 1992).

Sediment suspended in water increases turbidity, limiting the depth to which light

can penetrate if turbidity is increased to a sufficient degree and, thus, potentially

reducing photosynthesis and oxygen replenishment. A quantity of suspended

sediment far in excess of that normally present in a water body can suffocate aquatic

animals and severely limit the ability of sight-feeding fish to find and obtain food.

Increased Temperature

Temperature increases in streams are of concern because of the potential effects on

aquatic species. The water quality criterion for temperature is set for waters to protect

aquatic biota, and the temperature tolerance limits of fish are used to indicate whether

a water body’s temperature has been adversely affected. When streamside vegetation

is removed, any increase in solar radiation reaching the stream can increase the water

temperature. The temperature increase can be dramatic in smaller (lower order)

Table 2-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Stream Crossing Structures
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

streams and can heat the water to beyond the tolerance limits of some aquatic species. 

Increased water temperatures can also accelerate the chemical processes that occur in 

the water, decrease the ability of a water body to hold oxygen, and lower the concentration of dissolved oxygen. 

Because streams in forests are shaded, fish species in forested streams tend to be 

cooler-water species, such as salmon and trout, than fish species in non-forested 

streams. The duration of an elevated temperature and the availability of cool pools 

of water are among the factors that determine how severe an effect a temperature 

increase has on fish and other biota. An elevated water temperature can retard 

growth, reduce reproductive success, increase susceptibility to disease, decrease the 

ability to avoid predators, and decrease the ability to compete for food (Spence et 

al., 1996). 

Riparian forested buffers, as discussed above and in Chapter 3, section B (Streamside Management Areas) are a primary means of minimizing temperature increases 

due to timber harvesting. The role of riparian forested buffers in regulating ambient 

stream temperature, however, varies with stream width and vegetation type, as well 

as other factors such as stream depth, orientation to the sun, and surrounding topography. A narrow stream with a complete riparian forested buffer might receive as 

little as 1 to 3 percent of the total incoming solar radiation, whereas a wide midorder stream might receive as much as 10 to 25 percent. Riparian vegetation, therefore, has less ability to regulate water temperature as stream width increases (Spence 

et al., 1996). 

Nutrients 

Nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizers, soil, and plant material, are 

primary chemical water quality constituents. They can enter water bodies attached to 

sediments, dissolved in the water, or transported by air. Forest harvesting can increase 

nutrient leaching from the soil, though the effect generally subsides to near precutting 

levels within two years of a harvest. Low to moderate increases in nutrient levels may 

have no or a beneficial effect on an aquatic environment, but excessive amounts of 

nutrients can stimulate algal blooms or an overgrowth of other types of aquatic vegetation. This can in turn lead to an increase in the amount of decomposing plant material in 

an aquatic system and, in turn, increased turbidity and biological oxygen demand. The 

latter effect can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations, with potentially detrimental 

effects to aquatic biota. Chapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical Management, discusses 

methods for minimizing the adverse effects of forestry activities on nutrient balances. 

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

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

nutrient balances in aquatic forest ecosystems. 

Organic Debris 

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

important element of water quality in that it provides nutrients and stream structure that 

are important to supporting aquatic life. It ranges in size from suspended organic matter 

in water to fallen trees. Large woody debris, or LWD, can be whole trees or tree limbs 

that have fallen into streams. It creates the physical habitat diversity essential to support2-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

ing aquatic life. As a structural element, it influences the movement and storage of 

sediment and gravel in streams and stabilizes streambeds and banks (Spence et al., 

1996). Small organic litter—primarily leaves in deciduous forests and cones and 

needles in coniferous forests—is an important source of nutrients for aquatic communities. It usually decomposes over a year or more, depending on forest type. 

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

amount of sunlight reaching the water increases. A stream that might previously have 

relied primarily on sources of nutrients external to the stream (fallen debris) can be 

forced to rely primarily on instream sources (such as algal growth and instream vegetation). The latter may not be present in high-order streams. 

Organic debris generated during forestry activities includes residual logs, slash, litter, and 

soil organic matter. These materials can perform some of the same positive functions as 

naturally occurring LWD and organic litter. If their abundance in a stream is substantially 

greater than normal, however, they can also block or redirect streamflow, alter nutrient 

balances, and decrease the concentration of dissolved oxygen as they decompose and 

consume oxygen. Observing management guidelines for streamside management areas, 

discussed in Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas, is a key means to 

minimize ecological and water quality effects due to organic debris. 

Forest Chemicals 

Chemicals that enter surface waters can be toxic to aquatic biota, make it difficult to 

attain drinking water quality criteria, and degrade the aesthetics of streams. The most 

harmful substances considered under the general category of “forest chemicals” and used 

during forestry operations are fuel, oil, and lubricants; coolants; and others used for 

harvesting and road-building equipment. Simple precautions can prevent water quality 

deterioration, whereas improper use and management of chemicals used during forestry 

operations can result in degraded water quality. 

Fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are used to prepare a site for regeneration and to 

protect forests from disease and pests. Adverse effects on water quality due to forest 

chemical applications typically result from not following the specific application instructions for the chemical being used, such as specifications for the quantity to apply and the 

distance to maintain around watercourses (Norris and Moore, 1971). Generally, the water 

quality and aquatic biota threats due to fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are small 

because the chemicals are applied at most only one to three times at a harvest site and 

they specifically target biochemical pathways present only in plants, rendering them of 

little danger to aquatic animals. Furthermore, the half-lives of forestry herbicides are on 

the order of less than 100 days, so bioaccumulation in aquatic species is rarely of concern. Precautions for minimizing water quality effects due to forest chemical use are 

discussed in Chapter 3, section I, Forest Chemical Management. 

Hydrologic Modifications 

Streamflow is a concern because of the instream changes that can occur if the 

quantity of streamflow or the timing of streamflow is changed substantially as a 

result of a forest harvest or repeated forest harvesting. The dynamics of forest 

harvesting and streamflow response are discussed above under Forested Watershed 

Hydrology. Methods of minimizing the streamflow effects of forest roads and timber 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-13 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

harvesting are discussed in Chapter 3, and particularly in sections C, Road 

Construction/Reconstruction, D, Road Management, and E, Timber Harvesting. 

If forest roads or timber harvesting result in a more rapid delivery of runoff to 

streams than before roads were present or timber was harvested, peak flows can be 

increased. This can lead to increases in channel scouring, streambank erosion, 

downstream sedimentation, and flooding. The magnitude of changes in peak flows 

after logging depends on the size of the watershed and the amount of land harvested, and to a lesser extent on road building. Changes are usually greatest in small 

watersheds and where a large percentage of the surrounding watershed is logged at 

one time. Streamflow can be increased as a result of forest road building alone, but 

this usually occurs only in small, upland watersheds where streams and streamflow 

are small and the amount of impervious or heavily compacted surface from the 

harvest and associated activities is large in proportion to the areal extent of the 

watershed. Downstream flooding is rarely a consequence of logging in small, 

upstream watersheds (Adams and Ringer, 1994). 

Normally, when only a small portion (e.g., less than 15 percent) of a watershed is 

harvested, flow is not altered in associated streams. Where more than 15 to 20 

percent of the forest canopy is removed, streamflow typically increases. Any increase is greatest in the first years after harvest and typically becomes smaller with 

time as vegetation grows on harvested sites. Streamflow generally returns to the 

original level within 20 to 60 years, depending on forest and land type (Adams and 

Ringer, 1994). 

Physical Barriers 

Forest road stream crossings can be sites of hydrologic change, sedimentation, and debris 

buildup if the appropriate type and size of crossing are not selected. Improperly installed 

culverts at stream crossings can lead to erosion around the culvert and of the road surface 

when the design storm is exceeded or if debris inhibits or redirects flow. This can result 

in excessive sedimentation and channel alterations downstream. Culverts installed above 

the grade of a stream can create a barrier to upstream fish migration. Any of the following 

conditions associated with culverts can block fish passage: water velocity at the culvert is 

too fast, water depth at the culvert is too shallow, there is no resting pool below the 

culvert, the culvert is too high for a fish to jump, or the culvert is clogged because of lack 

of maintenance. 

Problems associated with stream crossings can be avoided by proper planning (Wiest, 

1998). Crossings can be located where they do not cause large increases in water velocity 

and there are not large changes in gradient or channel alignment. Doing so can minimize 

effects on sedimentation and fish passage. Planning for safe fish passage involves determining the type and extent of fish habitat, the species of fish present in the stream, and 

the window during which instream work can occur without harming fish habitat or 

interfering with fish migration. Adequate fish passage is that which conserves the free 

movement of fish in and about streams, lakes, and rivers in order that they can complete 

critical phases of their life cycles. It permits adult fish to migrate to spawning areas and 

juvenile fish to accompany adult fish or make local moves to rearing or overwintering 

areas. The advantages and disadvantages of various stream crossing structures are summarized in Table 2-1. 

2-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

Fords, bridges, and culverts of various sizes, shapes, and materials can be installed 

to avoid hydrologic and habitat changes and to provide adequate fish passage. Road 

crossings and culverts also need to be installed to fail when the design storm is 

exceeded to prevent substantial sedimentation. Management measures and BMPs for 

preventing physical barriers in streams associated with forestry activities are discussed in Chapter 3, sections C, Road Construction/Reconstruction, and D, Road 

Management. 

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects occur when two or more activities cause the same response within a 

watershed (e.g., lead to increased stream flow at a given time of year), when multiple 

responses disturb the same resource (e.g., increased stream flow and sediment yield both 

affect the same stream reach), when one response provokes another (e.g., increased 

stream flow induces scouring around culverts), or when responses interact to produce another (e.g., road construction on a steep slope and unusually heavy rains 

produce a mass soil movement) (Reid, 1993). Cumulative effects can occur spatially, when numerous activities conducted at different locations within a watershed 

contribute to instream responses, or temporally, when a single activity repeated in 

the same place or different activities conducted in different places at different times 

have an additive effect. Most land use activities affect only one of four environmental parameters—vegetation, soils, topography, or chemicals—and other watershed 

changes result from initial effects on these factors. If a change in vegetation or 

another one of these four factors is persistent or affects watershed transport processes or rates, cumulative effects can result. 

Cumulative effects are of concern with respect to forest roads; forest road construction, use, and maintenance; and forest harvesting because the changes that can 

occur in watershed processes following these activities can persist for many years. 

This persistence increases the potential for cumulative effects to occur. Examples of 

potential persistent effects due to forestry activities include the delivery of sediment 

to streams from a forest road used repeatedly over a period of years and increased 

subsurface flow and decreased evapotranspiration due to a reduced amount of 

vegetation at a harvest site. 

Forest roads and timber harvesting can cause changes to a landscape or stream on a 

temporal scale far different from that associated with the life of the road or duration of 

the harvest. A road may be constructed and used for many years, and its effect on a 

landscape can continue for years after it is no longer needed. Cafferata and Spittler 

(1998) found that “legacy” roads can be significant sources of sediment for decades after 

their construction. Reid (1998) also found that sedimentation rates may increase 25 years 

or more after logging roads are abandoned as they begin to fail and erode. A harvest 

might occur in one season, or numerous harvests in a watershed might occur over a 

number of years, and during the months or years afterward temporary roads and stream 

crossings might be removed and the ground or streambeds rehabilitated. In contrast, 

recovery of a forest, instream recovery from channel erosion, habitat recovery, and 

aquatic community recovery occur on time scales much longer than the harvest. The 

long-term recovery times provide ample opportunity for other disturbances to contribute 

to cumulative effects. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-15 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

Consider the following study of cumulative effects, modeled using Monte Carlo 

simulations of four hypothetical watersheds (Ziemer et al., 1991). Each watershed 

was a 10,000-ha, fifth-order watershed typical of one that might be located in 

coastal Oregon or California at 300 to 500 meters of elevation and 30 kilometers 

inland from the coast. Annual rainfall was simulated at 1500 millimeters. The four 

watersheds were simulated to have the following treatments: 

•	 One watershed was simulated as undisturbed. 

•	 One watershed was simulated as clear-cut and roaded within 10 years of the commencement of harvesting, with harvesting beginning at the upper reaches of the 

watershed and progressing toward the mouth. 

•	 One watershed was simulated as harvested at the rate of 1 percent per year, beginning at the mouth and progressing upstream. 

•	 The fourth watershed was again simulated as harvested at a rate of 1 percent per


year, but with the harvests widely dispersed throughout the watershed.


These harvesting patterns were simulated as being repeated each 100 years, and in 

each watershed (except the unharvested one) one-third of the road network was 

simulated to be rebuilt each 100 years. The greatest differences between the treatments were noticed in the first 100 years, and they related most to the rate of treatment. That is, to whether the harvests were concentrated or dispersed temporally. By 

the second 100 years, the primary difference between the treatments was in the 

timing of the impacts. Interestingly, the simulation indicated that temporally dispersing the harvest units did not reduce cumulative effects. 

The conclusion reached by the authors was that current estimates of cumulative 

effects due to logging underestimate the effects because they accumulate over much 

longer periods than previously thought, but they overestimate the benefits of temporally dispersing harvests in a watershed. Concentrating the treatments (over 10 years 

instead of 100 years) increased the chances of cumulative effects on the affected 

resources. 

A more detailed discussion of issues related to cumulative effect assessment is 

provided in Chapter 4, Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds. 

Mechanisms to Control Forestry Nonpoint 

Source Pollution 

Nonpoint source pollution control practices for forestry activities are referred to as best 

management practices (BMPs), management practices, accepted forestry practices, 

management measures, BMP systems, management practice systems, and the like. Some 

of these terms have specific uses in legislation and regulations, whereas other terms are 

found in technical manuals, journal articles, and informational materials. Forestry management practices have been developed by all states, though they may not exist as a 

separate program or set of rules or guidelines. In some states, forest protection guidelines 

are contained within watershed protection or water quality protection programs, in some 

they are incorporated into erosion and sedimentation control programs, while in others a 

separate program of forestry rules or guidelines governs harvesting activities. Links to all 

2-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

state forestry programs, with information on the agencies that are involved in protecting forests in the states, can be found at the Web site www.usabmp.net.

BMPs are individual practices (such as leaving a streamside management area) that 

serve specific functions (such as protecting streams from temperature increases and 

filtering sediment and nutrients from runoff). Management measures, as the term is 

used in this guidance, are environmental goals to be attained by using one or more 

BMPs. For instance, minimizing sediment delivery to streams (part of the overall 

goal of the Management Measure for Streamside Management Areas [see Chapter 3, 

section B]) from harvest sites might be accomplished with the following BMPs: 

maintaining a riparian buffer; locating roads, yarding areas, and skid trails away 

from streams; and not using machinery in streams. 

BMPs are the building blocks for BMP systems and management measures, and the 

implementation of the forestry management measures in this guidance, as appropriate to 

the situation, can result in comprehensive water quality protection for most harvesting 

operations. 

Management Measures 

The management measures in this guidance contain technology-based performance 

expectations and, in many cases, specific actions to be taken to prevent or minimize 

nonpoint source pollution. Management measures are means to control the entry of 

pollutants into surface waters. Management measures achieve nonpoint source pollutant 

control goals through the application of nonpoint pollution control BMPs, which may be 

technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives. Chapter 

3 contains the management measures and recommended BMPs controlling nonpoint 

source pollution from forestry activities. 

For example, the Management Measure for Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration (see 

section F) contains the performance expectation Confine on-site potential nonpoint 

source pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation and the regeneration of 

forest stands. Statements of BMPs or actions that can be taken to achieve this performance expectation (e.g., Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site 

preparation activities on the contour of sloping terrain) are generally included in the 

management measure statement. Even so, in most cases there is considerable flexibility 

to determine how to best achieve the performance expectations for the management 

measures. EPA’s management measures for forestry and BMPs recommended to be used 

to achieve them are described in Chapter 3. 

Best Management Practices 

BMPs can be structural (e.g., culverts, broad-based dips, windrows) or managerial (e.g., 

preharvest planning, forest chemical management, fire management). Both types are used 

to control the delivery of nonpoint source pollutants to receiving waters in one of three 

ways: 

•	 They minimize the quantity of pollutants released (pollution prevention). 

•	 They retard the transport or delivery of pollutants, either by reducing the amount of 

water (and thus the amount of the pollutant) transported or by improving deposition 

of the pollutant (delivery reduction). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-17 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

•	 They render the pollutant harmless or less harmful before or after it is delivered 

to a water body through chemical or biological transformation. 

BMPs are usually designed to control a particular type of pollutant from a specific land use 

or activity. For example, stream crossings are specified and designed to control erosion 

from stream banks where roads cross them and sediment delivery from roads to streams. 

BMPs might also provide secondary benefits. Streamside management areas, for instance, 

reduce sediment delivery to streams and protect streams from temperature increases, and 

they also provide a source of large organic debris to streams and habitat for wildlife. 

Sometimes, however, a BMP might increase the generation, transport, or delivery of 

a pollutant and is best used in combination with other BMPs. Site preparation, for 

example, is generally performed for commercial timber regeneration, but can temporarily expose soil to erosive forces. Therefore, sedimentation control BMPs, such as 

establishing SMAs of widths suitable to retain the anticipated quantity of eroded soil 

and not conducting mechanical site preparation on steep slopes, are recommended 

to be combined with site preparation techniques. 

Which BMP is best for in a given situation depends on many factors. Criteria for 

determining which BMP is best for a particular forestry activity might include the 

harvesting technique, frequency of road use, topography, soil type, climate, amount 

of maintenance feasible BMPs will require, the willingness of landowners to implement BMPs (in a program of voluntary implementation, for instance), and BMP cost 

and cost-effectiveness. The relative importance assigned to these and other criteria 

in judging what is best varies among states, within states, and among landowners, 

often for very good reasons. For example, erosion control considerations are very 

different in mountainous western regions versus relatively flat southeastern coastal 

plain regions. Some BMPs that can be used to achieve the forestry management 

measures are described in Chapter 3. 

Best Management Practice Systems 

The distinction between BMPs selected for particular areas or aspects (e.g., roads, 

yarding areas, skid trails, stream crossings) of a harvest activity and a BMP system is 

similar to the difference between controlling pollutant sources individually and 

controlling them based on a TMDL. Pollutant sources, especially point sources, 

controlled on an individual basis are analyzed independently relative to a standard 

for a type of industry and water quality criteria for the receiving water body. A 

TMDL incorporates all pollutant sources affecting a water body and limits loads for 

individual sources relative to the assimilative capacity of the water body. Similarly, 

BMPs selected for individual aspects of a harvest activity views those activities or 

areas independently of other activities and areas to control water pollution, while 

approaching water quality considerations from the point of view of a BMP system 

would involve considering the harvest and all of its activities and affected areas 

from a hydrologic perspective, examining the flow of surface water and groundwater over the entire site, and determining the best locations for sediment, nutrient, and 

other pollutant interception. As an example, consider a harvest operation that involves road repairs, a stream crossing, creation of a yarding area, and site preparation. Individual BMPs can be selected for each aspect of the harvest operation. That 

is, BMPs for sediment retention (for example) could be chosen for the road segment, 

others selected for the stream crossing, and still others placed on the yarding area. 

2-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

Each set of BMPs for these separate areas would be selected to control sediment 

runoff from that area alone. Alternatively, the spatial relationship of the three areas 

from a water flow or hydrologic perspective could be considered to understand how 

BMPs selected for the site preparation work might be altered somewhat to capture 

sediment from the yarding area, thus eliminating the need for separate BMPs for the 

yarding area. Also, it might be noticed that a different type or orientation of BMPs 

along the road segment could significantly reduce the potential for sediment delivery along the road to the stream crossing, thus permitting a change in the stream 

crossing to better ensure retaining the natural stream shape. The BMP system approach might reduce the total number of BMPs required and increase the efficiency 

of the BMPs for protecting water quality, and thus reduce the cost of the operation. 

Structural and managerial BMPs used as part of a BMP system can be selected, 

designed, implemented, and maintained in accordance with site-specific considerations (e.g., slope, soil type, proximity to streams, and layout of the harvest) so they 

work effectively together. Planning BMP use as part of a system also helps to ensure 

that design standards and specifications for the individual BMPs are compatible so 

they will achieve the greatest amount nonpoint source pollution control possible 

with the least cost. 

Cost Estimates for Forest Practice 

Implementation 

Estimates of the per acre cost of implementing BMPs for timber harvests were arrived at 

based on information obtained from published reports on regional studies of the cost of 

BMP implementation and cost estimates based on the regulatory structure of forestry 

practice programs. Studies have been conducted on the cost of implementing forestry 

practices for water quality and soil protection in the Southeast and some western states 

(Aust et al., 1996; Dissmeyer and Foster, 1987; Dubois et al., 1991; Henly, 1992; 

Lickwar, 1989; Olsen et al., 1987). Costs associated with complying with forest practices 

in states where their implementation is either voluntary or regulated, with differing 

numbers and types of requirements depending on the state, have also been estimated 

(Table 2-2) (Ellefson et al., 1995). 

Some cost information for forest practice implementation is based on the average 

increased cost of conducting a harvest when management measures, i.e., a suite of 

practices, are used versus when they are not used (Table 2-3). Costs provided in this 

way emphasize the difficulty in separating the costs of implementing individual 

forest practices. This difficulty is due to incorporating the cost of using numerous 

BMPs into the accomplishment of a single harvesting or road construction activity, 

and spreading the cost for individual practices across the accomplishment of multiple activities. For example, the cost of adhering to a state regulation for stream 

crossings might be spread among the costs of planning a harvest to minimize the 

number of stream crossings, designing and constructing forest roads to accommodate the plan and minimize instream effect to water quality and fish, and the actual 

construction of the stream crossings. Furthermore, these costs differ with each 

harvest because the terrain, soils, location of harvest site relative to streams, and 

hydrology are different at each harvest site. Therefore, all costs presented here are 

best regarded as rough estimates. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-19 
2-20 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities

The costs of implementing state forest practices arise from conducting timber surveys, preparing management plans, constructing roads, and implementing practices

specifically designed to protect water quality. Many of these costs are borne whether

or not a stream or other surface water is located on or near a harvest site, though

additional costs (e.g., designing and flagging an SMA, constructing stream crossings) are incurred where streams are present. Costs also take the form of lost revenue from trees that are not harvested to ensure compliance with forest practices.

Revenue might be reduced if merchantable trees are left standing in SMAs or when

selective cutting is called for rather than clear-cutting. Although the loss of revenue

is a real “cost” to landowners, it is very market- and species-dependent and is

generally not included in the cost estimates provided here. The overall costs of

complying with regulatory forestry BMP programs might be borne by forest landowners alone or shared among landowners, timber operators, and others (Figure 2-1).

Factors that typically affect the cost of implementing forest practices include the

type of terrain on which a harvest occurs (with costs for harvesting on steeper

Table 2-2. Estimations of Overall Cost of Compliance with State Forestry BMP Programs by Program Type
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-21

Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities

Table 2-3. Estimations of Implementation Costs by Management Measure in the Southeast and Midwest
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

terrain typically being higher than costs for harvesting on flatter terrain) and the 

regulatory structure of forest practice rules. Compliance in states that have numerous and stringent forest practice regulatory requirements generally costs more than 

compliance in states where regulatory requirements are fewer or less stringent, or 

are voluntary. Some states have single regulations that can add significantly to the 

cost of forest harvesting. An example is the requirement for a detailed forest harvest 

plan in California. This alone places compliance with forest practices in California in 

a category by itself. 

Table 2-2 summarizes estimations of the overall per-harvest cost of complying 

with forest practice regulations in different regions and states. Table 2-3 provides 

cost estimates for implementation of individual management measures in the 

Southeast and Midwest. The costs, updated to 1998 dollars, have been verified 

with state and federal forest management agencies and have been found to be 

representative of actual expenditures. Although most of the cost information came 

from case studies in the southeastern United States, they are representative of costs 

incurred nationwide. Costs vary depending on the site-specific nature of the 

timber harvesting area. Table 2-4 provides estimates of costs for installing individual road construction and erosion control BMPs. Costs are provided by region. 

Factors that affect implementation costs are mentioned in the Comments column. 

Other costs, where available, are provided for individual management measures or 

BMPs within the appropriate discussions in Chapter 3. 

Figure 2-1. Distribution of the cost of regulatory programs among different groups in representative 

states (Ellefson et al., 1995). 

2-22 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 2-23

Table 2-4. Estimations of Construction and Implementation Costs for Individual BMPs, by Region
Chapter 2: Water Quality and Forestry Activities 

2-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
CHAPTER 3: MANAGEMENT MEASURES EASURES


Scope of This Chapter 

For the purposes of this guidance, EPA has addressed the activities associated with 

forestry activities that could affect water quality through nine management measures. A 

separate management measure is applicable specifically to forested wetlands. The management measures are stated as steps to be taken, guidelines for operations, or goals to be 

achieved for protecting water quality during the related phases or activities. The following are EPA’s forestry management measures: 

• Preharvest planning 

• Streamside management areas 

• Road construction/reconstruction 

• Road management 

• Timber harvesting 

• Site preparation and forest regeneration 

• Fire management 

• Revegetation of disturbed areas 

• Forest chemical management 

• Wetland forest management 

Numerous BMPs are associated with each management measure. BMPs are specific 

actions, processes, or technologies that can be used to achieve a management measure. 

These BMPs are very similar to those recommended by most states. Because of the 

national scope of this guidance, however, some of the particulars of implementation (such 

as prescriptions for sizes of pipes, lengths of road at particular slopes, and other such 

site- or region-specific details) are not included as part of the descriptions of BMPs. 

Implementation of one or more BMPs is usually necessary to achieve the level of pollution control intended by a single management measure. 

Each management measure is addressed in a separate section of this chapter. Each section 

contains the wording of the management measure, which has not been changed from that 

in the 1993 CZARA guidance; a description of the management measure’s purpose or 

how it can be used effectively to protect water quality; and information on BMPs that are 

suitable, either alone or in combination with other BMPs, to achieve the management 

measure. Where new or improved versions of BMPs have been developed, they are 

discussed in this guidance. Many of the BMPs were in the 1993 CZARA guidance, and 

most can be found in state forest practices manuals. For recommendations on widths of 

streamside management areas, slopes and lengths of culverts, and other criteria for your 

specific area, consult a state forest practices manual or contact your local forester. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-1 
Chapter 3: Management Measures 

Since the forestry management measures developed for CZARA are for the most part a 

system of BMPs commonly used and recommended by states and the U.S. Forest Service, many BMPs are already being implemented at many harvest sites and on many 

forest roads. Where the BMPs in place are inadequate to protect water quality, augmenting them with additional or complementary BMPs might be all that is necessary. Where 

measures are lacking and water quality is or might become impaired, this guidance can 

assist in the choice of BMPs suitable to the source of water quality impairment. 

Management Measure Effectiveness 

States have used a number of approaches for assessing the effectiveness of management 

measures and BMPs. Florida and South Carolina have assessed their effectiveness using 

bioassessment techniques and stream habitat assessment. Florida has compared sites 

adjacent to harvests with non-logged reference sites, and South Carolina has also compared sites upstream from harvests to those downstream from harvests and conditions at 

the same site before harvests to those after harvests. Maine and Virginia have placed instream water quality samplers in streams near forest harvest operations. South Carolina 

and Washington have used a weight-of-evidence approach, in which a variety of different 

assessment approaches are used and the conclusion about effectiveness arrived at most by 

the different approaches is accepted as the overall conclusion. South Carolina has concluded from its weight-of-evidence assessments that on sites with perennial streams, 

BMP compliance checks, stream habitat assessment, and benthic macroinvertebrate 

assessments can be used effectively to assess BMP effectiveness. 

All of the approaches have produced valuable information about BMP effectiveness. The 

conclusions from these studies are many: 

•	 BMP assessment monitoring is important for determining that the standards for 

design and implementation of BMPs are appropriate for the soils and topography 

where they are to be used. 

•	 One or more BMP assessment approaches, including BMP compliance and an instream habitat or macroinvertebrate approach, can help determine whether BMP 

implementation standards are adequate. 

•	 Once adequate implementation standards have been developed, rigorous BMP 

compliance checks generally suffice as an indicator of BMP effectiveness. The 

compliance checks are used to verify that BMPs are being installed properly and in a 

timely manner, and that they are maintained adequately. 

•	 It is important to assess the effectiveness of BMPs under a variety of site conditions 

and to tailor implementation standards to different types of soils, slopes, and regional site characteristics if the BMPs are to be effectively applied. 

•	 Application of BMPs per implementation standards during forest harvesting protects 

water quality in adjacent streams. BMPs protect stream ecology and stream temperature, and they prevent sedimentation. 

•	 When BMPs are not properly applied, they do not adequately protect water quality. 

Improperly applied BMPs can result in stream sedimentation, changes in stream 

morphology, increased average water temperatures, wider water temperature fluctuations, and changes to stream ecology. 

3-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3: Management Measures 

•	 Many water quality problems that arise from forest harvesting are associated with 

improperly applied BMPs or not having used BMPs. The most frequently misapplied or missing BMPs are those for road surface drainage control, erosion control 

prior to the harvest, stream crossings, and SMAs. 

•	 Some states do not adequately address some water quality problems associated with 

forest harvesting. BMPs for ephemeral drainages need to be developed and the 

circumstances under which ephemeral drainages require BMPs needs to be determined. Ephemeral drainages can produce or deliver large quantities of sediment to 

other streams if left unprotected after a harvest. 

•	 The most important BMPs for protecting stream water quality are properly sized 

SMAs, properly designed BMPs for erosion control implemented prior to the 

commencement of road construction and harvesting, properly designed stream 

crossings, and comprehensive preharvest plans. 

Examples of Management Measure Effectiveness 

Examples of how BMPs can operate as a system to control nonpoint source pollution are 

given in a paper that summarizes a national effort by USDA’s Forest Service to develop 

analysis procedures for estimating the economic benefits of soil and water resource 

management (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1990). The paper focuses on benefits in five areas— 

timber, forage, fish, enhanced water quality, and road construction and maintenance. The 

benefits noted from the use of resource management systems are expressed as increased 

timber production, increased forage on the harvest site, and benefits to other resources 

from improved soil and water resource management. The following are the examples of 

the proper implementation of resource management systems provided in Dissmeyer and 

Foster (1990) and Dissmeyer and Frandsen (1988). Each example begins with a hypothetical situation and then describes how BMPs apply to the situation. 

Example 1 focuses on soil and water resource management in road construction and 

maintenance. In this example, a main haul road is built across problem soils, cutbanks 

yield excessive surface runoff and erode easily, the runoff volume from the site is sufficient to erode through the road surface and road subgrade, road maintenance (without 

BMPs installed) is needed every 3 years, and the road is assumed to be used for 20 years. 

Applying a resource management system to this situation, the following solution was 

devised: construct the road with midslope terraces in the cutbanks; install water diversions above the cutbanks; and seed, fertilize, and mulch the cutbanks. The total estimated 

repair costs over 20 years were calculated at $2,137 for materials, labor, and cost of 

technical assistance. The one-time installation of BMPs, which would eliminate the need 

for maintenance every 3 years, would cost $1,200. The resulting net present value, or 

economic benefit to the property owner, of installing the BMPs in this example was 

calculated as $937 (all cost figures in 1990 dollars). 

Example 2 relates to recouping timber growth and yield losses through skid trail rehabilitation. Skid trails and skid roads in harvest areas are areas where sediment is lost, and as 

a result the timber yield in primary skid trails and on skid roads is in general severely 

reduced. Soils in skid trails can become severely compacted, limiting water infiltration 

and thus soil moisture availability and tree root development. Finally, soil nutrients are 

removed during skidding and during road construction. A resource management system 

solution to this problem involves using the following BMPs: ripping and tilling the soil, 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-3 
Chapter 3: Management Measures 

waterbarring, seeding, fertilizing, and mulching. Using these practices as a system, the 

net present value of timber volume recovered (based on estimations provided in published studies) would be $210 per acre based on a harvest of shortleaf pine stands and 

$237 per acre in hardwood stands. Note that the economic returns are positive in highvalue shortleaf pine stands and negative in low-value hardwood stands. The study notes, 

however, that the herbaceous growth from applying a system of resource BMPs in 

hardwood stands would have positive value for hunting and environmental protection. 

Example 3 relates to the effect of site preparation, which can affect sediment production, 

soil productivity, and timber growth and yields. Poor site preparation practices that 

compact the soil, remove litter, and remove nutrients adversely affect soil productivity 

and sediment retention. The study, based on modeling data from independent studies of 

BMPs used for site preparation, found that site preparation results in economic benefits. 

Specifically, investing $50 more per acre in preparing a site with shearing and windrowing reduced future maintenance costs by $129 per acre, compared to chopping and 

burning. 

These examples highlight the economic and ecological advantages of using management 

measures and BMPs as a system to reduce effects on surface waters and to ensure more 

rapid site regeneration and healthier timber stands. 

3-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3A: PREHARVEST PLANNING LANNING


Management Measure for Preharvest Planning 

Perform advance planning for forest harvesting that includes the following elements where appropriate: 

(1) Identify the area to be harvested including location of water bodies and sensitive areas such as wetlands, threatened or endangered aquatic species habitat areas, or high-erosion-hazard areas (landslideprone areas) within the harvest unit. 

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

to harvest or road construction. 

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

(4) Consider potential water quality effects and erosion and sedimentation control in the selection of silvicultural and regeneration systems, especially for harvesting and site preparation. 

(5) Reduce the risk of occurrence of landslides and severe erosion by identifying high-erosion-hazard areas 

and avoiding harvesting in such areas to the extent practicable. 

(6) Consider additional contributions from harvesting or roads to any known existing water quality impairments or problems in watersheds of concern.

Perform advance planning for forest road systems that includes the following elements where appropriate: 

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

and delivery to surface waters. Key components are: 

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

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

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

(SMAs); and 

• determine road usage and select the appropriate road standard. 

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

the road system. Key components are: 

• size and site crossing structures to prevent failure; 

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

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

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

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

planned for all-weather use. 

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

qualified specialist for design of any roads that must be constructed through these areas. 

Each state should develop a process (or utilize an existing process) that ensures that the management 

measures in this chapter are implemented. Such a process should include appropriate notification, compliance audits, or other mechanisms for forestry activities with the potential for significant adverse nonpoint 

source effects based on the type and size of operation and the presence of stream crossings or SMAs. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-5 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

Management Measure Description 

The objective of this management measure is to ensure that forestry activities, including 

timber harvesting, site preparation, and associated road construction, are planned with 

water quality considerations in mind and conducted without significant nonpoint source 

pollutant delivery to streams or other surface waters. Road system planning is an essential 

part of this management measure because road construction is the main soil destabilizing 

activity carried out in forestry, and avoidance is the most cost-effective means of dealing 

with unstable terrain (Weaver and Hagans, 1994). 

A basic tenet of road planning is to minimize the number of road miles constructed in a 

watershed through basin-wide planning. A second tenet is to locate roads to minimize the 

risk of water quality impacts. Good road location and design can greatly reduce the 

sources and transport of sediment. Road systems can be designed to minimize the length 

and surface area of roads and skid trails, the size and number of landings, and the number 

of stream crossings, and to locate all of these road system elements as far from surface 

waters as feasible. Minimizing stream crossings is especially important in sensitive 

watersheds. 

Preharvest planning includes consideration of the potential water quality and habitat 

effects of the component parts of the harvest, including the harvesting system (e.g., clearcut or selective cut); the yarding system (e.g., skyline cable or ground skidding); the road 

system; and postharvest activities such as site preparation. Water quality considerations 

can most effectively be incorporated into preharvest planning by determining which 

pollutants are likely to be generated during each of the phases of the harvest and how best 

to ensure that they are kept out of surface waters. Reviewing Section 2 can help with the 

task of identifying the pollutants, and Section 3 provides information on the BMPs that 

will minimize their entry into surface waters. 

The water quality effects of yarding can be reduced with thoughtful preharvest planning. 

Yarding done with ground skidding equipment can cause much more soil disturbance than 

cable yarding. McMinn (1984) compared a skidder logging system and a cable yarder for 

their relative effects on soil disturbance (Table 3-1). With the cable yarder, 99 percent of 

the soil remained undisturbed (the original litter still covered the mineral soil), whereas 

the amount of soil remaining undisturbed after logging by skidder was only 63 percent. 

Whether cable yarding, ground skidding, or skyline yarding is best for the particular 

harvest is based on whether the stand is even-aged or uneven-aged, the terrain, cost, and 

other factors. Among these other factors should be the need and means to protect water 

quality. 

Table 3-1. Comparison of the Effect of Conventional Logging System and Cable Miniyarder on Soil in Georgia (McMinn, 1964) 

3-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

Preharvest planning is the time to consider how harvested areas are to be replanted or 

regenerated to prevent erosion and effects on water bodies after the harvest has occurred. 

At the same time, it is important to consider other activities that have occurred recently, 

will coincide with the harvesting, or are scheduled to occur in the watershed where 

harvesting is to take place, as well as the overall soil, habitat, and water quality conditions of the watershed. Other activities within the watershed that can also stress water 

systems include land use changes from forest to agriculture, residential development or 

other construction, and applications of pesticides or herbicides. Cumulative effects on 

soils, water quality, and habitats from other activities and the proposed forest practices 

can result in excessive erosion and pollutant transport, and detrimental receiving water 

effects (Sidle, 1989). Cumulative effects are influenced by forest management activities, 

natural ecosystem processes, and the distribution of other land uses within a watershed. 

Forestry operations such as timber harvesting, road construction, and chemical use can 

increase runoff of nonpoint source pollutants and thereby contribute to preexisting 

impairments to water quality. 

A previously completed cumulative assessment might exist for the area to be harvested, 

in which case it can be determined whether water quality problems, if any, in the watershed are attributable to the types of pollutants that might be generated by the planned 

forestry activity. If more pollutants of the same types are likely to be generated as a result 

of the harvesting activity, adjustments to the harvest plan or use of management practices 

beyond those normally used might be necessary. For instance, consider selecting harvest 

units with low sedimentation risk, such as flat ridges or broad valleys; postponing harvesting until existing erosion sources are stabilized; or selecting limited harvest areas 

using existing roads. The need for additional measures, as well as the appropriate type 

and extent, is best considered and addressed during the preharvest planning process. 

During preharvest planning, it is also particularly important to plan implementation of 

management practices to be used to control sediment delivery from sources that are 

characteristically erosion-prone and lead to water quality impairment at stream crossings, 

landings, road fills on steep slopes, road drainage structures, and roads located close to 

streams. Constructing roads through high-erosion-hazard areas can lead to serious water 

quality degradation and should be avoided when possible. Some geographical areas (e.g., 

the Pacific coast states) tend to have more serious erosion problems (landslides, major 

gullies, etc.) after road construction than other areas. Factors such as climate, slope 

steepness, soil and rock characteristics, and local hydrology influence this potential. A 

person trained to recognize high-erosion hazard areas should be involved with preharvest 

planning. 

Erosion hazard areas are often mapped by public agencies, and these maps are one tool to 

use in identifying high-erosion-hazard sites. The U.S. Geological Survey has produced 

geologic hazard maps for some areas. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) and Agricultural Farm Service Agency (FSA), as well as state and local 

agencies, might also have erosion-hazard-area maps. 

Benefits of Preharvest Planning 

The Virginia Department of Forestry found that preharvest planning is one of the three 

BMPs that are crucial to water quality protection. The other two are the establishment 

and use of streamside management areas (SMAs) and properly designed and constructed 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-7 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

stream crossings. Although all BMPs are considered to be important, these three were 

found to be the most important to preventing water quality degradation. 

In a study conducted by Black and Clark (no date), sediment concentrations were compared from stream waters in an unlogged watershed, a watershed where a harvesting 

operation with thorough preharvest planning had been conducted, and a watershed where 

a harvesting operation with no preharvest planning had been conducted. Sediment 

concentrations in the water from the unlogged watershed averaged 4 parts per million 

(ppm), those in the water from the watershed with the planned logging operation averaged 5 ppm, and those from the watershed with the unplanned harvest averaged 31 ppm 

(Figure 3-1). Preharvest planning in this study took into consideration road siting and 

construction techniques, landing siting, yarding techniques, and other BMPs intended to 

minimize erosion and sediment loss. 

Of course, BMPs are effective only when properly designed, constructed, implemented, 

and maintained. Too often, BMPs are not installed early enough in the process to effectively control nonpoint source pollution, or they are not maintained properly, which can 

lead to their failure and to sedimentation or other forms of pollution. In general, poor 

BMP effectiveness can be attributed to one or more of the following: 

•	 A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins. 

•	 A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs. 

•	 A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs. 

•	 The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and 

can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been 

completed. 

Figure 3-1. Comparison of sediment concentrations in runoff from various forest 

conditions to drinking water standard (after Black and Clark, nd). 

3-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

Best Management Practices 

Harvest Planning Practices 

 Use topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, geologic maps, and seasonal precipitation information—as slow long duration precipitation can be as 

limiting as high intensity short duration rainfall—to augment site reconnaissance to 

lay out and map harvest units. Identify and mark, as appropriate: 

•	 Sensitive habitats that need special protection, such as threatened and endangered 

species nesting areas. 

•	 Streamside management areas. 

•	 Steep slopes, high-erosion-hazard areas, and landslide-prone areas. 

•	 Wetlands. 

 In warmer regions, schedule harvest and construction operations during dry periods 

or seasons. Where weather permits, schedule harvest and construction operations 

during the winter to take advantage of snow cover and frozen ground conditions.

 Consider potential water quality and habitat effects when selecting the silvicultural 

system as even-aged (clear-cut, seed tree, or shelterwood) or uneven-aged (group or 

individual selection). The yarding system, site preparation method, and any pesticides that will be used can also be considered during preharvest planning. As part of 

this practice, consider the potential effects from and extent of roads needed for each 

silvicultural system.

 In high-erosion-hazard areas, trained specialists (geologist, soil scientist, 

geotechnical engineer, wild land hydrologist) can identify sites that have high risk of 

landslides or that might become unstable after harvest. These specialists can recommend specific practices to reduce the likelihood of erosion hazards and protect water 

quality.

 Determine what other harvesting activities, chemical applications, or other potentially polluting activities are scheduled to occur in the watershed and, where appropriate, conduct the harvest at a time and in such a manner as to minimize potential 

cumulative effects.

Road System Planning Practices 

Road Location Practices 

 Preplan skid trail and landing locations on stable soils and avoid steep gradients, 

landslide-prone areas, high-erosion-hazard areas, and poor-drainage areas.

•	 Plan to minimize roads, stream crossings, landings, skid trails, and activities on 

unstable soils and steep slopes. 

•	 Locate landings outside of SMAs and ephemeral drainage areas. 

•	 Locate new roads and skid trails outside of SMAs, except where necessary to cross 

drainages. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-9 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

•	 Locate roads away from stream channels where road fill extends within 50 to 100 

horizontal feet of the annual high water level. (Bankfull stage is also used as a 

reference point for this.) 

 Systematically design transportation systems to minimize total mileage.

•	 Compare layouts for roads, skid trails, landings, and yarding plans, and determine 

which will result in the least soil disturbance and erosion. 

•	 Locate landings to minimize skid trail and haul road mileage and disturbance of 

unstable soils. 

 Identify areas that would need the least modification for use as log landings and use 

them to reduce the potential for soil disturbance. Avoid using areas, such as ephemeral drainages, that could contribute considerably to nonpoint source pollution if 

high precipitation occurs during the harvest. Use topographic maps and aerial 

photographs to locate these areas.

 Plot feasible routes and locations on aerial photographs or topographic maps to 

assist in the final determination of road locations. Compare the possible road location on-the-ground and proof the layout to ensure that the road follows the contours. 

Design roads and skid trails to follow the natural topography and contour, minimizing alteration of natural features.

Proper design can reduce the area of soil exposed by construction activities. Figure 3-2 

presents a comparison of road systems. Following the natural topography and contours 

can reduce the amount of cut and fill needed and consequently reduce both road failure 

potential and cost. Ridge routes and hillside routes are good locations for ensuring stream 

protection because they are removed from stream channels and the intervening undisturbed vegetation acts as a sediment barrier. Wide valley bottoms are good routes if 

stream crossings are few and roads are located outside SMAs. 

 Plan the management of existing and future roads and road systems to minimize 

environmental problems arising from them.

Roads analysis is an integrated ecological, social, and economic approach to transportation planning addressing both existing and future road systems. The U.S. Forest Service’s 

Roads Analysis procedure, developed by a team of Forest Service scientists and managers, is designed to help national forest managers bring their road systems into balance 

with current social, economic, and environmental needs. The top priority is to provide 

road systems that are safe for the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally 

sound, affordable, and efficient to manage. A roads analysis provides scientific information used to inform decision makers about effects, consequences, options, priorities, and 

other factors. This information is essential to plan efficiently and manage the forest 

transportation crisis. The iterative procedure for conducting the roads analysis consists of 

six steps aimed at producing needed information and maps (USDA Forest Service, 1999): 

•	 Step 1: Set up the analysis. The analysis is designed to produce an overview of the 

road system. An interdisciplinary team develops a list of information needs and a 

plan for the analysis. 

•	 Step 2: Describe the situation. The interdisciplinary team describes the existing road 

system in relation to current forest management plans. Products from this step 

include a map of the existing road system, descriptions of access needs, and 

3-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-11

Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning

information about physical, biological, social, cultural, economic, and political

conditions associated with the road system.

• Step 3: Identify issues. The interdisciplinary team, in conjunction with the public,

identifies important road-related issues and the information needed to address them.

The interdisciplinary team also determines data needs associated with analyzing the

road system in the context of the important issues, for both existing and future roads.

The output from this step includes a summary of key road-related issues, a list of

screening questions to evaluate them, a description of the status of relevant available

data, and a list of additional data needed to conduct the analysis.

• Step 4: Assess benefits, problems, and risks. After identifying the important issues

and associated analytical questions, the interdisciplinary team systematically examines the major uses and effects of the road system, including the environmental,

social, and economic effects of the existing road system and the values and sensitivities associated with unroaded areas. The output from this step is a synthesis of the

benefits, problems, and risks of the current road system and the risks and benefits of

building roads into unroaded areas.

Plans A, B, and C show three ways to

place truck and skid roads on a cutting

unit. The comments next to each plan

indicate why Plan C is best.

Plan A layout: 2 bridges

4 landings

3 miles of haul road

Comment: Road and bridge construction

costs too high. Skid distance too short.

Too much steep downhill skidding. Too

many landings on too steep land. Two

bridges are unnecessary.

Plan B layout: 1 bridge

3 landings

3.5 miles of haul road

Comment: Loop road unnecessary. Skid

distances too short. Erosion minimized up

hill skidding.

Plan C layout: 1 bridge

2 landings

2 miles of haul road

Comment: Haul road follows high ground.

Minimal road construction. Ideal skidding

distances. Erosion minimized by uphill

skidding. Least number of landings. Only

one bridge required.

Permanent Haul Road

Temporary Haul Road

Skid Road (or Trail)

Bridge (water crossing)

Landing

Figure 3-2. An example of laying out sample road systems for comparison purposes

(Hynson et al., 1982).
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

•	 Step 5: Describe opportunities and set priorities. The interdisciplinary team identifies management opportunities, establishes priorities, and formulates technical 

recommendations that respond to the issues and effects. The output from this step 

includes a map and a descriptive ranking of management options and technical 

recommendations. 

•	 Step 6: Report. The interdisciplinary team then produces a report and maps that 

portray management opportunities and provide supporting information important for 

making decisions about the future characteristics of the road system. This information sets the context for the development of proposed actions to improve the road 

system and for future amendment and revision of forest plans. 

 Consider using or upgrading existing roads to minimize the total amount of road 

construction necessary whenever practical and when less adverse environmental 

impact would be caused.

Existing roads should be used where they are in good condition or can be feasibly upgraded, unless using the roads would cause more water quality impacts than building a 

new road elsewhere (Weaver and Hagans, 1994). When an existing road is available on 

the side of a drainage opposite the harvest site, consider using it instead of constructing a 

new road to minimize the amount of soil disturbance due to new road construction. Avoid 

using existing or previously-used roads, however, if they are likely to create water quality 

problems, such as if they were constructed next to streams in valleys. 

Road Design Practices 

 In moderately sloping terrain, plan for road grades of less than 10 percent, with an 

optimal grade of between 3 percent and 5 percent. In steep terrain, short sections of 

road at steeper grades can be used if the grade is broken at regular intervals. On 

steep grades, vary road grades frequently to reduce culvert and road drainage ditch 

flows, road surface erosion, and concentrated culvert discharges.

Gentle grades are desirable for proper drainage and economical construction. Steeper 

grades are acceptable for short distances (200-300 feet), but an increased number of 

drainage structures might be needed above, on, and below the steeper grade to reduce 

runoff potential and minimize erosion. Heavy traffic on steep grades can result in surface 

rutting that renders crowning, outsloping, and insloping ineffective. On sloping terrain, 

no-grade road sections are difficult to drain properly and are best avoided when possible. 

 Design skid trail grades to be 15 percent or less, with steeper grades only for short 

distances.

 In designing roads for steep terrain, avoid the use of switchbacks through the use of 

more favorable locations. Avoid stacking roads above one another in steep terrain by 

using longer span cable harvest techniques.

 Avoid locating roads where they will need fills on slopes greater than 60 percent. 

When necessary to construct roads across slopes that exceed the angle of repose, use 

full-bench construction and/or engineered bin walls or other stabilizing techniques.

 Plan to use full-bench construction and remove fill material to a suitable location 

where constructing road prisms on side slopes greater than 60 percent. 

3-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

 Design cut-and-fill slopes to be at stable angles, or less than the normal angle of 

repose, to minimize erosion and slope failure potential.

The degree of steepness that can be obtained is determined by the stability of the soil. 

Figure 3-3 presents recommended stable backslope and fill slope angles for different soil 

materials. 

•	 Use retaining walls, with properly designed drainage, to reduce and contain excavation and embankment quantities. Vertical banks can be used without retaining walls 

if the soil is stable and water control structures are adequate. 

•	 Balance excavation and embankments to minimize the need for supplemental


building material and to


maximize road stability. 

•	 Avoid the use of road fills 

at drainage crossings as 

water impoundments 

unless they have been 

designed as an earthfill 

dam (in which case they 

might be subject to section 

404 requirements). These 

earthfill embankments 

need outlet controls to 

allow draining prior to 

runoff periods and a 

design that permits flood 

flows to pass. 

 Try to avoid springs wherever possible. However, 

where they must be crossed, 

provide drainage structures 

for springs that flow to 

roads and that flow continuously for longer than 1 

month, rather than allowing 

road ditches to carry the 

flow to a drainage culvert.

Avoiding springs will limit 

disruptions to the natural 

hydrology of an area and limit 

the extent to which roads can 

become integrated into an area’s 

drainage system. Unmanaged 

springs can compromise sections of roads and contribute to 

erosion and sedimentation. 

Figure 3-3. Maximum recommended stable angles for (a) backslopes and (b) fill slopes 

(after Rothwell, 1978). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-13 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

 Design roads crossing low-lying areas so that water does not pond on the upslope 

side of the road.

•	 Use overlay construction techniques with suitable nonhazardous materials for roads 

crossing muskegs. 

•	 Provide cross drains at short intervals to ensure free drainage and avoid ponding, 

especially in sloping areas. 

•	 Provide adequate cross drainage to maintain natural dispersed hydrologic flows 

through wet areas. 

 Plan water source developments, used for wetting and compacting roadbeds and 

surfaces, to prevent channel bank and stream bed effects.

 Design access roads such that they do not provide sediment to the water source.

Road Surfacing Practices 

 Select a road surface material suitable for the intended road use and likelihood of 

water quality effects.

The volume and composition of traffic, the desired service life, and the stability and 

strength of the road foundation (subgrade) material will determine the type of road 

surfacing needed. Roads that are closer to streams or other surface waters should be 

considered for a durable, non-erosive surface. 

 Where grades increase the potential for surface erosion, design roads with a surface 

of gravel, grass, wood chips, or crushed rocks.

 Where a road is to be surfaced, select an appropriately sized aggregate, appropriate 

percentage of fines, and suitable particle hardness to protect road surfaces from 

rutting and erosion under heavy truck traffic during wet periods.

When a road is to be used for only a short time period, consider not surfacing it, and 

closing it and returning the surface to natural vegetation after use. 

Road Stream Crossing Practices 

 Lay out roads, skid trails, and harvest units to minimize the number of stream crossings.

 Design and site stream crossings to cross drainages perpendicular to the streamflow. 

Design road segments with water turn-outs and broad-based dips to minimize runoff 

directly entering the stream at the crossing.

 Locate stream crossings to avoid channel changes and minimize the amount of 

excavation or fill needed at the crossing. Apply the following criteria to determine 

the locations of stream crossings:

•	 Construct crossings at locations where the streambed has a straight and uniform 

profile above, at, and below the crossing. 

•	 Locate the crossing so the stream and road alignment are straight in all four directions. 

•	 Cross where the stream is relatively narrow with low banks and firm, rocky soil. 

•	 Avoid deeply cut streambanks and soft, muddy soil. 

3-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

 Choose stream-crossing structures (bridges, culverts, or fords) with the structural 

capacity to safely handle expected vehicle loads with the least disturbance to the 

watercourse.

 Design culverts and bridges for minimal effect on water quality. Install culverts of a 

size that is appropriate to pass a design storm. Opening size varies depending on 

climate, the drainage area upstream of where the stream-crossing structure is to be 

placed, and the likelihood of plugging with debris.

Consider the following guidelines for culvert sizing, but consult the state forestry agency 

and local hydrologists: a 50-year design storm for small diameter culverts and a 100-year 

design storm for large diameter culverts and bridges. Bridges or arch culverts, which 

retain the natural stream bottom and slope, are preferred over pipe culverts for streams 

used for fish migrating or spawning areas (Figure 3-4). The FishXing Web site (http:// 

www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/index.html) provides software and learning systems for 

fish passage through culverts. 

Bridge 

Used for spans over 6 m (20’) 

Multiple Culverts 

Used for spans 2 m to 12 m (6’–40’) 

Culvert 

Used for spans over 4 m (12’) 

Arch Culvert 

Used for spans 4 m to 9 m (12’–30’) 

Figure 3-4.	 Alternative water crossing structures (Ontario Ministry of Natural


Resources, 1988).


 The use of fords is best limited to areas where the stream bed has a firm rock or 

gravel bottom (or where the bottom has been armored with stable material), where 

the approaches are both low and stable enough to support traffic, where fish are not 

present during low flow, and where the water depth is no more than 3 feet.

 Design small stream crossings on temporary roads using temporary bridges. 

Temporary bridges usually consist of logs bound together and suspended above the 

stream, with no part in contact with the stream itself. This prevents stream bank erosion, 

disturbance of stream bottoms, and excessive turbidity. Provide additional capacity to 

accommodate debris loading that might lodge in the structure opening and reduce its 

capacity. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-15 
Chapter 3A: Preharvest Planning 

Scheduling Practices 

 Plan road construction or improvement to allow sufficient time afterward for disturbed soil and fill material to stabilize prior to use of the road.

Compact and stabilize roads prior to use. This reduces the amount of maintenance needed 

during and after harvesting activities. 

 To minimize soil disturbance and road damage, plan to suspend operations when

soils are highly saturated. This will reduce sediment runoff potential and creation of 

ruts in the haul road, landings, skid trails, and loading areas, which in turn will 

prevent possible damage to vehicles. Damage to forested slopes can also be minimized by not operating logging equipment when soils are wet, during wet weather, or 

when the ground is thawing. 

Preharvest Notification Practices 

 Encourage timberland owners and harvesters to submit a preharvest plan to the state 

for review prior to performing any road work or harvesting.

States are encouraged to adopt notification mechanisms for harvest planning that integrate and avoid duplicating existing requirements or recommendations for notification, 

including severance taxes, stream crossing permits, erosion control permits, labor permits, forest practice acts, plans, and so forth. For example, states might recommend that a 

preharvest plan be submitted by the landowner to a single state or local office. The 

appropriate state agency might encourage forest landowners to develop a preharvest plan. 

The plan would address the components of this management measure, including the area 

to be harvested, any forest roads to be constructed, and the timing of the activity. 

Many states currently use some process to ensure implementation of management practices. These processes are typically related to the planning phase of forestry operations 

and commonly involve some type of notification process. Some states have one or more 

processes in place that serve as notification mechanisms used to ensure implementation. 

These state processes are usually associated with forest practices acts, erosion control 

acts, state dredge and fill or CWA section 404 requirements, timber tax requirements, or 

state and federal incentive and cost share programs. Some state education and training 

programs are discussed in Section 2. 

It is suggested that notification be encouraged prior to: 

•	 Timber harvesting or commercial timber cutting. 

•	 Road construction or road improvement. 

•	 Stream crossing construction or any work within 50 feet


of a watercourse or water body.


•	 Reforestation. 

•	 Pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer applications. 

•	 Any work in a wetland. 

•	 Conversion of forestland to a non-forest use. 

3-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3B: STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT AREAS


Management Measure for Streamside Management Areas 

Establish and maintain a streamside management area along surface waters, which is sufficiently wide and 

which includes a sufficient number of canopy species to buffer against detrimental changes in the temperature regime of the water body, to provide bank stability, and to withstand wind damage. Manage the SMA in 

such a way as to protect against soil disturbance in the SMA and delivery to the stream of sediments and 

nutrients generated by forestry activities, including harvesting. Manage the SMA canopy species to provide 

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

habitat. 

Management Measure Description 

Streamside management areas (SMAs), also commonly referred to as streamside management zones or riparian management areas or zones, are areas of riparian vegetation 

along streams that receive special management attention because of their value in protecting water quality and habitat. Riparian vegetation is highly beneficial to water quality and 

aquatic habitat. Riparian areas reduce runoff and trap sediment from upslope areas and 

may reduce nutrients in runoff (Belt et al., 1992). Canopy species shade surface waters, 

moderating water temperature and providing detritus that serves as an energy source for 

streams. Trees in riparian areas are a source of large woody debris (LWD) to surface 

waters. Riparian areas provide important habitat for aquatic organisms and terrestrial 

species. 

The width of SMAs is determined in one of two ways: (1) a fixed minimum width is 

recommended or prescribed, or (2) a variable width is determined based on site conditions such as slope (Phillips et al., 2000) (Figure 3-5). SMAs need to be of sufficient 

width to protect the adjacent water body. A minimum width of 35 to 50 feet is generally 

recommended for SMAs to be effective. Areas such as intermittent channels, ephemeral 

channels, and depressions need to be given special consideration when determining SMA 

boundaries. Channels should be disturbed as little as possible to maximize the effectiveness of an SMA, as disturbance in and adjacent to a SMA can contribute considerably to 

pollutant runoff volumes. SMAs also need to be able to withstand wind damage or 

blowdown. For example, a single rank of canopy trees is not likely to withstand 

blowdown and maintain the functions of an SMA. 

Table 3-2 presents North Carolina’s recommendations for SMA widths for various types 

of water bodies dependent on adjacent upland slope. Maine’s recommended filter strip 

widths are dependent on the land slope between the road and the water body (Table 3-3). 

SMA widths might vary along a stream’s course and on opposite sides of the same 

stream. SMA width is measured along the ground from the streambank on each side of 

the stream and not from the centerline of the watercourse (Georgia Forestry Commission, 

1999). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry Draft 3-17 
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas 

Figure 3-5.	 Calculation of slope—an important step in determining SMA width (Georgia Forestry 

Commission, 1999). 

Table 3-2.	 Recommended Minimum SMZ Widths (North Carolina Division of Forest Resources, 1989) 

Table 3-3. Recommendations for Filter Strip Widths (Maine Forest Service, 1991) 

3-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas 

A sufficient number of large trees in an SMA provide for bank stability and a sustainable 

source of large woody debris. LWD consists of naturally occurring dead and downed 

woody materials, not to be confused with logging slash or debris. Trees to be maintained 

or managed in the SMA can provide large woody debris to the stream at a rate that 

maintains beneficial uses associated with fish habitat and stream structure. Woody debris 

is added at the site and downstream at a rate that is sustainable over a long time period. 

A sufficient number of canopy species are maintained in an SMA also to provide shading 

to the stream water surface to prevent changes in the temperature regime of the water 

body and to prevent harmful temperature- or sunlight-related effects on the aquatic biota. 

If the existing shading conditions for the water body prior to activity are known to be less 

than optimal for the stream, SMAs can be managed to increase shading of the water body. 

Lakeside management areas, or LMAs—the lake and pond equivalent of SMAs—should 

also be left around lakes and ponds on harvest sites (Minnesota Forest Resources Council, 1999; Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2003). The width of LMAs varies 

depending on site conditions, as do the recommended widths of SMAs. Topography, 

hydrology, size of water body, size of adjacent harvest area, harvest method, forest 

management objectives (e.g., timber production, wildlife), whether the water body 

contains sensitive fish species, and tree species composition all influence the size and 

leave-tree recommendations for LMAs. 

Generally, LMAs should be as wide as SMAs, or generally between 50 and 100 feet 

wide, though where sensitive fish species are present in the water body, a wider LMA— 

up to 200 feet—may be necessary to fully protect water quality. 

Other considerations for timber harvesting near lakes and ponds include ensuring that 

some trees are left on all areas surrounding water bodies all the way to the top of the 

adjacent slope, and using an extended rotation period within LMAs (as should be done 

for SMAs) to minimize soil and riparian area disturbance. 

To preserve SMA integrity for water quality protection, some states limit the type of 

harvesting, timing of operations, amount harvested, or reforestation methods used in 

them. SMAs are managed to use only harvest and forestry methods that prevent soil 

disturbance in the SMA. Additional operational considerations for SMAs are addressed in 

subsequent management measures. Practices for SMA applications to wetlands are 

described in the Wetlands Forest Management Measure (Chapter 3, section J). 

Benefits of Streamside Management Areas 

The effectiveness of SMAs in regulating water temperature depends on the interrelationship between vegetative and stream characteristics. Specifying leave tree and stream 

shade quantities is an effective way to prevent detrimental temperature changes. An 

example of a leave tree specification might be Leave trees that provide midsummer and 

midday shade to the water surface, and preferably a quantity of trees that provide a 

minimum of 50 percent of the summer midday shade. Shade cover is preferably left 

distributed evenly within the SMA. If a threat of blowdown exists, leave trees may be 

clumped and clustered as long as sufficient shade at the reach scale is provided. 

Lynch and others (1985) studied the effectiveness of SMAs in controlling suspended 

sediment and turbidity levels (Table 3-4). A combination of practices were applied, 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-19 
3-20 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas

including SMAs and prohibitions on skidding, slash disposal, and roads located in or near

streams. Average storm water-suspended sediment and turbidity levels in the area without

these practices were very high compared to those of the control and SMA/BMP sites.

Table 3-5 presents data on how effective different cutting practices and buffer strips are

in preventing debris from entering the stream channel (Froehlich, 1973).

Hall and others (1987) studied the effectiveness of SMAs in protecting streams from

temperature increases, large increases in sediment load, and reduced dissolved oxygen

(Table 3-6). The value of SMAs for protecting streams from water temperature changes is

clear from the 30 oF maximum daily increase in stream temperature observed during the

study. The study also showed that not leaving a SMA can cause sediment increases

streams, and more recent research has demonstrated that SMAs might be effective in

Table 3-6. Comparison of Effects of Two Methods of Harvesting on Water Quality (Oregon) (Hall et al., 1987)

Table 3-5. Average Changes in Total Coarse and Fine Debris of a Stream Channel After Harvesting (Oregon) (Froehlich, 1973)

Table 3-4. Storm Water Suspended Sediment Delivery for Treatments (Pennsylvania) (Lynch et al.,

1985)
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas 

intercepting overland flow and some sediment it contains, but not in intercepting sediment contained in channelized flow (Belt et al., 1992; Keim and Schoenholtz, 1999). 

Keim and Schoenholtz (1999), in a study on highly erodible soils in Mississippi, found 

that the primary means by which SMAs reduce sediment delivery to streams is by 

preventing soil disturbance next to the stream and not by intercepting sediment from 

upland sources. Finally, the study demonstrated the effect that logging slash placed in 

streams has in depleting dissolved oxygen as it decomposes. 

Hartman and others (1987) compared the physical changes associated with logging using 

three streamside treatments—leaving a variable-width strip of vegetation along a stream 

(least intensive); clear cutting to the margin of a stream, but with virtually no instream 

disturbance (intensive); and clear-cutting to the stream bank with some yarding near the 

stream and pulling merchantable timber from the stream (most intensive). They performed their study to observe the effect of different SMAs on the supply of woody debris. 

The volume and stability of large woody debris decreased immediately in the most 

intensive treatment area, decreased a few years after logging in the careful logging area, 

and remained stable where streamside trees and other vegetation remained. 

The costs associated with SMAs vary according to site conditions. SMAs can be more 

difficult to lay out on rough terrain or along a stream or river that meanders a lot due to 

the need to adjust the SMA width appropriately. Also, harvesters or landowners take into 

account the value of merchantable timber left unharvested because of SMA restrictions. 

No single SMA width or layout is preferable for all sites in terms of cost. Dykstra and 

Froelich (1976a) concluded in one study that a 55-foot buffer strip was the least costly on 

a million-board-foot (mfb) basis, but they cautioned that cost is not the only factor to 

consider when deciding what type of stream protection to use (Table 3-7). 

There are several research papers that focus on the costs of SMA implementation. 

Lickwar (1989) examined the costs of SMAs as determined by varying slope steepness 

(Table 3-8) in different regions in the Southeast and compared them to road construction 

and revegetation practice costs. He found that SMAs are the least expensive practice, in 

general, and that their cost is approximately the same regardless of slope. The costs 

associated with use of alternative buffer and filter strips were also analyzed in an Oregon 

study (Olsen, 1987) (Table 3-9). In that study, increasing the SMA width from 35 feet on 

each side of a stream to 50 feet reduced the value per acre by $75 (discounted cost) to 

$103 (undiscounted cost), or an approximate 2 percent increase in harvesting cost per 

acre (from $3,163 discounted to $5,163 undiscounted). Doubling the SMA width from 

Table 3-7. Average Estimated Logging and Stream Protection Costs per MBF (Oregon) (Dykstra and Froehlich, 1976a) 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-21 
3-22 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas

Table 3-9. Cost Effects of Three Alternative Buffer Strips (Oregon): Case Study Results with 640-acre Base (36 mbf/acre)

(Olsen, 1987)

Table 3-8. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Streamside Management Areas (Lickwar, 1989)
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas 

35 to 70 feet on each side of a stream reduced the dollar value per acre by approximately 

3 times, adding approximately 8 percent to the discounted harvesting costs. 

According to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, adequately sized SMAs are the 

best means to protect water quality (VANR, 1998). The agency conducted habitat assessments and bioassessments on stream segments above and below harvest sites and before 

and after harvesting and determined that SMAs are particularly important for protecting 

small headwater streams and ephemeral stream channels. The Virginia Department of 

Forestry also monitored BMP implementation and effectiveness and determined that 

although improvement was needed in meeting minimum standards of implementation, 

properly implemented SMAs (together with stream crossings and preharvest plans) are 

crucial to protecting water quality. 

The Oregon Department of Forestry similarly found that application of a riparian rule 

(passed in 1987) results in stream protection that generally maintains pre-operation 

vegetative conditions. 

Where SMAs were found to be ineffective or less effective than possible, the Virginia 

Department of Forestry discovered that in some cases this was the result of careless 

timber harvesting in the SMAs, a lack of adequately sized SMAs on adjacent intermittent 

streams, or gaps in SMAs caused by cutting in them. 

Of course, BMPs are effective only when properly designed and constructed. In general, 

poor BMP effectiveness can be attributed to one or more of the following: 

•	 A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins. 

•	 A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs. 

•	 A lack of equipment needed to implement BMPs effectively. 

•	 The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and can 

be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been completed. 

•	 A lack of timely implementation and maintenance of BMPs. 

Best Management Practices 

 Minimize disturbances that would expose the mineral soil of the SMA forest floor. Do 

not operate skidders or other heavy machinery in the SMA. 

 Locate all landings, portable sawmills, and roads outside the SMA. 

 Restrict mechanical site preparation in the SMA, and encourage natural revegetation, 

seeding, and hand planting. 

 Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the SMA. Establish buffers for pesticide application for all flowing streams. 

 Directionally fell trees away from streams to prevent excessive quantities of logging 

slash and organic debris from entering the water body. Remove slash and debris 

unless consultation with a fisheries biologist indicates that it should be left in the 

stream for large woody debris. 

There is no “correct” amount of organic debris that streams should have. Streams have 

natural amounts of organic debris (e.g., fallen leaves, twigs, limbs, and trees), but the 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-23 
Chapter 3B: Streamside Management Areas 

amount varies with season, tree falls, storms, and so forth. Aquatic organisms are adapted 

to the annual (and longer) range of the quantities of organic debris in the stream. As 

discussed in Chapter 2, large woody debris, or LWD, alters sediment and water routing 

and, thereby, affects channel morphology, provides structure and complexity to aquatic 

and terrestrial organism habitats, and is a source of nutrients for aquatic organisms. 

Periodic variations in the influx of sediment and LWD also contribute to habitat heterogeneity that is reflected in diverse aquatic communities. When areas upslope from a stream 

are changed enough that the quantity of organic debris that reaches a stream is significantly changed (i.e., so much that it is too little or too much for the stream’s dynamics 

and the aquatic organisms), it can be detrimental to the aquatic system and be considered 

a water quality problem. Removing trees from near the stream edge, harvesting older 

trees on upslope areas, and burning that removes forest floor litter could all reduce inputs 

of organic debris to the aquatic system and adversely affect stream ecology. 

Retaining SMAs along streams is one step to take to ensure that the streams are provided 

with sufficient inputs of organic debris. Leaving slash and other logging debris in a stream 

could exceed the natural high limit of organic debris inputs for the stream’s ecology and 

adversely affecting the stream. Removing felled material from streams on a site where 

changes have occurred that will reduce inputs of organic debris in the future could leave the 

stream with less organic debris than the stream ecology is adapted to. Maintaining stream 

water quality—which includes habitat diversity for aquatic life support—does not necessarily imply reducing inputs of woody debris to a stream, therefore, but rather means not 

altering the aquatic system to a degree in either direction (too much or too little) that stream 

ecology is adversely affected. A fisheries biologist will be able to help with decisions on 

what sizes and quantities of woody debris, if any, should be left in a stream to mimic 

natural conditions. Table 3-10 compares the goals of two types of LWD projects. Further 

information on the role and importance of LWD in streams and on placing LWD in streams 

can be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Ecosystem Management and 

Restoration Research Program (EMRRP). A paper issued under the program, Streambank 

habitat enhancement with large woody debris (Fischenich and Morrow, 2000), can be 

found on the Web at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr13.pdf. 

 Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to maintain its integrity. 

Vegetation, including trees, should be left in the SMA to achieve the desired objective for 

the area, such as maintain shading and bank stability and to provide adequate woody 

debris to create habitat diversity and provide nutrients to surface waters. This provision 

for leaving residual trees might be specified in various ways. For example, the Maine 

Forestry Service specifies that no more than 40 percent of the total volume of timber 

6 inches diameter breast height (DBH) and greater be removed in a 10-year period, and 

that the trees removed be reasonably distributed within the SMA. Florida recommends 

leaving a volume equal to or exceeding one-half the volume of a fully stocked stand. The 

number of residual trees varies inversely with their average diameter. A shading specification that is independent of the volume of timber might be necessary for streams where 

temperature changes could alter aquatic habitat. 

Table 3-10. Goals of Two Main Types of LWD Projects (Fischenich and Morrow, 2000) 

3-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3C: ROAD CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION ECONSTRUCTION


Management Measure for Road Construction/Reconstruction 

(1) Follow preharvest planning (as described under the Management Measure for Preharvest Planning) 

when constructing or reconstructing the roadway. 

(2) Follow designs planned under the Management Measure for Preharvest Planning for road surfacing and 

shaping. 

(3) Install road drainage structures according to designs planned under the Management Measure for 

Preharvest Planning and regional storm return period and installation specifications. Match these 

drainage structures with terrain features and with road surface and prism designs. 

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

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

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

fills, etc. 

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

Management Measure Description 

Road construction is one of the largest potential sources of forest activity-produced 

sediment (Megahan, 1980), and road and drainage crossing construction practices that 

minimize sediment delivery to surface waters are essential for protecting water quality. 

Water quality degradation resulting from forest roads is mostly attributable to sediment 

loss during road construction, erosion that occurs within a few years after road construction, soil loss from heavy road use, and road failure during storm events that exceed the 

road’s design capacity. An early study of erosion from road construction concluded that 

the amount of sediment produced by road construction is directly related to the percent of 

area occupied by roads, whether a road is given a protective surface, and the amount of 

protection provided to loose soils on back slopes and fill slopes (King, 1984) (Table 

3-11). Best management practices related to these aspects of road construction, and for 

stream crossing construction, are the subject of this management measure. Erosion and 

water quality degradation are also problems associated with older, unmaintained roads, 

and BMPs for road maintenance are the subject of the next management measure. 

General Road Construction Considerations 

Road design and construction that are tailored to the topography and soils and that take 

into consideration the overall drainage pattern in the watershed where the road is being 

constructed can prevent road-related water quality problems. Lack of adequate consideration of watershed and site characteristics, road system design, and construction techniques appropriate to site circumstances can result in mass soil movements, extensive 

surface erosion, and severe sedimentation in nearby water bodies. The effect that a forest 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-25 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Table 3-11. Effects of Several Road Construction Treatments on Sediment Yield in Idaho (King, 1984) 

road network has on stream networks largely depends on the extent to which the road and 

stream networks are interconnected. Road networks can be hydrologically connected to 

stream networks where road surface runoff is delivered directly to stream channels at 

stream crossings or via ditches or gullies that direct flow off of the road and then to a 

stream, and where road cuts transform subsurface flow into surface flow in road ditches 

or on road surfaces that delivers sediment and water to streams much more quickly than 

without a road present and increases the risk of mass wasting (Jones and Grant, 1996; 

Montgomery, 1994; Wemple et al., 1996). The combined effects of these drainage 

network connections are increased sedimentation and peak flows that are higher and 

arrive more quickly after storms. This in turn can lead to increased instream erosion and 

stream channel changes. This effect is strongest in small watersheds (Jones et al., In press). 

Site characteristics are first considered during preharvest planning, and it is important to 

review the harvesting plan at the harvest site before construction begins to verify assumptions made during planning. On-site verification of information from topographic maps, 

soil maps, and aerial photos is necessary to ensure that locations where roads are to be 

cut into slopes or built on steep slopes or where skid trails, landings, and equipment 

maintenance areas are to be located are appropriate to the use. If an on-site visit indicates 

that changes to road, skid trail, or landing locations can reduce the risk of erosion, the 

project manager can make these changes prior to construction, and in some cases as the 

project progresses. 

Road drainage features tailored to the site and its conditions prevent water from pooling 

or collecting on road surfaces and thereby prevent saturation of the road surface, which 

can lead to rutting, road slumping, and channel washout. It is especially important to 

ensure that road drainage structures are well constructed and designed for use during 

logging operations because the heavy vehicle use during harvesting creates a high potential for the contribution of large quantities of sediment to runoff. 

3-26 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Some roads are temporary or seasonal use roads, and their construction should not 

generally involve the high level of disturbance generated by the construction of permanent, high-standard roads. However, temporary or low-standard roads still need to be 

constructed and maintained to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and many of the BMPs 

discussed for this management measure are applicable to temporary road construction. 

In a study in three headwater watersheds in the mountains of central Idaho, 70 percent of 

sediment deposition from roads constructed on the watersheds, where the slope ranged 

from 15 to 40 percent, occurred during the first year after construction, and one-fourth of 

this deposition occurred during road construction (Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996). In this 

study, sediment usually traveled less than 100 meters (m) from its source. The distance 

that sediment traveled varied depending on its source: the distance traveled from fills, 

rock drains, berm drains, and landings was between 4 m and 20 m, while that from cross 

drains was 50 m. The maximum travel distance from some cross drains was more than 

250 m. Cross drains have a larger source area from which runoff is collected, including 

the road prism and upslope watershed area, and this accounted for more sediment being 

deposited than from all other sources combined. These findings highlight the importance 

of road placement, design, and construction in relation to watercourse location and the 

installation of BMPs to control runoff sedimentation from roads. 

Based on the findings of studies such as this, it is clear that erosion control practices need 

to be applied while a road is being constructed, when soils are most susceptible to erosion, to minimize soil loss to water bodies. Since sedimentation from roads often does not 

occur incrementally and continuously, but in pulses during large rainstorms, it is important that road, drainage structure, and stream crossing design take into consideration a 

sufficiently large design storm that has a good chance of occurring during the life of the 

project. Such a storm might be the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year, or even 100-year, 12- to 

24-hour return period storm. Sedimentation cannot be completely prevented during or 

after road construction, but the process is certainly exacerbated if the road construction 

and design are inappropriate for the site conditions or if the road drainage or stream 

crossing structures are insufficient. 

Several common practices minimize erosion during road construction. In general, it is 

recommended that forest roads be constructed as a single lane for minimum width and 

outsloped with minimal cut-and-fill, where conditions are suitable (Weaver and Hagans, 

1984). These roads should cause the least disturbance and have lower maintenance costs. 

Figure 3-6 illustrates various erosion and sediment control practices. Aspects of road 

construction addressed by the BMPs discussed under this management measure are 

introduced below. Further information is provided in the discussions of the individual 

BMPs. 

Road Surface Shape and Composition 

The shape of a road is an important component of runoff control. Terminology related to 

road construction and road shape is illustrated in Figure 3-7. Road drainage and runoff 

control are obtained by shaping the road surface to be insloping, outsloping, or crowned 

(Figure 3-8). Road surfaces need to have and maintain one of these shapes at all points to 

ensure good drainage (Moll et al., 1997). Insloping roads can be particularly effective 

where soils are highly erodible and directing runoff directly to the fill slope would be 

detrimental. Outsloped roads tend to dissipate runoff more than insloped roads, which 

concentrate runoff at cross drain locations, and are useful where erosion of the backfill or 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-27 
Figure 3-6. Mitigation techniques used for controlling erosion and sediment to protect water quality and fish habitat (Ontario MNR, 1988)

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-28 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Figure 3-7. Illustration of road structure terms (Moll et al., 1987). 

Figure 3-8. Types of road surface shape (Moll et al., 1997). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-29 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Sediment Runoff Distance and

250 m.

Quantity Vary with Source

Seventy percent of sediment deposition from 

roads constructed on three headwater watersheds in the mountains of central Idaho, where 

the slope ranged from 15 to 40 percent, occurred 

during the first year after construction, and onfourth of this occurred during road construction.

Sediment generally traveled less than 100 m from 

its source. Average sediment travel distances 

from fills, rock drains, berm drains, and landings 

were between 4 m and 20 m, while that from 

cross drains was 50 m. The maximum travel 

distance from some cross drains was more than

The larger source area for runoff from cross 

drains, including he road prism and upslope 

watershed areas, accounts for more sediment 

deposited form them and for the sediment from 

them traveling farther than from other sources.

(Source: Ketcheson and Megahan, 1996)

ditch soil might be a problem. Crowned roads are 

particularly suited to two-lane roads and to steep 

single-lane roads that have frequent cross drains or 

ditches and ditch relief culverts (Moll et al., 1997). 

Crowns, inslopes, and outslopes will quickly lose 

effectiveness if not maintained frequently, due to 

micro-ruts created by traffic when the road surface 

is damp or wet. 

The composition of a road surface can be chosen to 

effectively control erosion from the road surface 

and slopes. It is important to choose a road surface 

that is suitable to the topography, slope, aspect, 

soils, and intended use. Small, temporary, dry 

season roads can be left unsurfaced and decommissioned after use to minimize their impact to water 

quality. Roads that will be used more intensively or 

for long periods can have road surfaces formed 

from native material, aggregates, asphalt, or other 

suitable materials. Any of these surface compositions can be shaped in one of the ways discussed 

above. Surface protection of the roadbed and cutand-fill slopes with a suitable material can 

• Minimize soil losses during storms 

• Reduce frost heave erosion production 

• Restrain downslope movement of soil slumps 

• Minimize erosion from softened roadbeds 

Numerous studies have been conducted and have demonstrated the potential of a suitable 

road surface composition to control erosion and sedimentation from forest roads. Swift 

(1985) found that applying 20 centimeters (cm) of crushed rock to forest roads in the 

southern Appalachian mountains yielded sediment runoff of 0.06 ton/acre/inch of rainfall, 

a significant reduction from the 1.475 ton/acre/inch of rainfall yielded by a road surface 

covered by only 5 cm of crushed rock (Figure 3-9). In another study in the Appalachian 

mountains, Kochenderfer and Helvey (1984) demonstrated that using 1-inch crusher-run 

gravel or 3-inch clean gravel reduced erosion from road surfaces to less than one-half of 

that from 3-inch crusher-run gravel, and to only 12 percent of the erosion rate measured 

from an ungraveled road surface (Table 3-12). In a more recent study (Johnson and 

Bronsdon, 1995), a surface of bituminous oil or 15 to 20 cm of gravel reduced erosion 

rates by as much as 96 percent below that measured from unsurfaced roads (Figure 3-10). 

In the same study, logging slash left on roads was also found to provide a protective layer 

and reduced erosion by 75 to 87 percent compared to unsurfaced roads. 

Properly shaping a road surface (i.e., insloped, outsloped, or crowned) might not suffice 

to control drainage adequately, and drainage structures in addition to the relief culverts on 

insloped and crowned roads might be necessary for drainage control (Moll et al., 1997). 

Structures such as broad-based dips, turnouts, and cross drains can be used under such 

conditions, and these BMPs are further discussed below. The proper choice of drainage 

structure, in combination with the chosen surface shape, and effective installation of the 

3-30 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Figure 3-9.	 Comparison of sedimentation rates (as tons of sediment in 

runoff per acre per inch of rainfall) from different forest 

road surfaces (after Swift, 1984). 

Table 3-12.	 Effectiveness of Road Surface Treatments in Controlling Soil Losses in West Virginia 

(adapted from Kechenderfer and Helvey, 1984) 

Figure 3-10.	 Percent of reduction in sediment runoff from a forest road 

surface with different treatments. Percent reduction in 

erosion is the amount below that observed on an untreated 

road (after Johnson and Bronsdon, 1995). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-31 
3-32 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

drainage structures is crucial to minimizing erosion from roads and sedimentation in water

bodies. Improper or insufficient installation of road drainage structures is the cause of

many road failures, whereas proper installation of the correct structure can reduce erosion

potential, extend the useful life of a road, and decrease the need for road maintenance.

Slope Stabilization

Road cuts and fills can be a large source of sediment once a logging road is constructed.

Stabilizing back slopes and fill slopes as they are constructed is an important process in

minimizing erosion from these areas. Combined with graveling or otherwise surfacing the

road, establishing grass or using another form of slope stabilization can significantly

reduce soil loss from road construction. If constructing on an unstable slope is necessary,

as it sometimes is, consider consulting with an engineering geologist or geotechnical

engineer for recommended construction methods and to develop plans for the specific

road segment. Unstable slopes that threaten water quality should always be considered

unsuitable for road building (Weaver and Hagans, 1984).

Planting grass on cut-and-fill slopes of

new roads can effectively reduce erosion,

and placing forest floor litter or brush

barriers on downslopes in combination

with establishing grass is also an

effective means to reduce downslope

sediment transport (Tables 3-13 and

3-14). Grass-covered fill is generally

more effective than mulched fill in

reducing soil erosion from newly

constructed roads because of the roots

that hold the soil in place, which are

lacking with any other covering placed

on the soil. Because grass needs some

time to establish itself, a combination of

straw mulch with netting to hold it in

place can be used to cover a seeded area

and effectively reduce erosion during the

period while grass is growing. The

mulch and netting provide immediate erosion control and promote growth of the grass.

Figure 3-11 shows the results of a study conducted by Grace and others (1998) to demonstrate the erosion control capacities of different cut-and-fill slope stabilization BMPs on

forest roads. The results of several studies on different types of slope stabilization BMPs

are summarized in Table 3-15.

Figure 3-11. Sediment yield from plots using various forms of ground

covering. Sediment yield is per plot area over a 6-month period;

plots measured 1.5 m x 3.1 m (after Grace et al., 1998).

Table 3-13. Reduction in the Number of Sediment Deposits More Than 20 Feet Long by Grass and Forest Debris (Swift, 1986)
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-33

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

Table 3-14. Comparison of Downslope Movement of Sediment from Roads for Various Roadway and Slope Conditions (Swift, 1986)

Table 3-15. Effectiveness of Surface Erosion Control on Forest Roads (adapted from Megahan, 1980, 1987)
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

The predominant source of 

sediment from logging is from 

the construction and 

maintenance of access roads. 

Road Construction, Fish Habitat, Stream Crossings, and Fish 

Passage 

Chapter 2 discusses how road construction and road use can cause sediment to be delivered to streams, and it reviews the water quality and fish passage problems associated 

with sediment and stream crossings. The quality of surface waters to support early life 

stages of fish can be degraded by nonpoint source pollution from forestry activities as 

well. Salmonids and other fish that nest on stream bottoms are very susceptible to sediment pollution due to the settling of sediment that can smother nests and deplete the 

oxygen available to the eggs. The eggs, buried 1 to 3 feet deep in the gravel redd, rely on 

a steady flow of clean, cold water to bring oxygen and remove waste products. In coastal 

streams, eggs hatch in a month or so, depending on water temperatures and species of 

fish. Eggs hatch into alevin and remain in the gravel another 30 days or so, living on the 

nutrients in their yolk sacs. As they develop into fry, the yolk gets used up, and fry 

emerge through spaces in the gravel to begin life in the stream. During the 60-day period 

when the eggs and alevin are in the gravel, any shifts of the stream bottom can kill them. 

Recent studies in streams on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington found that if more 

than 13 percent fine sediment (< 0.85 mm) intruded into the redd, no steelhead or coho 

salmon eggs survived (McHenry et al., 1994). Chinook salmon are the most susceptible to 

increased fine sediment, followed by coho salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout, respectively (Lotspeich and Everest, 1983). The different tolerances to fine sediment is due to 

the different head diameters of the fry of the species. 

The redd is a depression in the gravel streambed where the eggs are laid, and the depression creates a Venturi effect, drawing water down into the gravel. If the water in the 

stream above is full of fine sediment, the sediment is drawn down into the redd and 

smother the eggs. 

In a healthy stream, young salmon and trout hide in the interstitial spaces between 

cobbles and boulders to avoid predation. In streams that become extremely cold in winter, 

young steelhead may actually burrow into the streambed and spend the winter in flowing 

water down within the gravel. The area of the stream where flowing water extends down 

into the gravel is also extremely important for aquatic invertebrates, which supply most 

of the food for young salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. If fine sediment is clogging 

interstitial spaces between streambed gravel, juvenile salmonids lose their source of 

cover and food. 

During the year coho salmon spend in freshwater, they prefer pools. High sediment 

concentrations in the water can cause pools to fill with sediment and reduce or destroy 

essential coho rearing habitat. Case studies in southwest Oregon showed that streams 

damaged by logging can also have significant problems with mortality of salmon eggs 

and alevin (Nawa and Frissell, 1993). When streams are affected by high sediment 

deposition, these formerly productive low-gradient reaches become wide and shallow and 

recovery of fish habitat can take decades (Frissell, 1992). 

A fishway is any structure or modification to a natural or artificial structure for the 

purpose of fish passage. Five common conditions at stream crossing culverts create 

migration barriers (WADOE, 1999): 

• Excess drop at culvert outlet 

3-34 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

• High velocity within culvert barrel 

• Inadequate depth within culvert barrel 

• Turbulence within the culvert 

• Debris accumulation at culvert inlet 

Figure 3-12 illustrates four of these conditions. 

Barriers to fish passage can be complete, partial, 

or temporal. Complete barriers block the use of 

the upper watershed, often the most productive 

spawning habitat in the watershed for migratory 

species of fish. Partial barriers block smaller or 

weaker fish of a population. Culverts are therefore designed to accommodate smaller or weaker 

individuals of target species, including juvenile 

fish. Temporal barriers block migration during 

some part of the year. Fish passage can be 

provided in streams that have wide ranges of 

flow by providing multiple culverts (Figure 

3-13). They can delay some fish from arriving at 

upstream locations, which for some fish (anadromous salmonids that survive a limited amount of 

time in fresh water) can cause limited distribution or mortality (WADOE, 1999). The FishXing 

Web site (http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing/ 

index.html) provides software and learning 

systems for fish passage through culverts. 

A 

B 

C 

D 

Figure 3-12. Culvert conditions that block fish passage (Yee and 

Roelofs, 1980). 

Figure 3-13. Multiple culverts for fish passage in streams that have a wide range 

of flows (Hyson et al., 1982). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-35 
3-36 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

Barriers at culverts can result from improper initial

design or installation, or they can be the result of

channel degradation that leaves culvert bottoms

elevated above the downstream channel. Changes

in hydrology due to an extensive road network can

be a primary reason for channel degradation, and

older culverts that might have been adequate when

installed can become inadequate for fish passage

when channel degradation or land use changes

cause changes in stream channel hydrology (Baker

and Votapka, 1990; WADOE, 1999). When such

changes occur in a watershed, inspect culverts and,

if necessary, replaced them with ones that meet

actual specifications.

Other problems at culverts include their not

providing the roughness and variability of the

adjacent stream channel bottom, which can create

short distances of increased water velocity and

turbulence (WADOE, 1999). These problems

create barriers to the upstream migration of juvenile

fish. Fish will not travel upstream under high water

velocity conditions (Barber and Downs, 1996).

Water velocity in culverts is a complex issue,

involving the length of the culvert in relation to

fish capabilities, depth of water, icing and debris

flows, and design flows in relation to fish migration upstream or downstream. The size and species

of fish passing through a culvert and the magnitude, duration, frequency, and seasonal

relationship of the flow to the timing of fish movement have to be considered in setting

guidelines for culvert design to meet fish passage requirements (Ashton and Carlson,

1984; Baker and Votapka, 1990).

The addition of baffles to a culvert to affect water velocity and turbulence is not generally

recommended because of the regular cleaning that becomes necessary. In addition, it has

been found that turbulence at the edge of a baffled culvert actually creates a blockage to

fish passage, and in higher-velocity culverts passage success can be higher in smooth pipe

(Bates, 1994; Powers, 1996).

Countersunk culverts are recommended where fish passage is desired. Installation of

multiple, parallel culverts in place of a larger single culvert is discouraged except in

special cases, such as to permit fish passage where flows vary widely (see Figure 3-9).

Countersunk culverts allow for natural downstream transport of sediment and a natural

stream bottom within the culvert (White, 1996).

Wetland Road Considerations

Sedimentation is also a concern when considering road construction through wetlands.

Because of the fragility of these ecosystems, where an alternative route exists, avoid

putting a forest access road through a wetland. If it’s necessary to traverse a wetland,

Stream Crossing Considerations

• Whether fish use the channel at the crossing

site

• Whether the crossing will be temporary or

permanent

• The type of vehicles that will use the crossing

• The slope, configuration, and stability of the

natural hillslopes on either side of the channel

• The slope of the channel bed

• The orientation of the stream to the proposed

road

• The expected 50- and 100-year flood discharge

• The amount and type of sediment and woody

debris that is in transport within the channel

• The installation and subsequent maintenance

costs for the crossing

• The expected frequency of use

• Permits and other legal requirements

(Source: Weaver and Hagans, 1984)
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

implement the BMPs suggested by the state. In addition, if road construction or maintenance involves a discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands or other waters of the 

United States, section 404(f) requires the application of specific BMPs designed to 

protect the aquatic environment. (More information on wetlands and forestry, including a 

list of the aforementioned BMPs, is provided in Chapter 3, section J.) 

Benefits of Road Construction Practices 

Many states have found roads to consistently be sources of sediment discharge to 

streams. The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources assessed BMP implementation and 

effectiveness and found that roads were consistently the most problematic with respect to 

proper BMP implementation. Drainage ditches, culverts, and stream crossings were most 

frequently the points of origin of stream sedimentation. The Virginia Department of 

Forestry also found that water control structures on roads are often inadequately used and 

applied. The Department found that water bars, rolling dips, and broad-based dips were 

usually installed improperly. Water bars, for instance, were built using fill only, rather 

than by cutting into the road bed and then using fill material to shape the bar. These 

structures were often placed too infrequently and too far apart as the road grade increased, and in some cases they were installed backwards, being angled uphill with the 

outlet pointing upslope. 

The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division, also 

monitored BMP implementation and effectiveness and similarly found that the most 

frequent departures from BMP implementation standards and sources of effects were 

associated with providing adequate road surface drainage, routing road drainage through 

adequate filtration zones before the runoff entered a stream, maintaining erosion control 

structures, and providing energy dissipaters at drainage structure outlets. The division 

also found that high-risk BMPs were more frequently not applied properly, and water 

quality effects from them were common. 

The Virginia Department of Forestry assessed BMP implementation and effectiveness in 

1994 and concluded from the study that although improvement was needed in meeting 

minimum standards of BMP implementation, properly implemented stream crossings (as 

well as SMAs and preharvest plans) are crucial to protecting water quality. Where not 

implemented properly, stream crossings are less effective than they could be. Improper 

sizing, placement, and installation of culverts are the causes of most failures. Culverts 

often were found to be too short for the intended roadbed width, and consequently they 

became clogged or buried. Some culverts were placed improperly, and without correction 

could have been rendered ineffective or swept away by storm water cutting through fill 

material. 

In general, poor BMP effectiveness can be due to many factors, including the following: 

•	 A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins. 

•	 A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs. 

•	 A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs. 

•	 The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and 

can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been 

completed. 

•	 A lack of timely implementation and maintenance of BMPs. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-37 
3-38 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

Road Construction and Stream Crossing BMP Costs

Costs of forestry BMPs for water quality protection are difficult to specify because the

need for and design of BMPs varies from site to site with changes in topography, soil, and

proximity to water, among other factors. However, with respect to road construction BMPs,

some generalizations can be made. In a study of the costs of various forestry practices in

the southeastern United States, practices associated with road construction were generally

found to be the most expensive, regardless of terrain, and the costs for broad-based dips

and water bars increased as slope increased (Lickwar, 1989) (Table 3-16). The proximity

of roads to watercourses also increases the cost of road construction because of the

increased need to prevent sediment runoff from reaching the surface waters.

Unit cost comparisons for road surfacing practices (Swift, 1984a) revealed that grass is

the least expensive alternative at $272 per kilometer of road (1998 dollars) (Table 3-17).

Initial material costs alone, however, are misleading because a durable road surface can

endure several years of use, whereas a grassed or thinly graveled surface will generally

need regular maintenance and resurfacing. Grass and thin gravel coverings are also likely

to result in more erosion and sedimentation. Table 3-18 compares the cost of using a

single BMP (dry seeding alone) versus using multiple BMPs (seeding in conjunction with

plastic netting) to control erosion (Megahan, 1987).

Table 3-16. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Road Construction (Lickwar, 1989)

Table 3-18. Costs of Erosion Control Measures in Idaho (Megahan, 1987)

Table 3-17. Cost of Gravel and Grass Road Surfaces (North Carolina, West Virginia) (Swift, 1984a)
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Best Management Practices 

Road Surface Construction Practices 

 Follow the design developed during preharvest planning to minimize erosion by 

properly timing and limiting ground disturbance operations. 

Verify with site visits that information used during preharvest planning to develop road 

layout and surfacing designs is accurate. Make any changes to road and road surface 

construction designs that are necessary based on new information obtained during these 

site visits. 

 During road construction, operate equipment to minimize unintentional movement of 

excavated material downslope. 

 Properly dispose of organic debris generated during road construction. 

•	 Stack usable materials such as timber, pulpwood, and firewood in suitable locations 

and use them to the extent possible. Organic debris can be used as mulch for erosion 

control, piled and burned, chipped, scattered, place in windrows, or removed to 

designated sites. Slash can be useful if placed as windrows along the base of the fill 

slope. A windrow is created by piling logging debris and unmerchantable woody 

vegetation in rows on the contour of the land. Arranged in this manner, the slash 

material provides a barrier to overland flow, prevents the concentration of runoff, 

and reduces erosion. 

•	 Don’t use organic debris as fill material for road construction since the organic 

material eventually decomposes and causes fill failure. 

•	 Perform any work in the stream channel by hand to the extent practicable. Machinery can be used in the SMA as long as the desired SMA objective is not compromised. 

 Prevent slash from entering streams and promptly remove slash that accidentally 

enters streams to prevent problems related to slash accumulation. 

To the extent possible, prevent slash from entering streams. If allowed to stay in streams, 

it can cause flow or fish passage problems, or dissolved oxygen depression as it decomposes. Leave natural debris in stream channels, and remove only that slash that is contributed during road construction or harvesting. Large woody debris is an important source of 

energy for aquatic organisms, especially in smaller headwater streams, and it creates 

habitat diversity important to aquatic invertebrates and young fish. It is important, 

therefore, to inspect streams before any work is done near them and to attempt to leave 

them in a condition similar to that prior to the work. 

 Compact the road base at the proper moisture content, surfacing, and grading to give 

the designed road surface drainage shaping. 

The predominant source of sediment associated with forest harvesting is the construction 

and maintenance of access roads, which contribute as much as 90 percent of the total 

eroded sediments (Appelbloom et al., 1998). The annual production of sediment from 

roads can be as high as 100 tons per hectare (40.5 tons per acre) of road surface or more 

(Grayson et al., 1993; Kockenderfer and Helvey, 1984). Management practices, including 

gravel surfacing, proper road maintenance, and proper drainage control, can reduce 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-39 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

sediment loss. Gravel surfacing has to be of a sufficient depth (e.g., 15–20 cm). Improperly maintained roads can produce up to 50 percent more sediment than properly maintained roads. Since roads can produce large quantities of sediment even when they are 

well maintained, careful consideration of their placement and management is extremely 

important to minimizing their effects on water quality. 

 When soil moisture is high, promptly suspend earthwork operations and weatherproof the partially completed work. 

Regulating traffic on logging roads during unfavorable weather is an important phase of 

erosion control. Construction and logging under these conditions destroy drainage 

structures, plug up culverts, and cause excessive rutting, thereby increasing the amount 

and the cost of maintenance. 

 Consider geotextiles for use on any section of road requiring aggregate material 

layers for surfacing. 

Geotextile is a synthetic permeable textile material used with soil, rock, or any other 

geotechnical engineering-related materials (Wiest, 1998). Also known as geosynthetics, 

geotextiles are associated with high-standard all-season roads, but can also be used in 

low-standard logging roads. Geotextiles have three primary functions: drainage (filtration), soil separation (confinement), and soil reinforcement (load distribution). These 

functions are performed separately or simultaneously, but not all functions are provided 

by each type of geotextile, so use care when making a purchase. Geotextiles reduce the 

amount of aggregate needed, thus reducing the cost of the road (Wiest, 1998). 

The location of a geotextile along a forest road does not affect installation procedures. 

When installing geotextiles, proper procedure includes the following steps: 

•	 Clear the subgrade of sharp objects, stumps, and debris. 

•	 Grade the surface to provide proper drainage and cross-slope shaping. 

•	 Unroll the geotextile on the subgrade. The amount of overlap depends on the loadbearing capacity of the subgrade, and varies from 1.5 to 3 feet. Sewing may be 

necessary if the geotextile is to provide reinforcement. 

•	 Place and compact the aggregate fill. Depth of the aggregate is determined by 

subgrade strength and the anticipated wheel loading (usually between 9 and 24 

inches). It might be necessary to back-dump the aggregate onto the geotextile and 

spread with a dozer or grader. The rock is feathered out, since pushing it onto the 

site produces an uneven distribution of the aggregate. Spread the aggregate in the 

same direction as the geotextile overlap to avoid separation. 

•	 Compact the aggregate by conventional methods. 

Streambanks and other slopes with light wave action can be stabilized by placing the 

revetment material directly on top of the geotextile. Installing the geotextile underneath 

the revetment material prevents the occurrence of scour which normally takes place along 

streambanks behind BMPs such as rip-rap. To ensure that the geotextile stays in place, 

toe it in at the top and bottom. 

Geotextiles extend the service life of roads, increase their load-carrying capacity, and 

reduce the incidence of ruts. These benefits are realized due to the textiles separating 

aggregate structural layers from subgrade soils while allowing the passage of water. 

3-40 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-41

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

 Protect access points to the site that lead from a paved public right-of-way with

stone, wood chips, corduroy logs, wooden mats, or other material to prevent soil or

mud from being tracked onto the paved road.

This practice prevents tracking of sediment onto roadways, thereby preventing the

subsequent washoff of that sediment during storm events. When necessary, clean truck

wheels to remove sediment before entering a public right-of-way.

 Use pioneer roads to reduce the amount of area disturbed and ensure the stability of

the area involved.

Pioneer roads are temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access

when building permanent roads. Confine pioneer roads to the construction limits of the

surveyed permanent roadway, and it is important that pioneer roads be fitted with temporary drainage structures to prevent erosion, sedimentation, and road deterioration.

 If the use of borrow or gravel pits is needed during forest road construction, locate

rock quarries, gravel pits, and borrow pits outside SMAs and above the 50-year flood

level of any waters to minimize the adverse effects caused by the resulting sedimentation. Avoid excavating below the water table.

Gravel mining directly from streams causes a multitude of effects, including destruction

of fish spawning sites, turbidity, and sedimentation. During the construction and use of

rock quarries, gravel pits, or borrow pits, either divert runoff water onto the forest floor or

pass it through one or more settling basins. Revegetate and reclaim rock quarries, gravel

pits, spoil disposal areas, and borrow pits upon abandonment.

Road Surface Drainage Practices

 Install surface drainage controls at intervals

that remove storm water from the roadbed

before the flow gains enough volume and

velocity to erode the surface. Avoid discharge

onto fill slopes unless the fill slope has been

adequately protected. Route discharge from

drainage structures onto the forest floor so

that water disperses and infiltrates. Methods

of road surface drainage include the following:

• Broad-based dips. A broad-based dip is a

gentle roll in the centerline profile of a road

that is designed to be a relatively permanent

and self-maintaining water diversion structure that can be traversed by any vehicle

(Figure 3-14). Outslope dips 3 percent to

divert storm water off the roadbed and onto

the forest floor, where transported soil can be

trapped by forest litter. Use broad-based dips

on roads having a gradient of 10 percent or

less because on steeper grades they can be

difficult for loaded trucks to traverse

Figure 3-14. Broad-based dip installation. A broad-based dip is a

portion of road sloped to carry water from the inside

edge to the outside onto natural ground (Minnesota

DNR, 1995; Montana State University, 1990).
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

(Kochenderfer, 1995). Dips can be difficult to construct on very rocky sections of 

roads as well. 

•	 Road outsloping, Insloping, Crowning, and Grading. Water accumulation on road 

surfaces can be minimized by grading and insloping or outsloping roadbeds 

(Figure 3-15). This minimizes erosion and the potential for road failure. Outsloping 

involves grading a road so that the entire width of the road slopes down the hill it is 

cut into, and it is appropriate when fill slopes are stable and drainage won’t flow 

directly into stream channels. Outsloping the roadbed keeps water from flowing 

next to and undermining the cutbank, and it is intended to spill water off the road in 

small volumes along its length. Give the width of the road a 2 to 3 percent outslope. 

In addition to outsloping the 

Figure 3-15.	 Typical road profiles for drainage and stability. Choice of cross section 

depends on drainage needs, soil stability, slope, and expected traffic 

volume. Dashed lines indicate natural land contour and solid lines 

indicate constructed road (Wiest, 1998). 

roadbed, construct a short broadbased dip to turn water off the 

surface. The effectiveness of 

outsloping is limited by roadbed 

rutting during wet conditions. 

Providing a berm on the outside 

edge of an outsloped road during 

construction, and until loose fill 

material is protected by vegetation, 

can eliminate erosion of the fill. A 

continuous berm (i.e., a low mound 

of soil or gravel built along the 

edge of a road) along a roadside 

can reduce total sediment loss by 

an average of 99 percent over a 

standard graded soil road surface 

(Applebloom et al., 1998). Berms 

need to have openings provided to 

allow water to drain off the road 

surface at appropriate locations 

where a suitable infiltration or 

sediment trap site is reached (Swift 

and Burns, 1999). Construct berms 

high enough to contain the storm 

water, and wide enough and with a 

coarse material to prevent their 

erosion. Berms are also installed 

over culvert crossings to prevent 

runoff from draining directly into 

streams. A graveled road surface 

or a grassed strip on the edge of 

the driving surface can reduce total 

loss of sediment from roads by up 

to 60 percent over a standard 

graded soil road surface. Also, 

natural berms can form along the 

edge of older roadbeds or at 

3-42 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

drainage locations on constructed berms over time and block drainage. Proper


maintenance, therefore, is necessary.


Insloped roads carry road surface water to a ditch along the cutbank. Ditch gradients of 

between 2 and 8 percent usually perform best. Slopes greater than 8 percent give runoff 

waters too much momentum and enough erosive force to carry excessive sediment and 

debris for long distances, and slopes of less than 2 percent tend to cause water to drain too 

slowly and do not provide the runoff with enough energy to move accumulated debris 

with it. The ditch grade also depends on the soil type—nearer to 2 percent on less stable 

soils and nearer to 8 percent on stable soils. 

A crowned road surface is a combination of both an outsloped and insloped surface with 

the high point (crown) at the center of the road (Moll et al., 1997). The crowned road 

provides drainage to both sides of the roadway, and a drainage ditch is usually placed 

next to the road on the insloped side. Properly spaced and sized culverts then direct the 

runoff to an appropriate grassed buffer, detention basin, 

or other sediment control structure. 

•	 Relief culverts. Relief culverts move water from an


inside ditch to the outside edge of a road for disper­


sion. The culverts should protrude from both ends at


least 1 foot beyond the fill and be armored at inlets


to prevent undercutting and at outlets to prevent


erosion of fill or cut slopes (Figure 3-16).


Where the slope on the cutslope above a culvert is steep, 

as is often the case because of the need to cut into the 

slope to accommodate the culvert opening, soil erosion 

above culverts and culvert plugging might be a problem. 

Installing a riser pipe on the inlet end of a culvert with 

holes or slits cut at a proper height to allow water to enter 

(which depends on the amount of soil eroding and flow in 

the ditch) can prevent plugging while allowing runoff 

drainage. A ditch dam will reinforce the entrance of water 

into the culvert through the riser holes (Firth, 1992). Figure 3-16. Design and installation of relief culvert 

(Vermont DFPR, 1987). 

•	 Open-top or pole culverts. Open-top or pole culverts


are temporary drainage structures that are most useful for intercepting runoff flowing


down road surfaces (Figure 3-17). They can also be used as a substitute for pipe


culverts on roads of smaller operations, if properly built and maintained, but don’t


use them for handling intermittent or live streams. Place open-top culverts at angles


across a road to provide gradient to the culvert and to ensure that no two wheels of a


vehicle hit it at once. For an open-top culvert to function properly, careful installa­


tion and regular maintenance are necessary. Open-top culverts are recommended for


ongoing operations only and are best removed upon completion of forestry activities


(Wiest, 1998). These culverts generally slope below the perpendicular to the road at


10 to 45 degrees. Additional maintenance can be necessary as the angle approaches


10 degrees because at this angle debris tends to accumulate; an angle of 30 to 45


degrees is usually recommended (Wiest, 1998).


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-43 
3-44 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

Open-top culverts constructed of 8-inch or

10-inch pipe are useful as a supplemental

means of runoff control on steep sections

of roads where broad-based dips are

difficult to install and difficult for trucks

to traverse (Kockenderfer, 1995). They are

also useful on excessively rocky sections

of roads where broad-based dips are

difficult to construct. Rectangular openings spaced evenly along the top of a

piece of pipe direct runoff into the pipe,

and unbroken spacings between the

openings provide structural integrity. The

culverts can be installed by hand and can

be removed and used elsewhere when a

road is decommissioned. Their trenches

are shallower than those for pole culverts.

Discharges from all types of culverts can

be controlled using plastic corrugated

culvert piping cut in half or, where

something that blends in with the surroundings is desired, with riprap

(Kockenderfer, 1995). Diversions or inditch dams can be placed in ditches to

ensure that flow in ditches is directed into

culverts and it does not bypass culverts

and continue to gain momentum and

erosive force.

• Ditches and turnouts. Use ditches only

where necessary to discharge water to

vegetated areas via turnouts (FigFigure 3-17. Details of installation of open-top and pole culverts (Wiest,

1998; Vermont DFPR, 1987).

Figure 3-18. Grading and spacing of road turnouts (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999).

ure 3-18). Turnouts should be

used wherever there is an

adequate, safe outlet site

where the water can infiltrate.

In most cases, the less water a

ditch carries and the more

frequently water is discharged, the better. Construct

wide, gently sloping ditches,

especially in areas with highly

erodible soils. Slow the

velocity of water by installing

check dams, rock dams that

intercept water flow, along the

ditch or lining the ditch with

rocks. Check dams also trap

sediment and need to be
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

inspected for sediment build-up. Additionally, stabilize ditches with rock and/or


vegetation and protect outfalls with rock, brush barriers, live vegetation, or other


means. Roadside ditches need to be large enough to carry runoff from moderate


storms. A standard ditch used on secondary logging roads is a triangular section 45


cm deep, 90 cm wide on the roadway side, and 30 cm wide on the cutbank side. The


minimum ditch gradient is 0.5 percent, and 2 percent is preferred to ensure good


drainage. Runoff is diverted frequently to prevent erosion or overflow.


 Install turnouts, wing ditches, and dips to disperse runoff and reduce the amount of 

road surface drainage that flows directly into watercourses. 

 Install appropriate sediment control structures to trap suspended sediment transported by runoff and prevent its discharge into the aquatic environment. 

Methods to trap sediment include the following: 

•	 Sediment traps. Sediment traps are used downstream of erodible soil sites, such as


cuts and fills, to keep sediment from flowing downstream and entering water bodies


(Figure 3-19) (Ontario MNR, 1990). They are located close to the source of sedi­


ment and preferably in a low area. Use them for drainage areas of less than 5 acres.


Size sediment traps so that the expected sediment runoff fills them at about the time


that the disturbed area reestablishes vegetation. If sediment accumulates beyond this


time, periodic cleaning becomes necessary. Sediment traps are most effective at


removing large sediment particles.


•	 Brush barriers. Brush barriers are slash materials piled at the toe slope of a road or


at the outlets of culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars. Install brush barriers at the


toes of fills if the fills are located within 150 feet of a defined stream channel. Brush


barriers must have good contact with the ground and be constructed approximately


on the contour if they are to be effective in minimizing sediment runoff. Figure 3-20


shows the use of a brush barrier at the toe of fill. Proper installation is important


because if the brush barrier is not firmly anchored and embedded in the slope, brush


material can be ineffective


for sediment removal and


can detach to block ditches


or culverts. In addition to


use as brush barriers, slash


can be spread over exposed


mineral soils to reduce the


effect of precipitation events


and surface flow.


•	 Silt fences. Silt fences are


temporary barriers used to


intercept sediment-laden


runoff from small areas.


They act as a strainer: silt


and sand are trapped on the


surface of the fence while


water passes through. They


usually consist of woven


geotextile filter fabric or Figure 3-19. Sediment trap constructed to collect runoff from ditch along cutslope 

(Ontario MNR, 1990). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-45 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

straw bales. Install silt fences 

before earthmoving operations 

and place them as much along 

the contour as possible 

(Figure 3-21). 

• 	 Filter strips. Sediment control 

is achieved by providing a 

filter or buffer strip between 

streams and construction 

activities to use the natural 

filtering capabilities of the 

forest floor and litter (Figure 3-22). The Streamside 

Management Area management measure recommends the 

presence of a filter or buffer 

strip around all water bodies. Figure 3-20.	 Brush barrier placed at toe of fill to intercept runoff and sediment Filter strips are effective at
 (Ontario MNR, 1990).
 trapping sediment only when 

the runoff entering them is 

dispersed. Concentrated flows, such as from culverts, ditches, gullies, etc., entering 

filter strips will tend to cut a path through the filter strip and render it ineffective. 

Foresters with the USDA Forest Service working in the Allegheny National Forest in 

Pennsylvania inspected numerous roads and streams to determine the minimum length of 

filter strip between the two that was necessary for preventing sediment from reaching the 

streams (USDA-FS, 1994, 1995). They found that no matter what the slope, filter strips 

100 feet in length were the minimum necessary to prevent sedimentation; in more than a 

few instances, filter strips as long as 200 feet were necessary. In a test of filtering capacities of roadside erosion control techniques in Tuskegee National Forest in Macon County, 

Alabama, sediment fences retained 29 percent of runoff sediment and vegetative strips 

Figure 3-21. Silt fence installation (Wisconsin DNR, 1989). 

3-46 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

retained 13.5 percent. Sediment below riprap 

increased by 10 percent, indicating that riprap 

has no ability to filter sediment from runoff. 

These findings illustrate the importance of both 

using guidelines developed for the area where 

the harvest is to occur and inspecting points 

where runoff is concentrated (e.g., culvert 

outlets, turnouts) to see if sedimentation controls 

are sufficient to protect streams. Slope, type of 

vegetation, ground litter, and nature of flow 

(channelized or overland) combine to determine 

how effective filter strips are, and how wide they 

must be. If sedimentation is found to be occurring despite having installed BMPs according to 

specifications additional sediment control BMPs 

might be needed.	 Figure 3-22. Protective filter strip maintained between road and 

stream to trap sediment and provide shade and Road Slope Stabilization Practices streambank stability (Vermont DFPR, 1987).

 Visit locations where roads are to be constructed on steep slopes or cut into hillsides to verify that these are the most favorable locations for the roads. 

Aerial photos and topographic and soil maps can inaccurately represent actual conditions, 

especially if these media are more than a few years old. Visiting a location where roads 

are to be cut into slopes or built on steep slopes or where skid trails, landings, and 

equipment maintenance areas are to be located is valuable for verifying that the information used during planning is accurate. Such visits can also help in determining whether 

roads can be located to pose less risk of erosion than the risk associated with the locations 

originally chosen. 

 Use straw bales, straw mulch, grass seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control 

and revegetation techniques to stabilize slopes and minimize erosion (Figure 3-23). 

Straw bales and straw mulch are temporary measures used to protect freshly disturbed soils and are effective when implemented and maintained until adequate 

vegetation has established to prevent erosion. 

 Compact the fill to minimize erosion and ensure road stability. 

During construction, fills or embankments are built up by gradual layering. Compact the 

entire surface of each layer with a tractor or other construction equipment. If the road is 

to be grassed, do not compact the final layer in order to provide an acceptable seedbed. 

 Revegetate or stabilize disturbed areas, especially at stream crossings. 

Cutbanks and fill slopes along forest roads are often difficult to revegetate. Properly 

condition slopes to provide a seedbed, including rolling embankments and scarifying cut 

slopes. The rough soil surfaces provide niches in which seeds can lodge and germinate. 

Seed as soon as it is feasible after the soil has been disturbed, preferably before it rains. 

Early grassing and spreading of brush or erosion-resisting fabrics on exposed soils at 

stream crossings are imperative. See the Revegetation of Disturbed Areas management 

measure for a more detailed discussion. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-47 
3-48 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction

Stream Crossing

Practices

 Based on information

obtained from site visits,

make any alterations to

the harvesting plan that

are necessary or prudent

to protect surface waters

from sedimentation or

other forms of pollution

and to ensure the adequacy of fish passage.

After preharvest planning

has been completed with the

aid of aerial photos and/or

topographic maps, site visits

can be conducted to verify

the information used to

determine the locations of

stream crossings. Photos

and maps record the landscape at a moment in time,

and changes might have

occurred since these media

were created. Land use

Figure 3-23. Details of hay bale installation, used to prevent sediment from skid trails and

roads from entering surface waters (Georgia Forestry Commission, 1999;

Vermont DFPR, 1987).

changes in the upper portion of the watershed in which harvesting occurs could have altered

streamflow, which in turn might have modified stream corridor characteristics. As a result,

alternative stream crossing locations might have to be found. Slopes might be inaccurately

represented on topographic maps, and therefore stream crossing approaches or roads near

streams might have to be relocated to avoid steep grades, or the width of SMAs might have

to be increased. Land use changes in the watershed that increase streamflow or changes in

weather patterns (such as numerous recent years of above-average rainfall) that affect

streamflow characteristics might call for larger culverts than those originally intended or a

switch from fords to culverts or from culverts to temporary bridges to ensure that fish can

pass and that stream crossings can adequately handle streamflow. Refer to Fish Passage

Practices later in this section for further information on constructing stream crossings that

ensure adequate fish passage.

 Construct stream crossings to minimize erosion and sedimentation.

Erosion and sedimentation can be minimized by avoiding any operation of machinery in

water bodies. It is especially important to not work in or adjacent to live streams and water

channels during periods of high streamflow, intense rainfall, or migratory fish spawning.

Avoid stream crossings whenever practical alternatives are available. When it is necessary to

construct stream crossings, install as few of them as possible, select their locations carefully,

and select the most appropriate type of stream crossing for the particular site (Blinn et al.,

1999). Use existing stream crossings whenever this would affect water quality less than
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

constructing a new one. Make crossings at the narrowest practical portion of a stream 

and, if possible, cross at a right angle to the stream. Crossing at right angles reduces the 

potential for sediment to be carried down the road and deposited into the stream during a 

rain event. If the right angle crossing is too long it is likely to be ineffective. Crossing at 

right angles is not always practical, particularly in gentle topography. Gentle topography 

does not accelerate runoff into streams as steep angles do. If there is a gentle grade to a 

stream, the installation of water turnouts and a broad-based dip on each side of the 

crossing might suffice. This diverts the majority of the water that is runoff down the road. 

Avoid sags in grades on stream crossings, as they can cause road runoff to enter the 

stream (Swift and Burns, 1999). Road grade, whether up or down, should be maintained 

over the length of the crossing and the runoff diverted from the road at the first feasible 

location after the crossing. 

Diverting a stream from its natural course is a potential problem when any stream crossing is constructed. When the capacity of a culvert under a stream crossing is too small or 

a culvert becomes plugged, flow is diverted around the culvert (Furniss et al., 1997). The 

stream might maintain its natural course (flow across the road parallel to the culvert), or, 

if the road has an inclining grade across the stream crossing in the direction of 

streamflow or it slopes downward away from a stream crossing in at least one direction, 

flow is diverted along the road for a distance until it reaches a low point, flows out of the 

road, and finds a new course to rejoin the original stream course. If left unchecked, such 

unintentional diversion can result in very large amounts of erosion and sedimentation and 

long-term adverse effects to roads and aquatic habitats. Stream diversion can also be 

caused by accumulations of snow and ice on the road that direct water out of the channel. 

Diversion potential is greatest on outsloped roads that redirect stream water down a road 

instead of across it (Best et al., 1995). 

Stream diversion is best avoided by properly sizing culverts based on streamflow, constructing crossings such that their grade rises away from the crossing at each approach, 

inspecting stream crossings regularly after their construction, and maintaining roads and 

stream crossings properly (Bohn, 1998). Eliminating the potential for stream diversion by 

properly planning, installing, and maintaining roads and stream crossings is, in the long 

term, much less expensive and straightforward than attempting to correct improper design 

and installation after a stream crossing fails (Furniss et al., 1997). 

 Install a stream crossing that is appropriate to the situation and conditions. 

Determining the stream classification and the type of road to be constructed (e.g., temporary, seasonal, or permanent all-weather) is the first step in defining the type of stream 

crossing to be installed (Weaver, 1994). Design stream crossings to minimize effect on 

water quality, to handle peak runoff from flood waters, and to allow for adequate fish 

passage (where fish could be seasonally present). There are three basic subcategories of 

both permanent and temporary stream crossings: (1) bridges, (2) fords, and (3) culverts. 

•	 Bridges. Temporary or portable bridges are being used increasingly because they can 

be installed and removed with minimal site disturbance or water quality effect and 

reused (Figure 3-24) (Taylor et al., 1999). Temporary stream crossings can be 

constructed of polyvinyl chloride and high-density polyethylene pipe bundles, and 

portable bridges are often constructed of steel (Blinn et al., 1999; Taylor et al., 

1999). Approaches on weak soils can be protected with logs, wood mats, wood 

panels, or expanded metal grating placed over a woven geotextile. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-49 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Figure 3-24. Portable bridge for temporary stream crossing 

(Indiana DNR, 1998). 

•	 Fords. A ford is a low-water crossings that uses 

existing or constructed stream bottoms to 

support vehicles when crossing a stream 

(Figure 3-25). A ford is an appropriate stream 

crossing structure under the following circumstances (Wiest, 1998): 

– The streambed has a firm rock or coarse 

gravel bottom, and the approaches are low 

and stable enough to support traffic. 

– Traffic volume is low. 

– Water depth is less than 3 feet. 

– Ford will not prevent fish migration. 

If log, coarse gravel, or gabion is used to create a 

driving surface at a stream ford, install the crossing 

flush with the streambed to minimize erosion and to 

allow fish passage. Stabilize approaches to the ford 

using nonerodible material that extends at least 50 

feet from the ford on both sides of the stream 

crossing. 

The following is a common procedure for 

crossing a small stream where a streambed is 

not armored with bedrock or an otherwise 

stable foundation: 

– Place several inches of rock down 

on the streambed. The rock size 

depends on actual costs, haul 

distance, and how much is to be 

installed. Normally, 2 feet or more 

of rock is installed. 

– Place geotextiles over the rock. 

Geotextile costs approximately 

$550 per 1,000 square yards. 

– Spread out approximately 1 foot of Figure 3-25.	 A stream ford. Hard and stable approaches to a ford are gravel. The amount and size of necessary (Indiana DNR, 1998). gravel varies with the conditions of 

the stream crossing. 

Unless they are very large, stream fords are often the least expensive stream crossing to 

construct (Taylor et al., 1999). However, they can have greater effects on water quality 

than other crossings because sediment is introduced during construction and vehicle 

crossings. They also permit sediment-laden runoff to flow downslope directly into a 

stream unless adequate runoff diversions are installed. 

•	 Stream Crossing Culverts. Stream crossing culverts are placed on roads where a 

semi-permanent or permanent stream crossing is necessary and to minimize 

interference with streamflow and stream ecology. Culverts often need outlet and 

3-50 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

inlet protection to keep water from scouring away supporting material and to keep 

debris from plugging the culvert. Firmly anchor culverts and compact the earth at 

least halfway up the side of the pipe to prevent water from leaking around it (Figure 

3-26). Energy dissipaters, such as riprap and slash, can be useful for this if installed 

at culvert outlets. If riprap is used for inlet protection, a layer of geotextile should be 

placed behind the riprap to prevent erosion. Culvert spacing depends on rainfall 

intensity, drainage area, topography, and amount of forest cover. Most state forestry 

departments can provide recommendations for culvert pipe diameters. 

According to Murphy and Miller (1997), culverts should be able to handle large flows— 

at least the 50-year flood. The larger the drainage area leading to a culvert and the steeper 

the topography, the larger the culvert needs to be to adequately handle the storm flow. If 

culverts are not properly sized for site-specific factors, culvert blowouts and overtopping 

can occur. Improper culvert sizing and spacing in Breitenbush, Oregon, led to severe road 

damage after a storm, and the estimated cost for the additional culverts that would have 

properly drained the watershed was $23,500, or 21 percent of the estimated $110,000 that 

was necessary to restore the road after the storm (Copstead et al., 1998). 

If possible, install arch culverts (Figure 3-4) to avoid disturbance to the stream bottom, or 

place culverts within the natural streambed (Figure 3-27). Place the inlet on or below the 

streambed to minimize flooding upstream and to facilitate fish passage. Align large 

culverts with the natural course and gradient of the stream unless the inlet condition can 

be improved and the erosion potential reduced with some channel improvement. Use 

energy dissipators at the 

downstream end of the 

culverts to reduce the 

erosion energy of emerging water. 

•	 Design stream


crossings to fail


during very large


storm events.


Stream crossings cannot 

be designed for the largest 

possible storm that could 

occur, and rarely but 

eventually many streams 

will carry flows that 

exceed even the largest 

stream crossings along it. 

If stream crossings are not 

designed to fail under 

such circumstances, major 

erosion can result. One of 

the most important aspects 

of designing a stream 

crossing for failure is to 

design the path that Figure 3-26. Design and installation of pipe culvert at stream crossing (Montana State

excessive stream flow will University, 1991). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-51 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

follow (Furniss et al., 1997). Maximize the likelihood that the excessive 

flow will follow the natural course of the stream. The following are 

means to achieve this objective (Furniss et al., 1998): 

–	 Locate stream crossings where the road grade rises away from 

the crossing at each approach. 

–	 Create a rolling grade where a stream is crossed on a climbing 

road to prevent overflow from flowing down the road. 

–	 Design stream crossings with the least amount fill possible and 

construct fills with coarse material. 

 Construct bridges and install culverts during periods when 

streamflow is low. 

 Do not perform excavation for a bridge or a large culvert in flowing 

water. Divert the water around the work site during construction with 

a cofferdam or stream diversion. 

Figure 3-27. Proper installation of 

culvert in the stream is Isolating the work site from the flow of water is necessary to minimize 

critical to preventing the release of soil into the watercourse and to ensure a satisfactory 

plugging or undercut- installation in a dry environment. Minimize environmental effects by ting (Montana State limiting the duration of construction and by establishing limits on the University, 1991). quantity of surface area disturbed and the equipment to be used. Also, 

operate when disturbance can most easily be controlled, and use erosion 

and sediment controls such as silt fences and sediment catch basins. Only use diversions 

where constructing the stream crossing structure without diverting the stream would 

result in instream disturbance greater than the disturbance from diverting the stream. 

Figure 3-28 portrays a procedure for installing a large culvert when excavation in the 

channel of the stream would cause sedimentation and increase turbidity. 

 Protect embankments with mulch, riprap, masonry headwalls, or other retaining 

structures. 

Some form of reinforcement along stream banks at road stream crossings can reduce 

sediment loss from these sites (Table 3-19). Soft protection, such as mulch or forest 

debris, or hard protection, such as gravel or riprap, can be used to protect these vulnerable locations. 

 Construct ice bridges in streams with low flow rates, thick ice, or dry channels 

during winter. Ice bridges might not be appropriate on large water bodies or areas 

prone to high spring flows. 

Ice bridges can provide acceptable temporary access across streams during winter. Ice 

bridges are made by pushing and packing snow into streams and applying water to freeze 

the snow (Figure 3-29). Their use is limited to winter under continuous freezing conditions. A permit might be necessary before an ice bridge crossing can be built, and operators can check this with the appropriate state agency prior to ice bridge construction. 

The Minnesota Extension Service (1998) suggests the following when building an ice 

bridge: 

•	 Choose a period when night temperatures are below 0 °F. 

3-52 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

Figure 3-28.	 Procedure for installing culvert when excavation in channel section of stream 

could cause sediment movement and increase turbidity (Hynson et al., 1982). 

Table 3-19.	 Sediment Loss Reduction from Reinforcement at Road Stream Crossings (Rothwell, 1983) 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-53 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

• Make the approaches to the 

ice bridge nearly level or 

level. 

•	 Don’t add brush or other 

vegetation to the ice bridge. 

Doing so weakens the 

structure and can create a 

dam when the bridge melts. 

•	 Let the surface freeze; then 

repeat the construction 

process until the crossing is 

of the desired thickness and 

width. 

•	 Make the bridge thick 

enough to permit a level 

approach. 

Figure 3-29.	 Details of ice bridge construction for temporary stream crossing in


winter (Ontario MNR, 1990).


•	 Also, make the ice thick enough to support the weight and speed of anticipated 

traffic. 

•	 Inspect the bridge often, because weather and water flow can affect its strength. 

Properly constructed winter roads have provisions for adequate drainage during winter 

weather warmups, and for the spring thaw. If a winter thaw occurs, expect to temporarily 

shut down road travel. The thaw creates working conditions similar to a wet weather 

event and causes erosion, severe soil compaction, rutting, and possibly vehicle damage. 

Fish Passage Practices 

 On streams with spawning areas, avoid construction during egg incubation periods. 

 Design and construct stream crossings for fish passage according to site-specific 

information on stream characteristics and the fish populations in the stream where 

the passage is to be installed. 

The types of structures recommended for use on forest roads as fish passage structures 

are listed below in order of preference (WADOE, 1999). The choice and design of each is 

determined by a number of factors, including sensitivity of the site to critical fish habitats, engineering specifications, cost, and availability of materials. 

1.	 Bridges—permanent, semipermanent, and temporary 

2.	 Bottomless culverts or log culverts 

3.	 Embedded metal culverts 

4.	 Nonembedded culverts 

5.	 Baffled culverts 

Baffled culverts are the most complicated type of fish passage and are the most difficult 

to design and construct. 

3-54 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

To ensure safe fish passage can be provided without resulting in unacceptable effects on 

existing fisheries habitat values, consider physical, hydrological, and biological factors to 

determine whether a structure is acceptable for a site. Review the harvest plan and, based 

on actual site conditions, make any changes necessary to ensure adequate fish passage. 

Streamflow, bottom substrate, approach slopes, and soil types on either side of the stream 

are some details from the harvest plan to verified at the site prior to constructing stream 

crossings and installing culverts. The minimum site data for any proposed bridge or 

major culvert include 

•	 Cross section showing the high water mark and profile of water crossing. 

•	 Description of water body bed materials. 

•	 Presence or absence of and depth to bedrock. 

•	 Water velocity and direction. 

•	 Bankfull width and depth. 

•	 Bottom channel width. 

•	 Channel topography, including gradient for the site and reach. 

•	 Assessment of natural sediment and debris loading and any other condition that


might influence the choice, design, and location of a structure.


•	 Existing improvements and resource values that might influence the structure. 

Minimum biological data for successful stream crossing design include 

•	 Species of fish that you’ll want to safely pass 

•	 Size of fish that will pass (life stage) 

•	 Time of year in which fish passage occurs 

•	 High and low design passage flows 

The success of any fish passage structure depends very much on channel adjustments that 

occur after construction of the stream crossing, so it is important to survey far enough 

upstream and downstream to account for any possible channel conditions that might 

affect the design and placement of the structure. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-55 
Chapter 3C: Road Construction/Reconstruction 

3-56 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3D: ROAD MANAGEMENT
 GEMENT

Management Measure for Road Management 

(1) Avoid using roads where possible for timber hauling or heavy traffic during wet or thaw periods on roads 

not designed and constructed for these conditions. 

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

drainage channels in a stable condition to withstand storms. 

(3) Remove drainage crossings and culverts if there is a reasonable risk of plugging or failure from lack of 

maintenance. 

(4) Following completion of harvesting, close and stabilize temporary spur roads and seasonal roads to 

control and direct water away from the roadway. Remove all temporary stream crossings. 

(5) Inspect roads to determine the need for structural maintenance. Conduct maintenance practices, when 

conditions warrant, including cleaning and replacement of deteriorated structures and erosion controls, 

grading or seeding of road surfaces, and, in extreme cases, slope stabilization or removal of road fills 

where necessary to maintain structural integrity. 

(6) Conduct maintenance activities, such as dust abatement, so that chemical contaminants or pollutants are 

not introduced into surface waters to the extent practicable. 

(7) Properly maintain permanent stream crossings and associated fills and approaches to reduce the likelihood (a) that stream overflow will divert onto roads and (b) that fill erosion will occur if the drainage 

structures become obstructed. 

Management Measure Description 

The objective of this management measure is to ensure the management of existing roads 

to maintain their stability and utility; to minimize erosion, polluted runoff from roads and 

road structures, and sedimentation in water bodies; and to ensure that roads no longer 

needed are properly closed and decommissioned so they pose minimal risk to water 

quality. 

Roads that are actively maintained reduce the potential for erosion to occur. Road drainage structures, road fills in stream channels, and road fills on steep slopes are of greatest 

concern with respect to water quality protection in road management. Roads actively 

used for timber hauling usually need the most maintenance, and mainline roads typically 

need more maintenance than spur roads. Regular road use by heavy trucks, especially at 

stream crossings, creates a chronic source of sediment runoff to streams (Murphy and 

Miller, 1997). It is important to inspect and repair roads prior to heavy use, especially 

during wet or thawing ground conditions (Weaver and Hagans, 1984). Use of roads 

during wet or thaw periods can result in excessive sediment loading to water bodies when 

road surfaces become deeply rutted and drainage becomes impaired. The first rule of 

maintaining a stable road surface is to minimize hauling and grading during wet weather 

conditions, especially if the road is unsurfaced (Weaver and Hagans, 1984). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-57 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

Sound planning, design, and construction measures often reduce road maintenance needs 

after construction. Roads constructed with a minimum width in stable terrain, and with 

frequent grade reversals or dips, need minimum maintenance. Unfortunately, older roads 

remain one of the greatest sources of sediment from managed forestlands. After harvesting is complete, roads are often forgotten, and erosion problems might go unnoticed until 

after severe resource damage has occurred. 

Routine maintenance of road dips and road surfaces and quick response to drainage 

problems can significantly reduce road deterioration and prevent the creation of ruts that 

could channelize runoff (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 1988; Oregon Department of Forestry 1981). Roads and drainage structures on all roads, including decommissioned roads for as long as water quality effects might result from them, should be 

inspected annually, at a minimum, prior to the beginning of the rainy season (Weaver and 

Hagans, 1984). Also inspect and perform emergency maintenance during and following 

peak storms. 

In some locations, problems associated with altered surface drainage and diversion of 

water from natural channels results in serious gully erosion or landslides. In western 

Oregon, 41 out of the 104 landslides reported on private and state forestlands during the 

winter of 1989-90 were associated with older (built before 1984) forest roads. These 

landslides were related to both road drainage and original construction problems. Smaller 

erosion features, such as gullies and deep ruts, are far more common than landslides and 

very often are related to poor road drainage. 

Sedimentation from roads can be reduced significantly if drainage structures are maintained to function properly. Culverts and ditches that are kept free of debris are less likely 

to restrict water flow and fish passage. Routinely cleaning these structures can minimize 

clogging and prevent flooding, gullying, and washout (Kochenderfer, 1970). Fish passage 

was discussed in the last management measure as an issue of proper sizing and installation of culverts and other stream crossings, and it is equally important to inspect culverts, 

fords, and bridges on a regular basis to ensure that debris and sediment do not accumulate 

and prevent fish migration. Undercutting of culvert entrances or exits can create vertical 

barriers to fish passage, and debris buildup at the entrances of culverts or at trash racks 

can prevent fish migration. If roads are no longer in use or won’t be needed in the foreseeable future, removing drainage crossings and culverts where there is a risk of plugging 

or failure from lack of maintenance is a precautionary measure. Where a road will be 

used in the future, it is usually more economical to periodically maintain crossing and 

drainage structures than not to do so and to have to make extensive repairs after failure. 

Road Reconstruction 

Road reconstruction provides the opportunity to upgrade and improve substandard and 

old roads that are no longer used. After an on-site inspection of the entire route and 

consideration of the economic and environmental costs of the reconstruction, a decision 

about reopening a road can be made. Reconstruction might be economically feasible for a 

particular road but could entail unacceptable environmental costs. Roads where stream 

crossings have been washed out or short, steep sections of road have been entirely lost to 

progressive erosion or landsliding are examples of roads where the environmental costs 

of reconstruction might be too high (Weaver, 1994). In such cases, it might be possible to 

3-58 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

lessen the environmental damage incurred in reconstruction by rerouting the road around 

problem areas with a section of new road. Factor overall project costs into the economic 

and environmental costs of any rerouting to determine its feasibility, and do all road 

reconstruction in a manner consistent with the Management Measure for Road Construction. 

Washed-out stream crossings are the most common obstacle to effective road reconstruction. Initial improper sizing of drainage structures or their not being installed or maintained properly results in erosion at stream crossings. When reconstructing stream 

crossings, it is important to follow the same design and installation procedures as are 

used for new crossings. 

Road Decommissioning 

Proper closure, decommissioning, and obliteration are essential to preventing erosion and 

sedimentation on roads and skid trails that are no longer needed or that have been abandoned (Swift and Burns, 1999). Road closure involves preventing access by placing gates 

or other obstructions (such as mounds or earth) at road access points while maintaining 

the road for future use. Roads that will no longer be used or that have remained unused 

for many years may be decommissioned and obliterated. Decommissioning typically 

involves stabilizing fills, removing stream crossings and culverts, recontouring slopes, 

reestablishing original drainage patterns, and revegetating disturbed areas (Harr and 

Nichols, 1993; Kochenderfer, 1970; Rothwell, 1978). Revegetating disturbed areas 

protects the soil from rainfall and binds the soil, thereby reducing erosion and sedimentation and the potential for mass wasting in the future. Because closed roads and trails are 

rarely inspected, it is important to leave them in as stable a condition as possible to 

prevent erosion that could become a large problem before any damage is noticed 

(Rothwell, 1978). 

Road decommissioning can significantly reduce water quality effects from unused roads, 

and road closure and decommissioning can help realize many objectives and purposes 

(Harr and Nichols, 1993; Moll, 1996): 

•	 Eliminate or discourage access to roads to reduce maintenance expenditures. 

•	 Eliminate the potential for drainage structure failure and stream diversion. 

•	 Reduce soil loss, embankment washout, mass wasting, failures, slides, slumps,


sedimentation, turbidity, and damage to fish habitat.


•	 Provide cover and organic matter to soil, and improve the quality of wildlife and fish 

habitat. 

•	 Enhance the visual qualities of road corridors and disturbed areas. 

•	 Attempt to restore the natural pre-road hydrology to the site. 

Benefits of Road Management 

Proper road maintenance has definite economic benefits. In one comparison of road 

maintenance costs over time, maintenance costs on a road where BMPs were not installed 

initially were 44 percent higher than costs on a road where BMPs were installed initially 

(Dissmeyer and Frandsen, 1988) (Table 3-20). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-59 
3-60 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3D: Road Management

In another economic study, the costs of various revegetation treatments and associated

technical services (e.g., planning and reviewing the project in the field) were compared to

the benefits over time of the initial planning and BMP installation (Dissmeyer and Foster,

1987) (Table 3-21). Savings resulted from avoiding problem soils, wet areas, and unstable

slopes, and the analysis demonstrated that including soil and water resource management

(i.e., revegetating and technical services) in road planning and construction is more

economical over the long term.

As part of the Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project, Rygh (1990) examined the

costs of ripping and scarification using different techniques and specifically compared the

relative advantages of using track hoes for ripping and scarification versus using large

tractor-mounted rippers. Track hoes were found to be preferable to tractor-mounted

rippers for a variety of reasons, including the following:

Table 3-20. Comparison of Road Repair Costs for a 20-Year Period With and Without BMPsa (Dissmeyer and Frandsen, 1988)

Table 3-21. Analysis of Costs and Benefits of Watershed Treatments Associated with Roads (SE United States) (Dissmeyer and

Foster, 1987)
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

•	 A reduction in furrows and resulting concentrated runoff caused by tractors 

•	 Improved control over the extent of scarification 

•	 Increased versatility and maneuverability of track hoes 

•	 Cost savings 

The study concluded that the cost of ripping with track hoes ranged from $406 to $506 

per mile compared to $686 per mile for ripping with D7 or D8 tractors (1998 dollars) 

(Table 3-22). 

Road decommissioning, however, can be expensive. The estimated cost for small roads 

with gentle terrain and few stream crossings is approximately $22,500; for larger roads 

with greater slope and larger and more stream crossings, the cost can equal or exceed 

$282,000 (1998 dollars) (Glasgow, 1993). 

Table 3-22.	 Comparative Costs of Reclamation of Roads and Removal of Stream Crossing Structures 

(ID) (Rygh, 1990) 

Best Management Practices 

Road Maintenance Practices 

 Blade and reshape the road to conserve existing surface material; to retain the 

original, crowned, self-draining cross section; and to prevent or remove berms 

(except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard 

normal surface runoff. 

Ruts and potholes can weaken road subgrade materials by channeling runoff and allowing 

standing water to persist. Erosion from forest roads is a process associated with their 

location, construction, and use, and erosion begins with the development of ruts and the 

erosion of fine material from the road surface (Johnson and Bronsdon, 1995). Severe 

rutting on a road can cause drivers to seek routes around the ruts and lead to traffic’s 

moving closer to riparian areas and stream channels, essentially widening a road and 

magnifying the problem (Phillips, 1997). Natural berms can develop on regularly used 

roads at undesirable locations and can trap runoff on the road instead of allowing it to 

drain off at design locations. Natural berms can also develop from improper road grading 

or gradual entrenchment of the road below the surrounding terrain (Swift and Burns, 

1999). If serious road degradation due to rutting or other causes has occurred, the road can 

be regraded, and periodic regrading of roads is usually necessary to fill in wheel ruts and 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-61 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

reshape roads. Regrading a road removes ruts, but it exposes more fine sediment that 

continues to erode for some months after grading until a protective, coarser layer on the 

road surface is developed. Serious rutting can indicate the need for a more durable surface. 

 Maintain road surfaces by mowing, patching, or resurfacing as necessary. 

Annual roadbed mowing and periodic trimming of encroaching vegetation is usually 

sufficient for grassed roadbeds carrying fewer than 20 to 30 vehicle trips per month. 

 Clear road inlet and outlet ditches, catch basins, culverts, and road-crossing structures of obstructions as necessary. 

Avoid undercutting back slopes when cleaning silt and debris from roadside ditches. 

Minimize machine cleaning of ditches during wet weather. Do not disturb vegetation 

when removing debris or slide blockage from ditches. The outlet edges of broad-based 

dips need to be cleaned of trapped sediment to eliminate mud holes and prevent the 

bypass of storm water. The frequency of cleaning depends on traffic load. 

Clear stream-crossing structures and their inlets of debris, slides, rocks, and other materials before and after any heavy runoff period. Surveys by Copstead and Johansen (1998) 

of the roads in the Detroit Ranger District after storm damage showed that plugged 

culverts accounted for a greater percentage of damage to the roads than any other cause 

(Figure 3-30). Culverts were plugged by stream bedload and woody debris. Many times a 

small branch caught in the culvert inlet caused stream bedload to accumulate, eventually 

burying the inlet. Undersized culverts accounted for 81 percent of the plugged culverts. 

Although regular cleaning of road ditches and culvert inlets and outlets is important, 

there are circumstances under which leaving accumulated debris in ditches is sometimes 

called for to help prevent erosion. Some debris might 

Figure 3-30. Road-related storm damage by type in the Detroit 

Ranger District (Copstead and Johansen, 1998). 

be left in ditches simply to interrupt the free flow of 

runoff down the ditch, thus reducing the velocity of 

the runoff and erosion as well. 

During road construction, the cut slope is often 

undercut to provide the design flow capacity in 

roadside ditches or to provide room for culvert 

inlets, and undercut slopes are usually unstable. 

Especially above culvert inlets, soil erosion on the 

cut slope can lead to high maintenance costs. If, 

based on experience gained after the road is constructed, the flow in the ditch is less than it was 

designed for, leaving the accumulated debris in the 

ditch can help stabilize the cut slope above it. If 

debris has to be cleared out of a portion of ditch that 

repeatedly fills with sediment to provide sufficient 

volume for runoff flow, an option is to build a 

permanent or temporary passage under the accumulated debris and leave the debris to help stabilize the 

slope above the ditch. A temporary underpass can be 

3-62 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

constructed of two logs placed parallel with a gap between them and a third log on top. A 

permanent underpass can be constructed much like a culvert (Firth, 1992). 

 Remove any debris that enters surface waters from a winter road or skid trail located 

over surface waters before a thaw. 

 Return the spring following a harvest and build erosion barriers on any skid trails 

that are steep enough to erode. 

 Abate dust problems during dry summer periods. 

Excessive road dust during the summer is a condition that can threaten water quality. 

Dust can deliver large quantities of fine sediment to nearby stream channels. This fine 

material can be especially damaging to fish and fish habitat. Seasonal summer roads need 

almost the same amount of maintenance as permanent roads. 

Dust control methods such as applying dust oil and watering during dry summer conditions are almost always necessary during an intensive dry season to prevent excessive loss 

of surface materials. 

Wet and Winter Road Practices 

 Before winter, inspect and prepare all permanent, seasonal, and temporary roads for 

the winter months. 

Winterizing consists of maintenance and erosion control work needed to drain the road 

surface (Weaver, 1994). Clean trash barriers, culvert inlet basins, and pipe inlets of 

floatable debris and sediment accumulations. Clean ditches that are partially or entirely 

plugged with soil and debris, and trim and remove heavy concentrations of vegetation 

that impede flow. Gate and close seasonal and temporary roads to nonessential traffic. 

Surface runoff problems caused by winter use of a bermed, unsurfaced road can cause 

rutting. The ruts collect runoff and cause additional erosion of the road. Lack of 

waterbars or rolling dips, together with the graded berm along the outside edge of the 

road, keep surface runoff on the roadbed. Annual grading can produce an outside berm of 

soil and rock that can be graded back onto the road surface. 

Winter is a popular time to harvest wetlands or areas that are not accessible during wet 

periods, and road structures that will have to be maintained during the winter can be 

marked prior to snowfall. Snow accumulation could otherwise hide the BMPs. 

 On woodland roads “daylight” or remove trees to a width that permits full sunlight 

to reach the ground. 

The objective of road “daylighting” is to have sunlight dry the road so that it is less 

susceptible to erosion and damage from vehicle traffic. Daylighting also promotes the 

establishment of protective vegetative cover on road fillslopes and cutslopes and vegetation for wildlife. Vegetation clearing to promote daylighting needs to be managed so that 

slope integrity is not compromised. Daylighting should also be coordinated with wildlife 

specialists so that openings that might be detrimental to certain wildlife species, such as 

neotropical migratory birds, are not created. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-63 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

Stream Crossing and Drainage Structure Practices 

 When temporary stream crossings are no longer needed, and as soon as possible 

upon completion of operations, remove culverts and log crossings to maintain 

adequate streamflow. Restore channels to pre-project size and shape by removing all 

fill materials used in the temporary crossing. 

Failure or plugging of abandoned temporary crossing structures can result in greatly 

increased sedimentation and turbidity in the stream, as well as channel blowout. 

 Replace open-top culverts with cross drains (water bars, dips, or ditches) to control 

and divert runoff from road surfaces. 

Open-top culverts are for temporary drainage of ongoing operations. It is important to 

replace them with more permanent drainage structures to ensure adequate drainage and 

reduce erosion potential prior to establishment of vegetation on the roadbed. It is recommended that open-top culverts be used for ongoing operations only and that they be 

removed upon completion of activities (Wiest, 1998). 

 During and after logging activities, ensure that all culverts and ditches are open and 

functional. 

Culvert plugging is common in woodland streams (Flanagan and Furniss, 1997). The risk 

of culvert plugging is greatest where small culverts have been installed on wide streams. 

Channel width controls the size of debris that can be transported in a stream, and culverts 

with a diameter that is less than the width of the stream are prone to block and accumulate woody debris. Another configuration that leads to debris trapping is increasing 

channel width toward a culvert inlet. Woody debris, transported in a lengthwise position 

down a stream, can rotate to a position perpendicular to the channel where the channel 

widens and block the culvert inlet. Hand, shovel, and chainsaw work can remedy almost 

all culvert maintenance needs (Weaver and Hagans, 1984). Heavy machinery and equipment is usually unnecessary to keep culverts clean. 

Where culvert and ditch plugging is a problem, assess the cause of the problem and 

develop a strategy to correct it (see Roads Analysis in the Management Measure for 

Preharvest Planning, subsection 3A). Corrective measures might include installation of a 

new culvert, trimming dead wood from overhanging vegetation, or performing regularly 

scheduled maintenance. 

Road Decommissioning, Obliteration, and Closure Practices 

 Decommission or obliterate roads that are no longer needed (see Road Decommissioning in this section). 

When a road is not needed for harvesting, forest management activities, or recreation, it 

can be decommissioned. Effective decommissioning reduces actual and potential erosion 

from the road and saves maintenance costs. Typically, a road is decommissioned by 

removing temporary stream crossings, installing water bars to minimize erosive surface 

runoff flows, and planting stream crossings and the road surface with vegetation to retail 

soil. If decommissioning is properly done, an area previously occupied by a forest road 

blends into the surrounding landscape naturally, erodes no more than an undisturbed site, 

3-64 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

and provides wildlife habitat. Decommissioned roads are generally left in a state such 

that they can be opened and used again in the future should the need arise. 

More than 120 miles of roads have been decommissioned in the Targhee National Forest 

in Idaho (USDA-FS, 1997). Roads in riparian areas were particularly targeted for decommissioning. Decommissioning the roads involved seeding with grasses and adding water 

bars to prevent erosion. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, existing road surfaces are ripped to a 

depth of 12 to 18 inches, the surface is seeded, and pine needle mulch is spread on top to 

prevent erosion and encourage good establishment of vegetation. The road prism and 

drainage features are left in place to prevent erosion and soil runoff while the vegetation 

establishes itself. Roads decommissioned by the U.S. Forest Service in Region 8 are 

similarly seeded to create linear wildlife open areas that provide forage and edge vegetation. The U.S. Forest Service in Region 4, where the Targhee National Forest is located, 

found that public acceptance of the road decommissioning was enhanced by adding turnarounds and parking areas at the closure gates. 

Road obliteration goes further than road decommissioning by returning a forest road to 

its natural drainage characteristics and topography to the extent possible. It is a suitable 

goal for roads that will not be used in the future. Road obliteration aims to eliminate 

alterations in drainage patterns created by a road system and the potential for drainage 

structure failure and stream diversion, and to reestablish drainage connectivity that might 

have been interrupted by the presence of the road (Moll, 1996). 

Stabilizing areas disturbed by road construction and use is another major goal of road 

obliteration. Disturbed slopes, road cuts and fills, and areas to which drainage will be 

directed after the obliteration is terminated are areas that need to be stabilized. In some 

cases, artificial means to stabilize slopes might be necessary until vegetation has become 

established. 

Road obliteration can lead to improvements in fisheries habitat where sediment runoff 

from old forest roads enters streams. The practice was used in a watershed in northwest 

Washington as part of watershed rehabilitation to improve fisheries habitats and water 

quality and to reduce flood hazards. On unused, 30- to 40-year-old, largely impassable 

roads and landings, fills were stabilized, stream crossings were removed, slopes were 

recontoured, and drainage patterns were reestablished at an average cost of $3,950 per 

kilometer (with a range of $1,500 to $7,500 per kilometer) (1998 dollars). Costs were 

lowest where little earthmoving was involved, more where a lot of brush had to be 

cleared away and sidecast material had to be pulled upslope, and highest where fills were 

removed at stream crossings and landings. Afterward, however, the obliterated roads and 

landings sustained much less damage from storms than unused roads that were not 

obliterated (Harr and Nichols, 1993). 

Road obliteration in the Redwood National Park demonstrated that the following measures are effective for restoring hydrology and habitat (Belous, 1984, cited in NCASI, 

2000): stream crossing removal, road outsloping, straw mulch placement, tree planting on 

road alignments and stream crossings, and waterbars. Soil decompaction and terrain 

recontouring wee found to be important first steps in successful road obliteration. Topsoil 

replacement significantly aided vegetation establishment. 

 Wherever possible, completely close roads to travel and restrict access by unauthorized persons by using gates or other barriers (Figure 3-31). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-65 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

Closing a road that is not 

needed in the immediate 

future for harvesting or other 

forestry purposes can 

minimize use that could 

create erosive conditions and 

the need for continual 

maintenance. Closed roads 

should be decommissioned 

or maintained regularly. 

Access to roads at entry 

points can be restricted using 

rocks, logs, slash piles, or 

other on-site materials; 

planted trees; fences, gates; 

guardrails; or concrete 

barriers. Complete obliteration of a road access point 

can be accomplished by 

recontouring and removing 

Figure 3-31.	 Install visible traffic barriers where appropriate to prevent off-road vehicle and all drainage structures, other undesired disturbance to recently stabilized roads (Indiana DNR, 1998). bridges, and other road 

features. Traffic entry should 

be regulated where restricting access with such barriers is not feasible. 

 Convert closed forest access roads into recreation trails. 

An unused forest access road can be converted to recreational use for off-road vehicles, 

horseback riding, mountain biking, and hiking. All of these activities, however, create the 

potential for road or trail damage, and regular maintenance of stream crossings, 

waterbars, and other drainage structures is necessary to ensure that sediment runoff from 

the road does not threaten water quality. 

The frequency and type of maintenance 

depends on the type and intensity of 

recreational use allowed on the road. 

Trails need the same kinds of runoff 

control measures as roads, and regular 

trail maintenance is as important as 

regular road maintenance (Figure 3-32). 

 Install or regrade water bars on 

roads that will be closed to vehicle 

traffic and that lack an adequate 

system of broad-based dips (Figure 3-33). 

Water bars help to minimize the volume 

of water flowing over exposed areas and 

remove water to areas where it will not 

Figure 3-32. Construct trails using the same drainage structures as closed cause erosion. Water bar spacing 

forest roads (Indiana DNR, 1998). 

3-66 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

depends on soil type and slope. Table 3-23 presents the 

Oregon Department of Forestry’s suggested guidelines 

for water bar spacing. In other states with different 

climates, topographies, and soil types, recommended 

spacing might differ from these guidelines; contact the 

state forestry department for assistance. Divert water 

flow off the water bar onto rocks, slash, vegetation, 

duff, or other less erodible material and avoid diverting 

it directly to streams or bare areas. Outslope closed 

road surfaces to disperse runoff and prevent closed 

roads from routing water to streams. 

 Revegetate disturbed surfaces to provide erosion 

control and stabilize the road surface and banks. 

Refer to the Management Measure for Revegetation of 

Disturbed Areas for a more detailed discussion of this 

practice. 

 Periodically inspect closed roads to ensure that 

vegetational stabilization measures are operating 

as planned and that drainage structures are 

operational. Conduct reseeding and drainage 

structure maintenance as needed. Figure 3-33. Broad-based dips reduce the potential for 

erosion (Indiana DNR, 1998). 

Table 3-23. Example of Recommended Water Bar Spacing by Soil Type and Slope (Oregon Department of Forestry, 1979a) 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-67 
Chapter 3D: Road Management 

3-68 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3E: TIMBER HARVESTING ARVESTING


Timber Harvesting Management Measure 

The timber harvesting management measure consists of implementing the following: 

(1) Follow layouts for timber harvesting operations determined under the Preharvest Planning Management 

Measure, subject to adjustments made based on preharvest on-site inspections. 

(2) Install landing drainage structures to avoid sedimentation to the extent practicable. Disperse landing 

drainage over sideslopes. 

(3) Construct landings away from steep slopes and reduce the likelihood of fill slope failures. Protect landing 

surfaces used during wet periods. Locate landings outside streamside management areas. 

(4) Protect stream channels and significant ephemeral drainages from logging debris and slash material. 

(5) Use appropriate areas for petroleum storage, draining, and dispensing, and vehicle maintenance. Establish procedures to contain and treat spills that could occur during these activities. Recycle or properly 

dispose of all waste materials. 

For cable yarding: 

(1) Limit yarding corridor gouge or soil plowing by properly locating cable yarding landings. 

(2) Locate corridors for streamside management areas according to the guidelines of the Management 

Measure for Streamside Management Areas. 

For groundskidding: 

(1) To the extent practicable, do not operate groundskidding equipment within streamside management 

areas except at stream crossings. In streamside management areas, fell and endline trees in a manner 

that avoids sedimentation. 

(2) Use improved stream crossings for skid trails that cross flowing drainages. Construct skid trails to

disperse runoff and with adequate drainage structures.

(3) On steep slopes, use cable systems rather than groundskidding where groundskidding could cause

excessive sedimentation.

Management Measure Description 

The goal of this management measure is to minimize the likelihood of water quality 

effects resulting from timber harvesting. This goal can be accomplished by taking precautions to control erosion and sedimentation during harvesting operations and by storing, 

handling, and disposing of petroleum products and vehicle maintenance products in an 

environmentally safe manner. 

Reducing effects on soils and water quality from harvesting begins in the preharvest 

planning stage, when a system of roads, landings, and skid trails is planned. Preharvest 

planning, as described in the Preharvest Planning Management Measure, is performed to 

minimize the amount of disturbed area, which makes it easier to rehabilitate the site after 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-69 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

the operation is complete; locate roads on stable soils to minimize erosion and at a safe 

distance from streams; build stream crossings at the locations where they cause the least 

amount of instream disturbance and hydrological change; and limit disturbance to 

sensitive areas. Thoroughly review the Preharvest Planning Management Measure before 

incorporating the practices in this management measure into a harvesting plan. The 

practices in that management measure can serve as a guide for reducing soil disturbance 

and water quality effects during harvesting. Having a harvesting plan reviewed by a 

professional forester before starting any aspect of harvesting or road building is strongly 

recommended. The forester might be able to offer ideas specific to the planned harvest on 

how environmental damage and operational costs can be reduced. 

Do an additional review of the harvesting plan in conjunction with a site visit to verify 

that the information used during planning is still valid. Aerial photos and topographic and 

soil maps can inaccurately represent actual conditions, especially if these media are more 

than a few years old. Before construction begins, verify that the soils and slopes where 

landings and skid trails are to be located are suitable to the use and that equipment 

maintenance or chemical handling areas are appropriately located. As the harvest 

progresses, make any alterations to the harvesting plan necessary to protect soils and 

water quality. 

Conducting a harvest with attention paid to the potential for soil disturbance from the 

operation can result in significantly less water quality impairment than conducting a 

harvest with little or no attention paid to the potential for environmental damage. For 

instance, skid trails that are parallel to the slope of the land have far more potential to 

yield sediment-laden runoff than skid roads that run along the contour. Similarly, practices that minimize soil compaction on and prevent or disperse runoff from landings and 

loading decks can be implemented to reduce the potential for sediment-laden runoff and 

to minimize sediment delivery to surface waters. Incorporating these and other erosion 

reduction practices into a harvesting plan, conducting an on-site inspection during the 

planning stage before harvesting or road construction begins to ensure that the practices 

chosen are appropriate to the site, and properly implementing and maintaining the practices can significantly decrease water quality effects. 

Spill prevention and containment procedures are necessary to prevent petroleum products 

from entering surface waters. Chemicals and petroleum products spilled in harvest areas 

can be transported great distances if they enter areas of concentrated runoff, and therefore 

can adversely affect water quality far from where they are spilled. Designating appropriate areas for the storage and handling of petroleum products and protecting these areas 

from precipitation can minimize the water quality effects that could result from spills or 

leakage. 

Many studies have evaluated and compared the effects of different timber harvest techniques on soil loss (erosion), soil compaction, and overall ground disturbance associated 

with various harvesting techniques. The data presented in Tables 3-24 through 3-28 were 

compiled from many studies conducted throughout the United States and Canada. Some 

of the data presented in the table should be considered as older data that were based on 

operations conducted prior to current understanding and concern for water quality 

protection. The studies examined different harvesting systems (e.g., clear-cuts, selective 

harvesting) using a variety of techniques (e.g., cable yarding, skidding). Local factors 

such as climate, soil type, and topography affected the results of each study. The major 

3-70 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-71

Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting

conclusions of these studies regarding the relative effects of different timber harvesting

techniques on soil erosion, summarized below, are shared among the studies and enable

cross-geographic comparison:

• Aerial and skyline cable techniques are far less damaging than other yarding techniques.

• Tractor, jammer, and high-lead cable methods result in significantly more soil

disturbance and compaction than skyline and aerial techniques.

• Skyline yarding serves far more area per mile of road than skidding.

Although skidding can be damaging, areas disturbed by skidding operations can be

rehabilitated without a net economic loss to the landowner. An analysis of the costs and

benefits of rehabilitating skid trails in the southeastern United States by planting different

species of trees indicated that the benefit/cost ratios of using shortleaf pine, hardwood

pine, and hardwoods were 5.1:1, 2.8:1, and 1.3:1, respectively. Shortleaf pine yielded the

highest benefit for costs incurred (Dissmeyer and Foster, 1986).

Table 3-24. Soil Disturbance from Roads for Alternative Methods of Timber Harvesting (Megahan, 1980)
3-72 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting

Benefits of Timber Harvesting Practices

After a 1994 study of BMP implementation and effectiveness, the Virginia Department of

Forestry concluded that harvesters often failed to seed bare soil with adequate ground

cover. The department determined that ground cover of 70 percent or more is effective,

while many sites studied had ground cover on only 0 to 35 percent of bare soil. The

Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (1998) also studied the effectiveness of erosion

control BMPs and concluded that the construction and proper placement of such BMPs

before harvesting is essential for protecting water quality. The Agency also found that

regularly maintaining BMPs increased the longevity of their effectiveness.

In general, poor BMP effectiveness can be due to many factors, including

• A lack of time or willingness to plan timber harvests carefully before cutting begins.

• A lack of skill in or knowledge of designing effective BMPs.

Table 3-25. Soil Disturbance from Logging by Alternative Harvesting Methods (Megahan, 1980)
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

Table 3-26. Relative Effects of Four Yarding Methods on Soil Disturbance and Compaction in Pacific Northwest Clear-cuts (OR, 

WA, ID) (Sidle, 1980) 

Table 3-27. Percent of Land Area Affected by Logging Operations (Southwest MS) (after Miller and Sirois, 1986) 

Table 3-28. Skidding/Yarding Method Comparison (after Patric, 1980) 

•	 A lack of equipment needed to implement effective BMPs. 

•	 The belief that BMPs are not an integral part of the timber harvesting process and 

can be engineered and fitted to a logging site after timber harvesting has been 

completed. 

•	 A lack of timely BMP maintenance. 

Best Management Practices 

Harvesting Practices 

 Based on information obtained from site visits, make any alterations to the harvesting 

plan that are necessary or prudent to protect soils from erosion and surface waters 

from sedimentation or other forms of pollution. 

 Fell trees away from watercourses whenever possible, keeping logging debris from 

the channel, except where debris placement is specifically prescribed for fish or 

wildlife habitat. 

 Immediately remove any tree accidentally felled in a waterway. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-73 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

 Remove unwanted slash from water bodies and place it above the normal high water 

line or flood level to prevent downstream transport. 

As discussed in Chapter 2 and in Chapter 3, section B, Streamside Management Areas, 

streams have natural amounts of organic debris (e.g., fallen leaves, twigs, limbs, and 

trees), and the amount varies with season, tree falls, storms, and so forth. Aquatic organisms are adapted to the presence of and variability in the quantity of organic debris in 

streams. Large woody debris, or LWD, affects channel morphology, provides structure 

and complexity to aquatic and terrestrial organism habitats, and is a source of nutrients 

for aquatic organisms. When the quantity of LWD and organic debris in general that 

reaches a stream is changed, either to too much or too little, it can be detrimental to the 

aquatic system’s ecology and ability to support life. Removing excessive slash from a 

stream helps maintain water flow and avoids the addition of excessive nutrients. In 

instances where the addition of organic debris—especially LWD—to a stream is desirable, an appropriate amount may be left in stream channels or on stream banks. Slash left 

in streams adds nutrients, regulates stream temperature, and traps fine sediments where 

these effects are desirable (Jackson, 2000). Consult with a fisheries biologist or the state 

forestry or ecology department for specific guidance for your area. 

Leave pieces of large woody debris in place during stream cleaning to preserve channel 

integrity and maintain stream productivity. Indiscriminate removal of large woody debris 

can adversely affect channel stability. Figure 3-34 presents one way to determine debris 

stability. State forestry or ecology departments can help with such determinations for 

particular regions and stream types. 

Where desirable, leave slash on the harvest site and distribute it to provide good 

ground cover and minimize erosion after the timber harvest. 

Leaving slash on disturbed soils can help reduce erosion until new vegetative growth is 

established. The quantity of slash to leave depends on the erodibility of the soil, though 

leaving an amount that provides 40 to 60 percent ground cover for soils that have low to 

high erodibility, respectively, is recommended. Leaving slash on the ground significantly 

reduces erosion potential. It also keeps the nutrients contained in the slash material on the 

site for incorporation into the soil and new vegetative growth. 

Practices for Landings 

 Make landings no larger than necessary to safely and efficiently store logs and load 

trucks. 

 Install drainage and erosion control structures as necessary. 

A slight slope on landings facilitates drainage. Also, adequate drainage on approach roads 

prevents road drainage water from entering the landing area. 

 Do not exceed a 5 percent slope on landing surfaces and shape them to promote 

efficient drainage. 

 Do not exceed 40 percent slope on landing fills and do not incorporate woody or 

organic debris into fills. 

 If landings are to be used during wet periods, protect the surfaces with a suitable 

material such as a wooden mat or gravel. 

3-74 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

 Install drainage structures–such as water bars, 

culverts, and ditches–on 

landings to avoid sedimentation. Disperse 

landing drainage over 

side slopes. Provide 

filtration or settling if 

water is concentrated in a 

ditch. 

 Upon completion of a 

harvest, clean up, regrade, and revegetate 

landings. 

•	 Upon abandonment, 

minimize erosion on 

landings by adequately 

ditching or mulching 

with forest litter. 

•	 Establish a herbaceous 

cover on areas that will 

be used again in repeated cutting cycles, 

and restock landings 

that will not be reused. 

•	 If necessary, install Figure 3-34. General large woody debris stability guide based on Salmon Creek, Washingwater bars for drainage ton (after Bilby, 1984). 

control. 

•	 Landings should be


ripped to break up compacted soil layers and allow water infiltration. This will also


aid in the establishment of new vegetation.


•	 Runoff on and from landings should be dispersed with waterbars or dips. 

 Locate landings for cable yarding where slope profiles provide favorable deflection 

conditions so that yarding equipment does not cause yarding corridor gouge or soil 

plowing, which can concentrate drainage or cause slope instability. 

 Locate cable yarding corridors for streamside management areas according to the 

Streamside Management Areas management measure. Avoid disturbing major channel banks in SMAs with yarded logs. 

Ground Skidding Practices 

 Skid uphill to log landings whenever possible. Skid with ends of logs raised to reduce 

rutting and gouging. 

This practice disperses water on skid trails away from the landing. Skidding uphill lets 

water from trails flow onto progressively less-disturbed areas as it moves downslope, 

reducing erosion hazard. Skidding downhill concentrates surface runoff on lower slopes 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-75 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

along skid trails, resulting in significant erosion and sedimentation hazard. If skidding 

downhill, provide adequate drainage on approach trails so that drainage does not enter the 

landing. 

 Skid along the contour (perpendicular to the slope), and avoid skidding on slopes 

greater than 40 percent. 

Following the contour reduces soil erosion and encourages revegetation. If skidding has 

to be done parallel to the slope, skid uphill, taking care to break the grade periodically. 

Avoid skid trail layouts that concentrate runoff into draws, ephemeral drainages, or 

watercourses and avoid skidding up or down ephemeral drainages. Use endlining to 

winch logs out of SMAs or directionally fell trees so tops extend out of SMAs and trees 

can be skidded without operating equipment in SMAs. In SMAs, endline trees carefully 

to avoid soil plowing or gouge. 

Suspend ground skidding during wet periods, when excessive rutting and churning of the 

soil begins, or when runoff from skid trails is turbid and no longer infiltrates within a 

short distance from the skid trail. Further limitation of ground skidding of logs, or use of 

cable yarding, might be needed on slopes where there are sensitive soils and/or during 

wet periods. 

Retire skid trails by installing water bars or other erosion control and drainage devices, 

removing culverts, and revegetating. 

•	 After logging, obliterate and stabilize all skid trails by mulching and reseeding. 

•	 Build cross drains on abandoned skid trails to protect stream channels or side slopes 

in addition to mulching and seeding. 

•	 Restore stream channels by removing temporary skid trail crossings. 

•	 Distribute logging slash throughout skid trails to supplement water bars and seeding 

to reduce erosion on skid trails. 

Cable Yarding Practices 

 Use cabling systems or other systems when ground skidding would expose excess 

mineral soil and induce erosion and sedimentation. 

•	 Use high-lead cable or skyline cable systems on slopes greater than 40 percent. 

•	 To avoid soil disturbance from sidewash, use high-lead cable yarding on averageprofile slopes of less than 15 percent. 

 Avoid cable yarding in or across watercourses. 

When cable yarding across streams cannot be avoided, use full suspension to minimize 

damage to channel banks and vegetation in the SMA. Cut or clear cableways across 

SMAs where SMAs must be crossed. This will reduce the damage to trees remaining and 

prevent trees next to the stream channel from being uprooted. 

 Yard logs uphill rather than downhill. 

When yarding uphill, log decks are placed on ridges or hilltops rather than in low-lying 

areas. This approach results in less soil disturbance for two reasons: (1) lifting the logs 

3-76 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

reduces their weight on the ground and thus the amount of friction and ground scouring, 

and (2) yard trails radiate outward from the elevated position of the log deck, dispersing 

runoff in numerous directions from the deck. 

Downhill yarding does the opposite. The full weight of the logs is transferred to the 

ground, and runoff from all of the yard trails is directed downslope to the log deck, 

concentrating the erosive effect of rain. If yarding uphill is not possible, soil disturbance 

can be minimized during downhill yarding by suspending logs from a pulley system so 

that the logs are lifted partially or completely off the ground. 

The amount of soil disturbance caused by yarding depends on the slope of the area, the 

volume yarded, the size of the logs, and the logging system. Megahan (1980) ranked 

yarding techniques (from greatest effect to lowest effect) based on percent area disturbed 

as follows: tractor (21 percent average), ground cable (21 percent, one study), high-lead 

(16 percent average), skyline (8 percent average), jammer in clear-cut (5 percent, one 

study), and aerial techniques (4 percent average). Aerial and skyline cable techniques are 

far less damaging than other yarding techniques. 

The amount of road needed for 

different yarding techniques varies 

considerably (Sidle, 1980). Skyline 

techniques use the least amount of 

road area, with only 2 to 3.5 

percent of the land area in roads. 

Tractor and single-drum jammer 

techniques use the greatest amount 

of road area (10 to 15 percent and 

18 to 24 percent of total area, 

respectively). High-lead cable 

techniques fall in the middle, with 

6 to 10 percent of the land used for 

roads. Compared to the skyline and 

aerial techniques, tractor, jammer, 

and high-lead cable methods result 

in significantly higher amounts of 

disturbed soil (Megahan, 1980). 

Figure 3-35 shows a typical cable Figure 3-35. Typical cable yarding operation (OSHA, 1999). 

yarding operation (OSHA, 1999).

Other Yarding Methods 

 Horse logging 

Horse logging can be a viable alternative to mechanized logging for small harvests or for 

sensitive environmental areas of a larger harvest. Horses give a lot of control for logging 

in partial cuts because logs are cut to log length, not left at tree length, and this improves 

maneuverability around trees that are left in place. This maneuverability combined with 

the narrower path needed by horses compared to a skidder means that fewer trees have to 

be removed solely for access. Soil is compacted and disturbed less with horse logging 

than with a skidder because a horse weighs about 1,600 pounds compared to a rubbertired skidder that weighs about 10,000 pounds. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-77 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

 Helicopter yarding 

Helicopter yarding is a practical and environmentally friendly alternative yarding approach for use on public and private timberlands where other yarding systems would be 

physically, economically, or environmentally infeasible. According to the Helicopter 

Logging Association (1998), the benefits of helicopter timber harvesting include: 

•	 Minimum damage is caused to the following: 

–	 The soil layer. Very little vehicular traffic is associated with the method. 

–	 Water resources. There is a negligible increase in stream turbidity compared to 

conventional yarding methods. 

–	 Riparian areas. 

–	 Wildlife habitat. 

•	 Damage to retained trees is reduced. Fewer trees are felled per acre and ground-


based skidders are absent.


•	 Road density is lower. A combined helicopter and tractor logging approach can 

reduce road density by approximately half compared to conventional tractor methods. Environmental damage is thus reduced, and forest access points are fewer. 

 Shovel harvesting. 

Shovel harvesting is more widely used in the coastal areas of the Pacific Northwest and 

the wetland areas of the Southeast than in other parts of the United States (Aust, Virginia 

Tech, personal communication, 2000). The process of shovel harvesting involves a shovel 

logger moving in lines parallel to a road, picking up logs that have been felled by a 

logger and lifting debris out of gullies as it moves forward. The shoveler starts at the 

nearest access point and moves logs until they are within reach of a road, where they can 

be retrieved (Figure 3-36) (Humboldt 

Figure 3-36. Common pattern of shovel logging operations (Humboldt State 

University, 1999) 

State University, 1999). 

Shovel logging is considered an environmentally friendly means to harvest 

timber. Operations require fewer people 

and fewer access roads, produce no skid 

trails, reduce ground disturbance in 

environmentally sensitive areas such as 

wetlands, and disturb SMAs less than 

any conventional logging method. Table 

3-29 compares the costs of various 

yarding methods. 

 Balloon harvesting. 

Balloon harvesting involves using hot 

air or helium balloons to remove logs 

from a harvest site for loading on trucks 

(Figure 3-37). Because the logs are 

lifted off the ground and taken to a log 

landing, they are not dragged up or 

down a slope and disturbance to the 

3-78 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

Table 3-29. Costs Associated with Various Methods of Yarding 

ground is reduced. In 

areas where road construction is expensive, 

balloon harvesting can 

save money and protect 

the environment because 

of the smaller number of 

roads and skid trails 

needed. The environmental benefits realized from 

balloon harvesting are 

similar to those associated 

with helicopter yarding. 

Additionally, balloon 

harvesting permits access 

to wet sites such as 

wetlands and steep slopes 

where ground skidding 

would not be feasible Figure 3-37. Balloon harvesting practices on a steep slope (OSHA, 1999). 

because of the potential 

for environmental damage or the cost of road construction (Aust, Virginia Tech, personal 

communication, 2000).

Winter Harvesting 

Winter harvesting is a component of several state timber removal programs. In winter 

frozen ground provides conditions that do not exist during other times of the year for 

timber harvest activities and an opportunity for low-impact logging (Logan and Clinch, 

1991). Areas where winter road construction and harvesting are particularly advantageous 

include wetlands (see Chapter 3, section J, Management Measure for Wetlands Forest 

Management of this document for a discussion of BMPs specifically for wetland harvesting), sensitive riparian areas, and sites where erosion and soil compaction would be 

expected to be a serious problem during nonfrozen conditions. 

BMP guidelines for warmer months apply during winter harvesting as well. Additional 

practices that can be implemented to ensure the protection of water quality include the 

following (Logan and Clinch, 1991; North Dakota Forestry Service, 1999): 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-79 
Chapter 3E: Timber Harvesting 

 Consult with operators experienced in winter logging techniques. 

 Compact skid trail snow before skidding logs. 

Compacting the snow prevents damage to soils that are still wet or not completely frozen. 

 Avoid steeper areas where frozen skid trails may be subject to erosion the following 

spring. 

 Before felling in wet, unfrozen soil areas, use tractors or skidders to compact the 

snow on skid trails. Avoid steep areas where frozen skid trails might be subject to 

erosion the following spring. 

Petroleum Management Practices 

 Service equipment where spilled fuel or oil will not reach watercourses, and drain all 

petroleum products and radiator water into containers. 

 Dispose of wastes and containers in accordance with proper waste disposal procedures. 

Do not leave waste oil, filters, grease cartridges, and other petroleum-contaminated 

materials as refuse in the forest. 

 Take precautions to prevent leakage and spills. 

Ensure that fuel trucks and pickup-mounted fuel tanks do not have leaks. Use and maintain seepage pits or other confinement measures to prevent diesel oil, fuel oil, or other 

liquids from running into streams or important aquifers, and use drip collectors on oiltransporting vehicles. 

 Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spill containment and 

cleanup, and notification of proper authorities. 

Have materials for absorbing spills easily accessible, and collect wastes for proper 

disposal. 

3-80 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3F: SITE PREPARATION AND

FOREST REGENERATION

Management Measure for Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

Confine on-site potential NPS pollution and erosion resulting from site preparation and the regeneration of 

forest stands. The components of the management measure for site preparation and regeneration are: 

(1) Select a method of site preparation and regeneration suitable for the site conditions. 

(2) Conduct mechanical tree planting and ground-disturbing site preparation activities on the contour of

sloping terrain.

(3) Do not conduct mechanical site preparation and mechanical tree planting in streamside management

areas.

(4) Protect surface waters from logging debris and slash material. 

(5) Suspend operations during wet periods if equipment used begins to cause excessive soil disturbance

that will increase erosion.

(6) Locate windrows at a safe distance from drainages and SMAs to control movement of the material during 

high-runoff conditions. 

(7) Conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during dry periods of the year. Conduct bedding 

in sloping areas on the contour. 

(8) Protect small ephemeral drainages when conducting mechanical tree planting. 

Management Measure Description 

Regeneration of harvested forestlands is important not only in terms of restocking a 

valuable resource, but also in terms of minimizing erosion and runoff from disturbed soils 

that could degrade water quality. Vegetative cover on disturbed soils reduces raindrop 

impact and slows storm runoff, and the roots of vegetation stabilize soils by holding them 

in place and aiding their aggregation. Both of these factors decrease erosion. 

Harvesters and landowners can follow certain practices to protect the soil and aid tree 

regeneration. For instance, leaving the forest floor litter layer intact during site preparation operations minimizes soil disturbance and detachment, maintains infiltration, and 

slows runoff. These factors in turn reduce erosion and sedimentation after site preparation 

is completed. It is especially important to leave the forest floor litter layer intact in areas 

that have steep slopes, or erodible soils, or where the prepared site is located near a water 

body, all of which increase the risk of erosion, landslides, and degraded water quality. 

Site preparation methods such as herbicide application and prescribed burning cause less 

disturbance to the soil surface than mechanical practices and can be considered where 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-81 
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

mechanical site preparation could pose a threat to water quality. Drum chopping, a form 

of mechanical site preparation, normally results in less soil exposure than other mechanical methods. The intensity of a prescribed burn in part determines whether use of the 

method will pose a threat to water quality. 

Natural regeneration, hand planting, and direct seeding are other methods that can be 

used to minimize soil disturbance, especially on steep slopes with erodible soils. Mechanical planting with machines that scrape or plow the soil surface can produce erosion 

rills, increasing surface runoff and erosion and decreasing site productivity. 

Data in Figures 3-38 to 3-42 compare sediment loss or erosion rates for numerous site 

preparation methods. Many of the data are site-specific, so site characteristics and 

experimental conditions are mentioned (when available) in the text below and regional 

locations are noted on the figures. 

Ballard (2000) reviewed the effects of forest management on forest soils. Mechanical site 

preparation, he noted, both has benefits and causes problems. Nutrient depletion is one 

adverse effect. A study in northern British Columbia concluded that 500 kg N/ha were 

removed on a large area that had been bladed, raked, and piled for burning. Conducting 

research on intensively-managed loblolly pine plantations in the Piedmont region of 

North Carolina, Piatek and Allen (2000) found the following nutrient removal rates from 

sites that received different methods of site preparation: Shear-pile-disk, 591 kg N/ha and 

34 kg P/ha; stem-only harvest, 57 kg N/ha and 5 kg P/ha; chop and burn, 46 kg N/ha and 

0 kg P/ha. Piatek and Allen (2000) also found that the nutrients removed during site 

preparation had no observable effect on foliage production when measured 15 years after 

planting on the site. 

Beasley (1979) studied the relative soil disturbance effects of site preparation following 

clear-cutting on three small watersheds in the hilly northern coastal plain of Mississippi 

and Arkansas (Figure 3-38). Slopes in the three watersheds were mostly 30 percent or 

more. One site was single drumFigure 3-38.	 Deposited, suspended, and total sediment losses in experimental 

watersheds during water years 1976 and 1977 for various site 

preparation techniques (Mississippi, Arkansas) (after Beasley, 1979). 

chopped and burned; another was 

sheared and windrowed (windrows 

were burned); and a third was 

sheared, windrowed, and bedded to 

contour. The control watershed was 

instrumented and left uncut. Soil 

exposure was 37 percent on the 

chopped site, 53 percent on the 

sheared and windrowed site, and 69 

percent on the bedded site. A 

temporary cover crop of clover was 

sown after site preparation to 

protect the soil from rainfall impact 

and erosion. Increases in soil 

erosion and sediment production 

were similar for all three treatments 

in the first year after site preparation. Decreases in these processes 

were noted during the second year 

on all sites. During the second year, 

3-82 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-83

Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration

the clover and other vegetation

covered 85 to 95 percent of the

surface of each site and effectively

decreased sediment production.

Golden and others (1984) summarized studies on erosion rates from

site preparation (Figure 3-39). The

rates reflect soil movement measured at the bottom of a slope, not

the quantity of sediment actually

reaching streams. Therefore, the

numbers estimate the worst-case

erosion if a stream is located

directly at the toe of a slope with no

intervening vegetation. Rates are

averages for 3- to 4-year recovery

periods.

Dissmeyer (1980) showed that

discing produced more than twice

the erosion rate of any other

method (Figure 3-40). Bulldozing,

shearing, and sometimes grazing were associated with relatively high rates of erosion,

and chopping or chopping and burning produced moderate erosion rates. Logging also

produced moderate erosion rates in this study when the effect of skid and spur roads was

included. The lowest rate of erosion was associated with burning.

Beasley and Granillo (1985) compared storm flow and sediment losses

from mechanically and chemically

prepared sites in southwest Arkansas

over a 4-year period. Mechanical

preparation (clear-cutting followed

by shearing, windrowing, and

replanting with pine seedlings)

increased sediment losses in the first

2 years after treatment. A subsequent

decline in sediment losses in the

mechanically prepared watersheds

was attributed to rapid growth of

ground cover. Windrowing brush into

ephemeral drainages and leaving it

unburned effectively minimized soil

losses by trapping sediment on the

site and reducing channel scouring.

Chemical site preparation (using

herbicides) had no significant effect

on sediment losses.

Figure 3-39. Predicted erosion rates using various site preparation techniques for

physiographic regions in the southeastern United States (after Golden

et al., 1984). Numbers in parentheses indicate number of predictions

for the region.

Figure 3-40. Erosion rates for site preparation practices in selected land resource

areas in the Southeast (after Dissmeyer, 1980). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of sites in the region.
3-84 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration

Blackburn and others (1982)

studied water quality changes

associated with two site preparation

methods in Texas. Figure 3-41

shows that shearing and windrowing (which exposed 59 percent of

the soil) produced 400 times more

sediment loading than chopping

(which exposed 16 percent of the

soil) during site preparation in this

study. The authors also found that

total nitrogen losses from sheared

and windrowed watersheds were

nearly 20 times greater than those

from undisturbed watersheds and

three times greater than those from

chopped watersheds (Figure 3-42).

Mechanical Site

Preparation in Wetlands

Under certain circumstances, a

permit is needed for mechanical

forestry site preparation activities

when used for the establishment of

pine plantations in the Southeast.

EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers recently issued a memorandum to clarify the applicability

of forested wetlands BMPs to these

circumstances. Refer to the Wetlands Forest Management Measure

for a discussion of permitting

requirements in forested wetlands.

Benefits of Site Preparation Practices

Three studies summarized here compare the costs and benefits of different site preparation methods. Dissmeyer and Foster (1987) estimated the long-term costs and benefits of

light and heavy site preparation in the Southeast. They concluded that light site preparation would yield more wood production and a higher internal rate of return on investment

(Table 3-30). Heavy site preparation methods involve a greater initial investment than

light site preparation methods but did not yield more wood per unit area.

Figure 3-41. Sediment loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1,

to August 31, 1981 (TX) (after Blackburn et al., 1982).

Figure 3-42. Nutrient loss (kg/ha) in stormflow by site treatment from January 1 to

August 31, 1981 (TX) (after Blackburn et al., 1982).
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-85

Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration

Dissmeyer (1986) analyzed the economic benefits of controlling erosion during site

preparation. Site preparation methods that increased soil exposure, displacement, and

compaction increased site preparation costs and erosion from the site prepared (Table

3-31) and decreased timber production. Using light site preparation techniques such as a

single chop and burn reduced erosion, increased timber production on the site, and cost

less per unit area treated than more intensive site preparation methods. Heavy site preparation techniques such as shearing and windrowing removed nutrients, compacted soil,

increased erosion and site preparation costs, and resulted in a lower present net value of

timber.

The U.S. Forest Service (1987) examined the costs of three alternatives to slash treatment: (1) broadcast burn and protection of streamside management zones, (2) yarding of

unmerchantable material (YUM) of 15 inches in diameter or more, and (3) YUM of

Table 3-30. Analysis of Two Management Schedules Comparing Cost and Site Productivity in the Southeast (Dissmeyer and

Foster, 1987)

Table 3-31. Site Preparation Comparison (VA, SC, NC) (Dissmeyer, 1986)
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

8 inches in diameter or more (Table 3-32). The two YUM alternatives cost approximately 

$625-$1,180/acre, in comparison to broadcast burning at $1,300/acre (1998 dollars). In 

addition, the YUM alternatives protected highly erodible soils from direct rainfall and 

runoff effects, reduced fire hazards, resulted in meeting air and water quality standards, 

and allowed for the rapid establishment of seedlings on clear-cut areas. 

Table 3-32. Comparison of Costs for Yarding Unmerchantable Material (YUM) vs. Broadcast Burning (OR) (USDA-FS, 1987) 

Best Management Practices 

Site Preparation Practices 

 Do not conduct mechanical site preparation, except for drum chopping, on slopes 

greater than 30 percent. 

On sloping terrain greater than 10 percent, or on highly erosive soils, operate mechanical 

site preparation equipment on the contour. 

 Do not conduct mechanical site preparation in SMAs. 

 Do not place slash in perennial or intermittent drainages, and remove any slash that 

accidentally enters drainages. 

Slash can clog the channel and cause alterations in drainage configuration and increases 

in sedimentation. Extra organic material can lower the dissolved oxygen content of the 

stream. Slash also allows silt to accumulate in the drainage and to be carried into the 

stream during storm events. 

 Provide SMAs of sufficient width to protect streams from sedimentation by the 10-

year storm. 

 Locate windrows a safe distance from drainages to avoid material movement into the 

drainages during high-runoff conditions. 

Locating windrows above the 50-year floodplain usually prevents windrowed material 

from entering floodwaters. 

 Avoid mechanical site preparation operations during periods of saturated soil 

conditions, which might cause rutting and accelerate soil erosion. 

 Minimize soil movement when shearing, piling, or raking. 

3-86 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

 Minimize incorporation of soil material into windrows and piles during their construction. 

This can be accomplished by using a rake or, if using a blade is unavoidable, keeping the 

blade above the soil surface and removing only the slash. This helps retain nutrient-rich 

topsoil, which promotes rapid site recovery and tree growth and increases the effectiveness of the windrow in minimizing sedimentation. 

Forest Regeneration Practices 

 Distribute seedlings evenly across the site. 

 Order seedlings well in advance of planting time to ensure their availability. 

 Hand plant highly erodible sites, steep slopes, and lands adjacent to stream channels 

(SMAs). 

 Operate planting machines along the contour to avoid ditch formation. 

•	 Ensure that soil conditions (slope, moisture conditions, etc.) are suitable for machine operation. 

•	 Close slits or drilling furrows periodically to avoid channeling flow. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-87 
Chapter 3F: Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration 

3-88 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3G: FIRE MANAGEMENT
 GEMENT

Management Measure for Fire Management 

Prescribe fire for hazardous fuel reduction and control or suppression of wildfire in a manner that reduces 

potential nonpoint source pollution of surface waters: 

(1) Prescribed fire should not cause excessive sedimentation due to the combined effect of partial or full

removal of canopy and removal of ground fuels, litter layer and duff.

(2) Prescriptions for wildland fire use should protect against excessive erosion or sedimentation to the extent 

practicable. 

(3) All bladed firelines, for prescribed fire and wildfire, should be stabilized with water bars and/or other

appropriate techniques if needed to control excessive sedimentation or erosion of the fireline.

(4) Wildfire suppression and rehabilitation should consider possible NPS pollution of watercourses, while 

recognizing the safety and operational priorities of fighting wildfires. 

Management Measure Description 

The goal of this management measure is to minimize nonpoint source pollution and 

erosion resulting from prescribed fire used for site preparation, fuel hazard reduction, and 

activities associated with wildfire control or suppression. Studies have shown that prescribed burning, if carefully planned and done using appropriate BMPs, has no significant effect on water quality (South Carolina Forestry Commission, 2000). 

Prescribed burning reduces hazardous fuels. Where tree species are ecologically dependent on fire for regeneration or maintenance of healthy stands, fire is an essential forest 

management tool. Particularly in the interior west and much of the south, ecosystems 

developed in the presence of frequently-occurring, low-intensity ground fires. Returning 

these stands to a structure that more closely resembles that which occurred under these 

frequent fire regimes requires the use of prescribed fire. Because fire suppression has 

contributed to increased levels of fuels, wildland fires occurring in these areas burn quite 

hot and consume a lot of material (live and dead). 

The severity of burning and the proportion of the watershed burned are the major factors 

that affect the influence of prescribed burning on streamflow and water quality. Fires that 

burn severely on steep slopes close to streams and that remove most of the forest floor 

and litter down to the mineral soil are most likely to adversely affect water quality. The 

amount of erosion following a fire depends on 

• The amount of ground cover remaining on the soil 

• The steepness of the slope 

• The time, amount, and intensity of subsequent rainfall 

• The severity of fire 

• The erodibility of the soil and soil type 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-89 
Chapter 3G: Fire Management 

•	 How rapidly a site revegetates 

•	 The type of vegetation 

Periodic, low-intensity prescribed fires usually have little effect on water quality, and 

revegetation of burned areas reduces sediment yield from prescribed burning and wildfires. 

Cost of Prescribed Burning 

Costs associated with prescribed fire depend on the size of the fire crew, the amount of 

heavy equipment needed at the site to control the burn, the areal extent and intensity of 

the burn, and the topography of the area being burned. Table 3-33 provides a range of 

costs associated with prescribed burning (Hansit, personal communication, 2000; 

Holburg, personal communication, 2000). 

Table 3-33. Range of Prescribed Fire Costs

Best Management Practices 

Prescribed Fire Practices 

 Plan burning to take into account weather, time of year, and fuel conditions so that 

these help achieve the desired results and minimize effects on water quality. 

Evaluate ground conditions to control the pattern and timing of the burn. 

 Execute the prescribed burn with an agency-qualified crew and burn boss. 

 Do not conduct intense prescribed fire for site preparation in the SMA. 

 Do not pile and burn for slash removal purposes in the SMA. 

 Avoid construction of fire lines in the SMA. 

 Avoid conditions that require extensive blading of fire lines by heavy equipment when 

planning burns. 

 Use handlines, firebreaks, and hose lays to minimize blading of fire lines. 

 Avoid burning on steep slopes in high-erosion-hazard areas or areas that have highly 

erodible soils. 

Prescribed Fire in Wetlands 

 Whenever possible, conduct burns in wetlands in a manner that does not completely 

remove the organic layer of the forest floor. 

Prescribed burns conducted in wetlands have the potential to be the most severe due to 

the increased fuels available. Conduct the fire to minimize the potential to increase 

surface runoff and soil erosion. 

3-90 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3G: Fire Management 

 When conducting prescribed fire to regenerate fire-dependent species, such as aspen, 

minimize consumption of the organic layer and openings in the vegetation to that 

which is necessary to obtain adequate regeneration. 

 Do not construct firelines that could drain wetlands. 

 Avoid intense burning. 

Intense burning can accelerate erosion by consuming more organic cover than desired. 

Wildfire Practices 

Wildfire can change erosion rates on the burned area in two ways. First, fire eliminates 

vegetative soil cover. Second, chemical changes in the soil following fire may create an 

increased resistance to water infiltration in the upper soil layer, and this can increase 

surface runoff and sheet erosion (Elliot et al., 1998). The magnitude of these effects 

depends on how hot a fire burns, slope, vegetation type, and soil resistance to erosion. 

Erosion following fire is greatest where a fire has burned most severely and the fire is 

followed by a strong storm, a year of moderately high rainfall, or a spring with a large 

volume of snowmelt. 

 Whenever possible leave a 300-foot buffer on both sides of a waterway when using 

aerially applied fire retardants. If necessary to apply retardant within the 300-foot 

zone, used the application method that will most accurately keep the retardant from 

entering the stream. 

The U.S. Forest Service will stop purchasing fire retardant chemicals that contain sodium 

ferrocyanide. A recent study revealed that mixtures with the chemical can decompose to 

produce amounts of cyanide that exceed EPA water quality guidelines for freshwater 

organisms. 

 Do not clean application equipment in watercourses or locations that drain into 

watercourses. 

 Close water wells and temporary water catchments excavated for wildfire-suppression activities as soon as practical following fire control. 

 During wildfire emergencies, firelines, road construction, and stream crossings are 

unrestricted by BMPs when necessary for health and safety of firefighters and the 

public and protection of resources from greater damage due to wildfire. However, use 

BMPs whenever possible and begin remediation as soon as possible after the emergency is controlled. 

Fireline Practices 

Fireline construction is an integral part of both wildfire suppression and preparation for 

prescribed burning. Because of the possibility of water quality degradation following 

fireline construction, however, precautions are necessary to ensure that water quality is not 

impaired when firelines are constructed (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, 1993). Fireline construction involves removing all organic material to expose 

mineral soil, and this can result in excessive erosion and water quality degradation. In 

wetland systems, firelines can function as drainage corridors, resulting in excessive drainage and converting a wetland to a non-wetland system. Implementation of one or more of 

the following practices can minimize water quality effects from fireline construction. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-91 
Chapter 3G: Fire Management 

 Use natural or in-place barriers (e.g., roads, streams, and lakes) to minimize the 

need for fireline construction in situations where artificial construction of firelines 

could result in excessive erosion and sedimentation. 

 Avoid placing firelines through sensitive areas such as wetlands, marshes, prairies, 

and savannas unless absolutely necessary. 

 When crossing water bodies with plowing equipment, raise the plow to prevent 

connecting the fireline directly to the water body. Water bodies can be used as 

firelines to avoid unnecessarily disturbing riparian zones. 

 Construct firelines with the minimum disturbance possible that still allows for safe 

and effective firefighting, for instance handline rather than cat line when possible. 

 Construct firelines in a manner that minimizes erosion and sedimentation and 

prevents runoff from directly entering watercourses. 

 Avoid constructing firelines in SMAs. When necessary to construct line in SMAs, use 

appropriate strategies following direction in Land Management Plans for protection 

of resources 

 Minimize construction of fireline straight up and down hill. Balance location of 

fireline with potential for larger fire consuming greater amounts of material. 

The following minimum impact suppression techniques (MIST) for firelines are recommended to minimize water quality impacts (http://www.nps.gov/crmo/firemp/ 

crmofmp_aj.htm). 

•	 Minimize fireline construction by taking advantage of natural barriers, rock out-


crops, trails, roads, streams, and other existing fuel breaks.


•	 Construct firelines to be as narrow as necessary to halt the spread of the fire and


place then to avoid impacts to water resources.


•	 Leave unburned material within the final line. 

•	 Minimize clearing and scraping. 

•	 Flag the route to the fire from the nearest trail or road to minimize off-road travel 

and soil disturbance. 

Fireline Rehabilitation 

 Where possible, use alternatives to plowed lines such as harrowing, foam lines, wet 

lines, or permanent grass. 

 Get cover on the site as soon as possible after the fire is out to maintain erosion 

control measures on firelines. 

 Revegetate firelines with native species. 

 Install grades, ditches, and water bars as soon as it is safe to begin rehabilitation work. 

 Install water bars on any fireline running up and down the slope, and direct runoff 

onto a filter strip or sideslope, not into a drainage. 

3-92 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3H: REVEGETATION OF DISTURBED AREAS


Management Measure for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

Reduce erosion and sedimentation by rapid revegetation of areas disturbed by harvesting operations or road 

construction: 

(1) Revegetate disturbed areas (using seeding or planting) promptly after completion of the earth-disturbing 

activity. Local growing conditions will dictate the timing for establishment of vegetative cover. 

(2) Use mixes of species and treatments developed and tailored for successful vegetation establishment for 

the region or area. 

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

Management Measure Description 

Revegetating disturbed areas restabilizes the soil in these areas, reduces erosion, and 

helps to prevent sediment and pollutants associated with sediment (such as phosphorus 

and nitrogen) from entering into nearby surface waters. Vegetation controls soil erosion 

by dissipating the impact force of raindrops, reducing the velocity of surface runoff, 

trapping dry sediment and preventing it from moving farther downslope, stabilizing the 

soil with roots, and contributing organic matter to the soil, which increases soil infiltration rates. 

Nutrient and soil losses to streams and lakes are reduced by revegetating harvested, 

burned, or other disturbed areas. In some cases, planting early to establish erosion 

protection quickly and then again later to provide more permanent protection is necessary 

and advisable to prevent excessive erosion. 

Good ground cover is key to reducing erosion. Good ground cover is defined as living 

plants within 5 feet of the ground and litter or duff with a depth of 2 inches or more 

(Kuehn and Cobourn, 1989). 

Benefits and Costs of Revegetation Practices 

The effectiveness of revegetation for controlling erosion, particularly on steep slopes and 

road fills, depends on protecting the slope until vegetative growth can take hold and grow 

enough to serve as a soil stabilizer. Straw mulch and netting are common ways to protect 

a newly seeded and fertilized slope. Adding straw mulch can reduce erosion by oneeighth to one-half. Adding netting with mulch can reduce erosion by nearly 100 percent 

to negligible levels (Figure 3-43) (Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966). 

Megahan (1987) estimated that the cost of seeding with plastic netting placed over the 

seeded area (approximately $8,200 per acre) is almost 50 times more than the cost of dry 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-93 
3-94 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas

seeding alone (approximately $180 per

acre). Other cost estimates related to

practices for forest regeneration are

presented in Tables 3-34 to 3-36.

Dubensky (1991) estimated the economic effect of regeneration practices on

the overall cost of a harvesting operation

(Table 3-34). Lickwar (1989) compared

revegetation costs for disturbed areas of

various slope gradients in the Southeast

(Table 3-35). Minnesota’s Stewardship

Incentives Program estimated the costs

of reestablishing permanent vegetation

with native and introduced grasses

(Table 3-36).

Figure 3-43. Comparison of the effectiveness of seed, fertilizer, mulch, and

netting in controlling cumulative erosion from treated plots on a

steep road fill in Idaho (after Bethlahmy and Kidd, 1966).

Table 3-34. Economic Effect of Implementation of Proposed Management Measures on Road

Construction and Maintenance (Dubensky, 1991)a

Table 3-35. Cost Estimates (and Cost as a Percent of Gross Revenues) for Seed, Fertilizer, and Mulch (1987 Dollars) (Lickwar,

1989)
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

Table 3-36. Estimated Costs for Revegetation (1991 Costs) (Minnesota DNR, 1991) 

Best Management Practices 

 Use mixtures of seeds adapted to the site, and avoid the use of invasive species. 

Choose annuals to allow natural revegetation of native understory plants, and select 

species that have adequate soil-binding properties. 

The selection of appropriate grasses and legumes is important for vegetation establishment. Grasses vary as to climatic adaptability, soil chemistry, and plant growth characteristics. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service technical guides at the statewide 

level are excellent sources of information about seeding mixtures and planting prescriptions. The U.S. Forest Service, state foresters, and county extension agents can also 

provide helpful suggestions. 

Using native species is both important and practical, and plenty of hardy native species 

are usually available. Nonnative species can outcompete and eliminate native vegetation, 

and the use of nonnative species often results in increased maintenance activities and 

expense. 

Seeding rates (e.g., pounds per 1,000 square feet) are generally recommended for individual seed varieties and seed mixtures. Following such recommendations usually 

provides adequate cover and soil protection, whereas overseeding can create seedling 

overcrowding and subsequent failure. 

 On steep slopes, use native woody plants planted in rows, cordons, or wattles. 

These species may be established more effectively than grass and are preferable for 

binding soils. 

 Seed as soon as practicable after soil disturbance, preferably before rain, to increase 

the chance of successful vegetation establishment. 

Timing depends on the species to be planted and the schedule of operations, which 

determines when protection is needed. 

 Mulch as needed to hold seed, retard rainfall impact, and preserve soil moisture. 

Critical, first-year mulch applications provide the necessary ground cover to curb erosion 

and aid plant establishment. Various materials, including straw, bark, and wood chips, can 

be used to temporarily stabilize fill slopes and other disturbed areas and to improve 

conditions for germination immediately after construction. In most cases, mulching is 

done together with seeding and planting to establish stable banks. Both the type and the 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-95 
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

amount of mulch applied vary considerably 

between regions and depend on the extent of 

the erosion potential and the available materials (Hynson et al., 1982). Figure 3-44 summarizes the effectiveness of various types of 

mulch (including Portland cement) for reducing erosion. 

 Fertilize according to site-specific 

conditions. 

Fertilization is often necessary for successful 

grass establishment because road construction 

commonly results in the removal or burial of 

fertile topsoil. To determine fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare available nitrogen, 

phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in the soils 

to be treated with the requirements of the 

species to be sown. It might be necessary to 

refertilize periodically after vegetation establishment to maintain growth and erosion 

Figure 3-44. Soil losses from a 35-foot-long slope (after Hynson et al., control capabilities. Fertilizer and other

1972). chemical management techniques are covered 

in depth in section 3I of the document. 

 Use biosolids as an alternative to commercial fertilizers. 

Biosolids is the name given to the solid material remaining after raw sewage has been 

treated. Biosolids can be used for forest regeneration efforts as a viable alternative to 

using commercial fertilizers. Biosolids are rich in nitrogen, as well as other nutrients 

essential for plant growth, including phosphorus, zinc, boron, manganese, and chromium 

(King County, Washington, 1999). The nutrients in biosolids are mostly in an organic 

form, so the biosolids act like a slow-release fertilizer, releasing only 15-20 percent of 

their nutrients during the first year after an application (Meyers, 1998). They also have a 

high content of organic matter, which increases soil infiltration rates and helps improve 

the ability of the soil to retain water, making it available for trees during dry periods. 

Biosolids can increase the growth rate of trees growing on relatively infertile soils to 

match that of trees growing on fertile soils. 

Biosolids that are applied to the forest are delivered to the forest as a semisolid product 

with a content of approximately 20 percent solids and 80 percent water. The biosolids can 

be dispersed using a device that propels them aerially over an area, or they can be applied 

using a high-pressure hose. From a single point, they can be spread to a 250-foot radius 

or more across young tree growth and to a 60-foot radius in thinned timber stands. 

The application rate (in ton/acre) of biosolids can be determined based on the nitrogen 

content of the biosolids. Specific amounts of nitrogen can be specified for each area to be 

treated based on soil testing and the nutrient requirements of the species involved. In the 

Northwest, application rates vary from 3 dry ton/acre of biosolids for timber to 7 dry ton/ 

acre for young plantations, which corresponds to 150 to 350 pounds of plant-available 

nitrogen per acre (King County, Washington, 1999). 

3-96 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

Streams and other water bodies are protected during biosolids applications by 33-foot 

buffer areas that are not fertilized. States regulate the use and application of biosolids, 

and obtaining a permit is usually necessary before biosolids may be used. 

The potential for long-term effects from metals and pathogens in biosolids has been 

raised as a concern, but biosolids that meet EPA and state standards pose very little 

environmental threat (USEPA, 1994). 

 Protect seeded areas from grazing and vehicle damage until plants are well established. 

 Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessary repairs and reseed within 

the planting season. 

 During non-growing seasons, apply interim surface stabilization methods to control 

surface erosion. 

Possible methods include mulching (without seeding) and installation of commercially 

produced matting and blankets. Alternative methods for planting and seeding include 

hand operations, the use of a wide variety of mechanical seeders, and hydroseeding. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-97 
Chapter 3H: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas 

3-98 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3I: FOREST CHEMICAL HEMICAL MANAGEMENT
 GEMENT

Forest Chemical Management 

Use chemicals when necessary for forest management in accordance with the following to reduce nonpoint 

source pollution effects due to the movement of forest chemicals off-site during and after application: 

(1) Conduct applications by skilled and, where required, licensed applicators according to the registered 

use, with special consideration given to effects to nearby surface waters. 

(2) Carefully prescribe the type and amount of pesticides appropriate for the insect, fungus, or herbaceous 

species. 

(3) Prior to applications of pesticides and fertilizers, inspect the mixing and loading process and the calibration of equipment, and identify the appropriate weather conditions, the spray area, and buffer areas for 

surface waters. 

(4) Establish and identify buffer areas for surface waters. (This is especially important for aerial applications.) 

(5) Immediately report accidental spills of pesticides or fertilizers into surface waters to the appropriate

state agency. Develop an effective spill contingency plan to contain spills.

Management Measure Description 

Chemicals used in forest management are generally pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, 

and fungicides) and fertilizers. Since pesticides can be toxic, they have to be mixed, 

transported, loaded, and applied correctly and their containers disposed of properly to 

prevent potential nonpoint source pollution. Since fertilizers can also be toxic or can shift 

the ecosystem’s energy dynamics, depending on the exposure and concentration, it is 

important that they be handled and applied properly. 

Pesticides and fertilizers are occasionally used in forestry to reduce mortality of and favor 

desired tree species and improve forest production. Many forest stands or sites never 

receive chemical treatment, and for those that do receive treatment, typically no more 

than two or three applications are made during an entire tree rotation (40 to 120 years). 

Even though few applications are made, forestry chemicals can enter surface waters and 

precautions can be taken to prevent water contamination. 

A number of studies conducted before 1990 demonstrate the importance of following 

current state and federal guidelines for forest chemical applications for protecting surface 

waters and groundwater. Norris and others (1991) compiled information from multiple 

studies that evaluated the peak concentrations of herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers 

in soils, lakes, and streams (see Table 3-37). These studies were conducted from 1967 to 

1987. Norris (1968) found that application of 2,4-D to marshy areas led to higher-thannormal levels of stream contamination. When ephemeral streams were treated, residue 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-99 
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

levels of hexazinone and picloram greatly increased with storm-generated flow. 

Glyphosate was aerially applied (3.3 kg/hectare) to an 8-hectare forest ecosystem in the 

Oregon Coast Range. The study area contained two ponds and a small perennial stream. 

All were unbuffered and received direct application of the herbicide. Glyphosate residues 

were detected for 55 days after application with peak stream concentrations of 0.27 mg/L. 

It was demonstrated that the concentration of insecticides in streams was significantly 

greater when the chemicals were applied without a buffer strip to protect the watercourse. 

When streams were unbuffered, the peak concentrations of malathion ranged from 0.037 

to 0.042 mg/L. When buffers were provided, however, the concentrations of malathion 

Table 3-37. Peak Concentrations of Forest Chemicals in Soils, Lakes, and Streams After Application (Norris et al., 1991) 

3-100 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-101

Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management

were reduced to levels that ranged from undetectable to 0.017 mg/L. The peak concentrations of carbaryl ranged from 0.000 to 0.0008 mg/L when watercourses were protected

with a buffer, but they increased to 0.016 mg/L when watercourses were unbuffered.

Moore (1971), as cited in Norris et al. (1991), compared nitrogen loss from a watershed

treated with 224 kg urea-N per hectare to nitrogen loss from an untreated watershed. The

study demonstrated that the loss of nitrogen from the fertilized watershed was 28.02

kg/hectare whereas the loss of nitrogen from the unfertilized watershed was only 2.15

kg/hectare (Table 3-38).

Table 3-37. (continued)
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

Table 3-38. Nitrogen Losses from Two Subwatersheds in the Umpqua Experimental Watershed (OR) (Norris et al., 1991) 

Riekerk and others (1989) found that the greatest risk to water quality from pesticide 

application in forestry operations occurred from aerial application because of drift, washoff, and erosion processes. They found that aerial applications of herbicides resulted in 

surface runoff concentrations roughly 3.5 times greater than those for application on the 

ground. 

The Riekerk and others (1989) study results also suggested that tree injection application 

methods would be considered the least hazardous for water pollution, but would also be 

the most labor-intensive. Hand application of herbicides usually poses little or no threat 

to water quality in areas where there is no potential for herbicides to wash into watercourses through gullies. Providing buffer areas around streams and water bodies can 

effectively eliminate adverse water quality effects from forestry chemicals. 

Megahan (1980) summarized data on changes in water quality following the fertilization 

of various forest stands with urea. The major observations from this research are summarized below: 

•	 Increases in the concentration of urea-N ranged from very low to a maximum of


44 ppm, with the highest concentrations attributed to direct application to water


surfaces.


•	 Higher concentrations occurred in areas where buffer strips were not left beside


stream banks.


•	 Chemical concentrations of urea and its by-products tended to be relatively shortlived due to transport downstream, assimilation by aquatic organisms, or adsorption 

by stream sediments. 

Based on his review, Megahan concluded that the effects of fertilizer application in 

forested areas could be significantly reduced by avoiding application techniques that 

could result in direct deposition into the water body and by maintaining a buffer area 

along the stream bank. Other researchers have presented information supporting 

Megahan’s conclusions (Hetherington, 1985; Malueg et al., 1972). 

Cost of Forest Chemical Applications 

The cost of chemical management depends on the method of application (Table 3-39). 

Generally, chemicals are applied by hand, from an airplane or helicopter (aerial spray), or 

mechanically. When forest chemicals are applied mechanically, it is most common to use 

a boom sprayer. 

3-102 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

Table 3-39. Average Costs for Chemical Management (Hansit, 2000; Holburg, 2000) 

Best Management Practices 

 For aerial spray applications, mark and maintain a buffer area of appropriate width 

around all watercourses and water bodies to avoid drift or accidental application of 

chemicals directly to surface waters (Figure 3-45). 

Buffer width is determined by taking into considerations the altitude of application, 

weather conditions, and drop size distribution (Ice and Teske, 2000). Careful and precise 

marking of application areas for aerial applications helps avoid accidental contamination 

of open waters. 

Models are available to help the forest manager calculate pesticide application details. 

The Spray Drift Task Force, in collaboration with EPA and USDA, co-developed 

AgDRIFT, a new model, to provide estimates of spray drift deposition under different 

pesticide application and meteorological conditions (see www.agdrift.com). The Forest 

Service Cramer-Barry-Grim (FSCBG) spray dispersion model analyzes data on aircraft, 

Figure 3-45. Establish buffer zones of appropriate width during aerial applications of forest chemicals 

to protect water quality, people, and animals (Washington State DNR, 1997). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-103 
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

meteorology, pesticides, and target areas to predict deposition and drift (see 

www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology). A personal computer version of the model is 

available that combines and implements mathematical models to assist forest managers in 

planning and implementing aerial spray operations. 

 Apply pesticides and fertilizers during favorable atmospheric conditions. 

Do not apply pesticides when wind conditions increase the likelihood of significant drift. 

It is also best to avoid pesticide application when temperatures are high or relative 

humidity is low because these conditions influence the rate of evaporation and enhance 

losses of volatile pesticides. 

 Ensure that pesticide users abide by the current pesticide label, which might specify 

whether users be trained and certified in the proper use of the pesticide; allowable 

use rates; safe handling, storage, and disposal requirements; and whether the 

pesticide may be used only under the provisions of an approved State Pesticide 

Management Plan. 

Consistency between management measures and practices for pesticides and those in the 

approved State Pesticide Management Plan helps ensure consistency in the method and 

means of use. 

 Locate mixing and loading areas, and clean all mixing and loading equipment 

thoroughly after each use, where pesticide residues will not enter streams or other 

water bodies. 

 Dispose of pesticide wastes and containers according to state and federal laws. 

 Take precautions to prevent leaks and spills. 

 Develop a spill contingency plan that provides for immediate spill containment and 

cleanup, and notification of proper authorities. 

Maintain an adequate spill and cleaning kit that includes the following: 

•	 Detergent or soap. 

•	 Hand cleaner and water. 

•	 Activated charcoal, adsorptive clay, vermiculite, kitty litter, sawdust, or other


adsorptive materials.


•	 Lime or bleach to neutralize pesticides in emergency situations. 

•	 Tools such as a shovel, broom, and dustpan and containers for disposal. 

•	 Proper protective clothing. 

 Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible. 

This practice reduces potential nutrient leaching to groundwater, and it increases the 

availability of nutrients for plant uptake. 

 Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching. 

 Base fertilizer type and application rate on soil and/or foliar analysis. 

Conduct foliar analysis approximately once per year to diagnose nutrient toxicities or 

deficiencies and to determine the correct fertilization program to follow. Foliar analysis is 

3-104 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

the process whereby leaves from trees are dried, ground, and chemically analyzed for 

their nutrient content. Compare the results of foliar analysis to available nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and sulphur in the soils to be treated and to the requirements of the 

species. 

 Consider the use of pesticides as only one part of an overall program to control pest 

problems. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies have been developed to control forest pests 

without total reliance on chemical pesticides. The IPM approach uses all available 

techniques, including chemical and nonchemical. An extensive knowledge of both the 

pest and the ecology of the affected environment is necessary for IPM to be effective. 

 Base selection of pesticide on site factors and pesticide characteristics. 

These factors include vegetation height, target pest, adsorption (attachment) to soil 

organic matter, persistence or half-life, toxicity, and type of formulation. 

 Check all application equipment carefully, particularly for leaking hoses and connections and plugged or worn nozzles. Calibrate spray equipment periodically to 

achieve uniform pesticide distribution and rate. 

 Always use pesticides in accordance with label instructions, and adhere to all federal 

and state policies and regulations governing pesticide use. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-105 
Chapter 3I: Forest Chemical Management 

3-106 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
3J: WETLANDS FOREST MANAGEMENT
 GEMENT

Management Measure for Wetlands Forest Management 

Plan, operate, and manage normal, ongoing forestry activities (including harvesting; road design, construction, and maintenance; site preparation and regeneration; and chemical management) to adequately protect 

the aquatic functions of forested wetlands. 

Management Measure Description 

Forested wetlands provide many beneficial functions that need to be protected. Among 

these are floodflow alteration, sediment trapping, nutrient retention and removal, provision of important habitat for fish and wildlife, and provision of timber products. The 

extent of wetlands (including forested wetlands) in the continental United States has 

declined greatly in the past 40 years because of conversion to other land uses. There are 

currently approximately 100 million acres of wetlands in the 48 contiguous states, or 

about one-half of their extent at the time of European settlement. Although the rate of 

wetlands loss has slowed in recent years, the United States continues to sustain a net loss 

of approximately 58,000 acres per year. Forestry activities are the third leading cause of 

wetlands loss–behind urban development and agriculture–and accounted for 23 percent of 

wetland losses from 1986 to 1997 (Dahl, 2000). Given the historic and ongoing losses, it 

is critical that additional effects to wetlands be avoided and minimized to the maximum 

extent possible. 

Potential effects of forestry operations in wetlands include the following: 

•	 Loss and/or degradation due to discharges of dredged or fill material. 

•	 Sediment production from road construction and use and equipment operation


resulting in wetlands filling.


•	 Drainage alteration as a result of improper road construction and ditching. An 

excellent discussion of the relationship between forest roads and drainage is contained in the U.S. Forest Service document Water/Road Interaction Technology 

Series (USDA-FS, 1998b). 

•	 Stream obstruction caused by failure to remove logging debris. 

•	 Soil compaction caused by operation of logging vehicles during flooding periods or 

wet weather. Skid trails, haul roads, and log landings are areas where compaction is 

most severe. 

•	 Contamination from improper application or use of pesticides. 

•	 Loss of integrity of whole wetland landscapes (and the functions they serve) as a


cumulative effect of incremental losses of small wetland tracts.


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-107 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

Potential adverse effects associated with road construction and maintenance in forested 

wetlands are alteration of drainage and flow patterns, increased erosion and sedimentation, habitat loss and degradation, and damage to existing timber stands. In an effort to 

prevent these potential adverse effects, section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires the 

use of appropriate BMPs for road construction and maintenance in wetlands so that flow 

and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics are not impaired (see 

text below). 

Harvest planning and selection of the right harvest system are essential in achieving the 

management objectives of timber production, ensuring stand establishment, and avoiding 

adverse effects on water quality and wetland functions and values. The potential effects 

of reproduction methods and cutting practices on wetlands include changes in water 

quality, water quantity, temperature, nutrient cycling, and aquatic habitat. Streams can 

also become blocked with logging debris if SMAs are not properly maintained or if 

appropriate practices are not employed in SMAs. 

Site preparation includes but is not limited to the use of prescribed fire, chemicals, and/or 

mechanical site preparation. Extensive site preparation on bottoms where frequent 

flooding occurs can cause excessive erosion and stream sedimentation. The degree of 

acceptable site preparation is governed by the amount and frequency of flooding, soil 

type, and species suitability and is dependent on the regeneration method used. 

Forestry in Wetlands: Section 404 

Section 404 establishes a program that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps and EPA jointly administer the program. The Corps administers the day-to-day program, including permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations; develops policy and guidance; and enforces 

Section 404 provisions. EPA develops and interprets environmental criteria used in 

evaluating permit applications; determines the scope of geographic jurisdiction; and 

approves and oversees state assumption. EPA also identifies activities that are exempt, 

enforces Section 404 provisions, and has the authority to elevate and/or veto Corps 

permit decisions. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies have important advisory roles. 

Section 404(f) exempts normal forestry activities (for example, bedding, seeding, harvesting, and minor drainage) that are part of an established, ongoing forestry operation. A 

forest operation ceases to be “established” when the area in which it was conducted has 

been converted to another use or has lain idle so long that modifications to the hydrological regime are necessary to resume operations (40 CFR Part 232.3(c)(1)(ii)(B)). This 

exemption does not apply to activities that represent a new use of the wetland and that 

would result in a reduction in reach or impairment of flow or circulation of waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. In addition, Section 404(f) provides an exemption of 

discharges of dredged or fill material for the purpose of constructing or maintaining 

forest roads, where such roads are constructed or maintained in accordance with BMPs to 

assure that the flow and circulation patterns and chemical and biological characteristics 

of the navigable waters are not impaired, that the reach of the navigable waters is not 

reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. Following are the section 404(f) regulations pertaining to forestry activities, 

including the BMPs for forest road construction or maintenance. 

3-108 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, section 232.3: Activities Not 

Requiring a Section 404 Permit 

Except as specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, any discharge of dredged or 

fill material that may result from any of the activities described in paragraph (c) of this 

section is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under this part. 

(a) If any discharge of dredged or fill material resulting from the activities listed in 

paragraph (c) of this section contains any toxic pollutant listed under section 307 of 

the Act, such discharge shall be subject to any applicable toxic effluent standard or 

prohibition, and shall require a section 404 permit. 

(b) Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States incidental to 

any of the activities identified in paragraph (c) of this section must have a permit if it is 

part of an activity whose purpose is to convert an area of the waters of the United States 

into a use to which it was not previously subject, where the flow or circulation of waters 

of the United States may be impaired or the reach of such waters reduced. Where the 

proposed discharge will result in significant discernible alterations to flow or circulation, the presumption is that flow or circulation may be impaired by such alteration. 

Note: For example, a permit will be required for the conversion of a cypress swamp 

to some other use or the conversion of a wetland from silvicultural to agricultural use 

when there is a discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States 

in conjunction with construction of dikes, drainage ditches or other works or structures used to effect such conversion. A conversion of section 404 wetland to a nonwetland is a change in use of an area of waters of the U.S. A discharge which elevates 

the bottom of waters of the United States without converting it to dry land does not 

thereby reduce the reach of, but may alter the flow or circulation of, waters of the 

United States. 

(c) The following activities are exempt from section 404 permit requirements, except as 

specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section: 

* * * 

(6) Construction or maintenance of farm roads, forest roads, or temporary roads for moving 

mining equipment, where such roads are constructed and maintained in accordance with 

best management practices (BMPs) to assure that flow and circulation patterns and 

chemical and biological characteristics of waters of the United States are not impaired, 

that the reach of the waters of the United States is not reduced, and that any adverse 

effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise minimized. The BMPs which must 

be applied to satisfy this provision include the following baseline provisions: 

(i) Permanent roads (for farming or forestry activities), temporary access roads (for 

mining, forestry, or farm purposes) and skid trails (for logging) in waters of the 

United States shall be held to the minimum feasible number, width, and total 

length consistent with the purpose of specific farming, silvicultural or mining 

operations, and local topographic and climatic conditions; 

(ii) All roads, temporary or permanent, shall be located sufficiently far from streams 

or other water bodies (except for portions of such roads which must cross water 

bodies) to minimize discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States; 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-109 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

(iii)	 The road fill shall be bridged, culverted, or otherwise designed to prevent the 

restriction of expected flood flows; 

(iv)	 The fill shall be properly stabilized and maintained to prevent erosion during 

and following construction; 

(v)	 Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States to construct a road fill shall be made in a manner that minimizes the encroachment of 

trucks, tractors, bulldozers, or other heavy equipment within the waters of the 

United States (including adjacent wetlands) that lie outside the lateral boundaries of the fill itself; 

(vi)	 In designing, constructing, and maintaining roads, vegetative disturbance in the 

waters of the United States shall be kept to a minimum; 

(vii) The design, construction and maintenance of the road crossing shall not disrupt 

the migration or other movement of those species of aquatic life inhabiting the 

water body; 

(viii) Borrow material shall be taken from upland sources whenever feasible; 

(ix)	 The discharge shall not take, or jeopardize the continued existence of, a threatened or endangered species as defined under the Endangered Species Act, or 

adversely modify or destroy the critical habitat of such species; 

(x)	 Discharges into breeding and nesting areas for migratory waterfowl, spawning 

areas, and wetlands shall be avoided if practical alternatives exist; 

(xi)	 The discharge shall not be located in the proximity of a public water supply 

intake; 

(xii) The discharge shall not occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production; 

(xiii) The discharge shall not occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic 

River System; 

(xiv) The discharge of material shall consist of suitable material free from toxic 

pollutants in toxic amounts; and 

(xv) All temporary fills shall be removed in their entirety and the area restored to its 

original elevation. 

Best Management Practices 

Wetland Harvesting Practices 

 Conduct forest harvesting according to preharvest planning designs and locations. 

Planning and close supervision of harvesting operations are needed to protect site integrity and enhance regeneration. Harvesting without regard to season, soil type, or type of 

equipment can damage the site productivity; retard regeneration; cause excessive rutting, 

churning, and puddling of saturated soils; and increase erosion and sedimentation of 

streams. Harvesting without regard to other activities occurring in the watershed can 

cause unacceptable cumulative effects. 

 Establish a streamside management area (SMA) adjacent to natural perennial 

streams, lakes, ponds, and other standing water in the forested wetland following the 

components of the SMA management measure. 

3-110 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

 Select the harvesting method to minimize soil disturbance and hydrologic effects on 

the wetland. 

In seasonally flooded wetlands, a guideline is to use conventional skidder logging that 

employs equipment with low-ground-pressure tires, cable logging, or aerial logging. 

Comparisons of cable logging and helicopter logging have concluded that helicopter 

operations cause less site disturbance, are more economical, and provide greater yield. 

Table 3-40 presents one set of harvesting system recommendations by type of forested 

wetland (Florida Division of Forestry, 1988). Another alternative is to conduct harvesting 

during winter months when the ground is frozen (see below). 

 Use ultrawide, high-flotation tires on logging trucks and skidders to reduce soil 

compaction and erosion. 

Using dual-tired skidders and high-floatation tires for log hauling reduces soil damage, 

soil compaction, surface runoff, and sedimentation (Aust et al., 1994). 

 When ground skidding, use low-ground-pressure tires or tracked machines and 

confine skidding to a few primary skid trails to minimize site disturbance, soil 

compaction, and rutting. Adjust tire pressure on skidders during wet weather or when 

conducting forested wetland harvesting (Aust, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, personal communication, 1999). 

Table 3-40.	 Recommended Harvesting Systems by Forested Wetland Sitea (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services, 1988) 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-111 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

Research conducted by Randy Foltz of the Intermountain Research Station in the Lowell 

Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest, Oregon (1994), addressed the use of 

variable tire pressure as a BMP for forest roads. His study showed that by reducing the 

tire pressure on logging trucks from their highway inflation of 90 psi to between 30 and 

70 psi, sediment runoff was reduced on average by 67 percent. The percentage reduction 

in sediment runoff was directly correlated with the rainfall quantity and traffic volume. 

 When soils become saturated, suspend ground skidding harvesting operations. Use of 

ground skidding equipment during excessively wet periods can result in unnecessary 

site disturbance and equipment damage. 

Wetland Road Design and Construction Practices 

 Locate, design, and construct forest roads according to preharvest planning. 

Forestry activities in wetlands are often subject to municipal, county, state, and federal 

regulations. Therefore, sufficient time should be set aside to obtain all necessary permits. 

Improperly located, designed, or constructed forest roads can cause changes in hydrology, 

accelerate erosion, reduce or degrade fisheries habitat, and destroy or damage existing 

stands of timber. 

 Use temporary roads in forested wetlands. 

A temporary road in a wetland needs to provide adequate cross-road drainage at all 

natural drainageways. Temporary drainage structures include culverts, bridges, and 

porous material such as corduroy or chunkwood. 

Construct permanent roads only to serve large and frequently used areas, as approaches to 

watercourse crossings, or to provide access for long-term fire protection. Use the minimum design standard necessary for reasonable safety and the anticipated traffic volume. 

Various temporary wetland crossing options are compared in Table 3-41. 

Blade the surface of a wetland to be as flat as possible prior to constructing a temporary 

road (Hislop and Moll, 1996, cited in Blinn et al., 1998). Do not disturb the root mat in 

any wetland that has grass mounds or other uneven vegetation. Any temporary wetland 

crossing is enhanced by using a root or slash mat to provide additional support to the 

equipment. 

 Construct fill roads only when absolutely necessary for access since fill roads have 

the potential to restrict natural flow patterns. 

Where construction of fill roads is necessary, use a permeable fill material (such as gravel 

or crushed rock) for at least the first layer of fill. The use of pervious materials helps 

maintain the natural flow regimes of subsurface water. Figure 3-46 demonstrates the 

different effects of impervious and pervious road fills on wetland hydrology. Permeable 

fill material is not a substitute for using bridges where needed or for installing adequately 

spaced culverts at all natural drainageways. Use this practice in conjunction with cross 

drainage structures to ensure that natural wetland flows are maintained (i.e., so that fill 

does not become clogged by sediment and obstruct flows). 

 Provide adequate cross drainage to maintain the natural surface and subsurface flow 

of the wetland. 

3-112 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-113

Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement

Table 3-41. Temporary Wetland Crossing Options (Blinn, 1996)
3-114 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry

Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement

Table 3-41. (continued)
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

This can be accomplished through 

adequate sizing and spacing of 

water crossing structures, proper 

choice of the type of crossing 

structure, and installation of 

drainage structures at a depth 

adequate to pass subsurface flow. 

Designed and constructed according to these considerations helps 

ensure that bridges, culverts, and 

other structures do not perceptibly 

diminish or increase the duration, 

direction, or magnitude of the 

minimum, peak, or mean flow of 

water on either side of the structure. 

 Construct roads at natural 

ground level to minimize the 

potential to restrict flowing 

water. 

Float the access road fill on the 

natural root mat. If the consequences of the natural root mats’ 

failing are serious, use reinforcement materials such as geotextile 

fabric, geo-grid mats, or log 

corduroy. Figure 3-47 depicts a 

cross section of the practice of 

floating the road. Protect the root 

mat beneath the roadway from 

equipment damage by diverting 

through traffic to the edge of the 

right-of-way, shear-blading stumps 

instead of grubbing, and using 

special wide-pad equipment. Also, 

protect the root mat from damage 

or puncture by using fill material Figure 3-46. Comparison of impervious (a) and pervious (b) roadfill sections. 

that does not contain large rocks or Impervious roadfill consolidates natural material and restricts groundboulders. water flow. Pervious roadfill allows movement of groundwater through it 

and minimizes flow changes (adapted from Thronson, 1979). 

 Discharges of dredged or fill 

material into wetlands or other 

waters of the United States 

must comply with CWA section 404 (see text above). 

Practices for Crossing Wetlands in Winter 

Winter provides an opportunity to cross wetlands with little effect. Roads are often 

constructed across wetlands in winter to take advantage of frozen ground. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-115 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

 The following are recommendations for crossing 

wetlands in winter, for all 

wetland types (Minnesota 

Division of Forestry, 1995): 

•	 If permanent structures 

are to be used, follow 

BMP installation guidelines for permanent roads. 

•	 Select the shortest practical route to minimize 

potential problems with 

drifting snow and crossing of open water. 

•	 Avoid crossing open 

water or active springs. If 

crossing is unavoidable, 

temporary crossings are 

Figure 3-47. Elements of a road crossing through a swamp wetland, cross section preferred over permanent (Ontario MNR, 1990).	 crossings. These can be 

ice bridges, temporarily 

installed bridges, or 

timber mats. 

•	 Avoid using soil fill. 

•	 Install structures that block water flow so that they can be easily removed prior to 

the spring thaw. Remove these structures during a winter thaw. 

•	 Use planking, timber mats, or other support alternatives to improve the capability of 

the road to support heavy traffic. If removal would cause more damage than leaving 

them in place, these structures can be left as permanent sections on frozen roads. 

Avoid clearing practices that result in berms of soil or organic material, which can 

disrupt normal water flow in wetlands. 

•	 Do not operate machinery during a winter thaw. Resume operations only when 

conditions are adequate to support equipment. 

•	 Remove temporary fills and structures to the extent practical when no longer 

needed. 

•	 Install buffer strips near open water. 

•	 Anchor temporary structures at one end only to allow them to move aside during 

high-water flows. 

 To avoid excessive damage, equipment operations are best avoided on any portion of 

a road where ruts are deeper than 6 inches below the water surface for a continuous 

distance of more than 100 yards (Wiest, 1998). 

Wetland Site Preparation and Regeneration Practices 

 Select a regeneration method that meets the site characteristics and management 

objectives. 

3-116 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-117

Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement

Choice of regeneration method has a major influence on the stand composition and

structure and on the forestry practices to be applied over the life of the stand. Natural

regeneration may be achieved by clear-cutting the existing stand and relying on regeneration from seed from adjacent stands, the cut trees, or stumps and from root sprouts

(coppice). Successful regeneration depends on recognizing the site type and its characteristics, evaluating the stocking and species composition in relation to stand age and site

capability, planning regeneration options, and using sound harvesting methods. Schedule

harvest during the dormant season to take advantage of seed sources and to favor coppice

regeneration. Harvest trees at a stump height of 12 inches or less when practical to

encourage vigorous coppice regeneration. Artificial regeneration may be accomplished

by planting of seedlings or direct seeding. Table 3-42 presents an example of regeneration

system recommendations (Georgia Forestry Association, 1990).

 Conduct mechanized site preparation and planting of sloping areas on the contour.

 To reduce disturbance, conduct bedding operations in high-water-table areas during

dry periods of the year.

The degree of acceptable site preparation depends on the amount and frequency of

flooding, the soil type, and the species suitability.

 Minimize soil degradation by limiting operations on saturated soils.

Wetland Fire Management Practices

Site preparation burns in wetlands are often the most severe (hottest) and have the most

potential to increase surface runoff and soil erosion.

Table 3-42. Recommended Regeneration Systems by Forested Wetland Type (Georgia Forestry Association, 1990)
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

 Conduct site preparation burns in a manner such that they do not completely remove 

the organic layer from the forest floor. 

 Do not construct firelines for site preparation that will drain wetlands. 

Chemical Management Practices 

 Where feasible and applicable, apply herbicides by injection to individual stems. 

 For chemical and aerial fertilizer applications, maintain and mark a buffer area 

around all surface water to avoid drift or accidental direct application. 

Avoid application of pesticides with toxicity to aquatic life, especially aerial applications. 

Aerial applications generally require a buffer from water, agricultural lands, and homes. 

Motorized ground applications require a buffer from water. The first pass of each application is be made parallel to the buffer zone. A buffer is not necessary for hand applications; however, hand-applied forest chemicals have to be applied to specific targets, and 

chemicals need to be prevented from entering the water. Before any application of a 

chemical, consult state laws and regulations for chemical application for proper buffer 

establishment. Have a person licensed in chemical application perform all work (Washington State DNR, 1997). 

 Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible. 

This practice reduces the potential of the nutrients leaching to groundwater, and it 

increases the availability of nutrients for plant uptake. 

 Apply fertilizers when leaching will be minimized. 

 Base fertilizer type and application rate on soil and/or foliar analysis. 

To determine fertilizer formulations, it is best to compare available nitrogen, phosphorus, 

potassium, and sulphur in the soils to be treated with the requirements of the species to be 

sown. 

EPA and Corps of Engineers Memorandum to 

the Field 

Mechanical Site Preparation Activities and CWA Section 404 

Under certain circumstances, a CWA section 404 permit is required for mechanical 

silvicultural site preparation activities in wetlands. In 1995, EPA and the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers issued a memorandum to clarify the applicability of section 404 to 

mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in the Southeast. 

The memorandum (particularly the descriptions of wetlands, activities, and BMPs in the 

memorandum) focuses on the southeastern United States. However, the guidance in the 

memorandum is generally applicable when addressing mechanical silvicultural site 

preparation activities in wetlands elsewhere in the country. 

The memorandum clarifies the applicability of forested wetlands BMPs to silvicultural 

site preparation activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast. 

Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities conducted in accordance with the 

3-118 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

BMPs discussed below, which are designed to minimize effects to the aquatic ecosystem, 

will not require a Clean Water Act section 404 permit. These BMPs further recognize that 

certain wetlands should not be subject to unpermitted mechanical silvicultural site 

preparation activities because of the adverse nature of potential effects associated with 

these activities on these sites. 

EPA and the Corps will continue to work closely with state forestry agencies to promote 

the implementation of consistent and effective BMPs that facilitate sound silvicultural 

practices. In those states where no BMPs specific to mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in forested wetlands are currently in place, EPA and the Corps will coordinate with those states to develop BMPs. In the interim, mechanical silvicultural site 

preparation activities conducted in accordance with the memorandum will not require a 

section 404 permit. 

Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities 

Require a Section 404 Permit 

Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities can have measurable and significant 

effects on aquatic ecosystems when conducted in wetlands that are permanently flooded, 

intermittently exposed, or semipermanently flooded, and in certain additional wetland 

communities that exhibit aquatic functions and values that are more susceptible to effects 

from these activities. For the wetland types identified below, mechanical silvicultural site 

preparation activities require a permit so that individual proposals can be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis for site preparation and potential associated environmental effects. 

A permit will be required in the following areas unless they have been so altered through 

past practices (including the installation and continuous maintenance of water management structures) as to no longer exhibit the distinguishing characteristics described below 

(see Circumstances in which Mechanical Silvicultural Site Preparation Activities Do Not 

Require a Permit below). Of course, discharges incidental to activities in any wetlands 

that convert waters of the United States to non-waters always require authorization under 

Clean Water Act section 404. 

Permanently flooded wetlands, intermittently exposed wetlands, and semipermanently 

flooded wetlands. Permanently flooded wetland systems are characterized by water that 

covers the land surface throughout the year in all years. Intermittently exposed wetlands 

are characterized by surface water that is present throughout the year except in years of 

extreme drought. Semipermanently flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water 

that persists throughout the growing season in most years and, even when surface water is 

absent, a water table usually at or very near the land surface. Examples of these wetlands 

include cypress-gum swamps, muck and peat swamps, and cypress strands/domes. 

Riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands. These are seasonally flooded (or wetter) 

bottomland hardwood wetlands within the first or second bottoms of the floodplains of 

river systems. Site-specific characteristics of hydrology, soils, and vegetation and the 

presence of the alluvial features mentioned in the memorandum determine the boundary 

of riverine bottomland hardwood wetlands. National Wetlands Inventory maps provide a 

useful reference for the general location of these wetlands on the landscape. 

White cedar swamps. These wetlands are greater than 1 acre in headwaters and greater 

than 5 acres elsewhere. They are underlain by peat of greater than 1 meter and vegetated 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-119 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

by natural white cedar representing more than 50 percent of the basal area, where the 

total basal area for all tree species is 60 square feet or greater. 

Carolina bay wetlands. These are oriented, elliptical depressions with a sand rim that are 

either underlain by clay-based soils and vegetated by cypress or underlain by peat of 

greater than 0.5 meter and typically vegetated with an overstory of red, sweet, and 

loblolly bays. 

Nonriverine forest wetlands. The wetlands in this group are rare, high-quality wet forests, 

with mature vegetation, located on the Southeastern Coastal Plain. Their hydrology is 

dominated by high water tables. Two forest community types fall into this group: 

(1) nonriverine wet hardwood forests, poorly drained mineral soil interstream flats 

(comprising 10 or more contiguous acres), typically on the margins of large peatland 

areas, seasonally flooded or saturated by high water tables, with vegetation dominated 

(greater than 50 percent of basal area per acre) by swamp chestnut oak, cherrybark oak, 

or laurel oak alone or in combination, and (2) nonriverine swamp forests, very poorly 

drained flats (comprising 5 or more contiguous acres), with organic soils or mineral soils 

with high organic content, seasonally to frequently flooded or saturated by high water 

tables, with vegetation dominated by bald cypress, pond cypress, swamp tupelo, water 

tupelo, or Atlantic white cedar alone or in combination. 

Low pocosin wetlands. These are the central, deepest parts of domed peatlands on poorly 

drained interstream flats, underlain by peat soils greater than 1 meter, typically vegetated 

by a dense layer of short shrubs. 

Wet marl forests. These are hardwood forest wetlands underlain with poorly drained, 

marl-derived, high-pH soils. 

Tidal freshwater marshes. These wetlands are regularly or irregularly flooded by fresh 

water. They have dense herbaceous vegetation and occur on the margins of estuaries or 

drowned rivers or creeks. 

Maritime grasslands, shrub swamps, and swamp forests. These are barrier island wetlands in dune swales and flats, underlain by wet mucky or sandy soils. They are vegetated 

by wetland herbs, shrubs, and trees. 

Circumstances in Which Mechanical Site Preparation Activities Do 

Not Require a Section 404 Permit 

Mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in wetlands that are seasonally 

flooded, intermittently flooded, temporarily flooded, or saturated or are in existing pine 

plantations and other silvicultural sites (except as listed above) do not require a permit if 

conducted according to the BMPs listed below in Best Management Practices. Of course, 

silvicultural practices conducted in uplands never require a Clean Water Act section 404 

permit (see Code of Federal Regulations text above). 

Seasonally flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water that is present for extended periods, especially early in the growing season, but is absent by the end of the 

season in most years. (When surface water is absent, the water table is often near the 

surface.) Intermittently flooded wetland systems are characterized by substrate that is 

usually exposed and the presence of surface water for variable periods without detectable 

seasonable periodicity. Temporarily flooded wetlands are characterized by surface water 

3-120 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

that is present for brief periods during the growing season, but also by a water table that 

usually lies well below the soil surface for most of the season. Saturated wetlands are 

characterized by substrate that is saturated to the surface for extended periods during the 

growing season, but also by the absence of surface water most of the time. Examples 

typical of these wetlands include pine flatwoods, pond pine woodlands, and wet flats 

(e.g., certain pine/hardwood forests). 

Best Management Practices 

The BMPs below are from a joint EPA and Corps of Engineers Memorandum to the Field 

(see below) on the application of BMPs to mechanical silvicultural site preparation 

activities for the establishment of pine plantations in the Southeast. The guidance is, 

however, generally applicable to mechanical silvicultural site preparation activities in 

wetlands elsewhere in the country. Every state in the Southeast has developed BMPs for 

forestry to protect water quality, and most have also developed specific BMPs for forested wetlands. 

The BMPs listed here are the minimum to be applied for mechanical silvicultural site 

preparation activities in forested wetlands where these activities do not require a permit 

(see Memorandum to the Field below). In circumstances where a permit is required, 

BMPs specifically required for the individual operation will be detailed in the permit. 

The BMPs below were developed because silvicultural practices have the potential to 

result in effects on an aquatic ecosystem. Mechanical silvicultural site preparation 

activities have the potential to cause effects such as soil compaction, turbidity, erosion, 

and hydrologic modifications if the activities are not effectively controlled by BMPs. 

 Position shear blades or rakes at or near the soil surface and windrow, pile, and 

otherwise move logs and logging debris by methods that minimize dragging or 

pushing through the soil to minimize soil disturbance associated with shearing, 

raking, and moving trees, stumps, brush, and other unwanted vegetation. 

 Conduct activities in such a manner as to avoid excessive soil compaction and 

maintain soil tilth. 

 Arrange windrows in such a manner as to limit erosion, overland flow, and runoff. 

 Prevent disposal or storage of logs or logging debris in SMAs. 

 Maintain the natural contour of the site and ensure that activities do not immediately 

or gradually convert the wetland to a non-wetland. 

 Conduct activities with appropriate water management mechanisms to minimize offsite water quality effects. 

The full text of the memorandum is available on the Internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ 

owow/wetlands/guidance/silv2.html>.

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 3-121 
Chapter 3J: Wetlands Forest Mangement 

3-122 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
CHAPTER 4:

USING MANAGEMENT MEASURES TO

PREVENT AND SOLVE NONPOINT ONPOINT SOURCE

POLLUTION PROBLEMS IN WATERSHEDS

Management measures and associated management practices applied at harvest sites and 

along roads provide essential control of erosion and sedimentation, and it is important 

that all management measures and management practices applicable to a harvest site or 

road be applied to limit as much as possible the amount of soil erosion and the potential 

for water pollution that can result from forest harvesting activities. 

The watershed perspective enables the practitioner to go beyond the effects from a single 

harvest area or individual road to consider all activities occurring within the watershed 

that could affect water resources. Each activity can have its own effect on water quality, 

and the watershed perspective views the effects due to harvesting and road construction 

within the context of the overall effects of forestry activities together with other activities 

such as recreational uses and conversions of land use. It is the collective effects of all of 

these activities that determine how water quality is affected, and these cumulative effects 

on water quality wouldn’t normally be recognized if the effects arising from individual 

harvesting activities are considered alone. 

Research has determined that the use of BMPs on forestland results in smaller increases 

in nutrients and suspended sediment load after logging than when BMPs are not used. 

This points to the need for a watershed approach to water quality management, and such 

an approach within the context of forest harvesting and road construction and use implies, at a minimum, the following: 

•	 Applying management measures and management practices that are appropriate not


only to the harvest site, but that take into consideration the current state of water


quality in receiving waters, given all that is happening in the watershed, and the


effect that forestry activities could have.


•	 The foreseeable future needs to be considered as well. Some effects of harvesting


and road building can last beyond the duration of a harvest or the completion of road


construction, and if other activities that could effect water quality are planned in the


watershed in the timeframe during which those effects are expected to continue,


mitigation of these long-term effects might be necessary.


•	 Maintenance of older roads built with outdated management practices (those dating


from the 1950s to the mid-1970s), which can be significant sources of sediment, is


an essential part of forested watershed management. Long-term management plans


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-1 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

for forest roads include their inventory, maintenance, and closure; and closure of 

unused, unneeded, and high-erosion-risk roads. 

The EPA Watershed Approach 

Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a single stream or other water resource. 

Watersheds are defined solely by drainage areas and not by land ownership or political 

boundaries. 

Since 1991, the USEPA has promoted the watershed protection approach as a holistic 

framework for addressing complex pollution problems such as those from nonpoint 

sources. The watershed protection approach is a comprehensive planning process that 

considers all natural resources in the watershed, as well as social, cultural, and economic 

factors. The process tailors workable solutions to ecosystem needs through participation 

and leadership of stakeholders. 

Although watershed approaches may vary in terms of specific objectives, priorities, 

elements, timing, and resources, all should be based on the following guiding principles. 

•	 Partnerships. People affected by management decisions are involved throughout and 

help shape key decisions. Cooperative partnerships among federal, state, and local 

agencies and non-governmental organizations with interests in the watershed are 

formed. This approach ensures that environmental objectives are well integrated 

with those for economic stability and other social/cultural goals of the area. It also 

builds support for action among those individuals who are economically dependent 

upon the natural resources of the area. 

•	 Geographic focus. Resource management activities are coordinated and directed 

within specific geographic areas, usually defined by watershed boundaries, areas 

overlaying or recharging groundwater, or a combination of both. 

•	 Sound management techniques based on strong science and data. Collectively,


watershed stakeholders employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an


iterative decision-making process. Typically, this includes:


–	 Assessment and characterization of the natural resources in the watershed and 

the people who depend upon them. 

–	 Goal setting and identification of environmental objectives based on the condition or vulnerability of resources and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem and the 

people. 

–	 Identification of priority problems. 

–	 Development of specific management options and action plans. 

–	 Implementation, evaluation, and revision of plans as needed. 

Operating and coordinating programs on a watershed basis makes good sense for environmental, financial, social, and administrative reasons. For example, by jointly reviewing the results of assessment efforts for drinking water protection, pollution control, fish 

and wildlife habitat protection, and other resource protection programs, managers from 

all levels of government can better understand the cumulative effects of various human 

activities and determine the most critical problems within each watershed. Using this 

information to set priorities for action allows public and private managers from all levels 

to allocate limited financial and human resources to address the most critical needs. 

4-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Establishing environmental indicators helps guide activities toward solving those highpriority problems and measuring success. 

The final result of the watershed planning process is a plan that is a clear description of 

resource problems. Goals to be attained, and identification of sources for technical, 

educational, and funding assistance needed. The successful plan provides a basis for 

seeking support and for maximizing the benefits of that support. 

Cumulative Effects 

The watershed approach is a useful mechanism for managing the resources within a 

defined geographical boundary, and it provides a basis for cumulative effects assessment 

as well. Though it is not a formal analytical framework for the evaluation of cumulative 

effects, the watershed approach shares with cumulative effects assessment (CEA) a 

consideration of all relevant activities and influences. Furthermore, a watershed is a 

natural geographic boundary for the analysis of cumulative effects on water quality 

because the influences of upstream activities can create a cumulative effect on downstream water quality. 

Definition 

Current environmental regulations provide at least two definitions of cumulative effects 

(CEs): 

Cumulative effect is the effect on the environment which results from the 

incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time (40 CFR 1508.7). 

Cumulative effects are the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable 

to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill 

material. Although the effect of a particular discharge may constitute a minor 

change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can 

result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the 

productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems (40 CFR 230.11). 

CEs can be very difficult to quantify and assess, and they are best understood by focusing 

on the mechanisms by which watershed processes are affected (Reid, 1993). Watershed 

processes are affected when a land use activity causes a change in the production and 

transport of one or more watershed products (water, sediment, organic material, chemicals, or heat). Most land use activities affect only one of four aspects of the environment—vegetation, soils, topography, or chemicals—and other watershed changes result 

from initial effects on these. Understanding CEs within a watershed context involves: 

(1) understanding how specific land uses affect vegetation, soils, topography, or chemicals; (2) determining to what extent these changes affect watershed processes; and 

(3) understanding how changes to vegetation, soils, topography, chemicals, and watershed processes affect particular resources and values. 

Cumulative effects can be additive or synergistic (MacDonald, 2000). Additive effects are 

those in which each land use activity creates a discrete effect on an individual resource or 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-3 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

value and the total effect is the sum of the individual effects. Synergistic effects are those 

in which the combined effect of individual activities on a resource or value are greater 

than the sum of their individual effects. Synergistic effects can occur through the interaction of different chemicals or types of effects on a single resource. Many times with 

synergistic effects, each effect is analyzed and determined to individually not be detrimental to a particular resource, but the combined or cumulative effect of the three activities do create a significant impact on a resource. 

Assessment of CEs should also take into account whether they are on-site or off-site. Onsite CEs can occur if a change persists long enough for later activities to affect the same 

resource or for the effects of off-site activities to be transported to the site of the change. 

The temporal dimension of on-site CEs is important to their assessment, while the spatial 

dimension is limited to the original site of the effect. Off-site CEs occur when a land use 

activity causes a change in a watershed process such that effects are created at a location 

other than where the original land use activity occurred. Off-site CEs occur when watershed processes are altered long enough for the off-site effects to accumulate over time; 

when watershed processes are affected at multiple sites in a watershed and the watershed 

products that are affected are transported to the same site, or when an off-site effect 

interacts with an on-site effect. Both the temporal and spatial dimension of off-site CEs 

are important to consider when analyzing them. 

The Importance of Considering and Analyzing Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects are of concern with respect to forest roads; forest road construction, 

use, and maintenance; and forest harvesting because the changes that can occur in 

watershed processes following these activities can persist for many years. This persistence increases the potential for cumulative effects to occur. 

Traditionally, effect assessment has evaluated the likely effects of single actions on the 

environment. But single areas and ecosystems are often affected by more than single 

actions or projects. The collective effect of numerous small actions can cause serious 

degradation, though the effects of each small action by itself might be undetectable. Even 

after an area or ecosystem has been degraded, an analysis of the effects of an additional 

action might conclude that there would be only minor or no significant effect. An analysis 

of the additive effect of the single additional action—the cumulative effects—however, 

might conclude that the action could be detrimental (USEPA, 1992). Cumulative effects 

analysis also differs from many types of traditional environmental assessment in the need 

to predict the consequences of “reasonably foreseeable future actions.” 

The importance of cumulative effects assessment, then, lies in the difference between 

traditional effect assessment and cumulative effects assessment. Traditional effect assessment is performed with respect to the proposed disturbance, whereas cumulative effects 

assessment is performed with respect to valued environmental functions (USEPA, 1992). 

An assessment of an action might have little to no detectable significant effect in terms of 

pollutant additions or habitat loss, as determined by traditional effect assessment, but 

might have a clearly disturbing effect on ecosystem functioning as determined by cumulative effects assessment. As more habitat is lost or fragmented and pollutants are generated, environmental stewardship demands that we pay more attention to the collective 

effects of our actions on ecosystems and their functioning and place less stress on the 

absolute quantities of pollutants that are generated or habitat lost as a result of each 

action. Cumulative effects assessment is the means to do this. 

4-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Problems in Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Cumulative effects analysis, as conceived, is a powerful approach to assessing the overall 

effect of our actions on the environment and of managing those actions such that species 

and ecosystems continue to function properly. Unfortunately, many practical problems 

are associated with performing a cumulative effects analysis, including the following: 

•	 Because total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessments calculate all point source 

and non-point source pollution for a watershed, a TMDL is essentially a cumulative 

effects analysis. Agencies responsible for implementing TMDL’s have been hesitant 

to do so because of limitations in personnel, water quality data, and understanding of 

watershed dynamics. There is also a lack of available methodologies for tracking 

pollutants such as clean sediment (MacDonald, 2000). 

•	 Ecosystems are complex and our knowledge of their workings is still limited, yet 

cumulative effects assessment involves identification of the ecosystem components 

of relevance that will be the focus of the cumulative effects analysis (Berg et al., 

1996). 

•	 The boundaries for cumulative effects assessment might be different from those 

relevant to other analyses, such as nonpoint source pollution or TMDL assessment. 

A single watershed might be appropriate for assessing nonpoint source pollution, but 

many watersheds might be involved in cumulative effects analysis for effects on 

forest conservation (Berg et al., 1996). 

•	 Current guidelines published by the CEQ (1997) do not explicitly address natural 

processes, spatial variability, and temporal variability within project areas. Natural 

variability and rates of recovery can affect prediction and detection of cumulative 

impacts (MacDonald, 2000). 

•	 Effects from individual projects often last for no longer than one human generation, 

whereas the time frame for changes in ecosystem processes that are the focus of 

cumulative effects assessment is typically an order of magnitude longer (Berg et al., 

1996). 

•	 The effects of most management activities diminish over time, and so then does the 

magnitude of possible cumulative effects. This leads to a problem of temporal scale 

related to determining the magnitude of human-induced cumulative effects relative 

to natural variability over a long time lag (MacDonald, 1997). 

•	 The scale of cumulative effects analysis is very different from that used for traditional effect assessment, and effects due to individual projects might be undetectable 

using the analytical methods necessary for cumulative effects assessment. For 

instance, patterns on the landscape, such as whether 10,000 hectares are contiguous 

or not, are relevant for cumulative effects analysis; a small clear-cut, important at the 

local scale, might not appear in an analysis at a scale of thousands of hectares (Berg 

et al., 1996). 

•	 When working at the scale necessary for cumulative effects assessment, areas that 

contain fragmented jurisdictions with multiple-agency oversight, differences in 

regulatory structure between jurisdictions and agencies, and conflicting interests and 

mandates are involved (Berg et al., 1996). 

•	 To adequately assess the future consequences of multiple perturbations in a watershed, the status of ecosystem recovery from past perturbations must be estimated. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-5 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Complexity of the analysis increases because recovery times for various components 

in a system are not necessarily identical, and knowledge is often inadequate to 

quantify recovery rates. For instance, “recovery” of stream flow magnitude and rate 

after timber harvest is largely a function of the rate of revegetation of the watershed. 

Sediment produced by roads associated with the timber harvest will typically take 

much longer to move through stream channels and “recover” to pre-road levels. 

Understanding of both types of recovery is needed and they cannot be substituted for 

each other. 

Within the context of forestry activities and forested watersheds, the following difficulties 

are encountered when attempting to assess cumulative effects (Reid, 1993): 

•	 The effects of forest management activities on streamflow has been studied extensively, yet it remains difficult to determine what effects a management activity will 

have on a stream because hydrologic response varies greatly with basin size, flow 

magnitude, season, climate, geology, and type and intensity of forest management 

activity. The results of studies done in one basin are therefore difficult to extrapolate 

to other basins. It can be important to determine whether forestry activities will have 

effects on watershed processes because of the potential consequences if the effects 

are substantial enough, but such a determination can be costly. It can also be costly, 

however, to take measures to prevent watershed effects from forestry activities when 

such effects might not materialize. 

•	 Variability in storm intensity and runoff processes limit the ability to detect humaninduced effects on streamflow. Even with years of monitoring data, it can be difficult 

to distinguish between human-induced effects and natural variability in watershed 

processes. The process of determining cause and effect is complicated by the fact 

that different activities can cause similar responses and one activity might not 

always elicit the same response. 

•	 The dynamics of natural forest communities must be understood to interpret or 

predict the effects of changes, and natural disturbance frequencies, patterns, characteristics, recovery rates; these are not well understood. Monitoring would be a useful 

tool to increase our understanding of these dynamics, but the sequences of changes 

that can lead to CEs, or the combinations of changes that can lead to CEs are varied 

and can take long periods of time to take effect (e.g., 50 years). Monitoring these 

effects is often not possible due to the time frame involved. 

•	 If a system responds incrementally, changes can be easily identified; but many 

changes, such as landslides or floods, do not occur incrementally. Instead, changes, 

such as loss of vegetation water storage and increased soil compaction, might be 

relatively benign and accumulate until some event, such as a 50-year storm, triggers 

a substantial response. These thresholds at which substantial and important CEs 

occur often cannot be predicted, and knowledge of them is based on studying them 

after they occur. 

•	 The rate of recovery from land use depends on the type of land use and on the


watershed processes that are affected.


4-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Approaches to Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Four general approaches for predicting cumulative effects include the use of analytical 

models, assessments of previous management activities, use of a collection of procedures 

that address specific anticipated impacts, and use of a checklist to indicate what cumulative effects might be expected to occur because of a land use activity. Models can be used 

to predict changes to physical or biological aspects of a watershed, or to predict the 

magnitude of change in a watershed process or characteristic that might trigger a particular type of impact (Reid, 1993). Models are useful because the cumulative effects of 

repeated timber harvests in a watershed could be estimated or monitored experimentally 

only in a study lasting several centuries (Ziemer and Lisle, 1991). While modeling does 

represent a simplification of nature and depends on a modeler’s skill, modeling results 

can represent average conditions and explore the effects of large spatial and temporal 

scales. They can also be useful for conducting “what if” analyses, where the effects of 

different sequences of harvesting or precipitation events, for example, are explored. This 

characteristic of models contrasts sharply with monitoring studies, in which the unique 

sequence of events that occurs during a monitoring distorts the results. 

Many models have been developed for specific locations and cannot easily be applied to 

other areas. The limitations of the models are stated in user’s guides or instructions for 

use, but the models, nevertheless, are often put into general use regardless of whether the 

assumptions of the model are valid for a particular application or whether the methods of 

the model have been tested and validated (Reid, 1993). Many models are meant to be 

used to predict particular impacts, yet their methods are used to test for the likelihood of 

a variety of other possible impacts for which the method was not developed. Used 

properly, however, models can shed light on the importance of processes and variables to 

watershed behavior and treatment effects, but have limited value for precisely predicting 

watershed behavior (Reid, 1993). A large amount of data generally is required for modeling, and its acquisition can involve intensive monitoring. Data analysis also can be 

complex, and these factors have kept the use of models very limited (MacDonald, 1997). 

Slightly less complicated than modeling would be an analysis involving a broad-scale 

assessment of previous management activities. Such a method would use one or more 

management indices to assess the relative likelihood of a cumulative effect, rather than 

explicitly modeling cause-and-effect (MacDonald, 1997). The EPA Synoptic Approach 

and the Washington State Watershed Analysis Method (described below) are examples of 

this level of analysis. 

Another approach for assessing cumulative effects consists of a collection of procedures 

used to evaluate a variety of impacts. A relevant subset of impacts is generally considered. This approach provides flexibility in determining what impacts will be considered, 

but it provides no guidance on determining which impacts should be evaluated (Reid, 

1993). The Water Resources Evaluation of Non-point Silvicultural Sources (WRENSS) 

(described below) method is an example of a procedure-based approach. 

A third general approach consists of a checklist of items to consider during an assessment. A checklist provides guidance in determining what impacts to evaluate but does not 

provide methods for doing so (Reid, 1993). Checklists are useful for (1) identifying 

which issues to look at in more detail, (2) helping to ensure that a range of issues are 

considered, (3) providing a simple means to address the issue of cumulative effects 

assessment. Disadvantages associated with checklists include the strictly qualitative 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-7 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

nature of the assessments, their lack of repeatability, and their lack of documentation 

(MacDonald, 1997). The California Department of Forestry questionnaire (described 

below) is an example of a checklist assessment method. 

Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, and a workable approach should be a 

combination of these separate approaches. For example, a checklist or expert system 

could be used to guide users through a decision tree to identify the impacts to be considered, and then a set of procedures could be selected to address them (Reid, 1993). Modeling could be employed to assess the sensitivities of the watershed to various treatment 

scenarios. 

Five techniques that have been developed for assessing cumulative effects are described 

below. 

1. EPA The Synoptic Approach 

The Synoptic Approach was developed by EPA for the evaluation of cumulative effects 

on wetlands for section 404 permit review. It does not provide a precise, quantitative 

assessment of cumulative effects, but is used to rate cumulative effects on resources of 

interest (Berg et al., 1996). The Synoptic Approach has two major steps—definition of 

the synoptic indices and selection of landscape indicators. 

Synoptic Indices 

Four synoptic indices are used for assessing cumulative effects and relative risk— 

function, value, functional loss, and replacement potential. The function index refers to 

the total amount of a particular function a wetland provides within a landscape subunit 

without consideration of the ecological or social benefits of that function. Landscape 

elements function within landscapes through physical, chemical, and biological processes 

to provide habitat, cleanse water, prevent flooding, and perform other functions. The 

value index refers to the value of ecological functions with respect to public welfare. 

Tangible benefits (e.g., hunting, camping, timber, carbon dioxide sequestration) and 

intangible benefits (e.g., aesthetic, existence value) can both be included, as well as 

future value as the future benefit of the functions performed. Note that the value index 

does not represent economic value since market factors are not considered. The functional loss index represents cumulative effects on a particular valued function that have 

occurred within a landscape subunit. A complete loss, where an ecosystem element is 

changed into something else entirely, is a conversion. A partial loss, where ecosystem 

element type is the same but functioning is altered, is degradation. In the course of a 

cumulative effects assessment, future loss is considered per the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations (40 CFR 1508.7). Functional loss depends on the characteristics 

of a particular effect, including the type of effect; its magnitude, timing, and duration; 

and ecosystem resistance, or the sensitivity of the ecosystem element to disturbance. The 

replacement potential index represents the ability to replace an ecosystem element and its 

valued functions. Functional replacement through ecological restoration or natural 

recovery are both considered. Protection of ecosystem elements and functions is critical 

for risk reduction if their replacement potential is judged to be low (USEPA, 1992). 

4-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Landscape Indicators 

Landscape indicators are first-order approximations that represent some particular 

synoptic index. Quantifying specific synoptic indices for large landscape subunits would 

be difficult if not impossible, so the Synoptic Approach uses landscape indicators of 

actual functions, values, and effects (USEPA, 1992). 

As an example, a particular management concern might be nonpoint source sediment 

loading to streams. Nonpoint source sediment loading would then be the synoptic index 

used in the Synoptic Approach. Since it would be difficult to quantify this over a large 

area, total area harvested might be chosen as a landscape indicator for forest harvesting. 

Total harvested area would be the data used to determine cumulative nonpoint source 

sediment loading effects on the area of concern. 

The Synoptic Approach is an ecologically based framework in which locally relevant 

information and best professional judgment are combined to address cumulative effects. 

It is not, however, meant to be used to assess the cumulative effects of specific actions. 

Rather, it is really meant to be used to augment site-specific review processes and to 

improve best professional judgment. It is probably most effectively used at extremely 

large landscape scales, such as the state level (Berg et al., 1996). The approach is valuable because it is flexible enough to cover a broad spectrum of management objectives 

and constraints—the specific synoptic indices and landscape indicators used in an 

application can be chosen based on the particular goals and constraints of the assessment—and it certainly need not be limited to assessing effects on wetlands. The process 

allows managers to weigh the need for precision against the constraints of time, money, 

and information (USEPA, 1992). 

2. Washington State Watershed Analysis 

The Washington State Watershed Analysis method is used to develop forest plans for 

individual watersheds based on current scientific understanding of the significant links 

between physical and biological processes and management activities. The first step in 

use of the method is screening a watershed to qualitatively define and assess areas of 

sensitivity to environmental change within the watershed. If any area is found to be 

sensitive, then the area and the causal mechanism must be addressed by a management 

plan appropriate to the problem. The management plan will define more precisely the 

potential effects of management actions and management alternatives. The method uses 

separate assessment modules for mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrologic change, 

riparian function, stream channel assessment, fish habitat, water supply/public works, and 

routing through the fluvial system (Berg et al., 1996). 

The Washington State Watershed Analysis process is a collaborative one that involves 

both scientists and managers, and its products generally are area-specific management 

prescriptions and monitoring recommendations (Berg et al., 1996). 

3. Water Resources Evaluation of Nonpoint Silvicultural Sources 

(WRENSS) 

The WRENSS is a process-based approach to evaluating timber management impacts 

(Reid, 1993). It consists of a series of procedures for evaluating separate impacts, though 

it is not intended specifically to address CEs. The original focus of the method was water 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-9 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

quality and consideration of the effects of timber management and roads. While its 

procedures do not address resources other than water quality, it would be possible to add 

additional methods to evaluate impacts on particular resources and to assess the effects of 

other land uses. Use of the method can be complex and time consuming. 

The method is based on computer simulation modeling that delivers graphs and tables as 

results that are used to estimate changes in evapotranspiration, flow duration, and soil 

moisture from different logging plans. Temperature changes are incorporated using a 

separate model, the Brown model, and sediment modules include methods for estimating 

surface erosion, ditch erosion, landsliding, earthflow activity, sediment yield, and channel 

stability. 

Application of the method to CE analysis would require the identification of likely 

environmental changes generated by a project, likely downstream impacts, and the 

mechanisms generating them. 

4. California Department of Forestry Questionnaire 

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection developed a questionnaire for 

use by registered professional foresters to assess potential cumulative watershed effects 

(CWE) from timber management. Completion of the questionnaire involves a four-step 

process: (1) perform a resource inventory in the assessment area; (2) judge whether the 

planned timber operation is likely to produce changes to each of those resources; 

(3) identify the effects of past or future projects; and (4) judge whether significant 

cumulative effects are likely from the proposed operation. Onsite and downstream 

beneficial uses, existing channel conditions, and adverse effects from past projects are 

identified and listed during the first step. The area for analysis is one of manageable size 

relative to the timber harvest—usually an order 3 or 4 watershed. During the assessment, 

the user rates the magnitude of a variety of potential effects from the proposed and future 

projects, and combined past, present, and future projects. The assessment serves as an 

indicator of need for further review. 

Responding to the questionnaire relies on the qualitative observations and professional 

judgment of the person filling out the forms. The questionnaire is designed to be used 

within the time constraints of the development of timber harvest plans and serves primarily as a checklist to be certain that all important issues have been considered. Its strength 

lies in its flexibility: the checklist can be easily altered to accommodate a wide variety of 

situations and harvesting conditions. 

The California Department of Forestry questionnaire addresses a wide variety of uses and 

effects and includes many that are not related to water quality, e.g., recreational, aesthetic, biological, and traffic uses and values, but it provides only qualitative results. The 

questionnaire is the only CWE evaluation method that uses an assessment of more than 

one type of effect from more than one type of mechanism, and it is one of few that 

incorporates an evaluation of effects that accumulate due to past, present, and future 

actions (Berg et al., 1996). 

5. Phased Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment 

MacDonald (2000), put forth a conceptual process for assessing cumulative effects. The 

process is an attempt to overcome some of the problems with other approaches to cumulative effects analysis (CEA), including problems in defining key issues, specifying the 

4-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

appropriate spatial and temporal scales, and determining the numerous interactions and 

indirect effects to analyze. The assessment is broken down into three phases: scoping, 

analysis, and management. 

•	 The scoping phase is further broken down into steps in which the issues, resources, 

time scale, spatial scale, risk, and assessment effort are identified for the cumulative 

effects analysis. The analysis phase is likewise subdivided into five substeps. 

•	 In the analysis phase researchers identify and analyze cause-and-effect mechanisms; 

natural variability and resource condition; past, present and future activities; relative 

impacts of past, present and future activities; and validity and sensitivity of the 

overall cumulative effects analysis. 

•	 The management phase identifies possibilities for mitigation and restoration, as well 

as key data gaps and monitoring needs. 

Figure 4-1 illustrates MacDonald’s process for assessing cumulative effects. 

Figure 4-1. Representation of MacDonald’s process for assessing cumulative effects (after 

MacDonald, 2000). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-11 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published guidelines for 

performing CEA (CEQ, 1997). The CEQ methodology is broken down into three groups 

of steps that are designed to be integrated into three components of an environmental 

impact assessment (EIA). The EIA components relevant to CEA are scoping, describing 

the affected environment, and determining the environmental consequences. 

•	 In the scoping component of an EIA, the CEA steps are to identify significant issues 

and define assessment goals; establish spatial boundaries of the CEA; establish 

temporal scale of the CEA; and identify other activities that affect natural and 

human communities. 

•	 The affected environment component of the EA should incorporate the following 

CEA steps: characterize the resources, ecosystems and human communities and their 

resilience to stress; define stresses and regulatory thresholds for measuring stresses; 

and define baseline conditions for the area defined in the CEA. 

•	 The environmental consequences component of the EIA should identify CEA causeand-effect relationships between human activities and resources; determine the 

significance of cumulative effects; develop alternatives to minimize or mitigate 

significant cumulative effects; monitor cumulative effects and adapt management 

accordingly. 

CEQ lists seven primary methods to develop baseline data and analytical models for 

cumulative effects analysis (CEA): 

•	 Questionnaires, interviews, and panels to gather initial information 

•	 Checklists to review important activities that may contribute to cumulative effects 

•	 Matrices to tally cumulative effects 

•	 Networks and system diagrams to qualitatively analyze effects of multiple activities 

on multiple resources in the analysis 

•	 Modeling to quantify the cause-and-effect relationships within the CEA 

•	 Trends analysis to use baseline data to extrapolate future cumulative effects 

•	 Overlay mapping (GIS) to perform spatial analysis and identify areas of high and 

low impact. 

Appendices to the CEQ report provide examples of each method and how it is might be 

used in CEA. The report is available on the World Wide Web at <http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/ 

nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm>. 

The MacDonald (2000) and CEQ (1997) guidelines share many similar components. The 

spatial and temporal boundaries of the CEA are defined first, along with the resources 

that will be impacted by cumulative effects. Detailed analysis of cause-and-effect relationships follows, and baseline data is developed to describe present conditions. Both 

methods include monitoring and mitigation steps toward the end of the process. 

MacDonald’s framework differs from the CEQ methodology by including natural variability in systems, consideration of past and future activities, sensitivity analysis of 

predictive models, and an up-front determination on the level of effort that is appropriate 

for the assessment. MacDonald’s refinements help address some of the hurdles to CEA 

implementation that have hampered past efforts. 

4-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

Forest Watershed Management: An Example 

The Umatilla National Forest, located in the Blue Mountains of southeast Washington 

and northeast Oregon, covers l.4 million acres of diverse landscapes and plant communities (USDA-FS, 1999). The forest has some mountainous terrain, but mostly consists of 

V-shaped valleys separated by narrow ridges or plateaus. The landscape also includes 

heavily timbered slopes, grassland ridges and benches, and bold granite outcroppings. 

Elevations range from 1,600 to 8,000 feet above sea level. 

The Forest is administered by the Forest Supervisors Office in Pendleton, Oregon, along 

with four Ranger Districts located in Pomeroy and Walla Walla, Washington, and Ukiah 

and Heppner, Oregon. The actual on the ground management of the forest resources is 

accomplished at the Ranger District level by the District Ranger and staff, while the 

Forest Supervisor oversees management and administration. The Forest is challenged 

daily with protecting both the productivity and the aesthetic values of the land. Managing 

to provide many resources, benefiting many people “for the long run” is the key principle 

guiding the Umatilla Management Team. 

Because water from the Blue Mountains is important for so many uses, proper management of the watersheds in the Umatilla National Forest is strongly emphasized. The goals 

of the watershed management program are as follows: 

•	 To maintain streams that are cold, clean, and free of excessive sediments and


human-caused pollution.


•	 To keep stream banks, channels, wetlands, and adjacent floodplains healthy. 

•	 To restore damaged lands to their previous, productive condition. 

•	 To maintain near-natural amounts of runoff water. 

The Umatilla National Forest Plan includes important direction for achieving these goals. 

The plan envisions a basic three-point program for managing forest watersheds: 

1. Inventory Basic Watershed Resources 

Proper management of a forest watershed demands a good understanding of basic components—soil, water, climate, and vegetation. Managers at the Umatilla National Forest 

upgrade the resource information base for the forest by conducting the following inventories and surveys: 

•	 Soil 

•	 Water 

•	 Fishery resources 

•	 Potential watershed improvement projects 

•	 Riparian zones (areas adjacent to streams and lakes) 

These watershed surveys provide vital information for improving the management of 

surface water resources. 

2. Apply Best Management Practices 

The Umatilla National Forest has developed “best management practices”—policies, 

standards, and methods of operation designed to reduce harmful effects on water while 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 4-13 
Chapter 4: Using Management Measures to Prevent and Solve Nonpoint Source Pollution Problems in Watersheds 

still allowing use of other resources. Maintaining stream surface shading to prevent fishbearing waters from overheating during the summer is an example of general practices 

applied throughout the forest. Others are developed specifically for a particular activity. 

Forest managers work together in the project planning stages to identify the nature and 

risk of potential hazards to water resources. As a result, projects can be modified to avoid 

problem areas and reduce water resource damage. 

The forest’s watershed management program emphasizes the prevention of problems 

before they occur. However, it is sometimes necessary to treat watershed problems 

resulting from past practices. Such treatments might include restoring wet meadows, 

recontouring gullied lands, or stabilizing eroding stream banks. 

Recently, a program to control and treat the acidic wastewater draining into a forest 

stream where salmon and steelhead spawn was begun in the Umatilla National Forest. 

These wastes, produced by abandoned gold mines, are now treated in man-made bogs, 

where toxic metals and other harmful substances are filtered out. Initial results have 

shown a dramatic recovery in water quality. 

3. Monitor and Analyze Results 

An extensive water-monitoring program has been developed for the Umatilla National 

Forest. It measures success in achieving the goal of maintaining healthy and abundant 

water resources. Monitoring stations are strategically placed at forest management 

projects to measure 

• Stream flow 

• Water temperature 

• Suspended sediment and turbidity 

• Shape and condition of stream channels and riparian areas 

• Precipitation, snow pack and other climatic factors 

• The soil’s ability to infiltrate and hold precipitation 

• Physical, chemical and biological components of water quality 

These measurements provide a better understanding of how management activities affect 

water resources and whether our efforts are effective in maintaining high water quality. 

4-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
CHAPTER 5: MONITORING

AND TRACKING TECHNIQUES

This chapter discusses monitoring the implementation and effectiveness of forestry 

management measures. For the most part, such monitoring is done either for research 

purposes or to assess compliance with regulatory requirements or recommendations. 

Therefore, it is usually the domain of universities or government agencies and this 

chapter is directed primarily at state agencies responsible for compliance with forestry 

regulations, nonpoint source pollution control regulations, or voluntary forest practice 

programs. Owners and managers of large forestland tracts are encouraged to work with 

state officials to develop a means of monitoring the implementation of BMPs on their 

lands to assess whether they are installed and maintained adequately so that they will 

protect water quality effectively, regardless of whether the state’s program mandates 

forest practice implementation or encourages voluntary implementation. 

Overview 

Designing and legally implementing a state program of management practices for forest 

harvests and forest road construction cannot protect water quality unless the BMPs are 

implemented by those who actually harvest the timber or manage the land to be harvested. Monitoring the implementation of BMPs is a crucial element of any BMP program. Monitoring provides feedback on whether management practices are implemented 

per the specifications required or recommended by state and federal governments, on 

how the forestry practice program is received by harvesters and landowners, and on 

forestry practice design and use standards and specifications so they can be refined to be 

more useful and more effective. 

Many states have implemented programs to monitor the implementation of forestry 

practices at harvest sites in conjunction with the passage of forest practice legislation or 

after a state has established a set of forestry practice recommendations. The end of this 

chapter provides information about some of these programs. Fewer states monitor the 

effectiveness of management practices at protecting water quality as part of their BMP 

implementation monitoring programs. However, even a limited amount of effectiveness 

monitoring, such as under controlled conditions during experimental harvests, is important to ensure that BMP design specifications and standards are adequate to protect water 

quality and soils. Once it is determined that BMPs that are installed according to standards and specifications are actually effective, it can be acceptable to monitor only the 

implementation of BMPs to ensure that they are properly installed, the assumption being 

that if they are installed adequately, then they effectively protect water quality and forest 

resources. Such an approach is often necessary because of the difficulty and cost in 

measuring water quality directly and confounding factors such as upstream pollution 

sources. Without the initial information that adequately installed BMPs are effective, 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-1 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

though, little can be said about the degree of water quality and forest resource protection 

attained by adequately installing BMPs. 

Monitoring Program Fundamentals 

The most fundamental step in the development of a monitoring plan is to define the goals 

and objectives, or purpose, of the monitoring program. In general, monitoring goals are 

broad statements such as “to measure changes in fish spawning habitat” or “to measure 

nutrient loading to streams adjacent to harvest sites.” Monitoring programs can be 

grouped according to the following general statements of purpose or expected outcomes: 

• Describe status and trend 

• Describe and rank existing and emerging problems 

• Design management and regulatory programs 

• Evaluate program effectiveness 

• Respond to emergencies 

• Evaluate the implementation of best management practices 

• Evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices 

• Validate a proposed water quality model 

• Perform research 

Unlike monitoring goals, monitoring objectives are more specific statements that can be 

used to add detail, including geographic scale, measurement variables, sampling methods, and sample size, to the monitoring design. Detailed monitoring program objectives 

enable the designer of the program to define precisely what data will be gathered in order 

to meet the management goals. Vague or inaccurate statements of objectives lead to 

program designs that provide too little or too much data, thereby either failing to meet 

management needs or costing too much. 

Numerous guidance documents have been developed, or are in development, to assist 

resource managers in developing and implementing monitoring programs that address all 

aspects of monitoring design. Appendix A in Monitoring Guidance for Determining the 

Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997) presents a review of more than 

40 monitoring guidances for both point and nonpoint source pollution. These guidances 

discuss virtually every aspect of nonpoint source pollution monitoring, including monitoring program design and objectives, sample types and sampling methods, chemical and 

physical water quality variables, biological monitoring, data analysis and management, 

and quality assurance and quality control. 

Once the monitoring goals and objectives have been established, existing data and 

constraints are considered. A thorough review of literature pertaining to water quality 

studies previously conducted in the geographic region of interest can help determine 

whether existing data provide sufficient information to address the monitoring goals and 

what data gaps exist. 

Identification of project constraints address financial, staffing, and temporal elements. 

Clear and detailed information is obtained on the time frame within which management 

decisions need to be made, the amounts and types of data that is to be collected, the level 

of effort needed to collect the necessary data, and equipment and personnel needed to 

5-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

conduct the monitoring. From this information it can be determined whether available 

personnel and budget are sufficient to implement or expand the monitoring program. 

As with monitoring program design, the level of monitoring that will be conducted is 

largely determined when goals and objectives are set for a monitoring program, although 

there is some flexibility for achieving most monitoring objectives. 

The overall scale of a monitoring program has two components—a temporal scale and a 

geographic scale. The temporal scale is the amount of time required to accomplish the 

program objectives. It can vary from an afternoon to many years. The geographic scale 

can also vary from quite small, such as plots along a single stream reach, to very large, 

such as an entire river basin. The temporal and geographic scales, like a program’s design 

and monitoring level, are primarily determined by the program’s objectives. 

If the main objective is to determine the current biological condition of a stream, sampling at a few stations in a stream reach over 1 or 2 days might suffice. Similarly, if the 

monitoring objective is to determine the presence or absence of a nonpoint source effect, 

a synoptic survey might be conducted in a few select locations. If the objective is to 

determine the effectiveness of a watershed forest management program for improving 

water quality conditions in streams, however, monitoring subwatersheds for 5 years or 

longer might be necessary. If the objective is to calibrate or verify a model, very intensive 

sampling might be necessary. 

Depending on the objectives of the monitoring program, it might be necessary to monitor 

only the water body with the water quality problem or it might be necessary to include 

areas that have contributed to the problem in the past, areas containing suspected sources 

of the problem, or a combination of these areas. A monitoring program conducted on a 

watershed scale will include a decision about the watershed’s size. The effective size of a 

watershed is influenced by drainage patterns, stream order, stream permanence, climate, 

number of landowners in the area, homogeneity of land uses, watershed geology, and 

geomorphology. Each factor is important because each has an influence on stream 

characteristics, although no direct relationship exists. 

There is no formula for determining appropriate geographic and temporal scales for any 

particular monitoring program. Rather, once the objectives of the monitoring program 

have been determined, a combined analysis of them and any background information on 

the water quality problem(s) being addressed will make it clear what overall monitoring 

scale is necessary to reach the objectives. 

Other factors that can be considered to determine appropriate temporal and geographic 

scales include the type of water resource being monitored and the complexity of the 

nonpoint source problem. Some of the constraints mentioned earlier, such as the availability of resources (staff and money) and the time frame within which managers need 

monitoring information, will also contribute to determination of the scale of the monitoring program. 

For additional details regarding nonpoint source monitoring techniques, including 

chemical and biological monitoring, refer to Monitoring Guidance for Determining the 

Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls (USEPA, 1997). This technical document 

focuses on monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of management practices, but also 

includes approximately 300 references and summaries of more than 40 other monitoring 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-3 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

guides. In addition, Chapter 8 of EPA’s management measures guidance for section 6217 

contains a detailed discussion of monitoring (USEPA, 1993). 

Monitoring BMP Implementation 

The implementation of management measures and BMPs should be tracked to determine 

the extent to which the measures are implemented on harvest sites or throughout a 

watershed. Data on BMP implementation and trends in BMP implementation can be used 

to address the following goals: 

•	 Determine the extent to which BMPs are implemented in accordance with relevant 

standards and specifications. 

•	 Determine whether there has been a change from previous years in the extent to


which BMPs are being implemented.


•	 Establish a baseline from which decisions can be made regarding the need for


additional incentives for implementation of BMPs.


•	 Determine the extent to which BMPs are properly maintained and operated. 

•	 Measure the success of voluntary BMP implementation programs. 

•	 Determine how and why BMP use varies from one geographic area to another. 

•	 Support workload and costing analyses for landowner assistance or regulatory


programs.


Methods to assess the implementation of management measures are a key focus of the 

technical assistance to be provided by EPA and NOAA under CZARA section 6217. 

Implementation assessments can be done on several scales. Site-specific assessments can 

be used to assess individual management practices or management measures, and watershed assessments can be used to look at the cumulative effects of implementing multiple 

management measures. With regard to “site-specific” assessments, it is important to 

assess individual management practices at the appropriate scale for the practice of 

interest. For example, to assess the implementation of management measures or management practices for forest roads at harvest sites, only the roads at timber harvesting sites 

would need to be inspected. In this example, the scale would be a timber harvest area and 

the sites would be active and inactive roads at the harvest areas. To assess implementation 

of management measures and practices at streamside management areas, the proper scale 

might be a harvest area larger than 10 acres and the sites could be areas encompassed by 

buffer areas for 200-meter stretches of stream. For site preparation and forest regeneration, the scale and site might be an entire harvest site. Site-specific measurements can 

then be used to extrapolate to a watershed or statewide assessment. 

Sampling design, approaches to conducting the evaluation, data analysis techniques, and 

ways to present evaluation results are described in EPA’s Techniques for Tracking, 

Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation of Nonpoint Source Control Measures— 

Forestry (USEPA, 1997a), from which much of the text for this chapter has been borrowed. Chapter 8 of EPA’s management measures guidance for section 6217 contains a 

detailed discussion of techniques and procedures to assess implementation, operation, 

and maintenance of management measures (USEPA, 1993). 

5-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

Monitoring BMP Effectiveness 

By tracking management measures and water quality simultaneously, analysts gain the 

information necessary to evaluate the performance of the management measures implemented. Management measure tracking provides information on whether pollution 

controls are being implemented, operated, and maintained adequately. Only with such 

information is it possible to draw conclusions from water quality monitoring data about 

the effectiveness of management practices. 

A major challenge in attempting to relate implementation of management measures to 

water quality changes is determining the appropriate land management attributes to track. 

For example, simply counting the number of management measures implemented in a 

watershed has little chance of being useful in statistical analyses to relate water quality to 

land treatment since the count only remotely relates (i.e., a mechanism is lacking) to the 

measured water quality parameter (e.g., cobble embeddedness). Land treatment monitoring that relates directly to the pollutants or effects monitored at the water quality station 

is most useful. For example, the spacing of water bars relative to slope might be a more 

useful parameter to track than the number of miles of road constructed. Since the effect 

of management measures on water quality might not be immediate or implementation 

might not be sustained, information on other relevant watershed activities (e.g., urbanization, wildfire frequency and extent) is essential for the final analysis. 

Management practice effectiveness has not been well documented on a watershed scale, 

particularly for watersheds with mixed land uses. Studies of management practice 

effectiveness have been done at the plot and field scales where specific treatments are 

used and compared to a control situation. Extrapolations from these data and studies 

using nonpoint source pollution models constitute most of the information available on a 

watershed scale. Actual data collection and management practice effectiveness determination on a watershed scale is more complex and, because of natural variability, it 

requires long periods of monitoring before management practice implementation so that 

a statistical minimum detectable change level can be established. The minimum detectable change is the minimum measurable change in a water quality parameter over time 

that is statistically significant, and it is a function of statistical tests, the number of 

samples taken per year, the number of years of monitoring, and the variates and 

covariates used in the analyses. Dissmeyer (1994) provides detailed information on 

monitoring forestry BMPs to evaluate their effectiveness in meeting water quality goals. 

An approach for watershed monitoring of management practice effectiveness, and the 

problems associated with the approach and with such studies in general, is discussed in 

Park and others (1994). 

Appropriately collected water quality information can be evaluated with trend analysis to 

determine whether pollutant loads have been reduced or whether water quality has 

improved. Valid statistical associations drawn between implementation and water quality 

data can be used to indicate the following: 

•	 Whether management measures have been successful in improving water quality in 

a watershed or recharge area. 

•	 The need for additional management measures to meet water quality objectives in 

the watershed or recharge area. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-5 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

Greater detail regarding methods to evaluate the effectiveness of land treatment efforts is 

provided in EPA’s nonpoint source monitoring guidance (USEPA, 1997) and management 

measures guidance for section 6217 (USEPA, 1993). 

Importance of BMP Monitoring 

Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service reviewed state BMP implementation and 

monitoring programs and the results from those programs in 1994. At the time, twentyone states were assessing BMP effectiveness. They found that the states had generally 

concluded that carefully developed and applied BMPs can prevent serious deterioration 

of water quality, and that most water quality problems were associated with poor BMP 

implementation. Water quality monitoring was determined to be essential to understanding the relationship between land disturbance and water quality, as it leads to improved 

understanding of the interaction of soils and topography with BMP implementation. BMP 

guidelines can be reassessed continually to make them more cost effective, and the more 

they can be specified, used, monitored, and fine tuned for specific circumstances, the 

more cost-effectively they can be used to protect water quality. 

Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) are commonly thought of as procedures 

used in the laboratory to ensure that all analytical measurements made are accurate. But 

QA and QC extend beyond the laboratory and are essential components of all phases and 

all activities within each phase of a nonpoint source monitoring project. 

Definitions of Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

Quality assurance is an integrated management system designed to ensure that a product 

or service meets defined standards of quality with a stated level of confidence. Quality 

assurance activities involve planning quality control, quality assessment, reporting, and 

quality improvement. 

Quality control is the overall system of technical activities designed to measure quality 

and limit error in a product or service. A quality control program manages quality so that 

data meet the needs of the user as expressed in a quality assurance project plan. 

Quality control procedures include the collection and analysis of blank, duplicate, and 

spiked samples and standard reference materials to ensure the integrity of analyses, as 

well as regular inspection of equipment to ensure it is operating properly. Quality assurance activities are more managerial in nature and include assignment of roles and responsibilities to project staff, staff training, development of data quality objectives, data 

validation, and laboratory audits. Such procedures and activities are planned and executed 

by diverse organizations through carefully designed quality management programs that 

reflect the importance of the work and the degree of confidence needed in the quality of 

the results. 

Importance of Quality Assurance and Quality Control Programs 

Although the value of a QA/QC program might seem questionable while a project is 

under way, its value will be quite clear after a project is completed. If the objectives of 

5-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

the project were used to design an appropriate data collection and analysis plan, all QA/ 

QC procedures were followed for all project activities, and accurate and complete records 

were kept throughout the project, the data and information collected from the project 

should be adequate to support a choice from among alternative courses of action. In 

addition, the course of action chosen should be defensible based on the data and information collected. Development and implementation of a QA/QC program can require up to 

10 to 20 percent of project resources (Cross-Smiecinski and Stetzenback, 1994), but this 

cost can be recaptured in lower overall costs due to the project’s being well planned and 

executed. Likely problems are anticipated and accounted for before they arise, eliminating the need to spend countless hours and dollars resampling, reanalyzing data, or 

mentally reconstructing portions of the project to determine where an error was introduced. QA/QC procedures and activities are cost-effective measures used to determine 

how to allocate project energies and resources toward improving the quality of research 

and the usefulness of project results. 

EPA Quality Policy 

EPA has established a QA/QC program to ensure that data used in research and monitoring projects are of known and documented quality to satisfy project objectives. The use of 

different methodologies, lack of data comparability, unknown data quality, and poor 

coordination of sampling and analysis efforts can delay the progress of a project or render 

the data and information collected from it insufficient for decision making. QA/QC 

practices are best used as an integral part of the development, design, and implementation 

of a nonpoint source monitoring project to minimize or eliminate these problems. 

Additional information on QA/QC can be found in Chapter 5 of EPA’s nonpoint source 

monitoring guide (USEPA, 1997) and in EPA documents on QA/QC. 

Review of State Management Practice 

Monitoring Programs 

Objectives of the Audits 

In general, state audits of harvest sites or other types of forestry operations have as their 

primary objectives to assess compliance with BMP implementation guidelines and/or the 

effectiveness of BMPs at preventing soil erosion and protecting water quality. Additionally, because the process of collecting BMP implementation and effectiveness information lends itself well to the collection of related information that can be quite useful to a 

state forestry department, states also collect information that will help them to 

•	 Identify problem areas where additional landowner training and education is needed 

to improve BMP implementation. 

•	 Determine which BMP implementation standards and specifications need revision. 

•	 Identify necessary improvements in the BMP monitoring program. 

Information on landowner training is easily gathered during the audits if the landowner 

on whose property a harvest was done is present during the audit or contacted as part of 

the audit. Landowners can be contacted before the audit in most instances to obtain 

permission to enter their property, and they can be asked to be present either during the 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-7 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

audit, when they can perhaps offer valuable information about the harvest, or after an 

audit during a discussion of the results. 

Analysis of BMP implementation standards and specifications can be done effectively 

during an audit, or during an analysis of audit results after an annual audit has been 

completed, by comparing the implementation and effectiveness information gathered 

during the audit with state implementation specifications. For example, specifications 

may call for a recommended maximum distance between culverts on forest roads of a 

given slope. During the audits it might be noticed that, even where these specifications 

have been adhered to, erosion is unacceptable. It may then be recommended to lower the 

maximum distance, or it might be noticed that excessive erosion is related to a particular 

soil type, and a shorter distance might be recommended where this soil type occurs. 

Audits can provide valuable information about the monitoring program, too. It might be 

discovered during the course of audits that instances of particular types of effects to soils 

or water resources are increasing over the years. Or it might be recognized that certain 

forestry operations (e.g., prescribed burning or site preparation) might not be accounted 

for in the audits adequately enough to draw conclusions about effects to water resources. 

Information collected during the audits can be used to adjust the monitoring program to 

actual information needs. 

Audits conducted by some states serve specific objectives beyond assessments of BMP 

implementation and effectiveness. A good example is South Carolina, which has designed 

the data collection aspect of its BMP implementation survey to permit the state to determine the effect of a number of variables on compliance with BMP standards. The variables investigated include 

• Physiographic region in which the harvest occurred 

• Occurrence of a stream on the harvest site 

• Percent slope at the harvest site 

• Type of terrain at the harvest site 

• Category to which the landowner belonged 

• Use of cost share assistance for the harvest 

• Landowner’s familiarity with state BMPs 

• Use of a site preparation contract 

• Written requirement for the use of BMPs 

• Involvement of a forester in the prescription and supervision of site preparation 

• Size of the area being site-prepared for reforestation 

Criteria Used to Choose the Audit Sites 

States use a number of criteria to select sites for inclusion in BMP audits. Generally, the 

criteria exclude from the audits those sites where BMPs of interest would not likely have 

been used, where the types of effects of interest (e.g., impacts to water quality) would be 

difficult to detect or nonexistent, and sites where detecting whether BMPs had been 

implemented would be difficult due to changes in site characteristics since their implementation. Other criteria ensure that sites from different topographic or vegetative 

community areas or administrative jurisdictions (e.g., counties or state forest service 

regions) are included in the audits. 

5-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

The use of criteria result in a biased sample of audit sites, and thus the conclusions from 

the audits cannot be used to draw conclusions about all harvest sites in a state. But 

complete random sampling of harvest sites would limit the usefulness of the results more 

than biasing the selection of sites by the use of criteria. Not limiting the sites chosen for 

the audits would result in the inclusion of sites where harvests had occurred many years 

previously and physical evidence of BMP implementation would be undetectable, sites in 

areas where BMPs of interest (such as those related to SMAs) would not have been used, 

and would possibly result in not including portions of the state of interest to the state 

forestry agency. Therefore, it is important to use criteria to ensure that audit sites provide 

the information of interest. 

The following are some of the criteria used in state audits. 

Geographic Distribution 

Generally, an entire state is included in an audit by choosing a minimum number of sites 

per county. A minimum of one site per county is a common criterion, though if timber 

harvesting is limited to certain areas, a state might include only those counties in which 

timber was harvested during the time period of interest (see second criterion). The 

geographical distribution of audit sites might be related to the quantity of timber harvested in a county by ensuring that the latter is proportional to the number of sites chosen 

for the county. Depending on the purpose of the audit, some other potential site selection 

criteria are 

•	 Sites within a specific watershed. 

•	 The geographic distribution of audit sites reflects the distribution of timber harvest 

ownership group. 

•	 All physiographic regions of the state are represented. 

Time Since Harvest 

The timber harvest or other management activity of interest (e.g., site preparation, road 

construction) is to have occurred within a specific period of time, typically 1 to 2 years, 

prior to the audit. There are two good reasons to conduct audits as soon as possible after a 

harvest. First, the longer the delay between a harvest and an audit, the more difficult it 

will be to determine the adequacy of BMP implementation. With the passage of time 

natural vegetation growth can hide evidence of the adequacy of soil conservation measures, storms can obliterate evidence of the adequacy of erosion control methods, and the 

like. Second, most erosion and sedimentation caused by a harvest activity occurs during 

and shortly after the harvest, and the longer the time between a harvest and an audit of the 

harvest, the less likely it is that the audit results will be able to help correct BMP implementation problems and, therefore, minimize water quality impacts. Ideally, BMP implementation and effectiveness audits should occur during harvest-related activity. 

Minimum Size 

Audit sites are generally no less than 5 to 10 acres, which ensures that BMP use would 

have been called for. A minimum volume of harvested timber is another way of ensuring 

the same. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-9 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

Proximity to Watercourse 

Most states insist that harvest sites have a stream (perennial or intermittent), lake, wetland, or pond of a certain size on or near them. The criterion might be that the watercourse is on the audit site, especially if a primary goal of the audit is to assess implementation of SMA rules or guidelines, or within 200 to 500 feet of the audit site if water 

quality effects of harvest operations are of particular concern. States that are interested in 

overall BMP implementation might not care that audit sites be associated with surface 

waters. 

Representation of Ownership 

Inclusion of all ownership groups (private nonindustrial, industrial, federal, state, and 

local) can be a criterion for choosing sites, though generally audit sites are not specifically chosen to represent the ownership groups. If all ownership groups are to be included, states might use this criterion only if a minimum number of sites per ownership 

group is not reached using the other criteria. When this happens, sites from the overrepresented ownership group or groups are randomly deselected and sites from the underrepresented group are randomly selected from those of the desired ownership group. 

Randomness 

Although, as stated above, simple randomness is not an overriding concern in the design 

of BMP audits, many states do ensure that once the criteria are met, sites are then selected 

randomly, resulting in a stratified random sampling design. 

Audit Focus: BMP Implementation and BMP Effectiveness 

Surveys are geared toward investigating either BMP implementation or BMP effectiveness or both of these. The nature of the forestry activity at any given site that is investigated determines which BMPs are appropriate for implementation at the site or required 

to be used, depending on whether BMP use is mandatory or voluntary. Sites are generally 

rated based on the BMPs that should have been used at the site. If a timber harvest plan 

was prepared prior to the harvest, or a road construction plan prepared prior to construction of a road and BMPs were included in the plan(s), then the survey might investigate 

whether the BMPs included in the plan were actually implemented. 

Number of Sites Investigated 

The number of sites investigated varies widely and depends on survey design, amount of 

silviculture activity in the state, and availability of resources (staff and money). If the 

results of the survey are to be analyzed statistically, then the number of sites investigated 

must be sufficient for this purpose. See EPA’s Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and 

Reporting the Implementation of Nonpoint Source Control Measures—Forestry (USEPA, 

1997a) for guidance on selecting a sufficient number of sites for statistical analysis 

purposes. A difficulty for many states is ensuring that the number of harvest sites 

inspected is adequate to draw meaningful conclusions about overall BMP 

implementation. The number of sites harvested within the audit timeframe (e.g., 2 years 

if the audit includes sites harvested within the 2 years prior to the audit) is often not 

known. Many states do not require preharvest notification, or that a landowner inform the 

state department of forestry that a harvest will occur and where it will occur. Without this 

5-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

information, a state cannot know with certainty what percentage of harvest sites are 

included in an audit and finding sites to audit can be a difficult, costly, time-consuming 

task. Even if a state has a policy of voluntary implementation of its forestry BMPs or 

guidelines, simply requiring that landowners report to the state department of forestry 

when and where a harvest will occur and the acreage to be harvested, the state’s ability to 

audit BMP implementation in a timely manner, track BMP implementation trends, assist 

landowners with proper BMP implementation, and maintain accurate statistics about 

forestry activity in the state can be greatly improved. 

Number of BMPs Evaluated 

The number of BMPs investigated at each site varies depending on the objectives of the 

survey and the number and types of BMPs recommended or required by the state. Surveys that target specific types of operations or locations, such as road construction or 

SMAs, generally involve investigations of fewer BMPs than surveys to assess the use of 

BMPs for all aspects of forest harvesting, from temporary road construction to site 

preparation for reforestation. 

Composition of the Investigation Teams 

An investigation “team” can range from one person to a team of 5 to 7 people with 

different specialties. Again, the composition of the survey team depends on the objectives 

of the survey. If BMP implementation is the only thing being investigated, then a state 

forester alone might be capable of conducting the survey. If, on the other hand, soil 

characteristics, erosion hazard, improvements in road construction techniques, water 

quality effects, or other more complex issues are also being investigated, then a team of 

individuals that represent the appropriate disciplines is generally used. 

When one person conducts the surveys, generally the person is a state forester who is 

familiar with BMP standards for both implementation and effectiveness. When teams are 

used for the surveys, the state forester is accompanied by one or more specialists that 

represent fields such as watershed science, soil science, wildlife biology, hydrology, 

fisheries, and road engineering. Separate organizations might also be represented, such as 

environmental or conservation organizations and the logging industry. Where possible, 

the survey team is accompanied by the landowner on whose property the survey is being 

conducted, the logger who conducted the harvest, and the state forester who prepared the 

harvest plan, if applicable. Examples of who might be included on an audit “team” are 

• A county or state forester 

• A watershed specialist 

• A forestry industry representative 

• A member of the environmental community 

• A nonindustrial private landowner 

• A member of a local or regional planning and development board 

• A wildlife biologist 

• A hydrologist 

• A soil conservationist or soil scientist 

• A fisheries biology 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-11 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

• A road engineer 

• A logging professional 

BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Rating Systems 

The implementation of individual BMPs is rated in one of two ways. A scale of implementation, usually from 0 to 5 or 0 to 3, is used to rate not only whether a BMP was 

implemented but also the quality of implementation. Alternatively, BMPs are rated 

simply as having been implemented, not implemented, or not applicable to the particular 

site. 

Generally, all BMPs applicable to a site are rated individually and the site then receives 

an overall BMP implementation rating. The latter rating might be made using one of the 

two rating systems mentioned above or using a 3-tiered rating system of excellent, 

adequate, or inadequate. The overall site rating is usually derived as an average of the 

individual BMP ratings at the site. Low ratings for overall BMP implementation—for 

example zero to two on a 0-to-5 scale, zero on a 0-to-3 scale, and inadequate on a 3-tiered 

rating system—are indications that follow-up with the landowner or harvester is necessary or that further education and training might be helpful. 

Even when only BMP implementation is being assessed, BMP effectiveness is often rated 

on a qualitative basis as an onsite assessment of whether, in the case of a low score or 

inadequate BMP implementation, there was a resultant risk to water quality. Risks to 

water quality are generally rated as simply being present or not. If it is apparent that 

water quality was affected by inadequate BMP implementation, this is also noted. 

When more than one team is responsible for the assessments and where teams are composed of many people, assessment training or a mock assessment is performed prior to 

the actual assessments to establish a degree of consistency in the ratings among members 

and teams. Assessments of adequacy of BMP implementation and risk to water quality 

can involve many subjective judgements, and going through a mock assessment prior to 

the actual assessments gives all team members a chance to discuss what constitutes 

adequate or proper implementation for the different BMPs. In addition, in many states, 

after a site assessment and while the assessment team is still on the site the team gathers 

to discuss the ratings of the individual team members and to arrive at an overall site 

rating. If any discrepancies or differences of opinion cannot be settled through discussion 

alone, the individual BMPs are revisited. 

Audit Results 

Successful implementation of BMPs by landowners and harvesters, as indicated by audits 

with high compliance rates, depends on many factors, such as whether a state’s BMP 

program is mandatory or voluntary, how long a state has had a BMP program, how long a 

state has been monitoring BMP implementation, and the effectiveness of a state’s education and training outreach program for BMP implementation. 

Results of many state audits for BMP implementation and effectiveness indicate that 

BMPs are being implemented and, where implemented, they are effective in protecting 

soil from erosion and water quality. Results are generally reported in one of two ways: an 

overall compliance rate, in which all ratings for compliance with individual BMPs or 

groups of BMPs are averaged into a single number, and compliance rates for individual 

5-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

BMPs or groups of BMPs. A group of BMPs might be all those required for SMAs, for 

instance. 

An overall compliance rate can be misleading because it is essentially an average of 

averages. That is, an overall compliance rate is generally obtained by averaging the 

compliance ratings for separate groups of BMPs, and then those averages are averaged. 

Instances where such a rating would be misleading include where most groups of BMPs 

are rated to have high compliance while one important group of BMPs, say those for 

SMAs or stream crossings, has a much lower compliance rate. The compliance information for the latter group is lost in the overall compliance rating. Of course, a low overall 

compliance rating, caused by low compliance ratings for many groups of BMPs, can hide 

a high compliance rating for another group of BMPs as well. Similarly, a single or a few 

high or low ratings for individual BMPs within a group of BMPs can be hidden by 

averaging together the compliance ratings for a whole group of BMPs. Generally, states 

gain far more information useful to them and to the public for improving and reporting 

BMP compliance if ratings for individual BMPs are kept separate. Trend analyses for 

implementation of individual BMPs are also much more meaningful than reports of 

changes in overall compliance for BMPs from one audit to the next. Of course, it is very 

important to keep data relevant to the effectiveness of individual BMPs, such as that on 

the slopes of roads where failure occurs or the amount of cover retained in SMAs where 

sediment reaches streams, separate for each BMP so that improvements can be made to 

state BMP specifications. 

EPA Recommendations for Forestry Practice Audits 

Implement a preharvest notification system to assist in selecting an adequate and unbiased sampling population of harvest sites, to reduce the cost of site selection, and to help 

determine, prior to a site visit, that selected sites meet many of the selection criteria such 

as time since harvest and size of harvest. 

If feasible, conduct audits soon after harvests are completed so that improvements can be 

made to BMPs found to be inadequately implemented and the water quality impacts of 

those BMPs can be minimized. 

Ensure that harvest sites are chosen randomly. Stratification based on desired characteristics of sites is perfectly acceptable, but if this is done then sampling within the strata 

must be random to ensure the validity of results. 

If the geographic extent of an audit includes a critical watershed, create a separate 

statistically valid sample population for the watershed and do not group information from 

harvests within the watershed with information from other harvests. It is important to 

maintain separate information for watersheds that have been designated “critical” and to 

sample them separately if the information obtained is to be related to and useful for 

programs instituted to protect the watersheds. 

Have a clearly defined process for or means of determining whether a BMP implementation is acceptable or not. Audits may be conducted with teams of experts or by individuals working at different harvest sites. The subjectivity of BMP ratings can be reduced and 

their objectivity increased by clearly defining what standards and quality of implementation constitute each rating level in the rating scale being used. Auditors well trained to 

recognize these standards and quality criteria will provide the most objective, consistent, 

meaningful, and comparable ratings. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-13 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

Ensure that BMP implementation according to state standards reflects protection of water 

quality by collecting data that is sufficient to determine the effectiveness of BMPs under 

specific circumstances, such as different soil types, topographies, and rainfall patterns. 

Modify state standards if the data collected indicate that existing standards are insufficient under certain circumstances. 

If forest practice implementation or effectiveness ratings are to be grouped for reporting 

purposes, maintain separate groupings for functionally different BMPs. For instance, 

create separate group ratings for road erosion BMPs, stream crossing BMPs, SMA 

BMPs, etc., so that an average compliance rating will not hide important information 

about which BMPs are not being implemented adequately. 

Volunteer Water Monitoring 

The information presented below is available from the USEPA Web site (http:// 

www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/startmon.html) and as a published brochure 

(United States Environmental Protection Agency; Office of Water (4503F), Washington, 

DC 20460; EPA 841-B-98-002; July 1998). 

Volunteer water monitoring is monitoring done by local citizens rather than agency 

personnel. In every state, volunteers monitor the condition of streams, rivers, lakes, 

reservoirs, estuaries, coastal waters, wetlands, and wells. Volunteers who monitor are 

people who want to help protect a stream, lake, bay or wetland near where they live, 

work, or play. Their efforts are of particular value in providing quality data and building 

stewardship of local waters. 

Volunteers make visual observations of habitat, land uses, best management practices 

used to protect soil and water resources; and the impacts of storms; measure the physical 

and chemical characteristics of waters; and assess the abundance and diversity of living 

creatures–aquatic insects, plants, fish, birds, and other wildlife. Volunteers also clean up 

garbage-strewn waters, count and catalog beach debris, and become involved in restoring 

degraded habitats. The number, variety, and complexity of these projects are continually 

on the rise. 

Volunteer monitoring programs are organized and supported in many different ways. 

Projects may be entirely independent or may be associated with state, interstate, local, or 

federal agencies; with environmental organizations; or with schools and universities. 

Financial support may come from government grants, partnerships with business, endowments, independent fundraising efforts, corporate donations, membership dues, or a 

combination of these sources. 

Many volunteer groups collect data that supplements the information collected by state 

and local resource management or planning agencies. These agencies might use the data 

to 

•	 Evaluate the success of best management practices designed to mitigate problems. 

•	 Screen water for potential problems, for further study or for restoration efforts. 

•	 Establish baseline conditions or trends for waters that would otherwise go


unmonitored.


In general, a volunteer monitoring program should work cooperatively with state and 

local agencies in developing and coordinating its technical components. To ensure that its 

5-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

data are used, the monitoring program also develops a strong quality assurance project 

plan that governs how volunteers are trained, how samples are collected and analyzed, 

and how information is stored and disseminated. 

By educating volunteers and the community about the value of local waters, the kinds of 

pollution threatening them, and how individual and collective actions can help solve 

specific problems, volunteer monitoring programs can 

•	 Make the connection between watershed health and our individual and collective


behaviors (cumulative impacts).


•	 Build bridges among various agencies, businesses, and organizations. 

•	 Create a constituency for local waters that promotes personal and community


stewardship and cooperation.


Information on volunteer monitoring efforts locally and nationwide can be found through 

USEPA. The National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs, 

published by USEPA, provides information on existing groups around the country and the 

kinds of monitoring taking place. In addition, USEPA’s Adopt Your Watershed site on the 

World Wide Web (http://www.epa.gov/adopt/) provides information on active volunteer 

groups on a watershed basis. 

Local or state environmental protection, natural resource, parks, or fish and game agencies might also be good sources of information. Even if the agency does not sponsor a 

volunteer program, it might be aware of other programs or groups that are active. Other 

potential sponsors or sources of information include 

•	 Local community-based groups such as civic or watershed associations, garden


clubs, universities, and activist organizations


•	 Chapters of national environmental organizations 

•	 Regional offices of federal agencies such as USEPA, the US Department of


Agriculture’s Extension Service, the U.S. Park Service, and the U.S. Fish and


Wildlife Service


Volunteer Monitoring Resources 

USEPA supports volunteer monitoring by sponsoring national conferences, publishing 

methods manuals, producing a nationwide directory of volunteer programs, and funding a 

national newsletter, The Volunteer Monitor. Volunteer coordinators in the 10 EPA Regional offices provide some technical assistance for local programs and help coordinate 

regionwide conferences. The Regions are also responsible for grants to the states that can 

be used, in part, to support volunteer monitoring programs that help assess nonpoint 

sources of pollution or that serve to educate the public about nonpoint source issues. 

Some USEPA resources on the World Wide Web 

Volunteer Monitoring Homepage

Monitoring Water Quality Homepage

Surf Your Watershed

Adopt Your Watershed

Index of Watershed Indicators

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/volunteer/ 

http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/ 

http://www.epa.gov/surf/ 

http://www.epa.gov/adopt/ 

http://www.epa.gov/iwi/ 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-15 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

Documents on volunteer monitoring published by USEPA are listed below. Copies can be 

obtained by contacting the Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, USEPA (4503F), 401 M 

Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. 

National Directory of Citizen Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs, Fifth 

Edition. EPA 841-B-98-009, November 1998. 

Proceedings of the Fifth National Citizen’s Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA 

841-R-97-007, October 1997. 

Proceedings of the Fourth National Citizen’s Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. 

EPA 841/R-94-003, February 1995. 

Proceedings of the Third National Citizen’s Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference. EPA 

841/R-92-004, September 1992. 

Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 842-B-93-004, December 1993. 

Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 440/4-91-002, December 1991. 

Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans. EPA 841-B-96-003, 

September 1996. 

Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual. EPA 841-B-97-003, November 1997. 

Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010, August 

1990. 

The Volunteer Monitor, published semiannually, is the national newsletter of volunteer 

water monitoring. The newsletter facilitates the exchange of ideas, monitoring methods, 

and practical advice among volunteer monitoring groups across the country. Subscriptions are free. Address all correspondence to Eleanor Ely, Editor, 1318 Masonic Avenue, 

San Francisco, CA 94117; phone 415/255-8049; fax 415/255-0199. 

Best Management Practices Evaluation 

Program: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region 

The USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region has published Investigating Water 

Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) User’s Guide (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002). The guide 

continues an effort begun in 1992 to monitor and evaluate BMP implementation and 

effectiveness (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 1992). The Best Management 

Practices Evaluation Program, or BMPEP, was developed to facilitate evaluation of BMPs 

through the generation and analysis of data to assess the efficacy of the Region’s water 

quality program, and identify program shortcomings and initiate corrective actions 

(USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002). 

There are three types of BMP evaluations, Administrative, In-Channel, and On-Site. 

Individuals or teams of reviewers conduct the evaluations using Forest Service forms. 

Administrative Evaluations involve assessing all BMPs for a project, including procedural BMPs (such as the Timber Sale Planning Process). In-Channel Evaluations assess 

the effectiveness of a set of BMPs applied to a project area for protecting beneficial uses 

5-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

of water. All BMPs prescribed for a project for water quality protection are evaluated by 

establishing study sites to assess effects on beneficial uses over time. On-Site Evaluations 

involve assessing both the implementation and effectiveness of specific practices (individual or groups of similar BMPs). The BMPs are assessed at the site of implementation 

and evaluated relative to attainment of each BMP’s stated objectives. 

For in-channel evaluations, sites are selected on the basis of their being representative of 

management activities common to the forest being evaluated (e.g., timber, mineral 

extraction, developed recreation, range use) and located in watersheds that are representative of the forests’ dominant landforms and geologic types. Streams selected for project 

evaluation have a suitable control (or comparison stream) nearby or have established 

desired future condition criteria that can serve as the basis of comparison. A monitoring 

plan is also developed for each in-channel evaluation. The monitoring plan describes the 

location, beneficial uses to be protected, evaluation objectives, data collection parameters 

and methods, timing/frequency and duration of collection, analytical techniques, and the 

decision criteria to be used to determine whether the beneficial uses were protected. A 

follow-up investigation is conducted when data from an in-channel evaluation indicates 

that beneficial use protection objectives were not met and to identify causes of nonpoint 

source degradation. 

On-site evaluations focus on the implementation and effectiveness of individual BMPs 

applied on project sites. These evaluations are essentially used to answer the implementation question “Did we do what we said we were going to do to protect water quality?” 

and the effectiveness question “How well did we protect water quality?” There are 29 

different evaluation procedures, each designed to assess a specific BMP or set of closely 

related BMPs. For example, one procedure evaluates SMAs; another evaluates grazing; 

and another evaluates recreational facilities. Each evaluation procedure has its own form 

where ratings and comments are recorded, and each form has an electronic counterpart in 

database software. The evaluations are completed by those persons responsible for the 

execution of the practices being evaluated. For example, a Range Conservationist or 

Resource Officer would conduct the on-site evaluation of grazing, a Sale Administrator or 

Planner would conduct the evaluation of SMAs, and an Engineer would conduct the 

evaluation of road drainage control. 

Sites to be evaluated are either selected randomly or selected. Randomly identified sites 

allow for drawing statistical conclusions on the implementation and effectiveness of 

BMPs. Random sites are picked from a pool of projects that meet specified criteria. 

Selected sites are identified in various ways, such as from a monitoring plan prescribed in 

an EA, EIS or LMP; as part of a routine site visit; as part of a follow-up evaluation to an 

in-channel evaluation to discover sources of problems; or selected for a particular reason 

specific to local needs. Note that for statistical analysis, only randomly identified sites are 

used to develop statistical inferences. Selected sites are clearly identified and kept 

separate from the random sites during data storage and analysis. 

When problems in implementation are discovered during an audit, the probable cause and 

recommended corrective actions to prevent recurrence are noted. Reviewer comments are 

extremely valuable in this regard. Effectiveness evaluations are made using specific 

indicators of the success of the BMPs observed or measured on-site. When effectiveness 

problems are noted, observers comment on the extent, duration, and magnitude of effects 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-17 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

on beneficial uses. In addition to describing the effects, observers use the following 

system to rate the effects: 

Extent: 

•	 Pollutant has been mobilized off-site, but does not reach the stream channel; effects 

are evident near the site of the activity. 

•	 Pollutant has been mobilized off-site and reaches the stream channel; effects are


evident at the stream reach scale (<20 channel widths downstream).


•	 Pollutant has been mobilized off-site and reaches the stream channel; effects are


evident at the drainage scale (>20 channel widths downstream), effects typically


extending downstream and are expressed in larger order channels.


Duration: 

•	 The pollutant or its effects dissipate within a very short (<5 day) period; they are 

typically associated with a single activity or precipitation event. 

•	 The pollutant or its effects are observable for an intermediate (<1 season) duration; 

effects are typically expressed intermittently during high flow or precipitation 

events, dissipating to near background levels by the next wet season. 

•	 The pollutant or its effects are observable for a long (>1 season) duration; effects are 

typically chronic and persist beyond the next wet season. 

Magnitude: 

•	 Effects to beneficial uses insignificant with no measurable water quality impairment; pollutant may be visible, but not likely detectable by compared measurements 

above and below the site. 

•	 Effects to beneficial uses are minor with measurable water quality impacts the 

pollutant or its effects may be measurable up to the reach scale, but with no likely 

effect on biological or economic values. 

•	 Effects to beneficial uses are significant with measurable water quality impacts


resulting in degradation to biological or economic values.


The User’s Guide (USDA-FS, Pacific Southwest Region, 2002) includes detailed instructions for completing each of the 29 on-site evaluation procedures. Included for each 

procedure is information on developing the sample pool; selecting evaluation sites; 

timing the evaluation; filling in the form; and the method used to do the observations, 

measurements, and recording for all the implementation and effectiveness criteria. Also 

included are hypothetical examples of a completed form for each procedure. 

Important Points to Note About the BMPEP 

Effectiveness criteria focus on site-specific indicators, which in most cases represent 

potential effects to water quality rather than actual effects. For example, rill erosion 

observed on a road would be listed as poor effectiveness, though any sediment from the 

erosion site that does reach a stream might have anywhere from a negligible to serious 

effect. 

Observations could indicate that a BMP has been implemented but was not effective. 

Such results are useful as they indicate shortcomings of BMPs, that a BMP might be 

5-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

inappropriate for a particular area, or that the BMP was implemented poorly. Some form 

of improvement to the BMP is definitely needed in such a case. 

BMPs with a high number of comments about the effects on water quality (potential or 

real) and/or high ratings of “implemented–not effective” are often those implemented 

close to water courses. Because of the greater potential of practices near water courses to 

affect water quality, it is prudent to prescribe conservative BMPs in these locations to 

provide adequate water quality protection. 

It is important for foresters in a particular area to review the specific results from that 

area and not to rely solely a the regional summary that is generated from the individual 

evaluations. A BMP found to be effective in one area is not guaranteed have the same 

effectiveness whenever and wherever it is applied. Forest-specific results are more 

indicative of the changes that can be made to improve BMP effectiveness in a particular 

locality. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 5-19 
Chapter 5: Monitoring and Tracking Techniques 

5-20 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
REFERENCES

Adams, P.W., and J.O, Ringer. 1994. The effects of timber harvesting & forest roads on 

water quantity & quality in the Pacific northwest: Summary & annotated bibliography. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. April. 

Adams, T., and D. Hook. 1993. Implementation and effectiveness monitoring of forestry 

best management practices on harvested sites in South Carolina. Monitoring Report 

Number BMP-1. South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, South Carolina. 

March. 

Alabama Forestry Commission. 1989. Water Quality Management Guidelines and Best 

Management Practices for Alabama Wetlands. 

Alden, A.M., C.R. Blinn, P.V. Ellefson, and P.G. Nordin. 1996. Timber harvester perceptions of benefits and costs of applying water quality best management practices in 

Minnesota. Draft. Staff Paper Series Number 108, University of Minnesota, College 

of Natural Resources and the Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Forest 

Resources, St. Paul, Minnesota. March. 

APA. 1995. Statewide model logger training and education program. American Pulpwood Association Inc., Washington, DC. April. 

Appelbloom, T.W., G.M. Chescheir, R.W. Skaggs, and D.L. Hesterberg. 1998. Evaluating 

management practices for reducing sediment production from forest roads. Presented 

at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Orlando, Florida, July 12-16. 

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. 

Arthur, M.A., G.B. Coltharp, D.L. Brown. 1998. Effects of best management practices on 

forest streamwater quality in eastern Kentucky. JAWRA 34(3):481-495. 

Ashton, W.S., and Carlson, R.F. Determination of Seasonal, Frequency and Durational 

Aspects of Streamflow with Regard to Fish Passage Through Roadway Drainage 

Structures. Fairbanks, Alaska:Institute of Water Resources, University of Alaska, 

Fairbanks, 99701. AK-RD-85-06:1-51, 1984. 

Aust, W.M. 1994. Best management practices for forested wetlands in the southern 

appalacian region. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 77:457-468. 

Aust, W. Michael, Professor of Forestry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. 1999. Personnel communication, March 25, 1999. 

Aust, W.M., R.M. Shaffer, and J.A. Burger. 1996. Benefits and costs of forestry best 

management practices in Virginia. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 20(1):23-29. 

Baker, M.B. 1990. Hydrologic and Water Quality Effects of Fire. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report 

RM-191, pp. 31-42. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-1 
References 

Baker, C.O., and F.E. Votapka. 1990. Fish Passage Through Culverts. San Dimas, 

CA:USDA, Forest Service Technology and Development Center. FHWA-FL-90-

006:1-67. 

Ballard, T.M. 2000. Impacts of forest management on northern forest soils. Forest 

Ecology and Management 133:37-42. 

Barber, M.E., and R.C. Downs. 1996. Investigation of Culvert Hydraulics Related to 

Juvenile Fish Passage. Pullman,Washington:Washington State Transportation Center 

(TRAC), Washington State University. WA-RD-388.1:1-54. 

Bates, K. 1994. Fishway Design Guidelines for Pacific Salmon. Olympia, Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Working Paper. 

Beasley, R.S. 1979. Intensive Site Preparation and Sediment Loss on Steep Watersheds in 

the Gulf Coast Plain. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 43(3):412-417. 

Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1985. Water Yields and Sediment Losses from Chemical 

and Mechanical Site Preparation. In Forestry and Water Quality - A Mid-South 

Symposium, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, pp.106-116. 

Beasley, R.S., and A.B. Granillo. 1988. Sediment and Water Yields from Managed Forests 

on Flat Coastal Plain Soils. Water Resources Bulletin, 24(2):361-366. 

Beasley, R.S., E.L. Miller, and S.C. Gough. 1984. Forest Road Erosion in the Ouachita 

Mountains. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceeding, June 5-7, 1984, ed. P.A. 

Peters and J. Luckok, pp.203-213. West Virginia University. 

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for 

the protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature. Report No. 8. Idaho 

Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. June. 

Berg, N.H., K.B. Roby, and B.J. McGurk. 1996. Cumulative watershed effects: Applicability of available methodologies to the Sierra Nevada. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem 

Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. III, Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and 

Background Information. University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and 

Wildland Resources. 

Berglund, E.R. 1978. Seeding to Control Erosion Along Forest Roads. Oregon State 

University Extension Service, Extension Circular 885. 

Best, D.W., H.W. Kelsey, D.K. Hagans, and M. Alpert. 1995. Role of fluvial hillslope 

erosion and road construction in the sediment budget of Garret Creek, Humbolt 

County, California. In K.M. Nolan, H.M. Kelsey, and D.C. Marron (eds), Geomorphic Processes and Aquatic Habitat in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northwestern 

California. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454. 

Bethlahmy, N., and W.J. Kidd, Jr. 1966. Controlling Soil Movement from Steep Road 

Fills. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-45. 

Bilby, R.E. 1984. Removal of Woody Debris May Affect Stream Channel Stability. 

Journal of Forestry, 609-613. 

Birch, T.W. 1996a. Private Forest-land Owners of the United States, 1994. Resource 

Bulletin NE-134. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern 

Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. August. 

R-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Birch, T.W. 1996b. Private Forest-land Owners of the Northern United States, 1994. 

Resource Bulletin NE-136. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. November. 

Birch, T.W. 1997a. Private Forest-land Owners of the Western United States, 1994. 

Resource Bulletin NE-137. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. March. 

Birch, T.W. 1997b. Private Forest-land Owners of the Southern United States, 1994. 

Resource Bulletin NE-138. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Radnor, Pennsylvania. March. 

Biswell, H.H., and A.M. Schultz. 1957. Surface Runoff and Erosion as Related to Prescribed Burning. Journal of Forestry, 55:372-374. 

Blackburn, W.H., M.G. DeHaven, and R.W. Knight. 1982. Forest Site Preparation and 

Water Quality in Texas. In Proceedings of the Specialty Conference on Environmentally Sound Water and Soil Management, ASCE, Orlando, Florida, July 20-23, 1982, 

ed. E.G. Kruse, C.R. Burdick, and Y.A. Yousef, pp. 57-66. 

Blinn, C., R. Dahlman, L. Hislop, and M. Thompson. 1998. Temporary stream and 

wetland crossing options for forest management. NC-202. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Bohn, A.B. 1998. Designing forest stream crossings using bankfull dimensions and the 

computer, and the computer program XSPRO. Kootenai National Forest, Montana. 

Bolstad, P.V., and W.T. Swank. 1997. Cumulative impacts of landuse on water quality in a 

southern Appalachian watershed. J. Amer. Water Resources Assoc. 33(3):519-533. 

Brazier, J.R., and G.W. Brown. 1973. Buffer Strips for Stream Temperature Control. 

Oregon State University School of Forestry, Forest Research Laboratory, Corvallis, 

OR, Research Paper 15. 

Brett, J.R. 1952. Temperature tolerance in young Pacific salmon, genus Oncorhynchus. 

J. Fish. Res. Board of Canada 9(6):265-323. 

Brown, L., and P.B. Moyle. Eel River Survey: Final Report. Performed under contract to 

Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of 

California at Davis. 

Brown, G.W. 1972. Logging and Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest. In Watersheds 

in Transition Symposium Proceedings, Urbana, IL, pp. 330-334. American Water 

Resources Association. 

Brown, G.W. 1974. Fish Habitat. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report 

PNW-24, pp. E1-E15. 

Brown, G.W. 1985. Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution from Silvicultural Operations: 

What We Know and Don’t Know. In Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, 

pp. 332-333. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1970. Effects of Clearcutting on Stream Temperature. 

Water Resources Research 6(4):1133-1140. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-3 
References 

Brown, G.W., and J.T. Krygier. 1971. Clear-cut Logging and Sediment Production in the 

Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources Research 7(5):1189-1199. 

Brown, T.C., and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of management on water quality in North 

American forests. General Technical Report RM-248. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort 

Collins, Colorado. June. 

Cafferata, P.H., and T.E. Spittler. 1998. Logging impacts of the 1970’s vs. the 1990’s in 

the Caspar Creek watershed. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-168. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 

Cannon, S. 2002. Post-wildfire landslide hazards. U.S. Geological Survey, National 

Landslide Hazards Program. <http://landslides.usgs.gov/html_files/landslides/ 

frdebris/cannon/cannon.html>. Accessed 25 February 2003. 

Cariboo Forest Region. 1999. Cariboo Region Research Section. British Columbia 

Ministry of Forests. <http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/rsi/>. Viewed June 23. 

Carr, W.W., and T.M. Ballard. 1980. Hydroseeding Forest Roadsides in British Columbia 

for Erosion Control. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 35(1):33-35. 

Carraway, B., L. Clendenen, and D. Work. 1999. Voluntary Compliance with Forestry 

Best Management Practices in East Texas. Texas Forest Service. 

CDF. 1991. California Forest Practice Rules. California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection. 

CDF. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site. California Department of Forestry 

and Fire Protection. 

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and 

watershed processes. In Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 181-205. 

Clairain, E.J., and B.A. Kleiss. 1989. Functions and Values of Bottomland Hardwood 

Forests Along the Cache River, Arkansas: Implications for Management. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE50, pp. 27-33. 

Clayton, J.L. 1981. Soil Disturbance Caused by Clearcutting and Helicopter Yarding in 

the Idaho Batholith. USDA Forest Service Research Note INT-305. 

Coats, R.N., and T.O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative Silvicultural Impacts on Watersheds: A 

Hydrologic and Regulatory Dilemma. Environmental Management 5(2):147-160. 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Part 232: 404 Program Definitions; Exempt Activities Not Requiring 404 Permits; Sec. 232.3–Activities not requiring permits. 

Connecticut Resource Conservation and Development Forestry Committee. 1990. A 

Practical Guide for Protecting Water Quality While Harvesting Forest Products. 

R-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Conner, W.H., and J.W. Day, Jr. 1989. Response of Coastal Wetland Forests to Human 

and Natural Changes in the Environment With Emphasis on Hydrology. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE50, pp. 34-43. 

Copstead, R. 1997. Water/Road Interacion Series: Summary of Historic and Legal 

Context for Water/Road Interaction. USDA Forest Service, Water/Road Interaction 

Technology Series, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center, Sam Dimas, 

California. December. 

Copstead, R., and D. Johansen. 1998. Water/Road Interacion Series: Examples from 

Three Flood Assessment Sites in Western Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Water/Road 

Interaction Technology Series, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center, 

Sam Dimas, California. 

Corbett, E.S., and J.A. Lynch. 1985. Management of Streamside Zones on Municipal 

Watersheds. In Conference on Riparian Ecosystems and their Management: Reconciling Conflicting Uses, April 16-18, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 187-190. 

Coweeta. 1999. Coweeta Long-Term Ecological Research World Wide Web Site. 

<http://sparc.ecology.uga.edu/>. Viewed July 7. 

CRIS. 1999. Current Research Information System (CRIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture World Wide Web page. <http://cris.csrees.usda.gov/>. Viewed June 12. 

Crumrine, J.P. 1977. Best Management Practices for the Production of Forest Products 

and Water Quality. In “208” Symposium on Non-Point Sources of Pollution from 

Forested Land, ed. G.M. Aubertin, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, pp. 

267-274. 

Cubbage, F.W., W.C. Siegel, and P.M. Lickwar. 1989. State Water Quality Laws and 

Programs to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forest Lands in the South. In 

Water: Laws and Management, ed. F.E. Davis, pp. 8A-29 to 8A-37. American Water 

Resources Association. 

Cullen, J.B. 1998. Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting 

Operations in New Hampshire, Resource Manual. New Hampshire Department of 

Resources and Economic Development, Division of Forests and Lands, Forest 

Information and Planning Bureau. 

Curtis, J.G., D.W. Pelren, D.B. George, V.D. Adams, and J.B. Layzer. 1990. Effectiveness 

of Best Management Practices in Preventing Degradation of Streams Caused by 

Silvicultural Activities in Pickett State Forest, Tennessee. Tennessee Technological 

University, Center for the Management, Utilization and Protection of Water Resources. 

CWP. 2000. Center for Watershed Protection web site. <http://www.cwp.org/>. Accessed 

December 20. 

Dahl, T.E. 2000. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1986 to 

1997. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-5 
References 

Delaware Forestry Association. 1982. Forestry Best Management Practices for Delaware. 

Desbonnet, A., P. Pogue, V. Lee, and N. Wolff. 1994. Vegetated Buffers in the Coastal 

Zone. A Summary Review and Bibliography. Coastal Resources Center Technical 

Report No. 2064. University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography, 

Narragansett, Rhode Island. July. 

Dickerson, B.P. 1975. Stormflows and Erosion after Tree-Length Skidding on Coastal 

Plains Soils. Transactions of the ASAE, 18:867-868,872. 

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1980. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management Activities and 

Conditions in the Southeast. In U.S. Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 

80s? Proceedings, Richmond, VA, June 19-20, 1980, pp. 42-49. Water Pollution 

Control Federation. 

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1986. Economic impacts of erosion control in forests. In Proceedings of 

the Southern Forestry Symposium, November 19-21, 1985, Atlanta, GA, ed. S. 

Carpenter, Oklahoma State University Agricultural Conference Series, pp. 262-287. 

Dissmeyer, G.E. 1994. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Forestry Best Management Practices in Meeting Water Quality Goals or Standards. Miscellaneous Publication 1520. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, Georgia. 

July. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., ed. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands. A Synthesis of 

the Scientific Literature. General Technical Report SRS-39. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina. 

September. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., and B. Foster. 1987. Some Economic Benefits of Protecting Water 

Quality. In Managing Southern Forests for Wildlife and Fish: A Proceedings. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report SO-65, pp. 6-11. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., and B.B. Foster. 1990. Economics of forest soil resource managment. In 

Sustained Productivity of Forest Soils: Seventh North American Forest Soils Conference. University of British Columbia, Facilty of Forestry Publication, Vancouver, 

British Columbia, pp. 515-525. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., E.R. Frandsen, R. Solomon, K.L. Roth, M.P. Goggin, S.R. Miles, and 

B.B. Foster. 1987. Soil and Water Resource Management: A Cost or a Benefit? 

Approaches to Watershed Economics through Examples. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. December. 

Dissmeyer, G.E. and E. Frandsen. 1988. The Economics of Silvicultural Best Management Practices. American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, MD. pp. 77-86. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., and R. Miller. 1991. A Status Report on the Implementation of the 

Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Program in the Southern States. 

Dissmeyer, G.E., and R.F. Stump. 1978. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Management 

Activities in the Southeast. USDA Forest Service. 

Doolittle, G.B. 1990. The Use of Expert Assessment in Developing Management Plans for 

Environmentally Sensitive Wetlands: Updating A Case Study in Champion 

International’s Western Florida Region. Best Management Practices for Forested 

R-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Wetlands: Concerns, Assessment, Regulation and Research. NCASI Technical 

Bulletin No. 583, pp. 66-70. 

Dorn, F., Forester, USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot Nation Forest, personal communication, January 13, 2000. 

Douglass, J.E., and W.T. Swank. 1975. Effects of Management Practices on Water 

Quality and Quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. In: Municipal Watershed Management Symposium Proceedings. USDA Forestry Service. 

General Technical Report NE-13, pp. 1-13. 

Dubensky, M.M. 1991. Public comment information provided by the American Paper 

Institute and National Forest Products Association. 

Dubois, M., W.F. Watson, T.J. Straka, and K.L. Belli. 1991. Costs and cost trends for 

forestry practices in the South. Forest Farmer 50(3):26-32. 

Dunford, E.G. 1962. Logging Methods in Relation to Stream Flow and Erosion. In Fifth 

World Forestry Congress 1960 Proceedings, 3:1703-1708. 

Dykstra, D.P., and Froehlich, H.A. 1976a. Costs of Stream Protection During Timber 

Harvest. Journal of Forestry 74(10):684-687. 

Dykstra, D.P., and H.A. Froehlich. 1976b. Stream protection: What does it cost? In 

Loggers Handbook, Pacific Logging Congress, Portland, OR. 

Dyrness, C.T. 1963. Effects of Burning on Soil. In Symposium on Forest Watershed 

Management, Society of American Foresters and Oregon State University, 

March 25–28, 1963, pp. 291-304. 

Dyrness, C.T. 1967. Mass Soil Movements in the H.J. Andrews Experimental Forest. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Research Paper PNW-42. 

Dyrness, C.T. 1970. Stabilization of Newly Constructed Road Backslopes by Mulch and 

Grass-Legume Treatments. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and 

Range Experiment Station. PNW-123. 

Eaglin, G.S., and W.A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of logging and roads on substrate and trout 

in streams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, Wyoming. North American Journal 

of Fisheries Management 13: 844-846. 

Ellefson, P.V., A.S. Cheng, and R.J Moulton. 1995. Regulation of private forestry practices by state governments. Station Bulletin 605-1995. University of Minnesota, 

Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Ellefson, P.V., and P.D. Miles. 1984. Economic Implications of Managing Nonpoint 

Forest Sources of Water Pollutants: A Midwestern Perspective. In Mountain Logging 

Symposium Proceedings, June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia University, ed. P.A. Peters 

and J. Luchok, pp. 107-119. 

Ellefson, P.V., and R.E. Weible. 1980. Economic Impact of Prescribing Forest Practices 

to Improve Water Quality: A Minnesota Case Study Minnesota. Forestry Research 

Notes. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-7 
References 

Erman, D.C., J.D. Newbold, and K.B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of Streamside Buffer Strips 

for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. California Water Resources Center, University of 

California, Davis, CA. 

Eschner, A.R., and J. Larmoyeux. 1963. Logging and Trout: Four Experimental Forest 

Practices and their Effect on Water Quality. Progress in Fish Culture, 25:59-67. 

Essig, D.A. 1991. Implementation of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs in the 

United States, Report of Survey Results. National Association of State Foresters. 

Everst, F.H., and W.R. Meehan. 1981. Forest Management and Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Productivity. In Transactions of the 46th North American Wildlife and Natural 

Resources Conference, pp. 521-530. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC. 

Federal Register. 1993. Clean Water Act Regulatory Programs; Final Rule 58 FR 45008 

August 25, 1993. 

Feller, M.C. 1981. Effects of Clearcutting and Slash Burning on Stream Temperature in 

Southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 17(5):863-866. 

Feller, M.C. 1989. Effects of Forest Herbicide Applications on Streamwater Chemistry in 

Southwestern British Columbia. Water Resources Bulletin 25(3):607-616. 

Firth, J. 1992. Sediment reduction in road maintenance. In Ecosystem Road Management, 

USDA Forest Service, Technology & Development Program, San Dimas Technology 

and Development Center, San Dimas, California. April. 

Fischenich, J.C., and J.V. Morrow, Jr. 2000. Streambank Habitat Enhancement with Large 

Woody Debris. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Management and Restoration Research Program. May. 

Flanagan, S., and M.J. Furniss. 1997. Field Indicators of Inlet Controlled Road Stream 

Crossing Capacity. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. USDA Forest 

Service, Sam Dimas Technology and Development Center, Sam Dimas, California. 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Forestry and 

Florida Forestry Association. 1988. Management Guidelines for Forested Wetlands in 

Florida. 

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 1993. Silviculture Best 

Management Practices. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 

Division of Forestry. 

Florida DEP. 1997. Biological assessment of the effectiveness of forestry best management practices. Okaloosa, Gadsen, Taylor and Clay counties, sampled winter of 1996 

and 1997. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Laboratories, 

Division of Administrative and Technical Services. December. 

Foltz, R.B. 1994. Reducing tire pressure reduces sediment. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Moscow, Idaho. <http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/engr/ 

library/>. 

Forman, R.T.T., and L.E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and their major ecological effects. 

Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 29: 207-231. 

R-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Fortunate, N., P. Heffernan, K. Snager, and C. Tootell. 1998. The 1998 forestry BMP 

audits report. Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry 

Division. Missoula, Montana. 

Frayer, W.E., T.J. Monahan, D.C. Bowden, and F.A. Graybill. 1983. Status and Trends of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats in the Conterminous United States, 1950’s to 

1970’s. Colorado State University Department of Forest and Wood Sciences, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

Fredriksen, R.L., and R.N. Ross. 1974. Timber Production and Water Quality — Progress 

in Planning for the Bull Run, Portland Oregon’s Municipal Watershed. In Proceedings of the Society of American Foresters, pp. 168-186. 

Fredriksen, R.L., D.G. Moore, and L.A. Norris. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest, 

Fertilization, and Herbicide Treatment on Streamwater Quality in Western Oregon 

and Washington. In Forest Soils and Forest Land Management, Proceedings of the 

Fourth North American Forest Soils Conference, ed. B. Bernier and C.H. Winget, 

pp. 283-313. 

Frissell, C.A. 1992. Cumulative effects of land use on salmonid habitat on southwest 

Oregon streams. Ph.D. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. 

Fryer, J.L., K.S. Pilcher, J.E. Sanders, J. Rohovec, J.L. Zinn, W.J. Groberg and R.H. 

McCoy. 1976. Temperature, infectious diseases, and the immune response of salmonid fish. Funded by U.S. EPA Research Services. EPA-600/3-76-21. 70 p. 

Froehlich, H.A. 1973. Natural and man-caused slash in headwater streams. Loggers 

Handbook, Pacific Logging Congress, Vol. XXXIII. 

Furniss, M.J., M. Love, and A.S. Flanagan. 1997. Water/road interaction: Diversion 

potential at road-stream crossings. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Technology and Development Program, 

Washington, DC. 

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roelofs, and C.S. Yee. 1991. Road Construction and Maintenance. 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their 

Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 297-324. 

Furniss, M.J., T.S. Ledwith, M.A. Love, B.C. McFadin, and S.A. Flanagan. 1998. Response of road-stream crossings to large flood events in Washington, Oregon, and 

northern California. In Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forestry Service, Technology and Development Program, Washington, DC. September. 

Gambles, B., Forester, Mead Paper Company, personal communication, January 13, 

2000. 

Gardner, R.B. 1967. Major Environmental Factors That Affect the Location, Design, and 

Construction of Stabilized Forest Roads. Loggers Handbook, vol. 27. Pacific Logging 

Congress, Portland, OR. 

Georgia Forestry Association, Wetlands Committee. 1990. Best Management Practices 

for Forested Wetlands in Georgia. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-9 
References 

Georgia Forestry Commission. 1999. Georgia’s best management practices for forestry. 

Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Georgia Forestry Commission. January. 

Gibson, H.E., and C.J. Biller. 1975. A Second Look at Cable Logging in the Appalachians. Journal of Forestry 73(10):649-653. 

Glasgow, C. 1993. Six Rivers National Forest watershed management and road restoration. In Riparian management: Common threads and shared interests. A western 

regional conference on river management strategies, February 4-6, Albuquerque, New 

Mexico. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-226. Pp. 195-197. 

Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Kush, and J.M. Bradley. 1984. Forestry Activities and 

Water Quality in Alabama: Effects, Recommended Practices, and an Erosion-Classified System. Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 555. 

Gosselink, J.G., G.P. Shaffer, L.C. Lee, D.M. Burdick, D.L. Childers, N.C. Leibowitz, 

S.C. Hamilton, R. Boumans, D. Cushman, S. Fields, M. Koch, and J.M. Visser. 1990. 

Landscape conservation in a forested wetland watershed. Can we manage cumulative 

impacts? Bioscience 40(8):588-600. 

Grace, J.M., III. 1998. Sediment export from forest road turn-outs: A study design and 

preliminary results. Presented at the 1998 ASAE Annual International Meeting, 

Orlando, Florida, July 12-15. 

Grayson, R.B., S.R. Haydon, M.D.A. Jayasuriya, and B.L. Finlayson. 1993. Water quality 

in mountain ash forests—separating the impacts of roads from those of logging 

operations. J. of Hydrology 150:459-480. 

Greene, J.L., and W.C. Siegel. 1994. The status and impact of state and local regulation 

on private timber supply. General Technical Report RM-255. USDA Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 

September. 

Groberg, W.J., R.H. McCoy, K.S. Pilcher and J.L. Fryer. 1978. Relation of water temperature to infections of coho salmon, chinook salmon and steelhead trout with 

Aeromonas salmonicida and A. hydrophila. J. Fish. Res. Board of Canada 35(1): 1-7. 

Groberg, W.J., J.S. Rohovec, and J.L. Fryer. 1983. The effects of water temperature on 

infection and antibody formation induced by Vibrio anguillarum in juvenile coho 

salmon. J. World Mariculture 14:240-248. 

Gucinski, H., M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, and M.H. Brookes (eds). 2001. Forest Roads: A 

Synthesis of Scientific Information. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-509. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 

Corvallis, Oregon. May. 

Hall, J.D., G.W. Brown, and R.L. Lantz. 1987. The Alsea Watershed Study - A Retrospective. In Managing Oregon’s Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI 

Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 35-40. 

Hamilton, R.A. undated. Forest*A*Syst. National Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst Program, 

Madison, Wisconsin. 

Hansit, K., Forester, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, 

personal communication, January 14, 2000. 

R-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Harr, R.D., and R.A. Nichols. 1993. Stabilizing forest roads to help restore fish habitats: 

A northwest Washington example. Fisheries 18(4):18-22. 

Hartman, G., J.C. Scrivener, L.B. Holtby, and L. Powell. 1987. Some Effects of Different 

Streamside Treatments on Physical Conditions and Fish Population Processes in 

Carnation Creek, A Coastal Rain Forest Stream in British Columbia. In Streamside 

Management: Forestry and Fishery Interactions, ed. E.O. Salo and T.W. Cundy. 

College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, pp. 330-372. 

Haussman, R.F., and E.W. Pruett. 1978. Permanent Logging Roads for Better Woodlot 

Management. USDA Forest Service, State and Private Forestry, Eastern Region. 

Henly, R. 1992. Updated cost study of small landowner timber harvesting plans. FRRAP 

Staff. June. 

Henly, R.K., and P.V. Ellefson. 1987. State-administered Forestry Programs: Current 

Status and Prospects for Expansion. Renewable Resources Journal 5(4):19. 

Hetherington, E.D. 1985. Streamflow Nitrogen Loss Following Forest Fertilization in a 

Southern Vancouver Island Watershed. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 

15(1):34-41. 

Hockman-Wert, D. undated. Landslide Research: How Much is Enough? Logging and 

Landslides: A Clear-cut Controversy, http://www.wildfirenews.com/forests/forest/ 

research.html. Viewed July 2002. 

Holburg, M., Forester, Virginia Department of Forestry, personal communication, January 

14, 2000. 

Hornbeck, J.W., and K.G. Reinhart. 1964. Water Quality and Soil Erosion as Affected by 

Logging in Steep Terrain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 19(1):23-27. 

Hornbeck, J.W., C.W. Martin, and C.T. Smith. 1986. Protecting Forest Streams During 

Whole-Tree Harvesting. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry 3:97-100. 

Huff, J.L., and E.L. Deal. 1982. Forestry and Water Quality in North Carolina. North 

Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State University. 

Hulet, B., Forester, USDA, Forest Service, Forest Development, Mt. Baker National 

Forest., personal communication, January 31, 2000. 

Humboldt State University. 1999. Shovel logging 2000. World Wide Web site. <http:// 

www.humboldt.edu>. Viewed July 28. 

Hynson, J., P. Adamus, S. Tibbetts, and R. Darnell. 1982. Handbook for Protection of 

Fish and Wildlife from Construction of Farm and Forest Roads. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/18. 

Ice, G. 1985. The Status of Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Programs. In Perspectives on 

Nonpoint Source Pollution. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 223-226. 

Illinois Department of Conservation. 1990. Forestry Development Cost-Share Program. 

Illinois Administrative Code, Title 17, Chapter I, subcapter d, Part 1536. 

Indiana DNR. 1998. Logging and forestry BMP’s for water quality in Indiana. Field 

Guide. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. January. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-11 
References 

Jackson, C.R. 2000. Integrated headwater stream riparian management study progress 

report #4. Prepared for the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Jenson, L., Forest Engineer, USDA, Forest Service, Tongass National Forest, personal 

communication, January 18, 2000. 

Johnson, D., and D. Ernst. 1997. Indiana’s Forestry Best Management Practices 1996-97 

BMP Implementation Study Report and Findings. 

Johnson, R.C., and R.K. Bronsdon. 1995. Erosion of forest roads. Agricultural Engineer 

50(4):22-27. 

Jones, D. 2000. Implementation Monitoring of Forestry Best Management Practices for 

Harvesting and Site Preparation in South Carolina 1997-1999. Best Management 

Practices Monitoring Report BMP-4. South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, South Carolina. February. 

Jones, J.A., and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clear-cutting and roads in small 

and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4):959-

974. 

Jones, J.A., F.J. Swanson, B.C. Wemple, and K.U. Snyder. In press. A perspective on road 

effects on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. 

Conservation Biology. 

Keim, R.F., and S.H. Schoenholtz. 1999. Functions and effectiveness of silvicultural 

streamside management zones in loessial bluff forests. Forest Ecology and Management 118:197-209. 

Ketcheson, G.L., and W.F. Megahan. 1996. Sediment production and downslope sediment 

transport from forest roads in granitic watersheds. Research Paper INT-RP-486. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. May. 

King, J.G. 1984. Ongoing Studies in Horse Creek on Water Quality and Water Yield. 

NCASI Technical Bulletin 435, pp. 28-35. 

King County, Washington. 1999. Fertilizing Forests with Biosolids. Department of 

Natural Resources. Internet site <http://dnr.metrokc.gov/WTD/biosolids/Forest.htm>. 

Viewed February 16, 2000. 

Kochenderfer, J.N. 1970. Erosion Control on Logging Roads in the Appalachians. USDA 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper NE-158. 

Kockenderfer, J.N. 1995. Using open-top pipe culverts to control surface water on steep 

road grades. General Technical Report NE-194. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. March. 

Kochenderfer, J.N., and J.D. Helvey. 1984. Soil Losses from a “Minimum-Standard” 

Truck Road Constructed in the Appalachians. In Mountain Logging Symposium 

Proceedings, June 5-7, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luckok, West Virginia University. 

Kochenderfer, J.N., and G.W. Wendel. 1980. Costs and Environmental Impacts of Harvesting Timber in Appalachia with a Truck-mounted Crane. USDA Forest Service 

Research Paper NE-456. 

R-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Kochenderfer, J.N., G.W. Wendel, and H.C. Smith. 1984. Cost of and Soil Loss on 

“Minimum-Standard” Forest Truck Roads Constructed in the Central Appalachians. 

USDA Forest Service Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Research Paper 

NE-544. 

Kuehn, M.H., and J. Cobourn. 1989. Summary Report for the 1988 Cumulative Watershed 

Effects Analyses on the Eldorado National Forest - Final Draft. 

Kundt, J.F., and T. Hall. 1988. Streamside Forests: The Vital Beneficial Resource. University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Lantz, R.L. 1971. Guidelines for Stream Protection in Logging Operations. Oregon State 

Game Commission. 

Larse, R.W. 1971. Prevention and Control of Erosion and Stream Sedimentation from 

Forest Roads. In Proceedings of the Symposium of Forest Land Uses and the Stream 

Environment, pp. 76-83. Oregon State University. 

Leith, T. 2002. Man with a Plan. In Perspectives On Line. The Magazine of the College of 

Agriculture and Natural Resources. North Carolina State University, Spring. 

<http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/spring02/man.htm>. 

Leyba, P., Forest Engineer, USDA, Forest Service, Santa Fe National Forest, personal 

communication, January 18, 2000. 

Lickwar, P.M. 1989. Estimating the Costs of Water Quality Protection on Private Forestlands in the South. Master’s thesis submitted to the University of Georgia. 

Likens, G.E., F.H. Bormann, N.M. Johnson, D.W. Fisher, and R.S. Pierce. 1970. Effects 

of Forest Cutting and Herbicide Treatment on Nutrient Budgets in the Hubbard 

Brook Watershed-Ecosystem. Ecological Monographs 40(1):23-47. 

Logan, B., B. Clinch. 1991. Montana Forestry BMP’s, Forest Stewardship Guidelines for 

Water Quality. Montana Department of State Lands, Missoula, Montana. 

Lotspeich, F.B., and F.H. Everest. 1981. A new method for reporting and interpreting 

textural composition of spawning gravel. Research note PNW-369. USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Corvalis, OR. 

Louisiana Forestry Association. 1988. Recommended Forestry Best Management Practices for Louisiana. Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. 

Lynch, J.A., E.S. Corbett, and K. Mussallem. 1985. Best Management Practices for 

Controlling Nonpoint-Source Pollution on Forested Watersheds. Journal of Soil and 

Water Conservation 41(1):164-167. 

Lynch, J.A., and E.S. Corbett. 1990. Evaluation of Best Management Practices for 

Controlling Nonpoint Pollution from Silvicultural Operations. Water Resources 

Bulletin 26(1):41-52. 

MacDonald, L.H. 1997. Analyzing cumulative effects: Issues and guidelines. Draft. 

November 7. 

MacDonald, L.H. 2000. Evaluating and managing cumulative effects: process and 

constraints. Environ. Management 26(3):299-315. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-13 
References 

MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C. Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring Guidelines to 

Evaluate Effects of Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska. EPA/910/9-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 

Seattle, Washington. May. 

Mader, S.F., W.M. Aust, and R. Lea. 1989. Changes in Functional Values of a Forested 

Wetland Following Timber Harvesting Practices. In Proceedings of the Symposium: 

The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 

1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 149-154. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1991. Erosion and Sediment Control 

Handbook for Maine Timber Harvesting Operations: Best Management Practices. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1998. Information obtained from 

Internet site. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 1999. The impact of timber harvesting on nonpoint source pollution. Report to the 119th Maine legislature, Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. Maine Department of 

Conservation, Maine Forest Service. January 15. 

Maine Department of Conservation, Forest Service. 2002. 2000-2001 Maine Forest 

Service Report on Forestry Best Management Practices Use and Effectiveness in 

Maine. Department of Conservation, Maine Forest Service, Augusta, Maine. March. 

Malueg, K.W., C.F. Powers, and D.F. Krawczyk. 1972. Effects of Aerial Forest Fertilization with Urea Pellets on Nitrogen Levels in a Mountain Stream. Northwest Science 

46:52-58. 

Maryland Department of the Environment. Undated. Soil Erosion and Sediment Control 

Guidelines for Forest Harvest Operations in Maryland. 

Marzac, D., Forester, Georgia Pacific Corporation, personal communication, January 14, 

2000. 

McClurkin, D.C., P.D. Duffy, and N.S. Nelson. 1987. Changes in Forest Floor and Water 

Quality Following Thinning and Clearcutting of 20-year-old Pine. Journal of Environmental Quality 16(3):237-291. 

McGurk, B.J., and D.R. Fong. 1995. Equivalent road area as a measure of cumulative 

effect of logging. Environ. Manage. 19(4):609-621. 

McHenry, M.L., D.C. Morrill, and E. Currence. 1994. Spawning Gravel Quality, Watershed Characteristics and Early Life History Survival of Coho Salmon and Steelhead 

in Five North Olympic Peninsula Watersheds. Lower Elwha S’Klallam Tribe, Port 

Angeles, WA. and Makah Tribe, Neah Bay, WA. Funded by Washington State Dept. 

of Ecology (205J grant). 

McIlroy, A. 2001. Mercury levels tied to logging practices. Clear-cut forests fingered in 

study. Globe and Mail, March 12. 

McMinn, J.W. 1984. Soil Disturbance by Fuelwood Harvesting with a Conventional 

Ground System and a Cable Miniyarder in Mountain Hardwood Stands. In Mountain 

Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luchok, June 5-7, 1984. 

West Virginia University, pp. 93-98. 

R-14 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

McNulty, S.G., and G. Sun. 1998. The development and use of best practices in forest 

watersheds using GIS and simulation models. In Proceedings of the International 

Symposium on comprehensive watershed management. International Research and 

Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation, Beijing, China, September 7-10. Pp. 

391-398. 

Megahan, W.F. 1980. Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry Activities in the Western 

United States: Results of Recent Research and Research Needs. In U.S. Forestry and 

Water Quality: What Course in the 80s?, Proceedings of the Water Pollution Control 

Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 92-151. 

Megahan, W.F. 1981. Effects of Silvicultural Practices on Erosion and Sedimentation in 

the Interior West—A Case for Sediment Budgeting. In Interior West Watershed 

Management Symposium Proceedings, ed. D.M Baumgartner. Washington State 

University, Cooperative Extension, pp. 169-182. 

Megahan, W.F. 1983. Appendix C: Guidelines for Reducing Negative Impacts of Logging. In Tropical Watersheds: Hydrologic and Soils Response to Major Uses or 

Conversions, ed. L.S. Hamilton and P.N. King. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 

143-154. 

Megahan, W.F. 1986. Recent Studies on Erosion and Its Control on Forest Lands in the 

United States. 

Megahan, W.F. 1987. Effects of Forest Roads on Watershed Function in Mountainous 

Areas. In Environmental Geotechnics and Problematic Soils and Rocks, ed. 

Balasubramaniam et al. pp. 335-348. 

Mersereau, R.C., and C.T. Dyrness. 1972. Accelerated Mass Wasting after Logging and 

Slash Burning in Western Oregon. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 27:112-114. 

Miller, J.H., and D.L. Sirois. 1986. Soil Disturbance by Skyline Yarding vs. Skidding in a 

Loamy Hill Forest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 50(6):1579-1583. 

Mills, K., and J. Hinkle (eds.). 2001. Forestry, Landslides, and Public Safety. Landslides 

and Public Safety Project Team. Prepared for the Oregon Board of Forestry. June. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1989. Water Quality 

in Forest Management, “Best Management Practices in Minnesota.” 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1991. Minnesota 

Forest Stewardship Program. 

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1995. Protecting Water Quality and Wetlands in Forest Management, Best Management Practices in Minnesota. Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

Minnesota Forest Resources Council. 1999. Sustaining Minnesota Forest Resources: 

Voluntary Site-Level Forest Management Guidelines for Landowners, Loggers and 

Resource Managers. Minnesota Forest Resources Council, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Missouri Department of Conservation. 2000. Information obtained from Internet site, 

http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/forest/private/mgmtasst.htm. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-15 
References 

Mississippi Forestry Commission. 1989. Mississippi’s Best Management Practices 

Handbook. 

Moll, J., R. Copstead, and D. Johansen. 1997. Traveled Way Surface Shape. In Water/ 

Road Interaction Technology Series, USDA Forest Service, Sam Dimas Technology 

and Development Center, Sam Dimas, California. 

Montana State University. 1991. Montana forestry BMPs. Montana State University 

Extension Service. July. 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiation, and slope instability. 

Water Resources Research 30: 1925-1932. 

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Schuett-Hames, and T.P. Quinn. 

1996. Stream-bed scour, egg burial depths, and the influence of salmonid spawning 

on bed surface mobility and embryo survival. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 53: 1061-1070. 

Moore, D.G. 1975. Impact of Forest Fertilization on Water Quality in the Douglass Fir 

Region—A Summary of Monitoring Studies. In Proceeding Forestry Issues in Urban 

America, New York, NY, September 22-26, 1974. Society of American Foresters. 

Morman, D. 1993. Riparian rule effectiveness study. Oregon Department of Forestry, 

Forest Practices Program. March. 

Murphy, M.L., and A.M. Miller. 1997. Alaska timber harvest and fish habitat. In Freshwaters of Alaska. Ecological Synthesis. Pp. 229-263. 

Murphy, M.L., K.V. Koski, J. Heifetz, S.W. Johnson, D. Kirchhofer, and J.F. Thedinga. 

1984. Role of Large Organic Debris as Winter Habitat for Juvenile Salmonids in 

Alaska Streams. In Western Proceedings of the 64th Annual Conference of the 

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Victoria, British Columbia, July 

16-19, 1984, pp. 251-262. 

Narver, D.W. 1971. Effects of Logging Debris on Fish Production. In Forest Land Uses 

and Stream Environment, ed. J.T. Krygier and J.D. Hall, School of Forestry and 

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, October 19-21, pp. 

100-111. 

Nawa, R.K., and C.A. Frissell. 1993. Measuring scour and fill of gravel stream beds with 

scour chains and sliding bead monitors. No. American J. of Fisheries Management 

13: 634-639.

National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI). 2000. Handbook of 

control and mitigation measures for silvicultural operations. Unpublished draft 

Technical Bulletin. Research Triangle Park, N.C. National Council for Air and 

Stream Improvement, Inc. 

Neary, D.G. 1985. Fate of Pesticides in Florida’s Forests: An Overview of Potential 

Impacts in Water Quality. In Proceedings Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida, 

pp. 18-24. 

Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush, J.E. Douglass, and R.L. Todd. 1985. Picloram Movement in an 

Appalachian Hardwood Forest Watershed. Journal of Environmental Quality 

14(4):585-591. 

R-16 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Neary, D.G., W.T. Swank, and H. Riekerk. 1989. An Overview of Nonpoint Source 

Pollution in the Southern United States. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested 

Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14, 1988, Orlando, FL. USDA Forest 

Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 1-7. 

Norris, L.A. 1968. Stream contamination by herbicides after fall rains on forest land. 

Western Society of Weed Scientist Research Program Report, 33-34. 

Norris, L.A., and D.G. Moore. 1971. The Entry and Fate of Forest Chemicals in Streams. 

In Forest Land Uses and Stream Environment - Symposium Proceedings, ed. J.T. 

Krygier and J.D. Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, pp. 138-158. 

Norris, L.A., H.W. Lorz, and S.V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. Influences of Forest 

and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19, pp. 207-296. 

North Carolina Division of Forest Resources. 1989. Forestry Best Management Practices 

Manual. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 

North Dakota Forestry Service. 1999. Forestry Best Management Practices. Molberg 

Forestry Center, Bottineau, North Dakota. 

North Dakota State University. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site. 

Nutter, W.L., and J.W. Gaskin. 1989. Role of Streamside Management Zones in Controlling Discharges to Wetlands. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, July, 12-14, 1988, Orlando, Florida. USDA 

Forest Service. General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 81-84. 

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Undated. BMPs for Erosion Control on Logging 

Jobs. Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Technical Advisory Committee. 

Ohio Forestry Association. 1999. Certified Logging Company Program. <http:// 

www.ohioforest.org/> (select Services>Ohio Master Logging Company Program). 

Olsen, E.D. 1987. A Case Study of the Economic Impact of Proposed Forest Practices 

Rules Regarding Stream Buffer Strips on Private Lands in the Oregon Coast Range. 

In Managing Oregon’s Riparian Zone for Timber, Fish and Wildlife, NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 514, pp. 52-57. 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1988. Environmental Guidelines for Access 

Roads and Water Crossings. Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Ontario, Canada. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979a. Waterbars. Forest Practices Notes No. 1. Oregon 

Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1979b. Reforestation. Forest Practices Notes No. 2. 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1981. Road Maintenance. Forest Practices Notes No. 4. 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1982. Ditch Relief Culverts. Forest Practices Notes 

No. 5. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-17 
References 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1991. Forest Practices Rules, Eastern Oregon Region. 

Oregon Department of Forestry, Forestry Practices Section, Salem, OR. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997. Information obtained from Internet site. 

Oregon Department of Forestry. 2002. Executive Summary. Technical Report 15. Oregon 

Department of Forestry Best Management Practices Compliance Monitoring Project, 

Forest Practices Monitoring Program. April. 

OSHA, Department of Labor. 1999. World Wide Web site. <http://www.osha.gov/>. 

Viewed July 17. 

Pacific Southwest Region. 1998. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program annual 

report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 

San Francisco, California. April. 

Page, C.P., and A.W. Lindenmuth, Jr. 1971. Effects of Prescribed Fire on Vegetation and 

Sediment in Oak-Mountain Mahogany Chaparral. Journal of Forestry 69:800-805. 

Pardo, R. 1980. What is Forestry’s Contribution to Nonpoint Source Pollution? In U.S. 

Forestry and Water Quality: What Course in the 80s? Proceedings of the Water 

Pollution Control Federation Seminar, Richmond, VA, June 19, 1980, pp. 31-41. 

Park, S.W., S. Mostaghimi, R.A. Cooke, and P.W. McClellan. 1994. BMP impacts on 

watershed runoff, sediment, and nutrient yields. Water Resources Bulletin 

30(6):1011-1023. 

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry 74(10):671-677. 

Patric, J.H. 1980. Effects of Wood Products Harvest on Forest Soil and Water Relations. 

Journal of Environmental Quality 9(1):73-80. 

Patric, J.H. 1984. Some Environmental Effects of Cable Logging in the Eastern Hardwoods. In Mountain Logging Symposium Proceedings, ed. P.A. Peters and J. Luchok, 

June 5-7, 1984, West Virginia University, pp. 99-106. 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Soil and Water Conservation. 1990. Erosion and Sediment 

Pollution Control Program Manual. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Resources. 

Pettit, C. 2000. West Kootenay landslide reports. <http://www.watertalk.org/reports/ 

landslides-koot/index.html>. Accessed 24 February 2003. 

Phillips, M.J. 1997. Forestry best management practices for wetlands in Minnesota. In 

Northern Forested Wetlands: Ecology and Management. Chapter 28. 

Phillips, M.J., L.W. Swift, Jr., and C.R. Blinn. Best management practices for riparian 

areas. In E.S. Verry, J.W. Hornbeck, C.A. Dolloff (eds.), Riparian management in 

forests of the continental Eastern United States. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 

Florida. Pp. 273-286. 

Piatek, K.B., and H.L. Allen. 2000. Site preparation effects on foliar N and P use, 

retranslocation, and transfer to litter in 15-year old Pinus taeda. Forest Ecology and 

Management 129:143-152. 

R-18 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Pope, P.E. 1978. Forestry and Water Quality: Pollution Control Practices. Forestry and 

Natural Resources, FNR 88, Purdue University Cooperative Extension Services. 

Powell, D.S., J.L. Faulkner, D.R. Darr, Z. Zhu, D.W. MacCleery. 1994. Forest resources 

of the United States, 1992. General Technical Report RM-234 (Revised). USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, 

Colorado. 

Powers, P.D. Culvert Hydraulics Related to Upstream Juvenile Salmon Passage. Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Habitat Program: 1-15, 1996. 

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report GTR-141, 118 pp. 

Reid, L.M. 1998. Cumulative watershed effects: Caspar Creek and beyond. In: Ziemer, 

R.R., Technical Coordinator, Proceedings of the conference on coastal watersheds: 

the Caspar Creek story, Ukiah, California, May 6. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Albany, California. Pp. 117-127. 

Rice, R.M., J.S. Rothacher, and W.F. Megahan. 1972. Erosional Consequences of Timber 

Harvesting: An Appraisal. In Watersheds in Transition Symposium Proceedings, 

AWRA, Urbana, IL, pp. 321-329. 

Richter, D.D., C.W. Ralston, and W.R. Harms. 1982. Prescribed Fire: Effects on Water 

Quality and Forest Nutrient Cycling (Hydraulic Systems, Pine Litter, USA). Science 

215:661-663. 

Riekerk, H. 1983. Environmental Impacts of Intensive Silviculture in Florida. In 

I.U.F.R.O. Symposium on Forest Site and Continuous Productivity. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical 

Report PNW-163, pp. 264-271. 

Riekerk, H. 1983. Impacts of Silviculture on Flatwoods Runoff, Water Quality, and 

Nutrient Budgets. Water Resources Bulletin 19(1):73-80. 

Riekerk, H. 1985. Water Quality Effects of Pine Flatwoods Silviculture. Journal of Soil 

and Water Conservation 40(3):306-309. 

Riekerk, H. 1989. Forest Fertilizer and Runoff-Water Quality. In Soil and Crop Science 

Society of Florida Proceedings, September 20-22, 1988, Marco Island, FL, Vol. 48, 

pp. 99-102. 

Riekerk, H., D.G. Neary, and W.J. Swank. 1989. The Magnitude of Upland Silviculture 

Nonpoint Source Pollution in the South. In Proceedings of the Symposium: Forested 

Wetlands of the Southern United States, July 12-14, Orlando, FL, pp. 8-18. 

Robben, J., and L. Dent. 2002. Final Report. Technical Report 15. Oregon Department of 

Forestry Best Management Practices Compliance Monitoring Project, Forest Practices Monitoring Program. April. 

Rothwell, R.L. 1978. Watershed Management Guidelines for Logging and Road Construction in Alberta. Canadian Forestry Service, Northern Forest Research Centre, 

Alberta, Canada. Information Report NOR-X-208. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-19 
References 

Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and Sediment Control at Road-Stream Crossings (Forestry). The Forestry Chronicle 59(2):62-66. 

Rygh, J. 1990. Fisher Creek Watershed Improvement Project Final Report. Payette 

National Forest. 

Salazar, D.J. and F.W. Cubbage. 1990. Regulating Private Forestry in the West and South. 

Journal of Forestry 88(1):14-19. 

Sanders, J.E., K.S. Pilcher, and J.L. Fryer. 1978. Relation of water tmperature to bacterial 

kidney disease in coho salmon, sockeye salmon and steelhead trout. J. Fish. Res. 

Board of Canada 35(1): 8-11. 

Schmid, D., Forester, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 

Division of Lands and Forests, personal communication, February 8, 2000. 

Sedell, J., M. Sharpe, D.D. Apple, M. Copenhagen, and M. Furniss. 2000. Water & the 

Forest Service. FS-660. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington 

DC. January. 

Sidle, R.C. 1980. Impacts of Forest Practices on Surface Erosion. Pacific Northwest 

Extension Publication PNW-195, Oregon State Univ. Extension Service. 

Sidle, R.C. 1989. Cumulative Effects of Forest Practices on Erosion and Sedimentation. 

In Forestry on the Frontier Proceedings of the 1989 Society of American Foresters, 

September 24-27, Spokane, WA, pp. 108-112. 

Smith, W.B., J.S. Visage, D.R. Darr, and R.M. Sheffield. 2001. Forest Resources of the 

United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central 

Research Station, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

South Carolina Forestry Commission. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site. 

Spence, B.C, G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes and R.P. Novitski. 1996. An ecosystem 

approach to salmonid conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech Corp, Corvalis, 

OR. Funded by National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available from NMFS, Portland, OR. 

Stednick, J.D., L.N. Tripp, and R.J. McDonald. 1982. Slash Burning Effects on Soil and 

Water Chemistry in Southeastern Alaska. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 

37(2):126-128.

 Stone, E. 1973. The Impact of Timber Harvest on Soils and Water. Report of the 

President’s Advisory Panel on Timber and the Environment, Arlington, VA, pp. 427-

467. 

Stuart, G., 1996. Instructor’s Guide Eastern Forest Wetland & Streamside Forest Management. National Wetlands Conservation Alliance. <http://users.erols.com/wetlandg/ 

forest.htm>.

Sun, G., and S.G. McNulty. 1998. Modeling soil erosion and transport on forest landscape. In Proceedings of Conference 29. International Erosion Control Association, 

Reno, Nevada, February 16-20. Pp. 187-198. 

R-20 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Swank, W.T., L.W. Swift, Jr., and J.E. Douglass. 1988. Streamflow Changes Associated 

with Forest Cutting, Species Conversions and Natural Disturbances. In Forest 

Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Chapter 22, ed. W.T. Swank and D.A. Crossley, 

Jr., pp.297-312. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Swartley, W.A. 2002. Forestry BMP Implementation Survey. North Carolina Division of 

Forest Resources. February. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984a. Gravel and Grass Surfacing Reduces Soil Loss from Mountain 

Roads. Forest Science 30(3):657-670. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1984b. Soil Losses from Roadbeds and Cut and Fill Slopes in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 8(4):209-215. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1985. Forest Road Design to Minimize Erosion in the Southern Appalachians. In Forestry and Water Quality: A Mid-South Symposium, May 8-9, 1985, 

Little Rock, AR, ed. B.G. Blackmon, pp. 141-151. University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter Strip Widths for Forest Roads in the Southern Appalachians. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 10(1):27-34. 

Swift, L.W., Jr. 1988. Forest Access Roads: Design, Maintenance, and Soil Loss. In 

Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta, Chapter 23, ed. W.T. Swank and D.A. 

Crossley, Jr., pp. 313-324. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY. 

Swift, L.W., Jr., and R.G. Burns. 1999. The Three Rs of Roads: Redesign, Reconstruction, and Restoration. Journal of Forestry 97(8):40-44. 

Taylor, L., Forest Engineer, USDA Forest Service, Salmon-Challis National Forest, 

personal communication, January 28, 2000. 

Tennessee DOA. (undated) 1996 BMP Implementation Survey Report. Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Forestry Division. 

Tennessee DOA. 1998. Information obtained from Internet site. 

Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Forestry. 1990. Best Management 

Practices for Protection of the Forested Wetlands of Tennessee. 

Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 1996. 1996 BMP Implementation Survey Report. Tennessee Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. 

Texas Forestry Association. 1989. Texas Best Management Practices for Silviculture. 

Toliver, J.R., and B.D. Jackson. 1989. Recommended Silvicultural Practices in Southern 

Wetland Forests. In Proceedings of the Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the 

Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service 

General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 72-77. 

Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, H.W. Li, and B.A. McIntosh. 1999. Multiscale thermal 

refugia and stream habitat associations of chinook salmon in northeastern Oregon. 

Ecological Applications 9: 301-319. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-21 
References 

Trimble, G.R., and S. Weitzman. 1953. Soil Erosion on Logging Roads. Soil Science 

Society of America Proceedings 17:152-154. 

Trombulak, S.C., and C.A. Frissell. In press. Review of ecological effects of roads on 

terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology. 

University of Minnesota Extension Service. 1998. Best Management Practices (BMPs) 

can prevent or minimize the impact of forestry activities on rivers, lakes, streams, 

groundwater, wetlands, and visual quality. Forest Management Practices Fact Sheet 

Crossing Options Series #4. <http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/ 

naturalresources/DD6973.html>. 

USDA-FS. 1994. Sedimentation concerns from Forest Roads 133, 149, and 468 into two 

tributaries of E. Br. Tionesta Cr. Unpublished research report. USDA Forest Service, 

Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Pennsylvania. March 17. 

USDA-FS. 1995. Effectiveness monitoring of the filter strip between FR 375, Hastings 

Run, and the tributary to Hastings Run. Unpublished research report. USDA Forest 

Service, Allegheny National Forest, Warren, Pennsylvania. January 17. 

*USDA-FS. 1997. Ecosystem Road Management. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service. San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, California. 

November. 

USDA-FS. 1998. Best Management Practice Evaluation Program (BMPEP). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

*USDA-FS. 1998. Water/Road Interaction Technology Series. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San 

Dimas, California. 

USDA-FS. 1999. USDA Forest Service Internet Site: <http://www.fs.fed.us>. 

USDA-FS, Pacific Region. 1992. Investigating water quality in the Pacific Southwest 

Region: Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California. 

USDOI, USDA. 2004. Progress reported on implementing President Bush’s Healthy 

Forests Initiative. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Washington, DC. Fact sheet. March. 

USEPA. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the U.S., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1991. Pesticides and Groundwater Strategy. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 1992. A synoptic approach to cumulative impact assessment. A proposed methodology. EPA/600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Research and Development, Washington, DC. October. 

USEPA. 1992. Economic analysis of coastal nonpoint source pollution controls: Forestry. 

Draft. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. June. 

R-22 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

USEPA. 1992a. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution, Final Report to Congress on 

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act (1989). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA-506/9-90. 

USEPA. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint 

Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. January. 

USEPA. 1994. Land Application of Sewage Sludge. A Guide for Land Appliers on the 

Requirements of the Federal Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge, 40 

CFR Part 503. EPA/831-B-93-002b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Washington, DC. December. 

USEPA. 1995. Watershed protection: A project focus. EPA841-R-95-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. August. 

USEPA. 1996. Watershed approach framework. EPA840-S-96-001. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. June. 

USEPA. 1997. Memorandum to the Field—Corps and EPA Regulatory Program Chiefs, 

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. <http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/ 

guidance/silv2.html>. 

USEPA. 1997. Monitoring Guidance for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint 

Source Controls. EPA841-B-96-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 

of Water, Washington, DC. September. 

*USEPA. 1997. Techniques for Tracking, Evaluating, and Reporting the Implementation 

of Nonpoint Source Control Measures—Forestry. EPA841-B-97-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

USEPA. 2000. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. EPA841-F00-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. 

June. 

USEPA. undated a. Ohio CWSRF provides loans for riparian zone conservation. Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund Activity Update. <http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/ 

cwsrf/ohiobru.pdf>. Accessed December 24, 2002. 

USEPA. undated b. Ohio CWSRF provides loans for development best management 

practices. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Activity Update. <http://www.epa.gov/ 

owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/darbycr.pdf>. Accessed December 24, 2002. 

USEPA. 2002a. Facimile transmittal from Stephanie von Feck, USEPA. Fax dated 

December 24, 2002. 

USEPA. 2002b. Ohio’s restoration sponsor program integrates point source & nonpoint 

source projects. Clean Water State Revolving Fund Activity Update. June. <http:// 

www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/ohio_wrrsp.pdf>. Accessed December 24, 2002. 

VANR. 1998. Water quality monitoring and aquatic bioassessment related to logging 

practices in the Dowsville Brook, Shepard Brook and Mill Brook watersheds. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, 

Biomonitoring and Aquatic Studies Section. October. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-23 
References 

Vermont Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. 1987. Acceptable Management 

Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont. 

Virginia Department of Forestry. (undated). Forestry Best Management Practices for 

Water Quality in Virginia. 

Virginia DOF. 1994. Best management practice implementation and effectiveness. 1994. 

Virginia Department of Forestry, Forest Resources and Utilization Branch, 

Charlottesville, Virginia. February. 

Virginia DOF. 1998. Conclusions suggested by water quality monitoring near private 

timber harvests: 1989-1996. Executive Summary. Virginia Department of Forestry, 

Charlottesville, Virginia. 

Virginia DOF. 2001. BMP Effort, Implementation, and Effectiveness Field Audit. Virginia 

Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, Virginia. November. 

Vowell, J., and T. Gilpin. 1998. Silviculture Best Management Practices 1997 Compliance Survey Report. Florida Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry. July. 

Vowell, J., and R. Lima. 2002. Results of Florida’s 2001 Silviculture BMP Compliance 

Survey. Florida Division of Forestry, Tallahassee, Florida. March. 

Warring, M., Virginia Department of Forestry. 1999. Personnel communication. July 19, 

1999. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1996. Water Quality Standards for Aquatic 

Life. Wash. Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 1998. Preliminary Draft Evaluation Standards 

for Protection of Aquatic Life in Washington Surface Waters. Wash. Dept. of Ecology, 

Olympia, WA. January 1998. 

Washington Department of Ecology. 1999. Forest Practices Code - Stream Crossing for 

Fish Streams Guidebook: 1.2 Types of Fish Passage Structures. March. 

Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1988. Washington Forest Practices Rules and 

Regulations. Washington Annotated Code, Title 222; Forest Practices Board Manual, 

and Forest Practices Act. 

Washington DOE. 1994. Effectiveness of forest road and timber harvest best management 

practices with respect to sediment-related water quality impacts. Interim Report No. 

2. Ecology Publication No. 94-67. TFW-WQ8-94-001. Washington State Department 

of Ecology, Timber, Fish, and Wildlife. May. 

Washington State DNR. 1997. Information obtained from Internet site. 

*Weaver, W.E., and D.K. Hagans. 1994. Handbook for forest and ranch roads. Prepared 

for Mendicino County Resource Conservation District, Ukiah, California. June. 

Weitzman, S., and G.R. Trimble, Jr. 1952. Skid-road Erosion Can Be Reduced. Journal of 

Soil and Water Conservation 7:122-124. 

R-24 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
References 

Wemple, B.C., J.A. Jones, and G.E. Grant. 1996. Channel network extension by logging 

roads in two basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Bulletin 32: 1195-

1207. 

White, D. Hydraulic Performance of Countersunk Culverts in Oregon. Oregon State 

University. 1-95, 1996. Master of Science. 

Whitman, R. 1989. Clean Water or Multiple Use? Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality Control in the National Forests. Ecology Law Quarterly 16:909-966. 

*Wiest, R. 1998. A Landowner’s Guide to Building Forest Access Roads. NA-TP-06-98. 

USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry, Radnor, Pennsylvania. July. 

Willingham, P.W. 1989. Wetlands Harvesting Scott Paper Company. In Proceedings of the 

Symposium: The Forested Wetlands of the Southern United States, Orlando, Florida, 

July 12-14, 1988. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SE-50, pp. 63-66. 

Wilbrecht, S., Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry, personal communication, January 15, 2000. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1989. Forest Practice Guidelines for 

Wisconsin. Bureau of Forestry, Madison, WI. PUBL-FR-064-89. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2003. Wisconsin Forest Management 

Guidelines. PUB-FR-226 2003. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Madison, Wisconsin. October. 

Yee, C.S., and T.D. Roelofs. 1980. Planning Forest Roads to Protect Salmonid Habitat. 

USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PNW-109. 

Yoder, B., Forester, USDA, Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, personal 

communication, January 20, 2000. 

Yoho, N.S. 1980. Forest Management and Sediment Production in the South—A Review. 

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 4(1):27-36. 

Zedaker, S., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 1999. Personnel communication. August 2, 1999. 

Ziemer, R.R., J. Lewis, R. M. Rice, and T. E. Lisle. 1991. Modeling the cumulative 

watershed effects of forest management strategies. Journal of Environmental Quality 

20(1): 36-42. 

Ziemer, R.R., and T.E. Lisle. 1998. Hydrology. Chapter 3 in: Naiman, R.J., and R.E. 

Bilby, eds., River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal 

Ecoregion. Pages 43-68. Springer-Verlag, N.Y. 

Readers are encouraged to contact their state department of forestry for information 

pertaining to BMPs for forestry in their state and region. In addition, some of the 

above guidances that represent a synthesis of current information are recommended 

for further reading and are marked with an asterisk (*). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry R-25 
References 

R-26 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
GLOSSARY

Access road: A temporary or permanent road over which timber is transported from a 

loading site to a public road. Also known as a haul road. 

Alignment: The horizontal route or direction of an access road. 

Allochthonous: Derived from outside a system, such as leaves of terrestrial plants that 

fall into a stream. 

Angle of repose: The maximum slope or angle at which a material, such as soil or loose 

rock, remains stable (stable angle). 

Apron: Erosion protection placed on the streambed in an area of high flow velocity, such 

as downstream from a culvert. 

Autochthonous: Derived from within a system, such as organic matter in a stream 

resulting from photosynthesis by aquatic plants. 

Bedding: A site preparation technique whereby a small ridge of surface soil is formed to 

provide an elevated planting or seed bed. It is used primarily in wet areas to improve 

drainage and aeration for seeding. 

Berm: A low earth fill constructed in the path of flowing water to divert its direction, or 

constructed to act as a counterweight beside the road fill to reduce the risk of foundation 

failure (buttress). 

Borrow pit: An excavation site outside the limits of construction that provides necessary 

material, such as fill material for embankments. 

Broad-based dip: A surface drainage structure specifically designed to drain water from 

an access road while vehicles maintain normal travel speeds. 

Brush barrier: A sediment control structure created of slash materials piled at the toe 

slope of a road or at the outlets of culverts, turnouts, dips, and water bars. 

Buck: To saw felled trees into predetermined lengths. 

Buffer area: A designated area around a stream or waterbody of sufficient width to 

minimize entrance of forestry chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, and fire retardants) into 

the waterbody. 

Cable logging: A system of transporting logs from stump to landing by means of steel 

cables and winch. This method is usually preferred on steep slopes, wet areas, and 

erodible soils where tractor logging cannot be carried out effectively. 

Check dam: A small dam constructed in a gully to decrease the flow velocity, minimize 

channel scour, and promote deposition of sediment. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-1 
Glossary 

Chopping: A mechanical treatment whereby vegetation is concentrated near the ground


and incorporated into the soil to facilitate burning or seedling establishment.


Clearcutting: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are harvested within


a specified area in one operation to create an even-aged stand.


Contour: An imaginary line on the surface of the earth connecting points of the same


elevation. A line drawn on a map connecting the points of the same elevation.


Crown: A convex road surface that allows runoff to drain to either side of the road prism.


Culvert: A metal, wooden, plastic, or concrete conduit through which surface water can


flow under or across roads.


Cumulative effect: The impact on the environment that results from the incremental


impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future


actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such action.


Cut-and-fill: Earth-moving process that entails excavating part of an area and using the


excavated material for adjacent embankments or fill areas.


DBH: Diameter at breast height; the average diameter (outside the bark) of a tree 4.5 feet


above mean ground level.


Disking (harrowing): A mechanical method of scarifying the soil to reduce competing


vegetation and to prepare a site to be seeded or planted.


Diversion: A channel with a supporting ridge on the lower side constructed across or at


the bottom of a slope for the purpose of intercepting surface runoff.


Drainage structure: Any device or land form constructed to intercept and/or aid surface


water drainage.


Duff: The accumulation of needles, leaves, and decaying matter on the forest floor.


Ephemeral drainage: A natural channel that carries water only during and immediately


following rainstorms and whose channel bottom is seldom below the local water table.


Sometimes referred to as a dry wash.


Felling: The process of cutting down standing trees.


Fill slope: The surface formed where earth is deposited to build a road or trail.


Firebreak: Naturally occurring or man-made barrier to the spread of fire.


Fire line: A barrier used to stop the spread of fire constructed by removing fuel or


rendering fuel inflammable by use of fire retardants.


Foam line: A type of fire line that incorporates the use of fire-resistant foam material in


lieu of, or in addition to, plowing or harrowing.


Ford: Submerged stream crossing where the traffic surface is reinforced to bear intended


traffic.


Forest filter strip: Area between a stream and construction activities that achieves


sediment control by using the natural filtering capabilities of the forest floor and litter.


G-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Glossary 

Forwarding: The operation of moving timber products from the stump to a landing for 

further transport. 

Geotextile: A product used as a soil reinforcement agent and as a filter medium. It is 

made of synthetic fibers manufactured in a woven or loose nonwoven manner to form a 

blanket-like product. 

Grade (gradient): The slope of a road or trail expressed as a percentage of change in 

elevation per unit of distance traveled. 

Harrowing (disking): A mechanical means to scarify the soil to reduce competing 

vegetation and to prepare a site to be seeded. 

Harvesting: The felling, skidding, processing, loading, and transporting of forest products. 

Haul road: See access road. 

Intermittent stream: A stream that flows only during the wet periods of the year or in 

response to snow melt and flows in a well-defined channel. The channel bottom may be 

periodically above or below the local water table. 

Landing (log deck): A place in or near the forest where logs are gathered for further 

processing, sorting, or transport. 

Leaching: Downward movement of a soluble material through the soil as a result of 

water movement. 

Logging debris (slash): The unwanted, unutilized, and generally unmerchantable 

accumulation of woody material, such as large limbs, tops, cull logs, and stumps, that 

remains as forest residue after timber harvesting. 

Merchantable: Forest products suitable for marketing under local economic conditions. 

With respect to a single tree, it means the parts of the bole or stem suitable for sale. 

Mineral soil: Soil that contains less than 20 percent organic matter (by weight) and 

contains rock less than 2 inches in maximum dimension. 

Mulch: A natural or artificial layer of plant residue or other materials covering the land 

surface that conserves moisture, holds soil in place, aids in establishing plant cover, and 

minimizes temperature fluctuations. 

Mulching: Providing any loose covering for exposed forest soils, such as grass, straw, 

bark, or wood fibers, to help control erosion and protect exposed soil. 

Muskeg: A type of bog that has developed over thousands of years in depressions, on flat 

areas, and on gentle to steep slopes. These bogs have poorly drained, acidic, organic soils 

supporting vegetation that can be (1) predominantly sphagnum moss; (2) herbaceous 

plants, sedges, and rushes; (3) predominantly sedges and rushes; or (4) a combination of 

sphagnum moss and herbaceous plants. These bogs may have some shrub and stunted 

conifers, but not enough to classify them as forested lands. 

Ordinary high water mark: An elevation that marks the boundary of a lake, marsh, or 

streambed. It is the highest level at which the water has remained long enough to leave its 

mark on the landscape. Typically, it is the point where the natural vegetation changes 

from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-3 
Glossary 

Organic debris: Particles of vegetation or other biological material that can degrade 

water quality by decreasing dissolved oxygen and by releasing organic solutes during 

leaching. 

Outslope: To shape the road surface to cause runoff to flow toward the outside shoulder. 

Patch cutting method: A silvicultural system in which all merchantable trees are harvested over a specified area at one time. 

Perennial stream: A watercourse that flows throughout a majority of the year in a welldefined channel and whose bottom (in rainfall dominant regimes) is below the local water 

table throughout most of the year. 

Persistence: The relative ability of a pesticide to remain active over a period of time. 

Pioneer roads: Temporary access ways used to facilitate construction equipment access 

when building permanent roads. 

Prescribed burning: Skillful application of fire to natural fuels that allows confinement 

of the fire to a predetermined area and at the same time produces certain planned benefits. 

Raking: A mechanical method of removing stumps, roots, and slash from a future 

planting site. 

Regeneration: The process of replacing older trees removed by harvest or disaster with 

young trees. 

Residual trees: Live trees left standing after the completion of harvesting. 

Right-of-way: The cleared area along the road alignment that contains the roadbed, 

ditches, road slopes, and back slopes. 

Riprap: Rock or other large aggregate that is placed to protect streambanks, bridge 

abutments, or other erodible sites from runoff or wave action. 

Rut: A depression in access roads made by continuous passage of logging vehicles. 

Salvage harvest: Removal of trees that are dead, damaged, or imminently threatened 

with death or damage in order to use the wood before it is rendered valueless by natural 

decay agents. 

Sanitation harvest: Removal of trees that are under attack by or highly susceptible to 

insect and disease agents in order to check the spread of such agents. 

Scarification: The process of removing the forest floor or mixing it with the mineral soil 

by mechanical action preparatory to natural or direct seeding or the planting of tree 

seedlings. 

Scour: Soil erosion when it occurs underwater, as in the case of a streambed. 

Seed bed: The soil prepared by natural or artificial means to promote the germination of 

seeds and the growth of seedlings. 

Seed tree method: Removal of the mature timber in one cutting, except for a limited 

number of seed trees left singly or in small groups. 

G-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Glossary 

Selection method: An uneven-aged silvicultural system in which mature trees are 

removed, individually or in small groups, from a given tract of forestland over regular 

intervals of time. 

Shearing: A site preparation method that involves the cutting of brush, trees, or other 

vegetation at ground level using tractors equipped with angles or V-shaped cutting blades. 

Shelterwood method: Removal of the mature timber in a series of cuttings that extend 

over a relatively short portion of the rotation in order to encourage the establishment of 

essentially even-aged reproduction under the partial shelter of seed trees. 

Silt fence: A temporary barrier used to intercept sediment-laden runoff from small areas. 

Silvicultural system: A process, following accepted silvicultural principles, whereby the 

tree species constituting forests are tended, harvested, and replaced. Usually defined by, 

but not limited to, the method of regeneration. 

Site preparation: A silvicultural activity to remove unwanted vegetation and other 

material, and to cultivate or prepare the soil for regeneration. 

Skid: Short-distance moving of logs or felled trees from the stump to a point of loading. 

Skid trail: A temporary, nonstructural pathway over forest soil used to drag felled trees 

or logs to the landing. Skid trails may either be constructed or simply develop due to use 

depending on the terrain. 

Slash: See logging debris. 

Slope: Degree of deviation of a surface from the horizontal, measured as a numerical 

ratio, as a percent, or in degrees. Expressed as a ratio, the first number is the horizontal 

distance (run) and the second number is the vertical distance (rise), as 2:1. A 2:1 slope is 

a 50 percent slope. Expressed in degrees, the slope is the angle from the horizontal plane, 

with a 90 degree slope being vertical (maximum) and a 45 degree slope being a 1:1 slope. 

Stand: A contiguous group of trees sufficiently uniform in species composition, arrangement of age classes, and condition to be a homogeneous and distinguishable unit. 

Streamside management area (SMA): A designated area that consists of the stream 

itself and an adjacent area of varying width where management practices that might 

affect water quality, fish, or other aquatic resources are modified. The SMA is not an area 

of exclusion, but an area of closely managed activity. It is an area that acts as an effective 

filter and absorptive zone for sediments; maintains shade; protects aquatic and terrestrial 

riparian habitats; protects channels and streambanks; and promotes floodplain stability. 

Tread: Load-bearing surface of a trail or road. 

Turnout: A drainage ditch that drains water away from roads and road ditches. 

Water bar: A diversion ditch and/or hump installed across a trail or road to divert runoff 

from the surface before the flow gains enough volume and velocity to cause soil movement and erosion, and deposit the runoff into a dispersion area. Water bars are most 

frequently used on retired roads, trails, and landings. 

Watercourse: A definite channel with bed and banks within which concentrated water 

flows continuously, frequently or infrequently. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry G-5 
Glossary 

Windrow: Logging debris and unmerchantable woody vegetation that has been piled in 

rows to decompose or to be burned; or the act of constructing these piles. 

Yarding: Method of transport from harvest area to storage landing. 

G-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
APPENDIX PPENDIX A:

EPA FORESTRY RESOURCES

Monitoring guidelines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific 

Northwest and Alaska. EPA910991001. 

The above document is available from U.S. EPA Public Information Center - S1043, 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; phone 206-553-1200, fax 206-553-1049. 

Summary of current state nonpoint source control practices for forestry. EPA841S93001. 

Water quality effects and nonpoint source control for forestry: An annotated bibliography. EPA841B93005. 

Nonpoint pointers: Managing nonpoint source pollution from forestry, pointer no. 8. 

EPA841F96004H. 

Techniques for tracking, evaluating, and reporting the implementation of nonpoint source 

control measures: Forestry. EPA841B97009. 

Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best management practices in meeting water 

quality goals or standards (bound copy). EPA841B94005B. 

The above publications are out of print, but can be viewed on the Web from the 

following link: http://www.epa.gov/clariton/clhtml/pubtitleOW.html. 

Facts about silvicultural activities in wetlands. EPA904F91100. 

The above is available from U.S. EPA, Region 4, Library, 345 Courtland Street, N.E., 

Atlanta, GA 30365; phone 404-347-4216. 

Evaluating the effectiveness of forestry best management practices in meeting water 

quality goals or standards (3-hole punch). EPA841B94005A. 

EPA Nonpoint Source News-Notes: published by EPA quarterly and available on the 

Internet. Occasionally has articles of interest to foresters and forest land owners. 

Articles from the Nonpoint Source News-Notes series can be obtained from the 

Internet at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/info/NewsNotes/. Forestry-related articles have 

included: 

•	 Scientist Links Nutrient Runoff with Forest Defoliation (No. 51, April/May 

1998) 

•	 New Management Policies Proposed for National Forest Road System (No. 52, 

July/August 1998) 

•	 Urban Forests Decline; Runoff Increases in Puget Sound Area (No. 53, 

September/October 1998) 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry A-1 
Appendix A: EPA Forestry Resources 

•	 Working Buffer Strips Provide Profit and Protection (No. 54, November 1998) 

•	 Report Lists Communities Suffering Flood Losses (No. 54, November 1998) 

•	 Watershed Management Helps Lake Quality (No. 54, November 1998) 

•	 Applying a Watershed Model to Reduce Nonpoint Source Runoff (No. 56, 

February/March 1999) 

•	 Texas Forest Service Teaches Loggers about BMPs and Water Quality (No. 56, 

February/March 1999) 

•	 Nine Salmon Listed in Urban Pacific Northwest (No. 57, May 1999) 

•	 Riparian Forest Wildlife Guidelines for Landowners and Loggers (No. 58, 

July 1999) 

•	 Getting Started With TMDLs (No. 59, November 1999) 

Other EPA publications related to forests and forestry can be found at the EPA publications Web site by searching on “forest” or “forestry”: http://www.epa.gov/ncepihom/. 

Resources for Non-Industrial Private Forest 

(NIPF) Landowners: 

The Sustainable Forestry Partnership has a web page devoted to Nonindustrial Private 

Forest Landowners: http://sfp.cas.psu.edu/nipf.htm. 

USDA Forest Service—List of Publications, 

Resources 

The USDA Forest Service, Washington Office and regional offices have a number of 

publications and other resources related to forestry. Lists of available publications, some 

of which are available electronically, and ordering information can be viewed at the 

Internet sites of the respective offices. Access to the Washington, DC office and the 

regional office Internet sites can be gained through the Internet site for publications for 

the USDA Forest Service: http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/. 

The documents of the Water-Road Interaction Technology Series, published by the U.S. 

Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, San Dimas, California, 

are available at: http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/water-road. 

Other resources that will be of interest to forestland owners and that are available electronically include: 

• FishXing (software and learning system for fish passage through culverts): 

http://www.stream.fs.fed.us/fishxing 

•	 Forest Service Roads Analysis Process: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/DOCSroad-analysis.shtml 

•	 Forest Roads Science Synthesis: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/roads/science.pdf 

A-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
APPENDIX PPENDIX B:

SOURCES OF TECHNICAL ECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

P.O. Box 2890


Washington, DC 20013


U.S. Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service


Public Affairs Office


18th and C Streets, NW


Washington, DC 20240


U.S. Department of the Interior

Geological Survey


12201 Sunrise Valley Drive


Reston, Virginia 22092


U.S. Forest Service


Office of Information


Room 3238


P.O. Box 2417


Washington, DC 20013


U.S. Department of Commerce

National Climatic Center


Federal Building


Asheville, North Carolina 28801


(Attn: Publications)


American Forest Institute


1619 Massachusetts Ave., NW


Washington, DC 20036


American Forests 

P.O. Box 2000


Washington, DC 20013-2000


Association of Consulting Foresters of America


5400 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 300


Bethesda, Maryland 20814


International Society of Arboriculture 

P.O. Box 71


5 Lincoln Square


Urbana, Illinois 61801


International Society of Arboriculture 

P.O. Box GG


6 Dunlap Court


Savoy, Illinois 61874


National Arbor Day Foundation


100 Arbor Avenue


Nebraska City, Nebraska 68410


National Arborist Association 

P.O. Box 1094


Amherst, New Hampshire 03031-1094


National Association of State Foresters


Hall of the States, #526


444 North Capital Street, NW


Washington, DC 20001


National Urban Forest Council 

c/o American Forests 

P.O. Box 2000


Washington, DC 20013


Soil and Water Conservation Society


7515 Northeast Ankney Road


Ankney, Iowa 50021-9764


American Sod Producers Association, Inc.


9th and Minnesota Streets


Hastings, Nebraska 68901


The IPM Practitioner


P.O. Box 7414


Berkeley, California 94707


510-524-2567


Directory of Least-Toxic Pest Control Products


National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry B-1 
Appendix B: Sources of Technical Assistance 

Pesticide Hot Line (Autovon 584-3773) 

U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency 

Pest Management and Pesticide 

Monitoring Division 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005 

The Internet site of the National Association of State 

Foresters, http://www.stateforesters.org/, has links to 

many forestry resources, including: 

• State Forestry Statistics 

• State Forester Directory 

• State Forester Home Pages 

• State and Private Forestry Programs 

• Other Forestry Links 

B-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
APPENDIX PPENDIX C: FOREST MANAGEMENT

CERTIFICA ERTIFICAERTIFICATION PROGRAMS

Forest Management and Forest Product 

Certification 

In the past 10 years, forest management monitoring has been extended beyond an evaluation of whether best management practices have been implemented according to state or 

federal specifications for the protection of habitat values and water quality to encompass 

ecological, social, and economic values. Independent organizations offer certification of 

forest management and forest products to forestry operations managed according to an 

internationally accepted set of criteria for sustainable forest management (Crossley, 

1996). The principles and criteria of sustainable forestry are general enough to be applicable to tropical, temperate, and boreal forests, but the standards used to certify individual operations are sufficiently site- and region-specific for critical evaluation of 

individual forests and forestry operations. 

To be certified, forest management must adhere to principles of resource sustainability, 

ecosystem maintenance, and economic and socioeconomic viability. Resource 

sustainability means that harvesting is conducted such that the forest remains productive on 

a yearly basis. Large scale clear-cutting, for instance, such that the forest would have to 

remain idle and unproductive for many years, would generally not be acceptable. Ecosystem maintenance means that the ecological processes operating in a forest continue to 

operate without interruption and the forest’s biodiversity is maintained. The principle 

implies that harvesting does not fundamentally alter the nature of the forest. Economic and 

socioeconomic viability incorporate the two previous principles and imply that forest 

operations are sufficiently profitable to sustain operations from year to year and that social 

benefits provided by a forest, such as existence and recreational value, are also maintained 

over the long term. Economic and socioeconomic viability are incentives for local people to 

sustain the ecosystem and resources of the forest (Evans, 1996). 

Development of guidelines for sustainable forest management began with the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). In 1989 the ITTO Council requested that 

“best practice” guidelines for sustainable management of natural tropical forests be 

developed. Soon afterward, global efforts to define and implement “sustainable forest 

management” began with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. Non-binding “Forest Principles” 

were endorsed by more than 170 countries attending that conference, though many 

attending countries hoped that a binding “Forests Convention,” similar to those for 

biodiversity and ozone layer protection, would be endorsed. Since Rio, dozens of fora, 

groups, and processes have been developed to define and evaluate sustainable forest 

management. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-1 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

The movement to evaluate forest management and forest products based on principles of 

sustainable management is an expansion of focus as more knowledge is gained about 

forest ecological processes and the impacts, both local and global, of poorly managed 

forests on ecological systems and, consequently, on human economic and social systems. 

The expansion is similar to the natural expansion of EPA’s focus in the realm of water 

pollution control from point sources of pollution to nonpoint sources of pollution to the 

present focus on watershed processes. Progress gained in overcoming one problem (e.g., 

point sources of water pollution) highlight the impacts of other problems (e.g., nonpoint 

sources of water pollution) and the search for overcoming these problems naturally 

expands to encompass the new problems that are highlighted. As more sources of impact 

are recognized, the focus must expand to encompass them. Thus, while water pollution 

control has become focused on watershed processes and activities occurring within 

watersheds, forest management is naturally expanding to encompass the processes 

dependent on the forest (i.e., ecological, social, and economic) and which can be severely 

limited by poor management. 

Two steps are involved in certifying wood products. First, forest management is certified 

as sustainable according to an evaluation based on accepted principles of sustainable 

forest management. Various organizations refer to this certification process as forest 

certification, forest management auditing, or timber certification. Evaluations are always 

conducted by a third, independent party. The second step is wood-product certification, or 

forest product labeling. Again, a third party follows the harvested wood through the 

manufacturing and product development processes, a “chain-of-custody” inspection 

process, to certify and label the products created from wood harvested from a “sustainable” forestry operation. Both types of certification are currently carried out by both forprofit companies and not-for-profit organizations that are predominantly based in the 

United States and the United Kingdom. 

The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) accredits regional groups to certify forest operations. Well known examples of FSC-accredited groups are Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) and the Rainforest Alliance’s Smart Wood Program (Evans, 1996). These 

groups and others not associated with FSC are active in the United States and their 

evaluation processes are described below. 

Forest Stewardship Council 

The Forest Stewardship Council was formed in 1993 and is a nonprofit organization 

registered in Mexico. FSC strives to serve as a global foundation for the development of 

region-specific forest-management standards with its Principles and Criteria for Forest 

Management. Independent certification bodies, accredited by the FSC in the application 

of these standards, conduct impartial, detailed assessments of forest operations at the 

request of landowners. If the forest operations are found to be in conformance with FSC 

standards, a certificate is issued, enabling the landowner to bring product to market as 

“certified wood” and to use FSC trademark logo. In 1996 the FSC accredited the 

SmartWood Program, Scientific Certification System (SCS), the SGS Forestry 

QUALIFOR Programme (based in the United Kingdom), and the Soil Association for 

worldwide forest management and chain-of-custody certification. 

The FSC-U.S. Working Group, Inc., is the U.S. arm of the FSC. FSC-U.S. partners are 

businesses (wood product distributors such as Home Depot, timber producers such as 

C-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

Seven Islands Land Company, and certification bodies), foundations, and non-governmental organizations (NGO). Currently there are 40 NGO partners, including the 

Consumer’s Choice Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Friends of The Earth. 

Programs accredited under the FSC provide two types of service, forest management 

certification and chain-of-custody certification. For forest management certification, a 

third party evaluation of a forest management operation is conducted in conformity with 

FSC principles–specific environmental, social, and economic standards. Certification 

enables an organization to guarantee that its product or service conforms to FSC standards, which could affect product marketability. 

To certify a forest management operation, the certification body studies the forest management system and policies and visits the operation for an evaluation. A certified 

operation must be monitored annually to ensure that the standards of forest stewardship 

are maintained throughout the period of certification. 

The FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship emerged out of a desire to 

provide market rewards through the labeling of forest products with a distinct logo 

derived from lands recognized for “exemplary” forest management. The principles and 

criteria apply to all tropical, temperate, and boreal forests and must be incorporated into 

the evaluation systems and standards of all certification organizations seeking accreditation by FSC. More detailed standards may be prepared at national and local levels. 

Principle No. 6 in the FSC criteria relates to environmental impact. It does not specify 

BMPs, but requires the certified body to maintain, enhance, or restore ecological functions and values; protect and record representative samples of existing ecosystems within 

the landscape; and prepare written documentation on controlling erosion, minimizing 

forest damage, and protecting water resources. 

Many regional standards and policies require that certified bodies meet or exceed the 

specifications listed in state forest practices: 

• 6.5 (Appalachian Region): Harvesting, road construction and other mechanical 

operations shall meet or exceed state Best Management Practices, whether voluntary 

or mandatory, and other applicable water quality regulations. In advance of these 

activities, planning shall be done to minimize damage to the soil, water and forest 

resources from these activities. A written description of the operational plan, demonstrating how damage will be minimized, shall be incorporated into the management 

plan or harvesting contract as appropriate. 

• 6.5.1 (Southeast Region): Harvesting, road construction, and other mechanical 

operations shall be designed to meet or exceed state best management practices and 

applicable water quality regulations. 

Forest Conservation Program—Scientific 

Certification Systems (US) 

The Forest Conservation Program (FCP) was established by Scientific Certification 

Systems (SCS) in 1991 as a certification program for sustainable forestry. SCS has 

certified forests in California (Collins Pine Almanor Forest), Pennsylvania (Collins 

Pennsylvania Forest), Wisconsin (Menominee Forest), and Mexico. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-3 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

The FCP uses an evaluation process based on the program elements mentioned above: 

resource sustainability, ecosystem maintenance, and economic and socioeconomic 

viability. Each program element is evaluated according to a set of criteria that best 

represents appropriate benchmarks of sustainable forest management in the region of 

interest. Timber resource sustainability is evaluated based on criteria relating to how 

fully-stocked stands are, growing conditions, age and/or size class distribution (even-aged 

management or uneven-aged management), and whether management allows for sustained yearly harvests and avoids idle years. 

The forest ecosystem maintenance element is evaluated based on criteria relating to 

whether non-timber resource values are a part of management and the extent to which 

natural ecosystem conditions and processes are altered by harvests. The economic and 

socioeconomic element is concerned with the overall economic viability of forest operations and the socioeconomic impacts of operations on harvesters and the local community. 

The FCP program is designed to provide a quantitative and qualitative approach to 

certification. Forest evaluations are based on five sources of information. The landowner; 

investigations of information related to harvesting operations (e.g. timber inventory data, 

timber management plans, business management plans, and employee records); field 

sampling (e.g., wildlife surveys); field reviews; and interviews with employees, contractors, and individuals and organizations from the community. 

SCS provides two levels of recognition under the FCP program, “Well-managed” and 

“State-of-the-Art Well-managed.” Well-managed forests meet FCP standards for sustainable management as described below. “State-of-the-Art Well-managed” forests rank in 

the top 10 percent of all forests evaluated under the FCP program. 

Evaluations are conducted by an evaluation team that consists of persons with expertise 

in relevant disciplines, such as forestry, wildlife biology, ecology, and economics. Persons with local or regional expertise are incorporated into evaluation teams and all 

evaluations are peer reviewed. Periodic monitoring of the forest after initial evaluation, 

lasting 1 to 3 years, is required as part of certification. Evaluation criteria are selected and 

weighted to account for regional circumstances. 

Each criterion is given a ranking from 1 to 100 based on its perceived importance to 

sustainable management of the particular forest. Forest management is then scored by the 

evaluation team according to the chosen criteria. Sixty points on a normalized 100-point 

scale is the “failure threshold” for each criterion. Forests that receive 60 points or more in 

all three categories are designated “Well-managed.” Forests among the top 10 percent of 

all SCS-rated forests are given the “State-of-the-Art” designation. The designation given 

to the forest management operation is also applied to products from wood harvested from 

the certified forest. 

The program is practical and feasible for forest managers to implement because standards 

of what constitutes good performance and what leads to failure to attain certification for 

each criterion are clearly described and adaptable for local or regional circumstances. 

The credibility of the certification process depends largely on the strength of the evaluation team (Evans, 1996). 

C-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

Smart Wood Program—Rainforest Alliance (US) 

The Rainforest Alliance established Smart Wood as the first independent forestry certification program in the world in 1990. The program initially focused on tropical forests but 

is now used to certify forests of all types. Forests have been certified in Java, Honduras, 

Mexico, Brazil, and Papua New Guinea. The Smart Wood program is similar to the FCP. 

Under the program, long-term management data is used to demonstrate that a forest can 

be classified as a “sustainable source”. Without long-term data but with demonstration 

that management has a commitment to sustainability, a forest can be classified as “wellmanaged”. 

Smart Wood companies are companies that handle Smart Wood-certified products. 

Category 1 companies sell products made exclusively from Smart Wood forests, and 

Category 2 companies sell products made from a mix of certified and noncertified 

sources. Products from Smart Wood companies carry one of these designations. 

Smart Wood certification is based on three broad principles: 

•	 All operations maintain ecosystem functions, including watershed stability and


conservation of biological resources.


•	 Planning and implementation incorporate sustained yield production for all forest 

products. 

•	 Management activities have a positive impact on local communities. 

Smart Wood is developing detailed regional standards with the assistance of local specialists (Evans, 1996). 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) SM 

Program of the American Forest & Paper 

Association 

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is the national trade association of 

the forest, pulp, and paper, paperboard, and wood products industry. AF&PA represents 

approximately 138 member companies and licensees controlling 84 percent of paper 

production, 50 percent of solid wood production, and 90 percent of the industrial timberland in the United States. 

AF&PA member companies, as a condition of membership, must commit to conduct their 

business in accordance with the principles and objectives of the Sustainable Forestry 

InitiativeSM program, instituted in October 1994. 

The SFISM program is a comprehensive system of principles, objectives and performance measures that integrates the perpetual growing and harvesting of trees with the 

protection of wildlife, plants, soil and water quality. It is based on the premise that 

responsible environmental practices and sound business practices can be integrated to the 

benefit of landowners, shareholders, customers and the people they serve. 

Professional foresters, conservationists and scientists developed the SFI program. They 

were inspired by the concept of sustainability that evolved from the 1987 report of the 

World Commission on Environment and Development and was subsequently adopted by 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-5 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The original 1994 SFI Principles and Implementation Guidelines were modified and implemented to become the industry “Standard” 

in 1999. The standards will continue to be updated periodically to reflect new information concerning forest management and social changes. 

SFI State Implementation Committees have formed in 32 states to bring industry representatives together with other stakeholders to support logger-training programs and 

provide outreach to nonindustrial private landowners and opportunities for public involvement. 

In a response to public pressure to broaden the SFI program to include nonmember 

participation in the SFI, a licensee program has been developed. To date, more than 1.5 

million acres have been added to the SFI program through licensee agreements, increasing the total forest acres enrolled in the SFI program to 56.5 million acres. 

Member companies and licensees are required to submit annual reports to AF&PA 

describing progress in implementing the SFI program. Since its inception, member 

companies of AF&PA have invested more than $247 million on research related to 

wildlife, biodiversity, ecosystem management and the environment. By 1998 more than 

30,000 independent loggers and foresters completed training in sustainable forestry with 

an additional 20,000 completing partial training. In addition, SFI participants and professional loggers have distributed information regarding the SFI program to approximately 

242,000 landowners across the country since 1994. 

Summary of Certification Initiatives in the 

United States 

Independent certification programs provide a framework of broad principles and core 

criteria against which forest management can be assessed. Similar to state forestry 

programs for best management practice monitoring, forest management under the certification programs is evaluated with field sampling, examinations of documents, and 

interviews with staff and local stakeholders. Evaluation teams are interdisciplinary and 

knowledgeable of local conditions, and certification is based on scores for identifiable 

management actions. 

Although many certification programs are international in scope and focus, the flexibility 

to tailor the evaluation to local circumstances is built into the process, so the programs 

have credibility and can be practically implemented on a local level. Furthermore, the 

framework of the certification process is a practical forest management tool as the 

internationally accepted criteria on which evaluations are based provide guidance to 

forest managers for managing operations for sustainability. 

The credibility of the process depends on the expertise of the evaluation team. Persons with 

local expertise must be used for evaluations in order for the certification process to be 

placed within a local context, and a local context is absolutely necessary because of the 

complex inclusion of social, economic, and ecological dimensions in the certification 

process. This complexity can lead to inconsistencies in evaluations and certifications, but 

some certification programs, notably the Smart Wood Program, are providing regional, 

national, and international consistency with the development of regional-specific standards. 

C-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

A separate approach, the Canadian Standards Association Sustainable Forest Management Project (CSA SFM), is based on developing a preferred future condition that meets 

society’s goals, developing an action plan to move toward the future condition, monitoring progress toward achieving that condition, and correcting one’s course of action based 

on monitoring results. An essential element missing from this approach, and an element 

that makes the FCP and Smart Wood programs so powerful, is a set of clear criteria that 

define sustainable forest management. In the CSA SFM approach, this definition is left 

for local stakeholders to define. The result is a lack of consistency from operation to 

operation and certification to certification (Evans, 1996). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry C-7 
Appendix C: Forest Management Certification Programs 

C-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
APPENDIX PPENDIX D: NONINDUSTRIAL ONINDUSTRIAL PRIVATE

FOREST (NIPF) M(NIPF) M (NIPF) M (NIPF) M(NIPF) MANAGEMENT

The approximately 10 million nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners in the United 

States include individuals, partnerships, estates, trusts, clubs, tribes, corporations, and 

associations (Pennsylvania State University, 2000). NIPF owners control 261 million 

acres of timberland and 58 percent of the commercial forests in the United States. More 

than two-thirds of timberland east of the Mississippi River is in NIPF ownership, whereas 

the majority of timberland in the West is in public ownership. NIPFs protect watersheds, 

provide wildlife habitat, offer scenic beauty, and supply 49 percent of the timber harvested in the United States (USDA-FS, 1992). 

Many NIPF owners are not fully aware of the potential economic value of properlymanaged timberland. Some are unaware of how to properly manage their timber resources (Pennsylvania State University, 2000). Proper management might be secondary 

to avoiding annual property taxes and capital gains taxes for some owners. Some other 

owners who do not plan properly for the inheritance their timberland might lose ownership upon their death, and still others, unaware of either management techniques or the 

economic value of the land, might decide to convert the land to other uses, such as 

development or agriculture. Owners who view harvesting of the timber on their land as a 

one-time capital gain may not be aware of the long-term economic and environmental 

benefits of sustainable timberland management. Andrew Egan of West Virginia University and Stephan Jones of the Alabama Cooperative Extension System studied NIPF 

owners and timberland management, and found that landowners with knowledge of 

forests and forestry are more likely to manage their forests in a sustainable manner 

(Pennsylvania State University, 2000). 

Forest*A*Syst, by Rick Hamilton, extension forestry specialist with the Department of 

Forestry, North Carolina State University, is a self-assessment guide directed at encouraging forest owners to manage their forests for recreation and aesthetics, wildlife, and 

timber production, while protecting water quality. The guide discusses steps in developing a forest management plan and strongly recommends the assistance of a professional 

forester in this process. Major topics are site preparation, natural regeneration, artificial 

seeding, tree planting, weed control, and fertilization in young and middle-age stands; 

harvesting the mature forest; managing for wildlife habitat; enhancing the visual appearance of the site; improving recreational opportunities; and using management practices to 

protect water quality. A Forest*A*Syst guide for western North Carolina has been developed from the national Forest*A*Syst prototype developed by Mr. Hamilton. A similar 

guide is available for eastern North Carolina. Other states’ programs have spun off from 

the national version, as well, including Tennessee and Alaska, Georgia (in process), New 

England (developing a Forest*A*Syst model for the region), and Kentucky and Hawaii (in 

process) (Leith, 2002). For additional information on distribution of the publication and 

support for adapting it to state and local conditions, contact Rick Hamilton at 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-1 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

(919) 515-5574 or by e-mail (hamilton@cfr.crf.ncsu.edu) or contact Larry Biles, USDACSREES (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service), Washington, 

DC, at (202) 401-4926. 

Proper implementation of forestry management measures can maintain fish and wildlife 

habitat, clean water, biological diversity, aesthetics, and a buffer from urban sprawl. To 

maintain these values, it is recommended that NIPF landowners follow the guidance of 

the management measures for forestry to protect water quality set forth in this guidance. 

Because some of the management measures and BMPs mentioned in the guidance, 

however, are more relevant to state, federal, and industrial timberland owners, this 

appendix is provided to focus on certain aspects of planning and managing timberlands 

that are especially intended to assist NIPF owners in addressing BMP implementation 

and forest management. 

Individual landowners are encouraged to use this guidance to manage and protect water 

quality on their private forestland. If you have turned directly to this appendix, thinking 

perhaps that the main sections of the guidance are meant for state agencies and industrial 

landowners, please take the time to review the rest of the document, especially Section 3. 

The management measures and practices described in the guidance are applicable to all 

forest landowners, whether 10 acres or 10,000 acres are being managed. Some of the 

management measures will be more applicable to some forest management goals than 

others, but the concepts contained in them are equally relevant to water quality protection 

in all managed forests where trees are harvested. 

Preharvest Planning: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Preharvest Planning. Complete discussions of these and other 

management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3A. Additional 

management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this 

listing. 

Harvest Planning Practices 

 Use topographic maps, aerial photographs, soil surveys, geologic maps, and rainfall 

intensity charts to augment site reconnaissance to lay out and map harvest units. 

Identify and mark, as needed: 

 Consider potential water quality and habitat impacts when selecting the silvicultural 

system as even-aged (clear-cut, seed tree, or shelterwood) or uneven-aged (group or 

individual selection). The yarding system, site preparation method, and any pesticides that will be used should also be addressed in preharvest planning. As part of 

this practice the potential impacts from and extent of roads needed for each silvicultural system should be considered. 

 In high-erosion-hazard areas, trained specialists (geologist, soil scientist, 

geotechnical engineer, wild land hydrologist) should identify sites that have high risk 

of landslides or that might become unstable after harvest. These specialists can 

recommend specific practices to reduce the likelihood of erosion hazards and protect 

water quality. 

D-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

Road System Planning Practices 

 Preplan skid trail and landing locations on stable soils and avoid steep gradients, 

landslide-prone areas, high-erosion-hazard areas, and poor-drainage areas. 

 Identify areas that will require the least modification for use as log landings and use 

them to reduce the potential for soil disturbance. Use topographic maps and aerial 

photographs to locate these areas. 

 Plot feasible routes and locations on an aerial photograph or topographic map to 

assist in the final determination of road locations. 

 Design roads and skid trails to follow the natural topography and contour, minimizing alteration of natural features. 

 In moderately sloping terrain, plan for road grades of less than 10 percent, with an 

optimal grade of between 3 percent and 5 percent. In steep terrain, short sections of 

road at steeper grades can be used if the grade is broken at regular intervals. Vary 

road grades frequently to reduce culvert and road drainage ditch flows, road surface 

erosion, and concentrated culvert discharges. 

 Plan to surface most forest roads, and select a road surface material suitable for the 

intended road use. 

 Lay out roads, skid trails, and harvest units to minimize the number of stream crossings. 

 To minimize soil disturbance and road damage, plan to suspend operations when 

soils are highly saturated. Damage to forested slopes can also be minimized by not 

operating logging equipment when soils are saturated, during wet weather, or when 

the ground is thawing. 

 Select waterway opening sizes to minimize the risk of washout during the expected 

life of the structure. Opening size will vary depending on the drainage area of the 

watershed where the stream-crossing structure is to be placed. 

Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF 

landowner 

 Locate property lines. 

The location of property lines might restrict the use of the best access locations. If 

significant environmental impact (e.g., erosion, water body sedimentation, numerous 

stream crossing) could be avoided by crossing adjacent property to provide access, 

consider negotiating or purchasing a right-of-way from the owner of the property. 

The USDA Forest Service has produced a document titled A Landowner’s Guide to 

Building Forest Access Roads (Wiest, 1998). This document, along with the assistance of 

a consulting forest engineer, provides support in road planning and location. To receive a 

copy of this document, contact the USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and 

Private Forestry, in Radnor, Pennsylvania, (610) 975-4017, or order a copy from the web 

site at <http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/stewardship/accessroads/accessroads.htm>.

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-3 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

 Inventory the property. 

Managing timberland requires knowledge of what is on the property. Conduct an inventory to identify features of the land such as streams, steep slopes, eroding or erodible 

soils, roads and trails, and sensitive wildlife habitats. Aerial photos can be useful for an 

inventory, but if they are not available for the property, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

quadrangle map(s) of the area can be used to locate these resources and create a permanent record of them on a map. USGS quadrangle maps show contour lines (steepness of 

the terrain), existing roads, waterbodies, springs, and buildings. They cost approximately 

$5 per map and are available for all of the United States. 

 Develop a forest management plan. 

Before harvesting operations begin, develop a forest management plan that contains 

goals, objectives, possible alternatives to harvesting, future planning, and the trade-offs 

that accompany altering the land. Contact the state department of forestry or cooperative 

extension service for information on forest harvesting BMPs and their implementation. A 

logging company is often the primary source of information regarding forestry and 

nonpoint source pollution control for NIPF owners, and only by first becoming familiar 

with the various BMPs can the NIPF landowner be assured that a contractor is choosing 

and implementing BMPs properly. 

The use of a consulting forester or state forester is extremely helpful when developing a 

forest management plan. The forester can assist with all aspects of forest management 

and harvest, including the layout of roads and logging decks, BMP implementation, 

stream protection, and the proper use of chemical. The forester can also educate the NIPF 

owner about topics such as watershed protection and sustainable forest management. 

Streamside Management Areas: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Streamside Management Areas. Complete discussions of these 

and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3B. 

•	 Minimize disturbances that would expose the mineral soil of the SMA forest floor. 

Do not operate skidders or other heavy machinery in the SMA. 

•	 Locate all landings, portable sawmills, and roads outside the SMA. 

•	 Restrict mechanical site preparation in the SMA, and encourage natural revegetation, seeding, and hand planting. 

•	 Limit pesticide and fertilizer usage in the SMA. Establish buffers for pesticide


application for all flowing streams.


•	 Directionally fell trees away from streams to prevent logging slash and organic 

debris from entering the water body. If slash and debris are in the stream as a result 

of harvesting practices, remove them immediately. 

•	 Apply harvesting restrictions in the SMA to maintain its integrity. 

D-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

Road Construction/Reconstruction: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Road Construction and Reconstruction. Complete discussions of 

these and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3C. 

Road Surface Construction Practices 

 Follow the design developed during preharvest planning to minimize erosion by 

properly timing and limiting ground disturbance operations. 

 Properly dispose of organic debris generated during road construction. 

 Prevent slash from entering streams and promptly remove slash that accidentally 

enters streams to prevent problems related to slash accumulation. 

Road Surface Drainage Practices 

 Install surface drainage controls at intervals that remove storm water from the 

roadbed before the flow gains enough volume and velocity to erode the surface. 

Route discharge from drainage structures onto the forest floor so that water will 

disperse and infiltrate. Methods of road surface drainage include the following: 

 Install turnouts, wing ditches, and dips to disperse runoff and reduce the amount of 

road surface drainage that flows directly into watercourses. 

 Install appropriate sediment control structures to trap suspended sediment transported by runoff and prevent its discharge into the aquatic environment. 

Road Slope Stabilization Practices 

 Use straw bales, straw mulch, grass-seeding, hydromulch, and other erosion control 

and revegetation techniques to complete the construction project. These methods are 

used to protect freshly disturbed soils until vegetation is established. 

 Revegetate or stabilize disturbed areas, especially at stream crossings. 

Stream Crossing Practices 

 Construct stream crossings to minimize erosion and sedimentation. 

 Install a stream crossing that is appropriate to the situation and conditions. 

Fish Passage Practices 

 On streams with important spawning areas, avoid construction during egg incubation 

periods. 

 Design and construct stream crossings for fish passage according to site-specific 

information on stream characteristics and the fish populations in the stream where 

the passage will be installed. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-5 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

Road Management: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Road Management. Complete discussions of these and other 

management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3D. 

Road Maintenance Practices 

 Blade and reshape the road to conserve existing surface material; to retain the 

original, crowned, self-draining cross section; and to prevent or remove berms 

(except those designed for slope protection) and other irregularities that retard 

normal surface runoff. 

 Maintain road surfaces by mowing, patching, or resurfacing as necessary. 

 Clear road inlet and outlet ditches, catch basins, culverts, and road-crossing structures of obstructions as necessary. 

Wet and Winter Road Practices 

 Before winter, all permanent, seasonal, and temporary roads should be inspected and 

prepared for the winter months. 

Stream Crossing and Drainage Structure Practices 

 When temporary stream crossings are no longer needed, and as soon as possible 

upon completion of operations, remove culverts and log crossings to maintain 

adequate streamflow. 

 During and after logging activities, ensure that all culverts and ditches are open and 

functional. 

 Revegetate disturbed surfaces to provide erosion control and stabilize the road 

surface and banks. 

Timber Harvesting: Section 319 requires states to

assess nonpoint source Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the

pollution and implement Management Measure for Timber Harvesting. Complete discussions of these and other

management programs, and it management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3E. Additional authorizes EPA to provide management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this grants to assist state nonpoint listing. source pollution control

programs. Harvesting Practices 

 Fell trees away from watercourses whenever possible, keeping logging debris from 

the channel, except where debris placement is specifically prescribed for fish or 

wildlife habitat. 

 Immediately remove any tree accidentally felled in a waterway. 

 Remove slash from the water body and place it outside the SMA. 

D-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

Practices for Landings 

 Landings should be no larger than necessary to safely and efficiently store logs and 

load trucks. 

 Upon completion of a harvest, clean up, regrade, and revegetate the landing. 

Ground Skidding Practices 

 Skid uphill to log landings whenever possible. Skid with ends of logs raised to reduce 

rutting and gouging. 

 Skid perpendicular to the slope (along the contour), and avoid skidding on slopes 

greater than 40 percent. 

Cable Yarding Practices 

 Use cabling systems or other systems when ground skidding would expose excess 

mineral soil and induce erosion and sedimentation. 

 Avoid cable yarding in or across watercourses. 

Petroleum Management Practices 

 Service equipment at a location where any spilled fuel or oil will not reach watercourses, and drain all petroleum products and radiator water into containers. 

 Dispose of wastes and containers in accordance with proper waste disposal procedures. 

 Take precautions to prevent leakage and spills. 

Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF 

landowner 

 Participate actively in the timber harvest. 

It is important that the NIPF landowner be an active participant in the timber harvest 

process. Working with the harvesting contractor and state forester, verify that road layout, 

stream protection, landing locations, skid trail layout, and drainage BMPs all follow the 

plan developed in the preharvest planning phase. Review the management measures in 

this guidance prior to developing a plan, note those measures and BMPs particularly 

relevant to your situation, discuss them with a state forester, and then participate in the 

harvest to be certain that it is conducted in a manner compatible with the sustainability of 

your property. 

Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Site Preparation and Forest Regeneration. Complete discussions of these and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in 

Section 3F. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-7 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

Site Preparation Practices 

 Mechanical site preparation should not be conducted on slopes greater than 30 

percent. 

 Do not conduct mechanical site preparation in SMAs. 

Forest Regeneration Practices 

 Order seedlings well in advance of planting time to ensure their availability. 

 Hand plant highly erodible sites, steep slopes, and lands adjacent to stream channels 

(SMAs). 

Fire Management: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Fire Management. Complete discussions of these and other 

management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3G. Additional 

management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner follow this 

listing. 

Prescribed Fire Practices 

 Carefully plan burning to take into account weather, time of year, and fuel conditions 

so that these help achieve the desired results and minimize impacts on water quality. 

 Intense prescribed fire for site preparation should not be conducted in the SMA. 

 Execute the burn with a trained crew and avoid intense burning. 

Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF landowner 

 Contact a state forester before any prescribed burning. 

Prescribed burning poses many potential hazards, and the NIPF landowner must be aware 

of these. Before using fire as a management tool, consult with a professional forester to 

obtain information on permits, burning times and procedures, equipment, current fire 

conditions, and safety precautions. 

 Notify adjacent landowners. 

Before burning, notify adjacent landowners, the local county sheriff, and local fire 

departments to let them know the date of the burn. A permit might be required for the 

burn, and it might specify a time period during which the burn must occur. If the burn is 

not done during the specified period, a new permit must be obtained. Letting all potentially affected parties know that a burn will take place will lessen the likelihood that the 

fire department will be called to put out the fire. The date of the prescribed burn is always 

subject to change due to changing weather and fire hazard conditions, and if the date does 

change, inform the previously notified parties of the new date. 

 Hire a professional. 

A landowner who is not proficient in prescribed burning should hire a contractor to 

perform the burn. Investigate the background and record of any contractor contacted and 

D-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

ask the contractor to provide testimonies of his or her work. Ask the local forestry 

department, cooperative extension service, or fire department if they have knowledge of 

the contractor as well. Remember that having a contractor perform the burn does not 

release the landowner of obligations to notify potentially affected parties, obtain legal 

information and permits, and ensure that the burn is conducted within the conditions of 

the permit or recommendations made by the fire or forestry department with respect to 

time of day, safety precautions, and so forth. 

Revegetation of Disturbed Areas: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. Complete discussions of these 

and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3H. 

 Use mixtures of seeds adapted to the site, and avoid the use of exotic species. Species 

should consist primarily of annuals to allow natural revegetation of native understory plants, and they should have adequate soil-binding properties. 

 Seed during optimum periods for establishment, preferably just before fall rains or 

whenever the optimum period might be for the region. 

 Fertilize according to site-specific conditions. 

 Inspect all seeded areas for failures, and make necessary repairs and reseed within 

the planting season. 

 During non-growing seasons, apply interim surface stabilization methods to control 

surface erosion. 

Forest Chemical Management: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Forest Chemical Management. Complete discussions of these 

and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3I. 

Additional management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner 

follow this listing. 

 Apply pesticides and fertilizers during favorable atmospheric conditions. 

 Apply slow-release fertilizers when possible. 

 Apply fertilizers during maximum plant uptake periods to minimize leaching. 

 Consider the use of pesticides as only one part of an overall program to control pest 

problems. 

Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF 

landowner 

 Contact a state forester. 

Forest landowners who intend to apply chemicals to manage their timber stands should 

first contact a local forester. The forester will be able to provide information on approved 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-9 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

pesticides and fertilizers, application guidelines or requirements, and a list of licensed 

applicators. It might be possible to hire state foresters to apply chemicals, or they might 

be willing to act as a foreman on the site to ensure that proper application procedures are 

followed and hire a licensed contractor to perform the work. Information on such arrangements, for which the landowner pays only part of the total cost, should be available 

from the state department of forestry or the local cooperative extension service. 

Wetlands Forest Management: 

Below are listed some of the more important management practices for achieving the 

Management Measure for Wetlands Forest Management. Complete discussions of these 

and other management practices for preharvest planning can be found in Section 3J. 

Additional management practices that are particularly applicable to the NIPF landowner 

follow this listing. 

 Select the harvesting method to minimize soil disturbance and hydrologic impacts on 

the wetland. 

Additional management practice recommendations for the NIPF 

landowner 

 Contact a state forester or soil scientist to identify forested wetlands. 

Forested wetlands can be difficult to identify. They can occupy very small areas or large 

areas, can be of any shape, and need not be permanently flooded. Delineation of an area 

as a wetland requires that three criteria be met: 

•	 Hydrology—a degree of flooding or soil saturation 

•	 Hydrophytic vegetation (vegetation specific to wetlands) 

•	 Hydric soils 

These three components can be very site-specific. Differentiating a forested wetland from 

a non-wetland forest can be difficult. Wetland areas on a property need not be contiguous, 

and it is possible for a property to have several wetland areas. Some wetlands might be 

large and easily identified, whereas others might be small and very inconspicuous 

(Mitsch et al., 1993). Furthermore, different plant species are adapted to the various 

conditions that wetlands can occupy, so the absence of wetland plants identified in one 

wetland area from other areas does not mean that other wetlands do not exist on the 

property. Because of the complexity of wetland identification, a person licensed in 

wetland delineation should be consulted if there is any doubt as to whether wetlands exist 

on a property. 

An initial assessment of the existence of wetlands on a property can be done by walking 

the property and asking some simple questions (Maryland DNR, undated): 

•	 Is the ground moist underfoot? 

•	 Are there springs in the area? (Look at a USGS quadrangle map.) 

•	 Are the tree species considered hydrophytic vegetation? (Use a wetlands tree guide.) 

•	 Are there high-water marks or silt deposits on tree trunks? 

•	 Is water ponded anywhere? 

D-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

• Do your feet sink into the soil when you walk? 

• Dig a hole about a foot deep. Is the soil mostly gray? 

• Does the soil in the hole smell like sulphur or rotten eggs? 

• Does the hole fill up with water? Does water leak into the hole? 

• Is there lush vegetation in some areas and not in others? 

To help answer some of the questions, it is useful to have field guides to identify wetland 

species. Field guides provide descriptions of trees and other wetland vegetation and 

information on their ranges and habitats. 

Contact the local office of the Soil Conservation District to determine whether there are 

hydric soils on the property. The office will be able to provide a map of the soil series of 

the property. 

Water Quality Protection During Invasive 

Species Control 

Invasive species are gaining a foothold in many parts of the United States, and they can 

cause extensive damage to a forest. Introduced insects, diseases, and plants can all cause 

problems for the forest landowner, and the means of control include mechanical, chemical, and biological. Mechanical and chemical control methods, in particular, have the 

potential to affect water quality. Prior to attempting control of an invasive species, 

consider using the practices below for the protection of water quality during invasive 

species control activities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Forest Service, 

state forestry agencies, cooperative extension agencies, and local or state universities can 

provide additional assistance with the identification of invasive species, the problems 

they cause, and appropriate control methods. Even if you do not believe that you have an 

invasive species problem, or that your problem is not serious enough to do anything 

about, it is advised to find out what the invasive species in your area are and what their 

signs are. Knowing what the problems are can help prevent them or help you identify 

them before the problem becomes insurmountable and your losses significant. 

 Consult a state forester before using mechanical control methods. 

The control of invasive species usually requires the implementation of either chemical or 

mechanical means of control. To ensure that water quality is not compromised when 

these practices are used, consult with the local county forester before taking any action. 

Mechanical control methods used to eradicate an invasive plant, insect, or disease can 

potentially impair water quality. Some mechanical methods of invasive species removal 

are cutting, girdling, hand pulling, burning, and grubbing. Some species that can be 

managed through mechanical control are kudzu (Pueraria lobata), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula), mistletoe (Phorandendron serotinum), 

purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), saltcedar 

(Tamarix ramosissima), spruce bark beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis), Douglas fir beetle 

(Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), fusiform rust (the fungus Cronartium fusiforme), and pine 

pitch canker (the fungus Fusarium subglutinans). The cooperative extension service 

should be able to provide information on invasive species in your area and appropriate 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry D-11 
Appendix D: Nonindustrial Private Forest (NIPF) Management 

control methods. The following guidelines apply to water quality protection during 

invasive species control activities: 

•	 Remove invasive species from the SMA only if water quality will not be compromised. 

•	 Do not burn SMAs to eradicate an invasive species. 

•	 Avoid removing infected trees during wet weather periods. This will help reduce


erosion potential at the site of removal and on haul roads.


Chemical control of invasive species involves the application of herbicides, pesticides, or 

fungicides to remove unwanted pests. Review the guidelines for chemical applications in 

this guidance and provided by your state forestry department before using chemicals for 

invasive species control. 

Additional Resources for the NIPF Landowner: 

Landowner’s Guide to Building Forest Access Roads, by Richard L. Wiest, is a designed 

for landowners in the northeastern United States who will use a tractor and ordinary earth 

moving equipment to build the simplest access roads on their property, or who will 

contract for these services. Recommendations cover basic planning, construction, drainage, maintenance and closure of such forest roads. Also covers special situations involving 

water that require individual consideration. Describes geotextiles to be used during temporary road construction. The guide is published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Area, State and Private Forestry Division. (1998; 47 p.; order 

online at http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/stewardship/accessroads/accessroads.htm; 

first copy free, other copies $8 ea.). 

D-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
APPENDIX PPENDIX E: STATE AND PRIVATE

FORESTRY PROGRAMS

Education and Training 

Education and training are vital to effective BMP implementation. Educating and training 

loggers and landowners about the importance and use of BMPs is an effective way to 

reduce water quality effects from forest operations because harvesters and landowners are 

responsible for forest harvesting and decisions concerning the management of much of 

the forested land in the Nation. A logger education program that has been adopted in 

various forms and under numerous names in many states is the Logger Education to 

Advance Professionalism (LEAP) program (APA, 1995). It is modeled after Vermont’s 

very successful Silviculture Education for Loggers Project and began as a national pilot 

program of the USDA Extension Service to promote responsible forest BMPs and to 

teach forest ecology and silviculture to loggers. These programs are based on the premise 

that it is important to teach forest ecology and silviculture to loggers because professional 

foresters supervise less than a third of all the acres harvested in the United States while 

loggers are involved in all of the harvests. Before these programs, few people employed 

in logging had training in forestry and silviculture, and the logger education programs are 

changing that situation. To accomplish its goal, logger training emphasizes five areas— 

safety and first aid, business management, harvesting operations, professionalism, and 

forest ecology and silviculture. 

A USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) program, Soil and Water 

Conservation Assistance (SWCA), provides cost share and incentive payments to farmers 

and ranchers to voluntarily address threats to soil, water, and related natural resources, 

including forest land, grazing land, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. SWCA can help 

landowners comply with federal and state environmental laws and make beneficial, costeffective changes their land management practices. Through the nearly 3,000 Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts nationwide with 2,500 field offices, nearly a million private 

landowners are assisted annually with land management decisions. 

NRCS also administers the Forestry Incentives Program (FIP), which supports good 

forest management practices on privately owned, nonindustrial forest lands nationwide. 

FIP is designed to benefit the environment while meeting future demands for wood 

products. Eligible practices are tree planting, timber stand improvement, site preparation 

for natural regeneration, and other related activities. FIP is a nationwide program available in counties designated on the basis of a Forest Service survey of total eligible private 

timber acreage that is potentially suitable for production of timber products. Federal costshare money is available—with a limit of $10,000 per person per year with the stipulation 

that no more than 65 percent of the cost may be paid. A local USDA office, state forester, 

conservation district, or Cooperative Extension office can provide information on whether 

a particular county participates in FIP. 

Currently there are nearly 500 

million acres of non-federal 

forests in the United States. 

More than 50 percent of these 

acres are privately owned 

(USDA Forest Service). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-1 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Numerous non-governmental organizations, such as the Forest Stewards Guild 

(http://www.foreststewardsguild.org/) and National Network of Forest Practitioners 

(http://www.nnfp.org/) are also available to be contacted for assistance in sustainable 

management of forest land. 

Cooperative Forestry Programs 

Cooperative Forestry is a nationwide program funded through Congress and administered 

nationally by the USDA Forest Service. Since 1978, the USDA has connected rural, 

urban, and nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners with resources and ideas to 

assist with the care of their forests. The Cooperative Forestry program provides technical 

and financial assistance through partnerships with the state and private forestry organizations (USDA Forest Service, 1999). The Cooperative Forestry program was created under 

section 2101 of Title 16 of the United States Code, in which it is stated that it is the policy 

of Congress that the Secretary of Agriculture work through and in cooperation with state 

foresters, or equivalent state officials, nongovernmental organizations, and the private 

sector in implementing federal programs affecting non-federal forestlands. The landowner assistance programs covered under Cooperative Forestry are the Forest Legacy 

Program, the Forest Stewardship Program, and the Forest Land Enhancement Program. 

The Forest Service’s Web site for Forestry Landowner Assistance, http://www.fs.fed.us/ 

spf/coop/, provides further information about the programs discussed below. 

•	 Forest Legacy Program. The Forest Legacy Program (FLP), a federal program in 

partnership with states, supports state efforts to protect environmentally sensitive 

forest lands. Designed to encourage the protection of privately owned forest lands, 

FLP is an entirely voluntary program. To maximize the public benefits it achieves, 

the program focuses on the acquisition of partial interests in privately owned forest 

lands. FLP helps the states develop and carry out their forest conservation plans. It 

encourages and supports acquisition of conservation easements, legally binding 

agreements transferring a negotiated set of property rights from one party to another, 

without removing the property from private ownership. Most FLP conservation 

easements restrict development, require sustainable forestry practices, and protect 

other values. 

•	 Forest Stewardship Program. This program helps private forest landowners develop 

plans for the sustainable management of their forests. This is accomplished through 

active forest management for present and future landowners, increasing the economic value of the timber along with providing environmental benefits. The Forest 

Service also provides public outreach programs to assist NIPF landowners with 

information regarding seedling production and tree stand improvements. 

The 2002 Farm Bill incorporates the following cooperative forestry assistance programs: 

•	 Forest Land Enhancement Program: The Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) 

is established to provide financial, technical, educational and related assistance to 

state foresters to assist private landowners in actively managing their land. Note that 

the FLEP replaces the Stewardship Incentives Program (SIP) and the Forestry 

Incentives Program (FIP). To be eligible for cost-share assistance under the FLEP on 

up to 1,000 acres, a landowner must agree to develop and implement for not less 

than 10 years a management plan that has been approved by the state forester. 

E-2 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Cost share payments will be available to landowners for up to 75 percent of the total 

cost of implementing the plan. 

•	 Enhanced Community Fire Protection: Recognizing the significant federal interest in 

enhancing community protection from wildfire, the Department of Agriculture will 

cooperate with state foresters to manage lands to (1) focus the federal role in promoting optimal firefighting efficiency at the federal, state and local levels; (2) expand outreach and education programs to homeowners and communities about fire 

protection; and (3) establish space around homes and property that is defensible 

against wildfire. 

Congress passed the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) on December 3, 2003, based on legislation proposed by the Bush Administration. The law provides 

critical tools needed to fully implement the Healthy Forests Initiative and the funding 

necessary to reduce wildfire risks and improve forest and rangeland health (USDOI, 

USDA, 2004). The Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes procedures to expedite 

forest and rangeland restoration projects on Forest Service and BLM lands. It focuses on 

lands (1) near communities in the wildland urban interface, (2) in high risk municipal 

watersheds, (3) that provide important habitat for threatened and endangered species 

where catastrophic wildfire threatens the survival of the species, and (4) where insects or 

disease are destroying the forest and increasing the threat of catastrophic wildfire. The 

law: 

•	 Helps communities use wood, brush, and other plant materials removed in forest


health projects as a fuel supply for biomass energy.


•	 Authorizes a program to support community-based watershed forestry partnerships 

that address critical forest stewardship and watershed protection and restoration 

needs at the state and local level. 

•	 Directs research focused on the early detection and containment of insect and


disease infestations.


•	 Establishes a private forestland easement program focused on recovering forest 

ecosystem types and protecting valuable wildlife habitat. 

The Watershed Forestry Assistance Program, created by the law, enacts the Watershed 

Forestry Cost-Share Program. The cost-share program provides up to 75 percent of 

project funding to communities, nonprofit groups, and NIPF landowners for watershed 

forestry projects that: 

•	 Use trees as solutions to water quality problems in urban and rural areas. 

•	 Employ community-based planning, involvement, and action through State, local 

and nonprofit partnerships. 

•	 Apply and disseminate monitoring information on forestry best-management practices relating to watershed forestry. 

•	 Implement watershed-scale forest management activities and conservation planning. 

•	 Restore wetland and stream-side forests and establish riparian vegetative buffers. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-3 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Forest Land Ownership 

Nonindustrial private forest land (NIPF) owners in the United States own 58 percent of 

all timberland. Of this, 29 percent is owned by farmers who can benefit from the numerous provisions of the 2002 Farm Bill that involve land management. The rest of the 

timberland in the United States is owned by the federal government (20 percent), the 

forest industry (14 percent), state government (6 percent), and counties and municipalities (2 percent). Because of the large percentage of timberland owned by nonindustrial 

private forest land owners, an important part of protecting forests and water quality 

during forest harvest is educating those landowners about forest management and proper 

timber harvesting techniques to protect water quality (Powell et al., 1994). Birch (1996a) 

reports that private forest land owners (including industrial owners) have diverse reasons 

for owning their land, including “... it’s just part of the land” (40 percent), a private 

source for forest products (8 percent), recreation and aesthetic enjoyment (23 percent), 

investment (9 percent), and timber production (3 percent). The last group, those who hold 

their land for timber production, represents 29 percent of private forest land ownership. It 

is estimated (Birch, 1996a) that 5 percent of private forest land owners have a written 

management plan and these owners control 39 percent of private forest land. 

With so much land owned and controlled by private forest land owners, and specifically 

NIPF owners, it is crucial that the importance of protecting water quality be considered as 

part of NIPF harvesting. Some private landowners may not place an emphasis on water 

quality protection when planning a harvest because it appears to provide benefits only for 

downstream users, not for the harvesting landowner. Other management measures–such 

as site preparation to improve regeneration–provide direct benefits to landowners and are 

therefore more likely to be part of the landowner’s harvest plan (Alden et al., 1996). 

Forest Program Administration and BMP 

Effectiveness 

A survey to compare the attitudes of persons involved with forestry program administration and implementation about the effectiveness of various approaches to protecting water 

quality and forests in general rated methods for protecting water quality from most 

effective to least effective as follows (Ellefson et al., 1995): technical assistance, fiscal 

incentives, educational programs, voluntary programs, regulatory programs, and tax 

incentives (Figure E-1). 

In this survey, forestry program administrators were asked to rate specifically the effectiveness of educational programs for protecting water quality: 19 were neutral about their 

effectiveness, 17 said that they thought they were effective, and 12 thought that they were 

ineffective. The results for a similar rating of the effectiveness of technical assistance 

programs for protecting water quality showed that 26 administrators thought they were 

effective, 17 were neutral about their effectiveness, and 6 thought them to be ineffective. 

The importance of education in forest harvesting and forest stewardship can be judged 

from the fact that many state departments of forestry have BMP guidebooks and education programs geared not only to loggers and industrial owners but also to the landowners who are not trained in forest management and harvesting. A review of some 

states’ educational programs is provided below, and this review represents the variety of 

E-4 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Figure E-1.	 Ratings of the effectiveness of various types of programs for accomplishing specific forestry objectives. Height of 

line above or below the center line indicates the number of state program administrators who rated the program type 

as effective or ineffective, respectively, for accomplishing the specific objective (Ellefson et al., 1995). 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-5 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

The Federal Coastal Nonpoint 

Pollution Control Program 

(6217) is designed to enhance 

state and local efforts to 

manage land use activities that 

degrade coastal habitats and 

waters. 

educational and technical assistance programs offered by states and the importance states 

place on education. 

Examples of State Forestry Assistance 

Programs 

Provided below are some examples of state programs for forestry assistance and education. Links to information on state forest protection and education programs can be found 

at the Web site www.usabmp.net. 

Washington State 

In 1999, Washington State created a Forestry Riparian Easement Program to be managed 

by a Small Forest Landowner Office within DNR. Responding to the federal Endangered 

Species Act by listing several salmon species and authorizing the Forest Practices Board 

to adopt rules for salmon recovery, the size of riparian buffers was increased and further 

measures were created to protect water quality and restore salmon habitat. Recognizing 

that these rules would have a disproportionate impact on small forest landowners, the 

easement program under the Forestry Riparian Easement Program acknowledges the 

importance of small forest landowners and the contributions they make to protect wildlife 

habitat. The program is also intended to help small forest landowners keep their land in 

forestry. 

DNR’s Forestry Riparian Easement Program partially compensates eligible small forest 

landowners in exchange for a 50-year easement on “qualifying timber.” This is the timber 

the landowner is required to leave unharvested as a result of new forest practices rules 

protecting Washington’s forests and fish. Landowners cannot cut or remove the qualifying timber during the easement period. The landowner still owns the property and retains 

full access, but has “leased” the trees and their associated riparian function to the state. 

Washington’s Backyard Forest Stewardship Program is especially designed for owners of 

small-forested parcels (from a “forested lot” up to ten acres) and anyone who owns a 

home in a forested environment. Guidelines for forest protection are provided on a DNR 

Web site (http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/rp/stewardship/bfs/) and can be obtained in print 

as well. Landowners who implement the guidelines relevant to their property can apply 

for recognition under the program from the state. 

Virginia 

The Virginia Department of Forestry (DOF) reports that surveys show most landowners 

sell timber and make other forest management decisions without professional advice. 

These same studies have demonstrated that landowners who sell timber with the assistance of a professional forester receive 50 percent more for their timber (Virginia DOF, 

1998). Since professional foresters are knowledgeable of water protection BMPs, having 

a landowner contact a professional benefits both the landowner and the environment 

(Virginia Department of Forestry, 1998). 

The Virginia DOF inspects harvesting sites for compliance with the Seed Tree Law and 

The Silvicultural Water Quality Law. During an inspection, compliance with other state 

and federal laws is observed so the landowner and logger can be informed and kept in 

E-6 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

compliance with applicable regulations. Other laws that landowners need to be aware of 

and in compliance with include, depending on their particular location and situation, the 

Chesapeake Bay Act, the Virginia Marine Resources Law, and the Federal Clean Water 

Act. The logger, consultant forester, industry forester, and/or the landowner are contacted 

by Virginia DOF during logging operations concerning BMP installation. The landowner 

is contacted concerning needs for forest renewal and future management. 

Regardless of the origin of the request, if the landowner wishes to reforest an area or 

implement other recommended management practices, Virginia DOF will provide them 

with the names of consultants or contractors who can implement the recommended 

practices, and will inform them of any cost share assistance for which they might be 

eligible. 

The Virginia DOF has the responsibility to administer and give technical approval for 

cost-share programs. A reforestation cost-share examination must be completed along 

with application forms and other paperwork for cost-share programs. For cost-share 

assistance, the area must be inspected for needs determination before the practice is 

started and after the practice is completed to determine if the practice was completed 

correctly. Again, required compliance with all applicable state and federal laws and 

regulations are checked. 

Tennessee 

Forestry assistance in Tennessee is handled by the Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

(DOA), Forestry Division. The Forestry Division trains loggers and others involved in 

land management in the use of logging techniques to prevent erosion and leave streams 

unharmed. Tennessee DOA has also developed a number of training aids for water 

quality, including a video, printed material, and a number of forest management demonstration sites. One of the Forestry Division’s primary services is offering advice to 

landowners, often in person on the individual’s property. A forest land owner can contact 

a local Area Forester to discuss management objectives for the property. The Area 

Forester will work through a sequence of steps to help meet the objectives. A local 

forestry office can also provide information on what landowner options are for managing 

their land. The DOA Forestry Division web site provides A Practical Introduction to 

Forestry for Landowners that gives information on a variety of forest management 

options and has references and links to other sources of information. 

The Tennessee Reforestation Incentive Program (TRIP) was created in mid-1997 to 

provide financial assistance to landowners for planting trees on marginal and highly 

erodible crop and pasture lands. Money provided by the State Agricultural Nonpoint 

Water Pollution Control Fund administered by the Department of Agriculture is used to 

share the cost of planting trees to stabilize eroding lands and improve water quality. 

Another training program available to loggers is the Master Logger Program. The mission of the Master Logger Program is “to enhance the professionalism of the Tennessee 

logger” through a complete educational program designed to improve the health and 

well-being of the logging industry and the forest resource. The Master Logger curriculum 

consists of five 1-day courses, one of which is on forest ecology and BMPs. Loggers 

attend individual sessions of the program 1 day every 2 weeks, and it takes 10 weeks to 

complete the workshop. Master Loggers must continue their education to retain Master 

Logger status. Many other states provide programs similar to the Master Logging 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-7 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Program under various names, and all of the programs stem from the original pilot 

program of the USDA Extension Service, the LEAP program. 

the number 10 years ago. The largest number of operations occur on small private forests 

where the landowners are typically not as familiar with the state’s forest practice rules as 

are large industrial landowners. The state therefore puts a great deal of energy into 

providing information, training, and resources to landowners and operators (Oregon DOF, 

1997). 

The Oregon Department of Forestry’s Forest Practices Program involves more than 150 

people in the department’s main offices and in field offices who provide face-to-face 

information and guidance to landowners. Program staff work with industry and environmental representatives to develop programs and incentives for encouraging sound stewardship of forest resources. 

Small woodland owners in Oregon can request on-site assistance from their local service 

forester, who can provide information and guidance on insect and disease issues, reforestation and young growth management, financial incentives, and other forest related topics 

and resources. Private forest consultants are available throughout the state to provide 

comprehensive assistance to landowners. Consultants provide services that are beyond the 

scope of public agency assistance programs, such as the development of Forest Stewardship Plans. 

The Oregon Forest Resource Trust provides monies for the direct cost payments of site 

preparation, tree planting, seedling protection, and competitive release activities. The 

program encourages landowners to establish and maintain healthy forests on 

underproducing forestlands—lands capable of growing forests but that are in brush, 

cropland, pasture, or that are very poorly stocked. The landowner commits to establishing 

a healthy “free-to-grow” forest stand and takes responsibility for seeing that the work gets 

done. The service forester provides technical assistance on how to complete the reforestation project and is available to provide direction with respect to the landowner’s project 

management responsibility. If timber is harvested from the forests created with trust 

monies, participating landowners repay the trust (up to set amounts) with a portion of the 

profits. Eligible underproducing land must be at least 10 contiguous acres, zoned for 

forest or farm use, located in Oregon, and part of a private forestland ownership of no 

more than 5,000 acres. The trust can fund 100 percent of the reforestation cost up to 

$100,000 every two years. 

The Oregon 50% Tax Credit, the “Underproductive Forest Land Conversion Tax Credit,” 

encourages landowners to establish and maintain healthy and productive forests. Fifty 

percent of the cost of establishing a stand of trees on underproductive forestland may be 

applied as a credit against Oregon state taxes. The 50 percent tax credit applies on brushland, grassland, or on very poorly stocked forestland. 

South Carolina 

The South Carolina Forestry Commission provides timber management assistance to 

forest landowners in the state. Forestry Commission foresters will examine forestland and 

potential forestland at the request of a landowner. A written plan and map are prepared 

for the landowner, giving forest management recommendations that best meet the 

owner’s needs and objectives, provided that they are compatible with good forest BMPs 

(South Carolina Forestry Commission, 1998). When conditions warrant, such as a request 

E-8 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

for a detailed plan on a large tract, the Forestry Commission forester can recommend 

consultants or industry foresters who can be of assistance. 

Two-thirds of the state’s forestlands are under private ownership, and the South Carolina 

Forestry Commission provides assistance to these landowners geared toward educating 

them so that they can take an active role in managing their forests. A South Carolina 

Forestry Commission staff member will help the landowner put together a multipleresource Stewardship Management Plan (SMP) that provides detailed recommendations 

for timber management activities designed to help prevent soil erosion and protect water 

quality and might also provide details on wildlife habitat improvement. Anyone who 

owns at least 10 acres of forestland can qualify for assistance under the SMP program. 

Ohio 

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry participates in the 

Service Forestry Program, the mission of which is to develop better stewardship of the 

forest resources on private lands in Ohio through on-site technical assistance and the 

dissemination of information to landowners. There are twenty-five Service Foresters 

statewide that work one on one with the woodland owners. The Service Foresters are 

available to provide landowners with current information for the long term management 

of their woodlands. The Service Foresters can provide management plans and advice on 

how to accomplish the plan’s objectives. The Service Foresters also provide landowners 

with technical assistance and information on tree planting projects, woodland improvement activities and timber marketing assistance. The Service Foresters also direct landowners to other education participation programs in the state. 

The Ohio Forestry Association maintains a Safety Training and Certification Program for 

logging contractors and their employees. It is the Ohio equivalent of a LEAP program. 

One of the requirements for certification as a Certified Logging Company is to have 

employees trained to use BMPs to reduce soil erosion and improve the appearance of 

timber harvesting activities (Ohio Forestry Association, 1999). 

California 

The California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDF) administers several state 

and federal forestry assistance programs with the goal of reducing wildland fuel loads and 

improving the health and productivity of private forest lands. California’s Forest Improvement Program (CFIP) and other federal programs that CDF administers, offer costshare opportunities to assist individual landowners with land management planning, 

conservation practices to enhance wildlife habitat, and practices to enhance the productivity of the land. 

The CFIP provides technical assistance to private forest landowners, forest operators, 

wood processors, and public agencies. Cost share assistance is provided to private forest 

landowners, Resource Conservation Districts, and nonprofit watershed groups. Costshared activities include management planning, site preparation, tree purchase and 

planting, timber stand improvement, fish and wildlife habitat improvement, and land 

conservation practices for ownerships containing up to 5,000 acres of forest land. 

A Forest Legacy Program (FLP) protects environmentally important forestland threatened 

with conversion to non-forest uses, such as subdivision for residential or commercial 

development by promoting the use of permanent conservation easements. 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-9 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

Maine 

The Forest Policy and Management Division of the Maine Department of Conservation, 

Forest Service provides technical assistance, information, and educational services to 

forest landowners. Part of the Division’s implementation of the Forest Practices Act is 

providing educational workshops, field demonstrations, and media presentations, and 

contacting landowners personally to discuss forest management issues (Maine DOC, 

1998). 

North Dakota 

The majority of North Dakota’s rural forests are privately owned. Forest resource management in the state focuses on education and assisting nonindustrial private landowners 

to better manage, protect, and use their natural resources. This is accomplished through 

the development of a forest stewardship plan and direct financial assistance for forest 

improvement practices. Rural forestry services are delivered through an agreement with 

North Dakota’s local Soil Conservation Districts (NDSU, 1998). 

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) offer up to 75 percent cost-share assistance to landowners for 

accomplishing forest stewardship projects such as tree planting, forest stand improvement, soil and water protection, riparian protection, windbreak renovation and wildlife 

habitat enhancement. Eligible landowners may sign up at their local FSA office for WHIP 

or EQIP practices. 

Technical forestry assistance is provided to more than 600 rural landowners each year in 

North Dakota. Since 1991, 1,405 forest stewardship plans have been requested and 

completed for 71,777 acres of privately-owned native and planted woodlands and 456 

forest improvement practices were awarded $548,887 in Stewardship Incentive Program 

cost-share funds. A total of 587 landowners enrolled 39,384 acres in the Forest Stewardship Tax Law. 

Missouri 

The vast majority of land in Missouri is under direct ownership and influence of private 

landowners. Private individuals own more than 93 percent of all land and 85 percent of 

forest land. The Department offers two levels of assistance based upon the landowner’s 

need and interest in long term forest management. The two levels are Advisory Service 

and Management Service. Advisory Service is available to all landowners, including 

urban residents. This service includes group training sessions, publications, film and 

video loan, office consultation, insect and disease identification and analysis, referrals to 

consultants, on-site visits under certain conditions, and help with evaluating and choosing 

land management options. 

Management Service is available to landowners interested in the long term management 

of their forest land. Those who receive management services agree to develop and carry 

out a management program for the immediate and long term stewardship of their property. 

Management plan implementation activities include guidance in soil and watershed 

protection, erosion control, wildlife habitat improvement, and forest road location and 

construction. A visit to the landowner’s property is part of MDC’s assistance in management plan development (Missouri DOC, 2000). 

E-10 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

The Society of American Foresters’ Certified 

Forester Program 

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), a nonprofit, scientific, and educational organization, established the Certified Forester (CF) program in 1994. The term Certified 

Forester is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and may only be used 

by individuals who meet SAF’s certification requirements. The CF program is voluntary, 

nongovernmental, and open to qualified SAF members and nonmembers. A Certified 

Forester agrees to abide by current CF program requirements and procedures for certification and recertification; to maintain continuing professional development; and to 

conduct all forestry practices in a responsible, professional manner consistent with state 

and federal regulations governing environmental quality and forest BMPs. 

Through the CF program and other activities, SAF advocates wise stewardship in forest 

resources management. The CF program provides a consistent, national credential. 

Certification constitutes recognition by SAF that, to the best of SAF’s knowledge, a 

Certified Forester meets and adheres to certain minimum standards of academic preparation, professional experience, continuing education, and professionalism. No individual is 

eligible to receive or to maintain Certified Forester status or recertification unless the 

individual meets and continues to adhere to all requirements for eligibility. Some of the 

requirements that must be met by all CF applicants can be found in Appendix C. 

Effectiveness of Education and Technical 

Assistance 

Researchers with the U.S. Forest Service reviewed state BMP implementation and 

monitoring programs and the results from those programs in 1994. At the time, 21 states 

were assessing BMP effectiveness. The U.S. Forest Service found that the states had 

generally concluded that carefully developed and applied BMPs can prevent serious 

deterioration of water quality and that the availability of well-qualified personnel at the 

field level is probably the most cost-effective approach to meeting water quality 

standards. Most water quality problems, they found, were associated with poor BMP 

implementation, and trained field personnel could help correct problems with 

implementation (Greene and Siegel, 1994). 

The researchers also concluded that an iterative self-education process at the state level 

was important for BMP improvement. Water quality monitoring is essential to understanding the relationship between land disturbance and water quality, they found, and it 

leads to improved understanding of the interaction of soils and topography with BMP 

implementation. This understanding was considered essential to continually reassessing 

BMP guidelines to make them more cost-effective. BMPs need to be specified, used, 

monitored, and fine tuned to provide cost-effective water quality protection. 

Ellefson and others (1995) reviewed forest practice programs in many states, and one 

aspect of their review involved asking program managers what they thought were the 

most effective means to protect water quality. State program managers rated the following in program effectiveness, from most effective to least effective: technical assistance, 

fiscal incentives, educational programs, voluntary programs, regulatory programs, and tax 

incentives. For promoting reforestation and improving timber harvesting methods, 

National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry E-11 
Appendix E: State and Private Forestry Programs 

technical assistance and fiscal incentives were rated as the most effective means and 

regulatory programs and voluntary guidelines were rated as the two least effective. 

When the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) studied BMP implementation 

and effectiveness, ANR personnel accompanied harvesters in the field during harvests. 

During the harvests monitored, logging personnel appeared to become much more aware 

of the water quality issues related to their activities and the intent of the BMPs. By the 

end of the project, the loggers were extremely conscientious in their efforts to protect 

water quality. Vermont ANR personnel felt that without the oversight of the forestry 

agency, it was likely that water quality problems would have been more severe, particularly in the early phase of the project. After the assistance provided by the personnel, 

managers for the logging companies were fully capable of implementing appropriate 

BMPs with little or no oversight. 

E-12 National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Forestry