January 30, 2015 

1 

NOAA/EPA FINDING THAT OREGON HAS NOT SUBMITTED A FULLY APPROVABLE 

COASTAL NONPOINT PROGRAM 

FOREWORD 

This document contains the bases for the finding by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

(collectively, the federal agencies) that the State of Oregon (State) has not submitted a fully 

approvable Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (Coastal Nonpoint Program) as required 

by section 6217(a) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), 16 

U.S.C. 1455b. NOAA and EPA arrive at this decision because they find that the State has not 

adopted additional management measures applicable to forestry that are necessary to achieve and 

maintain applicable water quality standards under Clean Water Act section 303 and to protect 

designated uses. NOAA and EPA first identified and notified the State of the need to implement 

the additional measures in 1998. 

On January 13, 1998, the federal agencies approved the Oregon Coastal Nonpoint Program 

subject to specific conditions (see Oregon Conditional Approval Findings). Since then, NOAA 

and EPA have been working with the State to address the conditions. The State has made 

incremental modifications to its program and has since met most of those conditions. 

On December 20, 2013, the federal agencies provided notice of their intent to find that the State 

has not fully satisfied the conditions related to new development, onsite sewage disposal systems 

(OSDS), and additional management measures for forestry (see Oregon Coastal Nonpoint 

Program NOAA/EPA Proposed Finding). The federal agencies invited public comment on the 

proposed findings, as well as on the extent to which those findings support a finding that the 

State has not submitted an approvable program under CZARA. Based on comments and 

concerns the federal agencies received about agriculture nonpoint source management in the 

State, the federal agencies also invited public comment on the adequacy of the State’s programs 

and policies for meeting the CZARA 6217(g) agriculture management measures and conditions 

placed on Oregon’s Coastal Nonpoint Program. Because the December 20, 2013, notice of intent 

did not propose a specific decision on whether Oregon had satisfied the CZARA 6217(g) 

agriculture management measures and the public did not have an opportunity to comment on a 

specific proposed decision and rationale for that decision, the adequacy of Oregon’s agriculture 

programs is not a basis for the findings that Oregon has not submitted an approvable coastal 

nonpoint program. (For a summary of the comments received and the federal agencies’ response 

to them, see NOAA and EPA Response to Comments Regarding the Agencies’ Proposed 

Disapproval Finding that Oregon has Not Submitted a Fully Approvable Coastal Nonpoint 

Program.) 
January 30, 2015 

2 

In response to NOAA and EPA’s proposed findings, Oregon provided an additional submission 

in support of its coastal nonpoint program on March 20, 2014 (see Oregon’s Response to 

Proposed Disapproval Findings).1

NOAA and EPA have carefully reviewed the public comments received and the State’s March 

2014 submission and have made a finding that Oregon has not submitted a fully approvable 

coastal nonpoint program. This decision is made because the State did not address the additional 

management measures for forestry condition. Based on information the State provided in March, 

the federal agencies believe that Oregon has now satisfied the conditions for new development 

and OSDS, so those conditions are no longer a basis for the finding that Oregon has not 

submitted an a fully approvable coastal nonpoint program. 

For further understanding of terms in this document and the basis of this decision, the reader is 

referred to the following documents: 

 Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in 

Coastal Waters (EPA January 1993); 

 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Program Development and Approval 

Guidance (NOAA and EPA January 1993); 

 Flexibility for State Coastal Nonpoint Programs (NOAA and EPA March 1995); 

 Final Administrative Changes to the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

Guidance for Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990

(CZARA) (NOAA and EPA October 1998); 

 Policy Clarification on Overlap of 6217 Coastal Nonpoint Programs with Phase I and II 

Stormwater Regulations (NOAA and EPA December 2002); and

 Enforceable Policies and Mechanisms for State Coastal Nonpoint Source Programs

(NOAA and EPA January 2001). 

Electronic copies of the documents cited above as well as any other references cited in this 

document and the Federal Register notice announcing this action will be available at the 

following website: http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol. 

SCOPE OF DECISION 

This document explains NOAA and EPA’s finding regarding the additional management 

measures for forestry condition. This finding forms the basis for the federal agencies’ decision 

that the State has not submitted a fully approvable program.2

 The document also notes that the 

new development and OSDS management measures are no longer a basis for this decision. In 

addition, the document acknowledges the comments received regarding the adequacy of 

Oregon’s agriculture programs and policies for meeting the 6217(g) agriculture management 

                                                            

1 In a Settlement Agreement entered in 2010 to resolve a lawsuit brought by a nonprofit organization, Northwest Environmental Advocates v. 

Locke, et al., Case No. CV09-0017-PK (D. Ore), NOAA and EPA agreed to make a final decision on whether to approve or disapprove Oregon's 

Coastal Nonpoint Program by May 15, 2014, later extended to January 30, 2015. 2 CZARA provides for NOAA and EPA to withhold a portion of CZMA Section 306 and CWA Section 319 grant funds when a disapproval 

decision is made. NOAA and EPA may withhold funding as early as July 1, 2015. 
January 30, 2015 

3 

measures and conditions placed on Oregon’s Coastal Nonpoint Program. However, at this time, 

the agencies have not made a decision on the adequacy of the agricultural measures. 

NOAA and EPA’s findings in this document are based on information the State has submitted in 

support of each condition, the federal agencies’ knowledge of coastal nonpoint source pollution 

management in Oregon, and the public comments received. Oregon may–and is encouraged to–

continue to work on and improve its program to satisfy all coastal nonpoint program 

requirements. Should the State submit subsequent information upon which NOAA and EPA 

determine that the State has submitted a fully approvable program, the federal agencies will 

provide another opportunity for public comment. At that time, the public will be asked to provide 

comment on whether the State has satisfied all conditions placed on its program in 1998 and met 

all CZARA requirements. 

 

FINDING OF NOT HAVING SUBMITTED A FULLY APPROVABLE PROGRAM 

NOAA and EPA have determined that the State of Oregon has not submitted a fully approvable 

program pursuant to Section 6217(a) of CZARA. 

I. UNMET CONDITION 

A. ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES– FORESTRY 

PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT MEASURE: The purpose of this management measure is to 

identify additional management measures necessary to achieve and maintain applicable water 

quality standards and protect designated uses for land uses where the 6217(g) management 

measures are already being implemented under existing nonpoint source programs but water 

quality is still impaired due to identified nonpoint sources.

CONDITION FROM JANUARY 1998 FINDINGS: Within two years, Oregon will identify 

and begin applying additional management measures where water quality impairments and 

degradation of beneficial uses attributable to forestry exist despite implementation of the 6217(g) 

measures (1998 Findings, section X). 

FINDING: Oregon has not satisfied this condition. By not adopting and implementing 

additional management measures applicable to forestry and forested lands that are necessary to 

achieve and maintain water quality standards and to protect designated uses, Oregon has not 

submitted a fully approvable program under CZARA.

 

RATIONALE: Oregon proposed to address the additional management measures for forestry 

condition through a combination of regulatory and voluntary programs. Those measures include 

best management practices or other control measures by rule established by the Board of 

Forestry (Board). In addition, the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC), the rulemaking 

body for the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), can petition the Board if it 
January 30, 2015 

4 

believes the Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules are not adequate for achieving water quality 

standards. While Oregon has made some progress towards meeting this condition, the State has 

not identified or applied additional management measures that fully address the program 

weaknesses the federal agencies noted in the January 13, 1998, Findings for Oregon’s Coastal 

Nonpoint Program. Specifically, the State has not implemented or revised management 

measures, backed by enforceable authorities, to (1) protect riparian areas for medium-sized and 

small fish-bearing (type “F”) streams and non-fish-bearing (type “N”) streams; (2) address the 

impacts of forest roads, particularly on so-called “legacy” roads; (3) protect high-risk landslide 

areas; and (4) ensure adequate stream buffers for the application of herbicides, particularly on 

non-fish-bearing streams. 

Protection of Riparian Areas: Oregon relies on both regulatory and voluntary measures to 

provide riparian protections for medium-sized and small fish-bearing streams (type “F” streams) 

and non-fish-bearing streams (type “N” streams). Generally, under the State’s current FPA rules, 

no tree harvesting is allowed on private lands within 20 feet of fish-bearing streams, or mediumsized and large non-fish-bearing streams. Also, all snags and downed wood that do not represent 

a safety or fire hazard must be retained within riparian management areas around small and 

medium-sized fish-bearing streams (from the stream edge out to 50 and 70 feet, respectively). In 

addition, the FPA rules establish conifer basal area and density targets for some riparian 

management areas. For example, along medium-sized fish-bearing streams, there is a 

requirement to leave 30 trees (at least 8 inches diameter at breast height [DBH]) per 1,000 feet. 

Oregon has no vegetation retention requirements for small non-fish-bearing streams in the Coast 

Range and Western Cascades. 

In addition to regulatory requirements, the forestry industry in the State of Oregon has adopted 

voluntary measures to protect riparian areas for high aquatic potential streams (i.e., streams with 

low gradients and wide valleys where large woody debris recruitment is most likely to be 

effective at enhancing salmon habitat). These voluntary measures include large wood placement, 

retaining additional basal area within stream buffers, large tree retention, and treating large and 

medium-sized non-fish-bearing streams the same as fish-bearing streams for buffer retentions.3 

Based on the results of a number of studies including those summarized below, NOAA and EPA 

previously determined and continue to find that additional management measures (beyond those 

in FPA rules and the voluntary program) for forestry riparian protection around medium-sized 

and small fish-bearing streams and non-fish-bearing streams are necessary to attain and maintain 

water quality standards and to protect designated uses. Therefore, Oregon must still adopt and 

implement management measures applicable to the forestry land use and forested areas in order 

to protect small and medium-sized fish-bearing streams and non-fish-bearing streams from water 

quality impairments attributable to forestry practices in riparian areas. 

                                                            

3

 According to Oregon’s March 2014 coastal nonpoint program submittal, information on voluntary efforts was reported to the Oregon Watershed 

Restoration Inventory. http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/nonpoint/oregonDocket/StateofOregonCZARAsubmittal3-20-14.pdf. 
January 30, 2015 

5 

A significant body of science, including 1) the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) Riparian 

and Stream Temperature Effectiveness Monitoring Project (RipStream)4

; 2) A Statewide 

Evaluation of Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality (i.e., the Sufficiency 

Analysis)

5

; and 3) the Governor’s Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team (IMST) Report 

on the adequacy of the Oregon forest practices in recovering salmon and trout6

, indicates that 

riparian protection around small and medium-sized fish-bearing streams and non-fish-bearing 

streams in Oregon is not sufficient to achieve and maintain water quality and protect designated 

uses. The 2011 RipStream reports found that FPA riparian protections on private forest lands did 

not ensure achievement of the Protection of Cold Water (PCW) criterion under the Oregon water 

quality standard for temperature.7,8 The PCW criterion prohibits human activities (e.g., timber 

harvest) from increasing stream temperatures by more than 0.3oC at locations critical to salmon, 

steelhead, or bull trout. The RipStream analysis demonstrated that the chance of a site managed 

using FPA rules exceeding the PCW criterion between a pre-harvest year and a postharvest year 

was 40 percent.9,10 

The RipStream study also demonstrated that stream temperature fluctuations increased, in part, 

with a reduction in shade, and that shade was best predicted by riparian basal area and tree 

height. The findings suggest that riparian protection measures that maintain higher shade (such 

as measures implemented on State forest land) are more likely to maintain stream temperatures 

similar to control conditions.11

The 2002 Sufficiency Analysis found that the Oregon FPA’s prescribed riparian buffer widths 

for small and medium-sized fish-bearing streams may be inadequate to prevent temperature 

impacts. That analysis concluded that 1) FPA standards for some medium-sized and small Type 

F streams in western Oregon may result in short-term temperature increases at the site level; and 

2) FPA standards for some small Type N streams may result in short-term temperature increases 

at the site level that may be transferred downstream (this may impact water temperature and 

cold-water refugia) to fish-bearing streams.12 In water bodies colder than the numeric criteria, 

temperature increases of 0.3°C measured for all sources combined at the point of maximum 

                                                            

4

 Three peer-reviewed articles present the results of the RipStream analysis: 

Dent, L., D. Vick, K. Abraham, S. Shoenholtz, and S. Johnson. 2008. Summer temperature patterns in headwater streams of the Oregon 

Coast Range. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 44:803–813. 

Groom, J.D., L. Dent, and L.J. Madsen. 2011a. Stream temperature change detection for state and private forests in the Oregon Coast 

Range. Water Resources Research 47 W01501. doi:10.1029/2009WR009061. 

Groom, J.D., L. Dent, and L.J. Madsen. 2011b. Response of western Oregon stream temperatures to contemporary forest management.

Forest Ecology and Management. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.07.012. 5

 Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. Sufficiency Analysis: A Statewide Evaluation of 

Forest Practices Act Effectiveness in Protecting Water Quality. Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

6

 Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team. 1999. Recovery of Wild Salmonids in Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act 

Rules and the Measures in the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. Technical Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and 

Watersheds, Governor’s Natural Resources Office, Salem, OR. 

7

 Groom et al., 2011a. 

8

 Daugherty, P., and J.D. Groom. 2011. Update on Private Forests Riparian Function and Stream Temperature (RipStream) Project. Staff 

Report; November 3, 2011. 

9

 Ibid. 2. 

10 Groom et al., 2011a. 

11 Ibid.2. 3. 

12 Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002, pp. 44-45. 
January 30, 2015 

6 

impact where salmon, steelhead, or bull trout are present is a violation of the State’s PCW 

criterion. 

As early as 1999, the IMST study found that the FPA rule requirements related to riparian 

buffers and large woody debris needed to be improved. Based on its scientific analysis, the IMST 

team concluded, “...the current site-specific approach of regulation and voluntary action is not 

sufficient to accomplish the recovery of wild salmonids.”13 The IMST team made the following 

recommendations: 1) Because nongame fish and other aquatic organisms play a role in a 

functioning stream system, and the distribution of salmonids will change over time, non-fishbearing streams should be treated no differently than fish-bearing streams when determining the 

buffer width protections;14 2) there should be an increase in the basal area and requirements for 

riparian management areas for both small and medium-sized streams, regardless of the presence 

of fish; and 3) there should be an increase in the number of trees within the riparian management 

area for both fish- and non-fish-bearing small and medium-sized streams.15

In 2013, the EPA, together with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Bureau of Land 

Management, reevaluated and summarized pertinent scientific theory and empirical studies to 

address the effects of riparian management strategies on stream function, with a focus on 

temperature.16 With regard to no-cut buffers adjacent to clearcut harvest units, the paper noted 

that substantial adverse effects from reduced available shade have been observed with no-cut 

buffers ranging from 20 to 30 meters,17 and that minimal adverse effects on stream shading and 

temperature have been observed in studies that examined no-cut buffer widths of 46 meters.18

For no-cut buffer widths of 46–69 meters, the effects of tree removal on shade and temperature 

were either not detected or were minimal.19 The paper also documented that, with no-cut buffer 

widths of less than 20 meters, pronounced reductions in shade and increases in temperature 

occurred, as compared to wider buffers. The most dramatic effects were observed at the 

narrowest buffer widths (less than or equal to 10 meters).20 As already noted, existing FPA 

standards for small and medium-sized fish-bearing streams require only 20-foot (or 

approximately 7-meter) no-cut buffers within a riparian management zone of approximately 17–

23 meters. No vegetation retention is required on small non-fish-bearing streams in the Coast 

Range and Western Cascades. 

Oregon also has been investing in three paired watershed studies that are designed to analyze the 

effects of timber harvesting on a watershed and reach scale.21 Several commenters have cited the 

paired watershed study as evidence that the current FPA practices for riparian protection are 

effective at achieving and maintaining water quality standards and protecting designated uses. 

Unpublished preliminary data from the Hinkle Creek study indicate that changes in stream 

                                                            

13 Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, 1999, 2. 14 Ibid. 21 and 43. 

15 Ibid. 44-45. 

16 Leinenbach, P., G. McFadden, and C. Torgersen. 2013. Effects of Riparian Management Strategies on Stream Temperature. Prepared for the 

Interagency Coordinating Subgroup (ICS), 22 pp. 

17 Brosofske et al., 1997; Kiffney et al., 2003; Groom et al., 2011b as cited in Leinenbach et al. 2013. 18 Science Team Review, 2008; Groom et al., 2011a as cited in Leinenbach et al. 2013. 19 Anderson et al., 2007; Science Team Review, 2008; Groom et al., 2011a; Groom et al., 2011b as cited in Leinenbach et al. 2013. 20 Jackson et al., 2001; Curry et al., 2002; Kiffney et al., 2003; Gomi et al., 2006; Anderson et al., 2007 as cited in Leinenbach et al. 2013. 21 Watershed Research Cooperative. Accessed 2014. Watershed Studies. Available online at: http://watershedsresearch.org/watershed-studies/. 
January 30, 2015 

7 

temperature after timber harvest along non-fish-bearing streams were variable. In addition, there 

was no measureable downstream effect on temperatures.22 The variation in stream temperature 

and overall net observed temperature decrease, however, could be attributable to increased slash 

debris along the stream after harvest, as well as a likely increase in stream flow post-harvest that 

could reduce any increase in temperatures and contribute to lower mean stream temperatures.23

Because a variety of factors confound the draft conclusions from the Hinkle Creek study, NOAA 

and EPA do not rely on that analysis. In its evaluation of the study results, DEQ concluded that 

temperature data from the Hinkle Creek and Alsea River studies show that for fish-bearing 

streams, temperature increases downstream from the harvest sites were very similar to the 

increases found in the RipStream study.24 The 2011 RipStream reports found that FPA riparian 

protections on private forest lands did not ensure achievement of the PCW criterion under the 

Oregon water quality standard for temperature.25,26 

NOAA and EPA acknowledge that Oregon is working to address some of the inadequate riparian 

protection measures in the FPA. The Board has the authority to regulate forest practices through 

administrative rule making and require changes to the FPA rules to protect small and mediumsized fish-bearing streams. Recognizing the need to better protect small and medium Type F 

streams, the Board directed ODF to undertake a rule analysis process that could lead to revised 

riparian protection rules. At its September 2014 meeting, the Board voted unanimously in favor 

of continuing to analyze what changes might be needed in the Oregon Forest Practice Rules to 

provide greater buffer protection for medium-sized and small fish-bearing streams on private 

forest lands. NOAA and EPA encourage the State to move forward with this rule-making process 

expeditiously. 

The Board and ODF have not proposed increased protection for riparian areas around small nonfish-bearing streams. As previously discussed in the IMST study, non-fish-bearing streams 

should be treated no differently than fish-bearing streams when determining the appropriate 

buffer width required to protect designated uses.27 Oregon should revise and implement 

additional management measures for riparian areas adjacent to small non-fish-bearing streams 

necessary to achieve and maintain water quality standards and protect designated uses. These 

measures may be regulatory or voluntary, however voluntary measures must be monitored for 

effectiveness and backed up by enforcement authorities should voluntary measures not be 

implemented or effective. 

Impact of Forestry Roads: In the 1998 approval conditions, NOAA and EPA identified specific 

concerns with Oregon’s FPA rules concerning road density and maintenance, particularly with 

respect to so-called “legacy” roads. The federal agencies noted that “legacy” roads—roads 

                                                            

22 Watersheds Research Cooperative. 2008. Hinkle Creek Paired Watershed Study. Available online at: 

http://oregonforests.org/sites/default/files/publications/pdf/WRC_Hinkle.pdf. 23 Kibler, K.M. 2007. The Influence of Contemporary Forest Harvesting on Summer Stream Temperatures in Headwater Streams of Hinkle 

Creek, Oregon. Master’s thesis, Oregon State University. 24 Seeds, J., R. Mitchie, D. Jepsen, and G. Foster. 2014. Responses to Questions/Concerns Raised by Oregon Forestry Industries Council 

Regarding the Protecting Cold Water Criterion of Oregon’s Temperature Water Quality Standard. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Memo. June 19, 2004. 

25 Groom et al., 2011a. 

26 Daugherty and Groom, 2011. 

27 Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, 1999. 
January 30, 2015 

8 

constructed and used prior to adoption of the FPA in 1971 and not used or maintained since—

were not required to be treated and stabilized before closure. In some locations, that practice has 

resulted in significantly altered surface drainage, diversion of water from natural channels, and 

serious erosion or landslides, conditions that threaten to impair coastal waters and protect 

designated uses. 

Legacy roads threaten water quality standards and designated uses due to their location and 

construction. Historic settlement patterns and relative ease-of-construction led early developers 

to preferentially locate roads in valley bottoms near streams. Those roads often paralleled low 

gradient streams (historically the most productive coho habitat) and crossed many tributaries.28

Prior to modern best management practices, mid-slope roads would often be connected to the 

valley bottom roads to access harvest units.29 The poorly designed forest roads increase sediment 

supplied to streams by altering hillslope hydrology, surface runoff, and sediment flux.30 They 

represent a chronic source of low-level sediment over time.31 The ecological consequences of 

sediment continuously supplied from roads may be equally or even more detrimental over time 

than periodic sediment pulses.32 Furthermore, legacy roads sometimes serve as initiation points 

for landslides many years, or even decades, after construction.33 For example, one study found 

that forestry roads in Oregon built before 1984 have higher landslide rates than those built later.34

Oregon’s IMST found that: 

 “‘Old roads and railroad grades’ on forestlands, sometimes called legacy roads, are not 

covered by the OFPA rules unless they are reactivated for a current forestry operation or 

purposes. IMST believes the lack of a mechanism to address the risks presented by such 

roads is a serious impediment to achieving the goals of the Oregon Plan. A process that will 

result in the stabilization of such roads is needed, with highest priority attention to roads in 

core areas, but with attention to such roads and railroad grades at all locations on forestlands 

over time.”35

In 1996, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided a scientific analysis of the draft 

Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative (CSRI) report—which later evolved into the Oregon Plan 

                                                            

28 Nicholas J., B. McIntosh, and E. Bowles. 2005. Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment. Part 1: Synthesis of the Coastal Coho ESU Assessment. 

Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. 29 Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, Cascade range, Oregon. Earth Surface 

Processes and Landforms 26:191-204. 30Reid, L. M., and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20(11):1753-1761; Luce, C.H., 

and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35(8):2561-2570; Wemple, B.C., 

and J.A. Jones. 2003. Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain catchment. Water Resources Research 39, 

doi:10.1029/2002WR001744; Skaugset, A., and M.M. Allen. 1998. Forestry Road Sedimentation Drainage Monitoring Project for Private and 

State Lands in Western Oregon. Prepared for the Oregon Department of Forestry by the Forestry Engineering Department, Oregon State 

University; Robison, E.G., K. Mills, J. Paul, L. Dent, and A Skaugset. 1999. Storm Impacts and Landslides of 1996: Final Report. Forest 

Practices Technical Report, Vol. 4. Oregon Department of Forestry, Corvallis. 31 MacDonald, L.H., and D.B.R. Coe. 2008. Road sediment production and delivery: processes and management. Proceedings of the First World 

Landslide Forum, International Programme on Landslides and International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. United Nations University, Tokyo, 

Japan. pp. 381–384. 

32 Detenbeck, N.E., P.W. Devore, G.J. Niemi, and A. Lima. 1992. Recovery of temperate stream fish communities from disturbance: a review of 

case studies and synthesis of theory. Environ. Manage. 16:33-53. 33 Oregon Department of Forestry and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2002. 34 Ibid. p. 33, Sessions, 1987. 

35 Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team, 1999, pp. 47.
January 30, 2015 

9 

for Salmon and Watersheds. NMFS indicated that the forest practice rules have no well-defined 

process to identify problems with older logging roads and railroad grades constructed prior to 

1994.36 

In addition to water quality impacts, sedimentation and erosion from forestry roads have adverse 

impacts on salmon. Salmonid spawning is one of Oregon’s designated uses. Logging roads are a 

source of fine sediments that enter spawning gravel and can lower the success of spawning and 

recruitment for coho salmon.37 NMFS’s scientific analysis for their Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) section 7 listing for Oregon coast coho salmon also continues to recognize forestry roads, 

including legacy roads, as a source of sediment and a threat to Oregon coastal coho salmon. 

NMFS explained that “existing and legacy [forestry] roads can contribute to continued stream 

degradation over time through restriction of debris flows, sedimentation, restriction of fish 

passage, and loss of riparian function.”38 

Since 1998, the Board has made several improvements to general road maintenance measures to 

improve water quality. Changes made in 2002 and 2003 included (1) establishment of a Avoiding 

Roads in Critical Locations Policy to avoid building roads in critical locations (e.g., high-hazards 

landslide areas, steep slopes, or within 50 feet of water bodies); (2) creation of additional rules to 

address wet-weather hauling (OAR 629-625-0700); and (3) revision of an existing road drainage 

rule to reduce sediment delivery (OAR 629-625-0330). Those improvements should reduce 

sedimentation on roadways in forested areas in order to achieve water quality standards and to 

protect designated uses. The new drainage requirements, however, become operative only when 

new road construction or reconstruction of existing roads occurs. The rule changes and new 

policies do not address legacy roads (i.e., roads that do not meet current State requirements with 

respect to siting, construction, maintenance, and road drainage) or impairments associated with a 

large portion of the existing road network where construction or reconstruction is not proposed. 

Oregon proposed to address those legacy road issues and gaps in its FPA rules through voluntary 

efforts, including restoration and monitoring activities carried out through the voluntary Oregon 

Plan. For example, in its March 2014 submittal in response to NOAA and EPA’s proposed 

determination, the State described ODF’s voluntary Road Hazard and Identification and Risk 

Reduction Project through which private and State forestland owners survey their road networks 

to identify roads that pose risks to salmonid habitat and prioritize roads for remediation. While 

Oregon reports that thousands of road miles have been inspected and repaired across the State 

since the inception of the program in 1997, Oregon does not have a monitoring or tracking 

program that can report on the significance of these efforts relative to the universe of the road 

network, nor report on whether these projects addressed active forest roads and roads retired 

according to current FPA practices, and which projects addressed problems associated with 

older, legacy roads. As noted in the Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment,39 old roads make up the 

                                                            

36 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Analysis of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s (ODF) Most Recent Submission for the 

State of Oregon’s Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative. September 10, 1996 memo from Rowan Baker to Steve Morris and Elizabeth Garr. 37 Cederholm, C.J., L.M. Reid, and E.O. Salo. 1980. Cumulative Effects of Logging Road Sediment on Salmonid Populations in the Clearwater 

River, Jefferson County, Washington. Contribution No. 543. College of Fisheries, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 38 NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. 2012. Scientific Conclusions of the Status Review for Oregon Coast Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-118, June 2012. Pg. 78. 39 Nicholas et al., 2005. 
January 30, 2015 

10 

majority of forest roads and the road inventory data on private land is often not made available. 

As a result, it is not possible to determine the extent to which voluntary efforts have addressed 

the sedimentation problems and landslide risk posed by the legacy road network. 

The federal agencies are also concerned about the long-term implementation of the voluntary 

program. As noted in the State’s March 2014 submission, “voluntary reporting of OPSW 

[Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds] voluntary measures has diminished in the past years, 

however it is reasonable to assume that voluntary measure implementation has not.” The State 

does not provide the basis for this statement. Without methods for tracking and evaluating the 

effectiveness of those voluntary programs, the federal agencies cannot approve the voluntary 

approach for addressing the forestry management measures as they pertain to old or legacy 

roads. 

Oregon also noted that it has entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Forest Service 

to update the State’s geographic information system (GIS) data layer for forest roads. The data 

layer will help the State conduct a rapid road survey to evaluate and prioritize road risks to soil 

and water resources. Oregon noted it hoped to begin the survey in 2014. NOAA and EPA 

encourage the State to move forward with the road survey. However, the federal agencies are not 

aware if the GIS data layer and the survey will include (or even identify) legacy roads or whether 

the State will use the data to direct future management actions. 

In addition, the State also discussed it was undertaking a third-party audit in 2014 to assess 

compliance with the FPA rules governing forest road construction and maintenance among other 

issues. While NOAA and EPA encourage the State to continue to conduct that and other audits to 

assess compliance with FPA rules, as noted earlier, legacy roads are not subject to FPA rules. 

Since the audit will assess compliance with the FPA rules, NOAA and EPA conclude that issues 

resulting from legacy roads as well as issues resulting from general road maintenance where 

construction or reconstruction is not occurring will not be addressed in this audit since the FPA 

rules do not apply in these situations. 

In summary, NOAA and EPA recognize that legacy roads are being addressed through voluntary 

measures and that they have been the target of significant landowner investment. As noted in the 

Oregon Coastal Coho Assessment,40 however, old roads make up the majority of forest roads, 

and road inventory data on private land is not widely available. As a result, NOAA and EPA 

cannot determine, and the State has not made information-based representations specifying, the 

extent to which voluntary efforts have addressed the sedimentation problems and landslide risk 

posed by the legacy road network. 

In addition, as the federal agencies’ 1998 Final Administration Changes Memo states, in order 

for states to rely on voluntary programs to meet coastal nonpoint program requirements, a state 

must, among other things (1) describe the voluntary program, including the methods for tracking 

and evaluating those programs the State will use to encourage implementation of the 

management measures; and (2) provide a legal opinion from its Attorney General asserting the 

                                                            

40 Ibid. 
January 30, 2015 

11 

State has adequate backup enforcement authority for the voluntary measures and commit to 

exercising the backup authority when necessary. While the State has provided the federal 

agencies with a legal opinion detailing the suitability of its backup authorities, it has not 

demonstrated (either in writing or through past practice) a commitment to exercise its backup 

authority to require implementation of the additional management measures for forestry roads, as 

needed, nor identified a prior instance when it may have exercised that authority. 

Additionally, the State has not described specifically how voluntary efforts have and will 

continue to address legacy road issues within the coastal nonpoint management area or how it 

will continue to monitor and track the implementation of those measures to address forestry road 

issues, including legacy roads. 

The suite of voluntary programs Oregon has described could satisfy the forestry roads element of 

this management measure. However, as discussed above, additional information is needed at this 

time. The federal agencies encourage the State to provide a commitment to use its backup 

authority to ensure implementation of forestry road additional management measures. The 

agencies also encourage the State to move forward with establishing a road survey or inventory 

program that considers both active, inactive, and legacy roads, including a mechanism for 

tracking and monitoring implementation of voluntary measures to carry out identified priority 

forest road improvements. To support an approvable coastal nonpoint program, the inventory 

could establish, among other things, a timeline for addressing priority road issues, including 

retiring or restoring forest roads that impair water quality, and a reporting and tracking 

component to assess progress for remediating identified forest road problems. Establishing a 

roads inventory with appropriate reporting metrics would provide valuable information on State 

and private landowner accomplishments to improve and repair roads and identify where further 

efforts are needed. Such an approach could help verify whether the combination of current rules 

and the Oregon Plan’s voluntary measures are effective in managing forest roads to protect 

streams within a reasonable timeframe. 

Protection of Landslide-Prone Areas: In the 1998 findings, the federal agencies identified areas 

where existing practices under the FPA and FPA rules should be strengthened to achieve and 

maintain water quality standards and protect designated uses; among them was the need to 

provide better protection of areas at high risk for landslides.

Oregon proposed to address the landslide element of the additional management measures for 

forestry condition through a mix of regulatory and voluntary approaches. Since January 13, 

1998, Oregon has amended the Oregon FPA rules to require the identification of landslide hazard 

areas in timber harvesting plans and road construction and placed certain restrictions on harvest 

and road activities within the designated high-risk areas for public safety (OAR 629-623-0000 

through 629-623-0800). Under these amendments, however, shallow, rapidly moving landslide 

hazards directly related to forest practices are addressed only as they relate to risks for loss of life 

and property, not for potential adverse impacts on water quality or designated uses. Timber 

harvest and the construction of forest roads, when alternatives are not available, continue without 

controls on high-risk landslide hazard areas as long as such harvest and road construction are not 

deemed a public safety risk. 
January 30, 2015 

12 

In addition to the regulatory programs, Oregon stated that it employs a voluntary measure under 

the Oregon Plan that gives landowners credit for leaving standing live trees along landslideprone areas as a source of large wood. The large wood, which may eventually be deposited into 

fish-bearing stream channels, contributes to stream complexity, a key limiting factor for coastal 

coho salmon recovery. While this is a good management practice, the measure is not designed to 

protect high-risk erosion areas but rather to ensure large wood is available to provide additional 

stream complexity when a landslide occurs. NOAA and EPA do not consider this voluntary 

action a sufficient management measure to reduce high-risk landslides that adversely affect water 

quality standards or designated uses. 

Also, Oregon’s voluntary program is incomplete. To rely on voluntary approaches to meet 

CZARA requirements, a state not only needs to describe the voluntary approach but also needs to 

describe how it will monitor and track implementation of that approach, provide a legal opinion 

asserting the state has adequate backup authority to ensure implementation of the management 

measure, and provide a commitment to use that backup authority, when needed. 

As noted in the January 13, 1998, findings, logging on unstable steep terrain can 

increase landslide rates, which contributes to water quality impairments. A number of studies 

continue to show significant increases in landslide rates after clearcuts compared to unmanaged 

forests in the Pacific Northwest. For example, one study found that in three out of four areas 

studied in very steep terrain, landslide densities and erosion volumes were greater in stands that 

were clearcut during the previous nine years.41 The study observed that landslide rates on 

Mettman Ridge, within the Oregon Coast Range, increased three to nine times the background 

rate after clearcut harvest. Another study performed a regional analysis from the Mettman Ridge 

study and found that forest clearing dramatically accelerates shallow landslides in steep terrain 

typical of the Pacific Northwest.42 In another study in southwestern Washington, landslide 

densities in recently harvested sites were roughly two to three times the landslide densities in old 

stands when exposed to rainfall intensities greater than the 100-year event.

43 That research found 

that very few landslides occurred when rainfall was less than or equal to a 100-year rainfall 

event. 

Other research has examined the role of root cohesion on landslide susceptibility in forested 

landscapes. “Root cohesion” is a measure of the lateral reinforcing strength the root system 

provides. The higher the root cohesion, the better the root system can stabilize the soil, reducing 

the risk of landslides.44 One study noted that median lateral root cohesion is less for industrial 

forests with significant understory and deciduous vegetation (6.8–23.2 kiloPascal (kPa), a unit of 

pressure) compared to natural forests dominated by conifers (25.6–94.3 kPa). Additionally, in 

                                                            

41 Robison et al., 1999. 

42 Montgomery, D. R., K. M. Schmidt, H. M. Greenberg, and W. E. Dietrich. 2000. Forest clearing and regional landsliding. Geology 28: 311-

314. 

43 Turner, T.R., S.D. Duke, B.R. Fransen, M.L. Reiter, A.J. Kroll, J.W. Ward, J.L. Bach, T.E. Justice, and R.E. Bilby. 2010. Landslide densities 

associated with rainfall, stand age, and topography on forested landscapes, southwestern Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and Management

259:2233–2247. 

44 Schmidt, K.M., J.J. Roering, J.D. Stock, W.E. Dietrich, D.R. Montgomery, and T. Schaub. 2001. The variability of root cohesion as an 

influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in the Oregon Coast Range. Canada Geotech. J 38; 997-1024. 
January 30, 2015 

13 

clearcut areas, the researchers found that lateral root cohesion is uniformly less than or equal to 

10 kPa, making those areas much more susceptible to landslides. 

Sakals and Sidle modeled the effect of different harvest methodologies on root cohesion over 

time.45 They found that, of the methodologies examined (i.e., clearcutting, single-tree selection 

cutting, and strip cutting), clearcuts produced the greatest decline in root cohesion. Further, they 

found that root cohesion may continue to decline for 30 years postharvest. That decline is 

attributed to the decay of the root systems of the harvested trees and the fact that young root 

systems have smaller root volumes and less radial rooting extent. They concluded that clearcuts 

on hazardous slopes could increase the number of landslides as well as the probability of larger 

landslides. They also stated that a management approach requiring the retention of conifers on 

high-risk slopes would increase root cohesion and reduce the risk of landslides. 

The peer-reviewed science demonstrates that timber harvesting in landslide-prone areas degrades 

water quality and impairs designated uses in Pacific Northwest streams by delivering excessive 

sediment load that can block fish passage and smother or scour spawning grounds. Whittaker and 

McShane explained: 

“In the Pacific Northwest, ... [l]andslides alter aquatic habitats by elevating sediment 

delivery, creating log jams, and causing debris flows that scour streams and stream 

valleys down to bedrock (Rood 1984; Cederholm and Reid 1987; Hogan et. al. 1998). 

The short-term and long-term impacts of higher rates of landslides on fish include habitat 

loss, reduced access to spawning and rearing sites, loss of food resources, and direct 

mortality (Cederholm and Lestelle 1974; Cederholm and Salo 1979; Reeves et. al. 1995). 

The restoration of geomorphic processes to natural disturbance regimes is crucial to the 

recovery of endangered salmonids (Oncorhynchus spp.) and other aquatic species in the 

Pacific Northwest as these species evolved under conditions with much lower sediment 

delivery and landslide frequency (Reeves et. al. 1995; Montgomery 2004).”46

In 2013, the Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research committee (CMER) of the 

Washington State Department of Natural Resources published a study that explored landslide 

response to a large 2007 storm in southwestern Washington.47 Within the 91-square-mile study 

area, a total of 1,147 landslides were found within harvest units that delivered sediment load to 

public resources (mostly streams). The majority (82 percent) occurred on hillslopes and the rest 

initiated from roads. In examining the landslides, the study found that unstable hillslopes logged 

with no buffer had a significantly higher (65 percent) landslide density than did mature stands. 

Unstable slopes logged with no buffer also delivered 347 percent more sediment than slopes with 

unlogged mature stands. The authors conclude that buffers on unstable slopes likely reduce 

landslide density and sediment volume. That conclusion has important implications for water 

                                                            

45 Sakals, M.E., and R.C. Sidle. 2004. A spatial and temporal model of root cohesion in forest soils. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 34(4): 

950-958.    46 Whittaker, K.A., and D. McShane. 2012. Comparison of slope instability screening tools following a large storm event and application to forest 

management policy. Geomorphology 145-146:115-122. 47 Stewart, G., J. Dieu, J. Phillips, M. O’Connor, and C. Veldhuisen. 2013. The Mass Wasting Effectiveness Monitoring Project: An examination 

of the landslide response to the December 2007 storm in Southwestern Washington. Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Report 

CMER 08- 802; Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 
January 30, 2015 

14 

quality and designated beneficial uses. Sediments delivered from landslides clog and damage 

fish gills, suffocate fish eggs, smother aquatic insect larvae, and fill in spaces in streambed gravel 

where fish lay eggs. Sediment can also carry other pollutants into water bodies, creating issues 

for domestic water supply and public water providers.48

Given the evidence that clear-cutting increases the rate of landslides and that landslides 

adversely affect water quality and designated beneficial uses, adoption and implementation of 

additional management measures applicable to forestry in landslide-prone areas is necessary to 

achieve and maintain water quality standards and protect designated uses. To develop the 

required additional management measures, the State could pursue several actions that would 

collectively address this issue, such as some of the following: 

 Adopt harvest and road construction restrictions that apply to all high-risk landslideprone areas with moderate-to-high potential to impact water quality and designated uses. 

 Develop a scientifically rigorous process for identifying high-risk areas and unstable 

slopes based on field review by trained staff. The process could include the use of slope 

instability screening tools to identify high-risk landslide areas that take into account sitespecific factors such as slope, geology and geography, and planned land management 

activities (e.g., roads development). 

 Develop more robust voluntary programs to encourage and incentivize the use of forestry 

best management practices to protect high-risk landslide areas that have the potential to 

impact water quality and designated uses, such as employing no-harvest restrictions 

around high-risk areas and ensuring that roads are designed, constructed, and maintained 

in a manner that minimizes the risk of triggering slope failures. Widely available maps of 

high-risk landslide areas could improve water quality by informing foresters during 

harvest planning.

 Institute a monitoring program to track compliance with the FPA rules and voluntary 

guidance for high-risk landslide-prone areas and the effectiveness of the practices in 

reducing slope failures. 

 Establish an ongoing monitoring program that assesses the underlying causes and water 

quality impacts of landslides shortly after they occur and generates specific 

recommendations for future management. Integrate into the Total Maximum Daily Load 

(TMDL) development process procedures to identify high-risk landslide-prone areas and 

specific best management practices to protect those areas. For example, in the Mid-Coast 

Basin, ODEQ is currently developing a sediment TMDL to address water quality limited 

                                                            

48 Whittaker and McShane, 2012; Cederholm et al., 1980; Jensen, D.W., E.A. Steel, A.H. Fullerton, and G.R. Pess. 2009. Impact of fine sediment 

on egg-to-fry survival of pacific salmon: A meta-analysis of published studies. Reviews in Fisheries Science 17(3):348-359; EPA. 2003. 

Developing Water Quality Criteria for Suspended and Bedded Sediments (SABS): Potential Approaches (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Bauer, S.B., and S.C. Ralph. 1999. Aquatic Habitat Indicators and their Application to Water Quality Objectives within the Clean Water 

Act, Section 3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. EPA 910-R-99-014; Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. No Date. 

Water Quality Standards: Turbidity. Available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/turbidity.htm. 
January 30, 2015 

15 

waters for bio-criteria, turbidity, and sediment. To support the development of the 

TMDL, the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources completed landslide 

inventory maps for two watersheds in the Mid-Coast Basin, finding hundreds of 

previously unidentified landslides.49 As part of the TMDL, ODEQ will complete a source 

assessment of the landslides in relationship to the water quality impairments. NOAA and 

EPA encourage the State to complete the TMDL and include specific practices that 

landowners are required to follow in order to reduce pollutants causing impairments 

addressed in the TMDL. 

If Oregon plans to rely on voluntary efforts, the State will need to (1) describe the full suite of 

voluntary practices it plans to use to address this management measure; (2) describe how it will 

ensure the use of these voluntary practices and track their implementation; and (3) provide a 

legal opinion that the State has backup authority to ensure implementation of the management 

measure and a commitment to use the backup authority, when needed. 

Ensure Adequate Stream Buffers for Application of Herbicides, Particularly on Non-fish-bearing 

(Type N) Streams: In the January 1998 findings, the federal agencies noted that Oregon had 

adopted forest practices rules that require aerial spray buffers for most pesticide applications 

(OAR 629-620-0400(7)(b)). The rule changes, however, did not include spray buffers for the 

aerial application of herbicides along non-fish-bearing streams commonly found in headwaters. 

NOAA and EPA determined that additional management measures to protect non-fish-bearing 

streams during the aerial application of herbicides on forestlands were necessary to achieve and 

maintain water quality standards and to protect designated uses.

Since 1998, Oregon has provided to the federal agencies several documents describing the 

programs it uses to manage pesticides, most recently in March 2014. In addition to the FPA rule 

buffers noted above, the State also addresses pesticide issues through the Chemical and Other 

Petroleum Product Rules (OAR 629-620-0000 through 800) Pesticide Control Law (ORS 634); 

and best management practices set by the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) and federal 

pesticide label requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA); as well as the State’s Water Quality Pesticide Management Plan50 and Pesticide 

Stewardship Partnership (PSP) program.51 In its March 2014 submittal, Oregon noted that it 

specifically relies on best management practices set by ODA and EPA under FIFRA for the 

protection of small non-fish-bearing streams. 

The aerial application of herbicides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, atrazine, and others is a common 

practice in the forestry industry in Oregon.52,53 Herbicides are sprayed to control weeds on 

recently harvested parcels to prevent competition with newly planted tree saplings. In 2008, 

                                                            

49 Burns, W. J., S. Duplantis, C. Jones, and J. English. 2012. LIDAR Data and Landslide Inventory Maps of the North Fork Siuslaw River and Big 

Elk Creek Watersheds, Lane, Lincoln and Benton Counties, Oregon. Open-File Report O-12-07, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral 

Industries. 

50 State of Oregon (ODA, ODEQ, ODF, and OHA). 2011. Pesticide Management Plan for Water Quality Protection. 51 ODEQ. 2012. Fact Sheet: Pesticide Stewardship Partnerships in Oregon. DEQ 12-WQ-021. Updated March 2012. 52 Wagner, R. G., M. Newton, E. C. Cole, J. H. Miller, and B. D. Shiver. 2009. The role of herbicides for enhancing forest productivity and 

conserving land for biodiversity in North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4):1028-1041. 53 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 19:207-296. 
January 30, 2015 

16 

more than 800,000 pounds of pesticides, the majority of which were herbicides (at least 700,000 

pounds) were used for forestry purposes in Oregon.54 Research has shown that herbicides may 

adversely impact water quality and designated uses to protect aquatic life.55 Herbicides applied 

through the air commonly reach nearby streams through aerial drift56 and runoff from the 

land.57,58 

Oregon does not require spray buffers for aerial application of herbicides on small non-fishbearing streams. Applicators can spray directly up to and over non-fish-bearing streams. In 

addition, there are no requirements for riparian harvest buffers along small non-fish-bearing 

streams. For example, in the Triangle Lake area in the Oregon coastal nonpoint management 

area, there are areas where aerial application of herbicides occurred in areas where timber was 

harvested to the stream edge.59 Riparian harvest buffers could serve as defacto spray buffers 

since they would prevent timber harvesting up to the stream and, therefore, would not require 

herbicide spraying over the nonharvested area to control weeds. Riparian buffers can also help 

filter any herbicide pollutants from runoff before it reaches the streams.60,61 

Given that non-fish-bearing streams comprise about 70 percent of the total stream length and 

feed fish-bearing streams, the wide use of herbicides by the forestry industry in coastal Oregon 

and the lack of any spray or riparian buffers that would help protect non-fish-bearing streams 

from adverse impacts due to the aerial application of herbicides threaten designated uses in 

Oregon coastal waters. Small, headwater non-fish-bearing streams play an important role in 

delivering cold, clean water to downstream fish-bearing streams.62 Therefore, it is reasonably 

foreseeable that Oregon coastal waters are threatened by herbicide pollutants and that additional 

management measures that will provide greater protection of non-fish-bearing streams during the 

aerial application of herbicides are warranted to achieve water quality standards and protect 

designated uses (CZARA sec. 6127(b)(1)(B), 16 U.S.C. 1455b). 

                                                            

54 Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2009. Pesticide Use Reporting System. 2008 Annual Report. Available online at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/PesticidesPARC/PesticideusereportingsystemAnnualreport2008.pdf 55 Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity and productivity of aquatic communities. Ecological 

Applications 15:618–627; Relyea, R., and J. Hoverman. 2006. Assessing the ecology in ecotoxicology: a review and synthesis in freshwater 

systems. Ecology Letters 9:1157–1171; Battaglin, W.A., K.C. Rice, M.J. Focazio, S. Salmons, and R.X. Barry. 2009. The occurrence of 

glyphosate, atrazine, and other pesticides in vernal pools and adjacent streams in Washington, DC, Maryland, Iowa, and Wyoming, 2005-2006. 

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 155(1-4): 281-307; Graymore, M., F. Stagnitti, and G. Allinson. 2001. Impacts of atrazine in aquatic 

ecosystems. Environment International 26(7-8):483-495. 56 Majewski, M.S., and P.D. Capel. 1996. Pesticides in the Atmosphere: Distribution, Trends, and Governing Factors. U.S. Geological Survey. 

Open File Report 94-506. National Water-Quality Assessment Program; Van Den Berg, F., R. Kubiak, W.G. Benjey, M.S. Majewski, S.R. Yates, 

G.L. Reeves, J.H. Smelt, and A.M.A. Van Der Linden. 1999. Emissions of Pesticides into the Air. Fate of Pesticides in the Atmosphere: 

Implications for Environmental Risk Assessment. pp. 195-218; Pimentel, D., and L. Levitan. 1986. Pesticides: amounts applied and amounts 

reaching pests. Bioscience 36(2). 57 Gilliom, R.J., J.E. Barbash, C.G. Crawford, P.A. Hamilton, J.D. Martin, N. Nakagaki, L.H. Nowell, J.C. Scott, P.E. Stackelberg, G.P. Thelin, 

and D.M. Wolock. 2006. The Quality in Our Nation’s Water: Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater, 1992-2001. Circular 1291. 58 Larson, S.J., P.D. Capel, and M. Majewski. 1995. Pesticides in Surface Waters: Distribution, Trends and Governing Factors. Volume 2 of 

Pesticides in the Hydrologic System Series. Ann Arbor Press, Inc., Chelsea, MI. 59 Leinenbach, P. 2015. Images of forest harvest areas where herbicides were applied using aerial broadcast application methods with 

helicopters in the Triangle Lake region of the central coast range of Oregon. Memorandum from P. Leinenbach to A. Henning. January 12, 2015. 60 Welsch, D.J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. USDA Forest Service. 

NA-PR-07-91. 

61 Kiffney. P.M., J.S. Richardson, and J.P. Bull. 2003. Responses of periphyton and insects to experimental manipulation of riparian buffer width 

along forest streams. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:1060-1076. 62 Gomi, T., R.C. Sidle, and J.S. Richardson. 2002. Understanding processes and downstream linkages of headwater systems. Bioscience 52(10). 
January 30, 2015 

17 

Other recent studies and reports also support NOAA and EPA’s determination that additional 

management measures for forestry are needed to address aerial herbicide application due to a 

reasonably foreseeable threat to coastal waters and designated uses. One of the common indirect 

adverse effects on water quality and designated uses, particularly cold-water fisheries uses, 

occurs because herbicides can reduce the growth and biomass of primary producers (i.e., algae 

and phytoplankton) that form the base of the aquatic food chain. A decrease in primary 

production (e.g., plants and algae) can have significant effects on consumers, such as salmonids 

and other animals that depend on the primary producers for food.63 The effects are often reported 

at herbicide concentrations well below levels that would have a direct effect on consumers. In 

addition, there are concerns about the increased toxicity of mixtures of herbicides and other 

pesticides to aquatic organisms.64 Although it is difficult to predict the magnitude and duration of 

these impacts on juvenile salmon because the extent of salmonid effects often depend on the 

interaction with many different parameters (e.g., availability of alternative food sources, water 

temperature, and other abiotic factors), NMFS has found that some herbicides used in aerial 

application present risks to salmonid populations protected by Oregon water quality standards 

and the habitat necessary for life stages protected by those standards.65

A few studies have indicated that aerial application might not result in herbicides exceeding toxic 

thresholds for humans or aquatic life in fish-bearing and drinking water streams,66 at the 

interface of fish- and non-fish-bearing streams,67 or at drinking water facilities in Oregon.68 None 

of the studies, however, were focused on impacts to non-fish-bearing streams and do not provide 

sufficient evidence, based on other information, that coastal waters and designated uses are not 

reasonably or foreseeably threatened by the aerial application of herbicides over non-fish-bearing 

streams. For example, an ODF study that looked at the effectiveness of FPA aerial spray buffers 

for herbicides and fungicides on fish-bearing streams stated that they could not draw any 

conclusions about the FPA’s effectiveness at protecting water quality for non-fish-bearing 

streams.69 A USGS study in the McKenzie River basin looked broadly at urban, forestry, and 

agriculture pesticide use and the impacts it had on drinking water.70 The study, which took place 

outside the coastal nonpoint management area, also notes that forestry sampling was inconsistent 

because of irregular and intermittent pesticide application patterns among tributaries and the 

difficulty of capturing runoff events in the spring after application. A National Council for Air 

and Stream Improvement (NCASI) study in the Needle Branch in the Oregon Coast Range 

looked at how herbicide levels in streams varied during storm events at three sample sites in 

                                                            

63 Marczak, L.B., T. Sakamaki, S. L. Turvey, I. Deguise, S. L. R. Wood, and J. S. Richardson. 2010. Are forested buffers an effective 

conservation strategy for riparian fauna? An assessment using meta-analysis. Ecological Applications 20:126–134. 64 Relyea, R.A. 2009. A Cocktail of Contaminants: How mixtures of pesticides at low concentrations affect aquatic communities. Oecologia

159(2):363-376; Gilliom et al., 2006; Carpenter, K.D., S. Sobeszczyk, A. Arnsberg, and F.A. Rinella. 2008. Pesticide Occurrence and 

Distribution in the Lower Clackamas River Basin, Oregon, 2000-2005. Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5027. 65 NMFS. 2011. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Environmental Protection 

Agency Registration of Pesticides 2,4-D, Triclopyr BEE, Diuron, Linuron, Captan, and Chlorothalonil. NOAA National Marine Fisheries 

Service, June 30, 2011.

66 Dent, L., and J. Robben. 2000. Oregon Department of Forestry: Aerial Pesticide Application Monitoring Final Report. Oregon Department of 

Forestry, Pesticides Monitoring Program. Technical Report 7. 

67 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 2013. Measurement of Glyphosate, Imazapyr, Sulfometuron methyl, and Metsulfuron 

methyl in Needle Branch Streamwater. Special Report No. 130-1. 68 Kelly, V.J., C.W. Anderson, and K. Morgenstern. 2012. USGS and Eugene Water and Electric Board. Reconnaissance of Land-Use Sources of 

Pesticides in Drinking Water, McKenzie River Basin, Oregon. Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5091. 69 Dent and Robben, 2000. 

70 Kelly et al., 2012. 
January 30, 2015 

18 

harvest units downstream of non-fish-bearing areas where herbicides were applied aerially with 

no buffers.71 The sample sites themselves were collected in fish-bearing streams with 50-foot 

riparian buffers. The study noted clear pulses of herbicides at each storm event with declining 

levels downstream and over several storms. 

Oregon relies on the national best management practices established through the federal FIFRA 

pesticide labels to protect non-fish-bearing streams. Currently, EPA, NMFS, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Agriculture are working to improve the national risk 

assessment process to include all ESA-listed species when registering all pesticides, including 

herbicides. Given the scale of this undertaking, the federal agencies are employing a phased, 

iterative approach during ongoing registration reviews. These ongoing federal processes, 

however, should not preclude Oregon from pursuing state-level improvements to manage 

herbicides in the context of its unique forestry landscape and sensitive species. 

Oregon and other Pacific Northwest states have determined the importance of state action 

beyond the national FIFRA label requirements to protect water quality and designated uses, 

including salmon, in their respective states.72 Oregon has 60-foot spray buffers for nonbiological 

insecticides and fungicides on non-fish-bearing streams (OAR 629-620-400(7)) and 60-foot 

spray buffers for herbicides on wetlands, and fish-bearing and drinking water streams (OAR 629-

620-400(4)). Other Pacific Northwest states have established more stringent forestry spray buffer 

requirements for herbicides along non-fish-bearing streams. For example, for smaller non-fishbearing streams, Washington maintains a 50-foot riparian and spray buffer (WAC-222-38-040). 

Idaho has riparian and spray buffers for non-fish-bearing streams of 100 feet (IAR 20-02-01). 

California sets riparian buffers for non-fish-bearing streams after consulting with the local 

forester, which implicitly restricts the aerial application of herbicides near the stream (14 CCR 

4). 

Though Oregon has neither spray nor riparian harvest buffers for herbicides that are aerially 

applied on small non-fish-bearing streams, the ODA Pesticide Division requires applicators to 

attend training and obtain licenses prior to spraying pesticides. ODF requires pesticide 

applicators to complete a Notification of Operation at least 15 days before applying on 

forestlands73 and to maintain a daily chemical application form.74 On the Notification of 

Operation form, the applicators must list which pesticides might be applied, the stream segments 

on which the pesticides might be applied, and when application might occur within a 2–3 month 

period. The notification form does not, however, specify when application will occur within a 1–

2 week period or postapplication, the pesticides that were applied and how much. The form 

reminds the applicator of the required spray buffers for fish-bearing and drinking water streams, 

but does not specify protections for non-fish-bearing streams or voluntary best practices included 

in the OAR Guidance Manual for Chemicals and Other Petroleum Products (Division 620) that 

                                                            

71 National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, 2013. 72 Peterson, E. 2011. Comparative Characterization of Pacific Northwest Forestry Requirements for Aerial Application of Pesticides. 

Memorandum to Scott Downey, EPA and David Powers, EPA. August 30, 2011. 

73 Oregon Department of Forestry. 2015. Forest Activity Electronic Reporting and Notification System (FERNS). Available at: 

https://ferns.odf.state.or.us/E-Notification 74 Oregon Department of Forestry. 2013. Daily Chemical Application Record Form. Revised September 2013. Available at: 

http://www.oregon.gov/odf/privateforests/docs/ChemicalApplicationForm_Final.pdf. 
January 30, 2015 

19 

should be followed other than a general sentence that applicators should comply with rules under 

the Forest Practices Rule and label instructions. 

Oregon’s broader strategy for cross-program coordination on pesticides includes its Water 

Quality Pesticide Management Plan, Pesticide Stewardship Program, and Pesticide Analytical 

and Response Center (PARC). The Water Quality Pesticide Management Plan guides statewide 

actions to protect waters from pesticide contamination using water quality to drive adaptive 

management. Oregon’s PSP is an ODEQ initiative that works with State and local partners to 

collect and analyze water samples in areas with the greatest potential for impacts to aquatic life 

and human health. PARC is a multistate agency group that coordinates investigations to collect 

and analyze information about reported incidents. 

NOAA and EPA acknowledge the progress Oregon has made in establishing a multiagency 

management team and programs to assess and manage pesticide water quality issues. As these 

efforts apply to the aerial application of herbicides in the coastal nonpoint management area, 

however, the federal agencies note that water quality monitoring data on pesticides is still limited 

in the State and that, while Oregon has established ten PSP monitoring areas in nine watersheds, 

the State only launched two pilots within the coastal nonpoint management area very recently. 

While NOAA and EPA recognize that the PSP program targets the most problematic or 

potentially problematic watersheds and that Oregon received recent funding to expand into two 

new watersheds, the agencies believe that if monitoring data are to drive adaptive management, 

the State should develop and maintain more robust and targeted studies of the effectiveness of its 

pesticide monitoring and best management practices within the coastal nonpoint management 

area. The federal agencies encourage the State to design its monitoring program in consultation 

with EPA and NMFS. 

NOAA and EPA believe that Oregon could develop additional management measures for 

forestry that will protect non-fish-bearing streams during the aerial application of herbicides to 

achieve and maintain water quality standards and protect designated uses through a variety of 

mechanisms. Some potential approaches could include one or more of the following actions: 

 Adopt rules that would require spray buffers for the aerial application of herbicides along 

non-fish-bearing streams. Oregon may wish to look at spray buffer requirements that 

neighboring states have established for ideas; 

 Adopt riparian buffer protections for timber harvest along non-fish-bearing streams that, by 

default, would also provide a buffer during aerial spraying; 

 Expand existing guidelines for voluntary buffers for the aerial application of herbicides on 

non-fish-bearing streams; 

 Educate and train aerial applicators of herbicides on the new guidance; 

 Revise the ODF Notification of Operation form required prior to chemical applications on 

forestlands to include a check box for aerial applicators to indicate that they must adhere to 

FIFRA labels for all stream types, including non-fish-bearing streams; 

 Track and evaluate the implementation of voluntary measures for the aerial application of 

herbicides along non-fish-bearing streams to assess the effectiveness of these practices and, if 

adjustments are needed, to achieve water quality standards and protect designated uses; 
January 30, 2015 

20 

 Provide detailed maps of non-fish-bearing streams and other sensitive sites and structures to 

increase awareness of the areas that need protection among the aerial applicator community; 

and 

 Encourage the use of global positioning system (GPS) technology, linked to maps of nonfish-bearing streams, to automatically shut off nozzles before crossing non-fish-bearing 

streams. 

If Oregon chooses a voluntary approach, the State must also meet the other CZARA 

requirements for using voluntary, incentive-based programs as part of the State’s coastal 

nonpoint program. This includes a description of the methods the State will use to track and 

evaluate the voluntary programs, a legal opinion stating it has the necessary backup authority to 

require implementation of the voluntary measures, a description of the process that links the 

implementing agency with the enforcement agency, and a commitment to use the existing 

enforcement authorities, where necessary. 

II. CONDITIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER A BASIS FOR THIS DECISION 

A. URBAN AREAS MANAGEMENT MEASURES—NEW DEVELOPMENT 

PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT MEASURE: The purpose of this management measure is 4-

fold: (1) decrease the erosive potential of increased volumes and velocities of stormwater 

associated with development-induced changes in hydrology; (2) remove suspended solids and 

associated pollutants entrained in runoff that result from activities occurring during and after 

development; (3) retain hydrological conditions that closely resemble those of the predisturbance 

condition; and (4) preserve natural systems, including in-stream habitat. 

CONDITION FROM JANUARY 1998 FINDINGS: Within 2 years, Oregon will include in its 

program: (1) management measures in conformity with the 6217(g) guidance; and (2) 

enforceable policies and mechanisms to ensure implementation throughout the coastal nonpoint 

management area (1998 Findings, section IV.A). 

FINDING: Based on information provided in Oregon’s March 2014 submission, NOAA and 

EPA now believe the State has satisfied this condition. The new development management 

measure is no longer a basis for finding that Oregon has failed to submit an approvable program 

under CZARA. 

RATIONALE NOT INCLUDED: NOAA and EPA will provide a rationale for public 

comment if/when the federal agencies are in a position to propose full approval of Oregon’s 

coastal nonpoint pollution control program at a later point in time.

B. OPERATING ONSITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS 
January 30, 2015 

21 

PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT MEASURE: The purpose of this management measure is to 

minimize pollutant loadings from operating OSDS.

CONDITION FROM JANUARY 1998 FINDINGS: Within 2 years, Oregon will finalize its 

proposal to inspect operating OSDS, as proposed on page 143 of its program submittal (1998 

Findings, section IV.C). 

FINDING: Based on information provided in Oregon’s March 2014 submission, NOAA and 

EPA now believe the State has satisfied this condition. The OSDS management measure is no 

longer a basis for finding that Oregon has failed to submit an approvable program under 

CZARA. 

RATIONALE NOT INCLUDED: NOAA and EPA will provide a rationale for public 

comment if/when the federal agencies are in a position to propose full approval of Oregon’s 

coastal nonpoint pollution control program at a later point in time.

III. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 

A. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT MEASURES—EROSION AND SEDIMENT 

CONTROL, NUTRIENT, PESTICIDE, GRAZING, AND IRRIGATION WATER 

MANAGEMENT 

As noted in the Foreword, the federal agencies invited public comment on the adequacy of the 

State’s programs and policies for meeting the 6217(g) agriculture management measures and 

conditions placed on Oregon’s Coastal Nonpoint Program. 

PURPOSE OF MANAGEMENT MEASURES: The purposes of these management measures 

are to (1) reduce the mass load of sediment reaching a water body and improve water quality and 

the use of the water resource; (2) minimize edge-of-field delivery of nutrients and minimize 

leaching of nutrients from the root zone; (3) reduce contamination of surface water and ground 

water from pesticides; (4) reduce the physical disturbance to sensitive areas and reduce the 

discharge of sediment, animal waste, nutrients, and chemicals to surface waters; and (5) reduce 

nonpoint source pollution of surface waters caused by irrigation. 

CONDITIONS FROM JANUARY 1998 FINDINGS: Within 1 year, Oregon will (1) 

designate agricultural water quality management areas (AWQMAs) that encompass agricultural 

lands within the coastal nonpoint management area, and (2) complete the wording of the 

alternative management measure for grazing, consistent with the 6217(g) guidance. Agricultural 

water quality management area plans will include management measures in conformity with the 

6217(g) guidance, including written plans and equipment calibration as required practices for the 

nutrient management measure, and a process for identifying practices that will be used to achieve 

the pesticide management measure. The State will develop a process to incorporate the irrigation 

water management measure into the overall AWQMA plans. 

Within 5 years, AWQMAPs will be in place (1998 Findings, section II.B). 
January 30, 2015 

22 

DISCUSSION: In 2004, the federal agencies provided Oregon with an informal interim 

approval of its agriculture conditions, believing that the State had satisfied those conditions, 

largely though its Agriculture Water Quality Management Act (ORS 568.900-933, also known as 

SB 1010) and nutrient management plans (ORS-468B, OAR-603-074). At that time, the federal 

agencies found that those programs demonstrated that the State had processes in place to 

implement the 6217(g) management measures for agriculture as CZARA requires. 

Although the federal agencies initially found that those programs enabled the State to satisfy the 

agriculture condition, prior to announcing the proposed decision, some specific concerns with the 

State’s agriculture program were brought to the federal agencies’ attention, such as: 

 Enforcement is limited and largely complaint-driven; it is unclear what enforcement 

actions have been taken in the coastal nonpoint management area and what 

improvements resulted from those actions.

 The AWQMA plan rules are general and do not include specific requirements for 

implementing the plan recommendations (e.g., specific buffer requirements to 

adequately protect water quality and fish habitat).

 AWQMA planning has focused primarily on impaired areas when the focus should be 

on both protection and restoration.

 The State does not administer a formalized process to track implementation and 

effectiveness of AWQMA plans.

 AWQMA planning and enforcement does not address “legacy” issues created by 

agriculture activities that are no longer occurring.

Given these concerns, NOAA and EPA chose to solicit additional public comment on whether 

the State had satisfied the 6217(g) agriculture management measure requirements and the 

conditions related to agriculture placed on its program. The federal agencies appreciate the 

comments provided and are considering them closely. NOAA and EPA will work with the State, 

as necessary, to ensure it has programs and policies in place to satisfy all CZARA 6217(g) 

requirements for agriculture before proposing and making a final decision that the State has a 

fully approved coastal nonpoint program. For a summary of the comments received related to 

agriculture, see http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/. 

IV. LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Acronym or Abbreviation Definition 

AWQMA Agricultural water quality management area 

AWQMAP Agricultural water quality management area plan 

BiOp Biological opinion 
January 30, 2015 

23 

Acronym or Abbreviation Definition 

Board Board of Forestry 

CMER Cooperative Monitoring Evaluation and Research

Coastal Nonpoint Program Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program 

CSRI Coastal Salmon Restoration Initiative 

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 

DBH Diameter at breast height 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EQC Environmental Quality Commission 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

Federal agencies National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act 

FPA Forest Practices Act 

GIS Geographic information system 

GPS Global Positioning System 

ICS Interagency Coordinating Subgroup 

IMST Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team 

kPa kiloPascal 

NCASI National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

OAR Oregon Administrative Rules 

ODA Oregon Department of Agriculture 

ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

ODF Oregon Department of Forestry 
January 30, 2015 

24 

Acronym or Abbreviation Definition 

OPSW Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

Oregon Plan Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds 

OSDS Onsite sewage disposal systems 

PARC Pesticide Analytical and Response Center 

PCW Protection of Cold Water 

PSP Pesticide Stewardship Partnership 

RipStream Riparian and Stream Temperature Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program 

State State of Oregon 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

U.S. United States 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey