U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12866 

Title of Action: 

Docket#: FRL#: RIN:

This action was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order (E.O.) 

12866, titled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Whenever EPA makes publicly available 

a regulatory action that was reviewed under E.O. 12866, section 6(a)(3)(E) of the E.O. directs the Agency to also: 

(1) Make available to the public a copy of the information that was provided to OMB’s Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for review under the E.O., i.e., the text of the draft regulatory action and, if applicable, 

an assessment of the potential costs and benefits, as well as additional information for those actions that are 

determined to be economically significant under the E.O. (Information requirements are described in sections 

6(a)(3)(B) and (C)). 

(2) Identify for the public any substantive changes between the draft submitted to OIRA and the action that was 

subsequently issued, using a method that is complete, clear, and simple. 

(3) Identify for the public those substantive changes made at the suggestion or recommendation of OIRA.

For this regulatory action, were substantive changes made to information reviewed under E.O. 

12866? [Please check the appropriate answer.]

No. [In the docket, include the information identified in item (1) below.]

Yes. [In the docket, include the information identified in items (1) – (3) below.]

Accordingly, the Agency has included this form and the following information in the public 

docket for this regulatory action: [Please check the appropriate information.]

(1) A copy of the information that was provided to OIRA for review under the E.O. 

(2) Documentation of any substantive changes made to the draft regulatory text that was 

submitted to OIRA when compared with what was subsequently made publicly available.

The documentation is provided on the pages following this form. Changes made at the 

suggestion or recommendation of OIRA, if any, are clearly identified through attribution to 

OIRA. EPA has used one or more of the following methods to note changes: [Select the 

appropriate option(s).]

(a) Redline-Strikeout – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using redlinestrikeout to show the substantive changes that were made.

(b) Hand Markup – A copy of the draft regulatory action submitted, using handwritten notes 

to show the substantive changes that were made.

(c) Note to the file - A document that identifies the substantive changes that were made, 

with page and paragraph references to the draft regulatory action that was submitted.

If you have any questions about this regulatory action or this documentation, please call the 

contact:

Name: Email: Phone: 

Revised 05/05/2010 

Notice of Intent to Revise Stormwater Regulations to Specify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads and to Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing Water

Quality Impacts from Forest Road Discharges

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195 9671-5 2040-ZA19

Jeremy Bauer bauer.jeremy@epa.gov 202-564-2775
1 of 51 

6560-50 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

[FRL-XXXX-X9671-5; EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195] 

Notice of Intent to AddressRevise Stormwater Regulations to Specify that an NPDES Permit is 

not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads, Including Logging Roads, using a 

Non-Permitting Approach under the Clean and to Seek Comment on Approaches for Addressing

Water ActQuality Impacts from Forest Road Discharges

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Address Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads, Including 

Logging Roads, using a Non-Permitting Approach under the Clean Water Act

SUMMARY: The EPA intends to expeditiously propose revisions to its Phase I stormwater 

regulations (40 CFR 122.26) to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads1 are not 

included in the definition of “storm water discharge stormwater discharges “associated with 

industrial activity.” At the same time, the Agency intends to propose designating stormwater 

discharges from forest roads,This notice is in response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

which includefound in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown that certain logging 

                                                           

1 EPA notes that the 9th Circuit decision in NEDC v Brown addressed only certain logging roads, not forest

roads more generally.  EPA interprets the decision as not affecting the status of silvicutural activities other

than logging roads.  EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.26(b)(14) and 122.27 exclude most silviculture

activities from the requirement to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit, with certain exceptions.  

Formatted: Line spacing: Double
2 of 51 

roads, for regulation under a flexible, non-permitting approach authorized in section 402(p)(6) of 

the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). The flexible approaches authorized under section 

402(p) are well-suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. 

are stormwater point sources “associated with industrial activity.” Additionally, EPA is seeking

comment on approaches for addressing water quality impacts associated with discharges of 

stormwater from forest roads. Where appropriate best management practices (BMPs) are used, 

receiving waters can be protected and impacts can be minimized. If not properly managed, 

however, stormwater discharges from vast networks ofsome forest roads can cause preventable 

impairments to water quality. Many flexible approaches are available to address discharges from 

forest roads and to minimize pollutant loading to surface waters, as demonstrated by a review of 

successful BMP programs that already exist in parts of the country. In this notice, the EPA is 

also requesting comment on approaches EPA believes that the Agency is considering for 

regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads. Under these approaches, the EPA would 

develop a process for evaluating which discharges from forest roads should be covered by 

regulation, evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act because the section allows 

for a broad range of flexible approaches that are well-suited to address the complexity of forest

road ownership, management, and use. Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act allows EPA to 

consider a range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and the Agency would take

comments on this process. The EPA is also seeking input on examples of successful BMPbaseddetermine which forest road discharges (if any) should be regulated under 402(p)(6). The 

EPA intends to study the water quality impacts of forest roads and existing federal, state, tribal, 

and voluntary certification-oriented programs. When the EPA proposes new regulations, the
3 of 51 

designed to address them to determine if additional Agency action is necessary. The EPA will 

seek commentinput again prior to taking finaladditional action. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [ENTER DATE 9030 DAYS FOLLOWING 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-HQ-OW-2012-

0195, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments. 

• Mail: Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 4101T2822T, 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW2012-0195. 

• Hand Delivery / Courier: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B1023334, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during 

the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195. The EPA's 

policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and 

may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25"
4 of 51 

“anonymous access” system, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 

directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will 

be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket 

and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with 

any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and 

be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit 

the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, 

EPA Docket Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426. 

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.25"
5 of 51 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this notice, you 

may contact Jeremy Bauer, EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Wastewater 

Management via email at bauer.jeremy@epa.gov or telephone at 202-564-2775. 

SUPPLMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Applicability 

This notice does not impose requirements on any entity. If you have questions regarding the 

applicability of this notice, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Copies of this Document and other Information 

This document is available for download at 

http://cfpubwww.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/forestroads.cfm or under docket EPA-HQ-OW2012-0195. 

II. Background 

A. Purpose 

This notice describes the administrative steps the Agency intends to take to address the 

unpermitted stormwater discharges identified under Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) and related discharges subject to the partial remand under 

Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d. 832, 863 (9th Cir. 2003). Specifically, the 

Agency is announcing its plan to propose revisions to its Phase I stormwater regulations (40 CFR 

122.26) to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not included in the 

definition of “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity.” At the same time, the 

Field Code Changed

Formatted: Superscript
6 of 51 

Agency intends to propose designating stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation 

under a flexible, non-permitting approach authorized in section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water 

Act. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). The EPA is publishing this notice to request comment on potential 

non-permitting approaches that the Agency is considering for regulating stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. As indicated earlier in this notice, when the EPA proposes any new regulation, 

the Agency will seek comment again prior to taking final actionThe effect of this revision would 

be to remove any obligation for an owner or operator of a logging road that has discharges of 

stormwater to waters of the United States to seek coverage of the discharge under the 

Stormwater Multisector General Permit and to comply with that General Permit or to have an 

individual permit under section 402 of the Clean Water Act for such a discharge. EPA is aware 

that a Congressional moratorium on NPDES permitting of some logging roads is set to expire on 

September 30, 2012, and intends to move expeditiously to complete this revision. 

At the same time, the Agency intends to evaluate stormwater discharges from forest roads to 

determine what additional measures, if any, are necessary to address such discharges. The EPA 

is publishing this notice to request comment on some potential approaches that the Agency

should consider for addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads. As indicated earlier in 

this notice, the Agency will seek input again prior to taking additional action.

B. Overview of forests and forest roads

A vast and diverse network of forest roads provides access into and through the nation’s 

forested lands. These roads traverse federal public land, state and local public land, county land, 

tribal land, private land, and they can span any combinations of these. The network includes 

active and inactive roads that vary in age and condition. Some roads on public lands are 

unauthorized and may not be included in existing inventories. Forest roads provide important 
7 of 51 

access for a wide range of activities, including timber operations, recreation, fire protection, 

transportation, and often serve multiple purposes by multiple users at the same time. 

There are about 751 million acres of forested land in the United States. Private forests make 

up over half (56 percent) or approximately 423 million acres (USDA Forest Service 2008), and 

account for over 90 percent of all timber harvested in the United States in recent years (Adams et 

al., 2006). Of the private forest land, 62 percent is owned by families and individuals and is 

commonly referred to as “family forests.” Most of the family forest owners (around 61 percent) 

own fewer than 10 acres of forest land. Owners of the remaining private forest land include 

corporations, Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), conservation organizations, clubs, and 

Native American tribes (USDA Forest Service 2008). Over 300 Native American reservations 

are significantly forested, and Native American tribal lands include 17.9 million acres of forest 

land, including 7.7 million acres of productive timberland (ITC 2007). Private forest land owners 

invest considerable resources in forest road construction and maintenance, as they are critical 

assets that enhance property values, maintain economic viability, and facilitate sustainable 

forestry management. 

Forty-four percent of forest land is publicly-owned, or approximately 328 million acres. The 

Federal government administers an estimated 76 percent of the public forest land. State forestry, 

park, and wildlife agencies account for most of the 21 percent of state-owned public forest land. 

The remaining 3 percent of public forest land is owned by local governments, such as counties 

and towns (USDA Forest Service 2008). Within the United States, the distribution of public 

versus private forests differs greatly among the various regions of the country. For example, 

forest-ownership in the Northwest is dominated by public (primarily the USFS and BLM) 

ownership, while private ownership is more prevalent in the Southeast and Northeast (Ibid.). 
8 of 51 

While some forest road inventory information on federal lands is available, meaningful 

interpretation and comparison of that information requires an understanding of differences in 

inventory methods used (e.g., minimum road length included in road length counts), differences 

in the classes of forest roads (e.g., road surfacing, sediment production and delivery, and 

hydrologic connectivity), and differences in road densities. Nevertheless, the networks of forest 

roads on federal land are vast by any measure, with total lengths on the order of tens of 

thousands to hundreds of thousands of miles. The networks in other publicly-owned forests, 

tribal forests, and private forests have not been fully catalogued, and the density and condition of 

forest roads on these lands, as with the federal lands, varies widely. 

Forest road networks differ greatly in development through time and layout over terrain, and 

they carry this history into their present performance and environmental impacts (Gucinski et al, 

2001). In many parts of the 193 million acres of the National Forest System (NFS), the major 

roads were built in the 1950s and 1960s, with secondary and tertiary feeder roads following as 

the road networks expanded into watersheds. In other areas, logging roads developed from 

previous road systems used for mining in the Rocky Mountain and southwestern states or 

agriculture in the southern Appalachians, Ozarks, and New England. Thus, changes in forest 

road standards through time (for example, width, construction methods, position in the 

landscape) have affected different parts of road networks. Consequently, each forest road 

network commonly contains a collection of older and newer roads, designed to different 

standards, for various purposes, and crossing terrain of differing sensitivities. This mosaic of 

road segments has implications for how the forest road network will interact with the forest 

watershed, streams, and other downstream aquatic resources (Gucinski et al., 2001).), as well as 

for what is practicable, or even feasible, to address stormwater discharges from these roads.
9 of 51 

Regional differences are also evident in where the forest roads were located. For example, in 

southeastern Alaska, main roads were built on the broad, valley floors, where timber growing on 

the lower hillslopes was yarded downhill to them. In California, west of the Sierra Nevada, major 

roads were built along broad ridges, with secondary roads leading down into headwater areas. 

The main roads into western Oregon forests entered watersheds along narrow stream bottoms 

and then climbed the adjacent steep, unstable hill slopes to access timber extending from ridge to 

valley floor (Gucinski et al., 2001) 

Federal forest roads on both BLM and Forest Service lands generally support traffic from 

multiple uses such as recreational, administrative, fire protection, and mineral and silvicultural 

activities. Of those, only a portion may be used for accessing timber resources. The federal land 

management agencies may grant easements, reservations, and permits for the purpose of 

construction, operation, and maintenance or use of roads crossing their lands. 

The majority of BLM industrial logging operations occur on Oregon and California (O&C) 

lands2

 which have approximately 14,455 miles of road. BLM O&C lands are interspersed in a 

checkerboard pattern with many landowners. The roads often cross multiple jurisdictions, 

including tribal, state, county and private land as well as BLM lands. As a result, a complex 

system of road right-of-way agreements exists on the BLM O&C lands, as discussed later in this 

notice. 

The paragraphs above discuss the range of property types into which forest roads provide 

access. The same road may pass through multiple owners and multiple properties. Moreover, the 

ownership of the road does not necessarily correspond to the ownership of the forest land. For 

                                                           

2

 Oregon and California (O&C) Lands Act of 1937. 43 U.S.C. §1181a. The O&C Lands Act placed 

management jurisdiction of the lands under the United States Department of the Interior. 
10 of 51 

example, a BLM owned road may pass through private property, and a privately owned road 

may pass through BLM property. 

In general, only a subset of forest roads are active or open in any given year or at any given 

time of year. When active or open, forest roads may be serving multiple purposes by a number of 

different users. For example, those roads that are open and used for logging may cross multiple 

ownerships with overlapping responsibilities for the road and be used by multiple logging 

operators during the same time frame. This creates a highly complex mosaic of overlapping 

responsibilities. The EPA does not have information on all forest roads but notes that usage for 

some roads, including forest roads on private property, may only occur during harvesting once 

every 20 years or so. 

Some forest roads are inactive and have been closed and “storm-proofed” (i.e., they have 

appropriate BMPs for road drainage and erosion control and for reducing the vulnerability of the 

roads to natural disasters). Others may have been closed or abandoned. Among both active and 

inactive forest roads are older forest roads that were built or located without the benefit of newer 

standards. 

TheThe wide range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches authorized under section 

402(p)(6) of the CWA are well-suited to address stormwater discharges originating from the 

complex and diverse forest road universe because such approaches provide for flexibility and 

prioritization and mayallow EPA to focus on the subset of forest roads with stormwater 

discharges that cause or contribute to water quality impacts and allow for prioritization among 

those discharges. Under 402(p) EPA could build on or defer to other federal, state, tribal, local, 

and voluntary programs. 

C. Overview of Water Quality Impacts from Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads 
11 of 51 

The goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 

biological integrity of the nation’s waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). High quality water supplies from 

forests are widely recognized as valuable resources. Forests cover about one-third of the 

continental United States. Most major rivers and streams originate in forested catchments 

(NCASI, 1994), and 80 percent of the nation’s freshwater sources originates in these forests 

(USFS 2000). In 2000, the US Forest Service (USFS) calculated the marginal value of water 

from all National Forest System (NFS) lands to be at least $3.7 billion per year (Ibid.). Between 

50 and 75 percent of the population of the United States relies on forest lands for good quality 

water (Neary et al. 2009), and approximately 60 million people rely on NFS lands as the primary 

source of their drinking water (Dissmeyer 2000). 

Stormwater runoffdischarges from logging roads, especially improperly constructed or 

maintained forest roads, may introduce significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants into 

surface waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts. Results of nationwide 

waterbody assessments from the EPA’s Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) 

Tracking and Implementation System (ATTAINS), which contains the most currentcurrently

available data reported by states to the EPA under Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the CWA, 

found silviculture (forestry) and related activities, including forest and logging roads, to 

be among the top twelve probable sources of impairment for rivers, streams, and coastal 

shorelines (USEPA 2012). 

The ATTAINS database indicates that silviculture sources contributed to impairment of 

19,444 miles of rivers and streams (3.8 percent of the total of 514,795 miles impaired) and 

242,583 acres of lakes, reservoirs and ponds (1.9 percent of the total of 13,038,033 acres of 

impaired). States cited “Logging roads (construction and use)” as the “specific source” of 
12 of 51 

impairment in the case of 1,334 miles of rivers and streams (.003 percent of total impaired) and 

6,150 acres of lakes, reservoirs and ponds (.0005 percent of total impaired). 

The contribution of silviculture to water quality impairments can vary by region, and the full

extent of the contribution of discharges from forest roads to water quality impairments mayin the 

ATTAINS database may not be underrepresented in the ATTAINS databaserepresentative due to 

reporting differences among states. Some states may have categorized the source of 

impairment as "hydromodifcation" or "habitat alteration"; many states consistently report in the 

"unknown" source category for impairments – the third leading probable source category of 

impairment nationwide. Additionally, much of the nation's waters still remain unassessed (72 

percent of rivers and streams; 54 percent of lakes, reservoirs, and ponds; 62 percent of bays and 

estuaries; and 96 percent of coastal shorelines). The EPA considered the differential contribution 

from forest road stormwater discharges on water quality as the Agency developed the potential 

approaches for addressing them.these sources. For example, the EPA recognizes that not all 

forest roads cause water quality impacts and that within a basin the majority of the water quality 

impacts caused by discharges from forest roads may be attributed to a relatively small subset of 

forest roads (Luce 2001; Luce and Black, 1999). The discussion on water quality impacts in this 

notice focusesand often a small portion of those roads (Nelson et al., 2010; Fly et al., 2010; Luce 

and Black, 2001; Luce and Black, 1999). Thus, any approach to address stormwater discharges 

from forest roads would likely focus on the subset of forest roads that were not properly 

constructed or are not properly maintained. 

ImproperlyStormwater discharges from improperly constructed or maintained forest roads 

can lead to excess sedimentation in nearby waters and subsequently lead to physical, biological 

and ecological impacts to water quality. These forest roads can degrade aquatic ecosystems by 
13 of 51 

increasing levels of fine sediment input to streams and by altering natural streamflow patterns. 

Forest road runoff from improperly designed or maintained forest roads can detrimentally affect 

stream health and aquatic habitat by increasing sediment delivery and stream turbidity. This can 

adversely affect the survival of dozens of sensitive aquatic biota (salmon, trout, other native 

fishes, amphibians and macroinvertebrates) where these species are located. Increased fine 

sediment deposition in streams and altered streamflows and channel morphology can result in 

increased adult and juvenile salmonid mortality where present (e.g., in the Northwest and parts 

of the East), a decrease in aquatic amphibian and invertebrate abundance or diversity, and 

decreased habitat complexity. 

The physical impacts of forest roads on streams, rivers, downstream water bodies and 

watershed integrity have been well documented but vary depending on site-specific factors. 

Improperly designed or maintained forest roads can affect watershed integrity through three 

primary mechanisms: they can intercept, concentrate, and divert water (Williams, 1999). Forest 

roads can intercept water falling as rainfall directly on road surfaces and cutbanks as well as 

subsurface water moving underground down the hillslope. They can concentrate flow on the road 

surface and in adjacent ditches and channels. Forest roads, if not properly designed, can divert 

both surface and subsurface water from flow paths that otherwise would be taken in the absence 

of a road. The hydrologic and geomorphic consequences resulting from these three processes 

will vary based on the forest road and underlying material. In some cases, impacts may be 

negligible, while they may be significant in others. As discussed in the following sections, 

potentialPotential effects of forest roads that were not properly constructed or are not properly 

maintained on water quality can include increased loading of sediment due to erosion and mass 

wasting, increased suspended solids and turbidity, increased sediment deposition and bed load, 
14 of 51 

alteration of stream morphology and channel simplification, altered streamflow, pollution from 

other chemicals associated with forest roads, increased turbidity and sedimentation in water 

treatment and supply systems, siltation of streambed substrates, impairments of spawning and 

rearing habitat, and degradation of habitat for salmonids, other fish, invertebrates, and other 

aquatic organisms. 

1. Increased Loading of Fine and/or Coarse-Grained Sediment Due to Erosion and Mass Wasting

Forest roads that were not properly constructed or are not properly maintained can be a major 

source of sediment to streams (Eaglin and Hubert, 1993; Furniss et al., 1991), and their

construction, in particular, may contribute more sediment to streams than any other forestryrelated land management activity (Gibbons and Salo, 1973; Meehan, 1991). High rates of stream 

sedimentation can result from this increased erosion. Sediment enters water through various 

processes that include soil surface erosion, channel erosion, and mass movements (e.g., 

landslides, debris flows), and these inputs can be either chronic or episodic (FPAC, 2001). A 

survey conducted in one watershed in the southeast revealed that 80 percent of the sources of 

sediment delivery to streams and rivers were from the road prism; i.e., road surface, ditches, fill, 

banks (van Lear et al., 1995; Grace and Clinton, 2006). Surface erosion from forest roads can 

affect the fine sediment budget and may impose a chronic condition of sediment inputs to 

streams directly affecting the stream substrate and the health of aquatic life (Luce et al., 2001).

Forest roads can also increase the frequency of landslides, debris flows, and other mass 

movements (Burroughs et al., 1976; Clayton, 1983; Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Furniss et al., 

1991; Hammond et al., 1988; Megahan et al., 1992). Road-related landslides and stream crossing 

failures may result in significant sediment impacts associated with fill from failed road crossings 

and scoured headwater channels. These types of sediment inputs tend to be episodic and are 
15 of 51 

often the result of large rainfall events. Landslides are typically the dominant erosion mechanism 

in areas with steep slopes, the frequency of which can be greatly accelerated by road 

management practices.

2. Increased Suspended Solids and Turbidity

Forest road construction and operation if not properly managed can cause increased 

concentrations of suspended sediment. For example, wet-weather hauling can be a source of 

fine-grained sediment and associated stream turbidity (Mills et al., 2003; Reid and Dunne, 1984). 

Research by Binkley and Brown (1993) suggests that suspended sediment concentrations in 

disturbed experimental forested watersheds that have properly implemented BMPs may resemble 

those of undisturbed forested watersheds. Local variability in soil erosivity can also affect the 

level of sediment loading. In regions where BMPs were not employed, substantial and variable 

increases in sediment concentrations occurred. Binkley and Brown (1993) showed suspended 

sediment concentrations an order of magnitude (or more) greater in disturbed forest than in 

undisturbed forest. However, the researchers noted that the increases can be highly variable and 

observed some situations in which no increases occurred. 

3. Increased Sediment Deposition and Bed Load

Sedimentation is the end result of several processes, including erosion; sediment delivery, 

transport and deposition; and instream morphological processes. Erosion and mass wasting 

associated with forest roads can deliver both fine and coarse-grained sediment to water bodies. 

While fine-grained sediment is usually transported suspended in the water column, coarse 

materials are mostly transported as bed load. Bed load transport is “flow limited”, meaning that 

coarse-grained sediment is usually only transported and redeposited at high flow rates (Beschta, 

1981). Deposition during and following large flow events can significantly change channel 
16 of 51 

characteristics in low-gradient stream reaches. Although many of these changes (e.g., reduced 

pool depth and frequency) are associated with negative impacts on biota, stream habitat can be 

potentially enhanced if mass erosion delivers material to streams where coarse sediment is 

limited.

4. Alteration of Stream Morphology and Channel Simplification

The increased sediment flux into streams that can be associated with improperly designed or 

maintained forest roads causes aggradation (the accumulation of sediment in streams and rivers 

that occurs when the supply of sediment exceeds the ability of the stream to transport the 

sediment), filling of pools, and increased channel widths and width-to-depth ratios (Jackson and 

Beschta, 1984; Lisle, 1982; Madej, 1982). Increases in width/depth ratios in sensitive streams 

can result in higher summer water temperatures even when shade is not lost (Beschta et al., 1987; 

McCullough, 1999). Such temperature increases can elevate stream temperatures beyond the 

range for rearing, increase susceptibility of fishes to disease, reduce metabolic efficiency, shift 

species assemblages, and inhibit upstream migrations (Beschta et al., 1987; Hicks et al., 1991). 

Increased road density is often associated with a decline in the frequency of pools and depth of

pools, fundamental components of high-quality fish habitat with increasing road density (Lee et 

al., 1997). Significant aggradation at channel transitions such as tributary confluences or road 

crossings can force streamflows subsurface.

Forest roads that were not properly constructed or are not properly maintained can have other 

impacts on stream morphology. Unnatural channel widths, slopes, and stream bed forms can 

occur upstream and downstream of road crossings, and these alterations in channel morphology 

may persist for long periods of time (Williams, 1999; Heede, 1980). Concentration and diversion 

of flow by roads into headwater areas can cause incision of previously unchanneled portions of 
17 of 51 

the landscape (Montgomery, 1994). Forest roads, particularly in the past, have been built within 

floodplains and partially within stream channels. Riprap placed to prevent erosion of the road fill

can result in dramatic changes in channel form (Luce et al., 2001).

5. Altered Streamflow

Forest roads that were not properly constructed or are not properly maintained may influence

the flow of water through the watershed (Williams, 1999). Runoff rates are generally lower with 

moderated peak flows. Runoff rates are higher from compacted forest road surfaces than from 

less disturbed parts of watersheds (Elliot and Hall, 1997). The forest road network in a watershed 

may increase the frequency and magnitude of peak runoff discharges, particularly in small 

watersheds with high road density. Forest roads may also increase total runoff and decrease the 

time to peak runoff from major storms or snowmelt (Elliot, 2000). Forest roads can interrupt 

hillslope drainage patterns by intercepting surface and subsurface flow and concentrating and 

diverting it into ditches, gullies and channels. This can effectively increase the density of streams 

in the landscape and reduce groundwater recharge, which can alter the timing and magnitude of 

peak flows and change base flow stream discharge (Furniss et al., 1991; Harr et al., 1975; King 

and Tennyson, 1984; Wemple et al., 1996) and sub-surface flows (Furniss et al. 1991; Megahan, 

1972). However, the effects on flow through the watershed may be reduced where forest roads 

are constructed and maintained to drain ditches and gullies and allow water to infiltrate through 

the soil, thus reducing the effects of concentrating the water.

In some instances, forest road-induced changes in watershed hydrology can have significant 

impacts. The impact may depend on the fraction of the forested watershed area occupied by 

roads. King and Tennyson (1984) monitored the effects of logging roads two years following 

road construction on streamflow on six headwater watersheds in Nez Perce National Forest in 
18 of 51 

north central Idaho. Comparing the percentages of watershed area disturbed by roads to the daily 

discharges at the mouths of the watersheds, they observed significant effects in two watersheds. 

However, hydrologic responses were highly variable and significant changes could not be 

detected for the other watersheds studied.

6. Pollution from Other Chemicals Associated with Forest Roads

Forest roads can also contribute to water quality degradation through runoff of applied roadrelated chemicals (Furniss et al., 1991; Norris et al., 1991; Rhodes et al., 1994) including 

herbicides, as well as toxic spills (Furniss et al., 1991; IDT, 1996). In recent years, the use of 

chemical site preparation has become increasingly common, as indicated by the establishment of 

BMPs for the proper use of chemicals during forest road management in many states (Williams, 

1999). However, the use varies by region, is generally less where regeneration harvest is lower, 

and is restricted in some states and on some federal lands. 

7. Increased Turbidity and Sedimentation in Water Treatment and Supply Systems

Sediment-laden water supplies also reduce the capacity of storage reservoirs and may require 

additional treatment to render the water drinkable (Lewis, 1998) or shutdowns of surface water 

supply systems during storm events (DEQ Seeds, 2010). The frequency and duration of water 

supply system shutdowns can be increased by forestry activities including road conditions (CA 

Regional Board turbidity report 2008). 

8. Siltation of Streambed Substrates and Impairment of Spawning and Rearing Habitat

The abundance and quality of spawning substrate can be severely affected by sedimentation. 

Coarse gravel channel substrates are a critical habitat requirement for many stream organisms 

including salmonids and aquatic amphibians and invertebrates, and are considered a scarce 

resource. Fine sediment deposition may alter the quality of these gravel streambeds as fine 
19 of 51 

sediment particles embed (cover) the larger particles and fill in the interstitial space in gravel 

substrates. Deposition may occur well downstream of the sediment source(s), because once fine 

sediment is delivered to a stream it can be transported long distances to a deposition location. In 

low-velocity stream reaches, excess deposition of fine sediment can completely cover suitable 

spawning gravel. Massive levels of fine sediment delivery can also produce changes in channel 

habitat by reducing pool frequency, depth and volume.

9. Degradation of Habitat for Salmonids, Other Fish, Invertebrates, and Other Aquatic 

Organisms

The physical impacts of forest roads that were not properly constructed or are not properly 

maintained can have detrimental effects on fish and fish habitat, where vulnerable species are 

present. Mechanisms through which the improperly constructed or maintained roads exert these 

deleterious impacts include fine-sediment effects, changes in streamflow, changes in water 

temperature caused by loss of riparian cover or conversion of groundwater to surface water (or 

vice versa), and barriers to migration. The physical impacts of forest roads discussed above can

have a widespread and profound effect on fish habitat and fish communities and populations 

across a range of environments and conditions (Lee et al., 1997).

Serious degradation of fish habitat affecting all life-stages of fish (including migration, 

spawning, incubation, emergence, and rearing) can result from poorly planned, designed, 

located, constructed, or maintained roads, as demonstrated in a number of studies conducted in 

the Pacific Northwest (Furniss et al., 1991; Henjum et al., 1994; MacDonald et al., 1991; Rhodes 

et al., 1994). Well-known native aquatic species affected by turbidity and sedimentation are 

salmon (coho, chinook and chum), steelhead, and trout (cutthroat and rainbow) as well as other 

native fishes and amphibians (salamanders, tailed frogs).
20 of 51 

Sedimentation can lead to complete loss of salmonid fisheries (Berry et al., 2003). The 

effects of forest roads on salmonid habitats have been most studied, including effects on 

migration, spawning, incubation and juvenile rearing.

Section VII, References, at the end of this notice provides a preliminary list of articles and 

publications that have examined various potential effects of stormwater discharges from forest 

roads, as well as management practices to address them. The EPA will further review this 

literature as part of its detailed study of these sources. The Agency also welcomes suggestions 

for additional references that it should consider in its review. 

D. Description and Effectiveness of BMPs and Current Practices 

Forest roads are vital components of the human use of forested systems (Gucinski et al., 

2001). They provide access for recreation, resource extraction, fire suppression activities, and 

many other forest management activities. While improperly built and maintained forest roads can 

have detrimental effects on the water quality, the application of appropriate BMPs can minimize 

these effects. 

Owners and operators of many forest lands may already be employing a variety of effective 

approaches to manage, operate, and maintain forest roads to control stormwater discharges from 

forest roads. These approaches are implemented by the forest road owners themselves or by 

operators or users of the roads. Depending on the jurisdiction, owners or operators use BMPs as 

a result of state program requirements, federal requirements, or because they may follow 

voluntary programs, including forest stewardship and sustainability initiatives. Under these 

required or voluntary programs, owners and operators of forest roads use BMPs to minimize or 

prevent discharges of pollutants into surface waters. They include design approaches, treatment 

techniques, operating procedures, and practices to control runoff, spillage, and leaks. 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
21 of 51 

1. State Programs 

Most states have forest land management laws regulating multiple aspects of forest and 

timber resources and management and the products derived from these resources. Many states 

have a complex legal framework of forestry regulations that shape the state’s forest road BMP 

programs. However, thisThis framework and the resulting BMP programs vary considerably 

from one state to another. The content of, compliance with, and enforcement of forest road BMP 

programs vary among states. Programs differ in their substantive level of protection, their 

specificity, and their enforceability. States also differ in how they distribute responsibility and 

authority for the forest road BMP programs among the state water quality, forestry, and fish and 

wildlife agencies. This notice describes three existing state programs to illustrate some of the 

variety among the states. Descriptions of the remaining state programs may be available through 

state Web pages. 

In Washington State, the forest practices act and rules (Forests and Fish Rules) apply to all 

private and state forest roads. Forest Practices Rules require that forest landowners construct and 

maintain roads to avoid potential or actual damage to public resources, such as water quality and 

fish habitat. The Washington program addresses both new forest roads as well as existing roads. 

The program requires larger forest landowners to complete an inventory of existing roads, 

identify where roads are impacting state resources (including fish and water quality), and allows 

for prioritization of repairing, relocating, or abandoning existing roads to correct problems. All 

large forest landowners must develop and submit for approval by the Washington Department of 

Natural Resources (DNR) a Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan (RMAP) in which they 

inventory their forest roads and outline a schedule for any needed road work, including a 

timeline to bring old roads up to current standards or to decommission or “abandon” substandard 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
22 of 51 

roads. Small forest landowners are required to submit a “checklist RMAP,” which is a form 

landowners fill out to indicate they have assessed their roads included in a harvest and identified 

any potential road maintenance problems. While the program is enforceable, the state focuses 

first on technical assistance and then, to correct problems, uses progressive enforcement 

mechanisms and generally reserves civil penalties for more serious infractions. If a problem is 

identified, WA DNR describes the outcome expected, and the landowner describes what BMPs 

will be used to correct it. 

Forest roads that no longer need to be used or cannot meet the performance standards are 

encouraged to be abandoned. Abandonment strategies may involve the removal of stream 

crossing structures and unstable road fill, installing water bars, re-vegetating exposed soils, and 

employing other similar techniques. WA DNR must approve the roadwork before the road can 

be considered abandoned. 

Florida relies primarily on voluntary compliance with state approved forest road BMPs. 

However, BMPs can be enforced where noncompliance leads to a significant risk to water 

quality. When a significant risk has been identified, professionally-trained BMP foresters advise 

the landowners on how to implement corrective measures. Afterward, a follow-up site evaluation 

is made to reassess compliance. Landowner non-compliance with recommendations made by the 

BMP Forester could result in a referral to the appropriate regulatory agency for enforcement 

action. 

California’s Forest Practice Rules establish a comprehensive framework that includes statedeveloped and approved BMPs for silvicultural activities on private lands, including roadbuilding practices, and other related silvicultural activities. California allows coverage under one 

approach that includes requirements that closely resemble those of an individual permit, known 
23 of 51 

as “Waste Discharge Requirements,” as well as another approach allowing the use of a “waiver” 

whose requirements are closer to those of a general or regional permit. Having a “waiver” 

obviates the procedural need for coverage under the “Waste Discharge Requirements” program, 

but the substantive requirements of that program remain enforceable. 

The California program is based on input from state water quality and natural resource 

agencies and incorporates a formal, annual adaptive management process reflecting incremental 

analysis of BMPs, which regularly results in updated BMP requirements. The waste discharge 

requirements apply similarly and equally to both public and private lands. Enforceability of the 

Forest Practice Rules is overseen by multiple agencies: California Department of Forestry, the 

California Department of Fish and Game, and the state water Quality Control Board and 

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (California’s water quality agency). 

Many states have been monitoring forestry BMP implementation for the past 20 years or 

more. During that time, state forestry agencies have approached implementation monitoring in 

different ways with varying degrees of detail, precision, and statistical strength. In general, BMP 

implementation has been reported to be highest on public land, followed in descending order by 

forest industry land, corporate non-industrial land, and private non-industrial land (Prud’homme 

and Greis, 2002). 

Due to differences in the nature of BMP programs and the methods for measuring BMP 

implementation, comparisons of compliance rates among states are difficult. Past differences in 

survey design and statistical strength, rigor of inspections, and metrics chosen for evaluation 

within and among states also have hampered precise reporting, comparison, or evaluation of state 

or regional progress over time.
24 of 51 

EPA recognizes that one-size-fits-all approaches may not be appropriate for addressing the 

multiplicity of issues and situations within and across states. EPA welcomes diversity in state

programs and will be carefully studying the full range of such programs as it considers whether 

any additional measures to address stormwater discharges from forest roads are needed.

2. USDA Forest Service Programs 

a. Forest Service National BMP Program 

The goal of the USDA Forest Service (USFS) National BMP Program is to improve agency 

performance and accountability in managing water quality in a manner consistent with the CWA 

and state water quality programs. Current USFS policy directs compliance with any required 

CWA permits and state rules and regulations, and requires the use of approved BMPs to control 

pollution. The National BMP Program was developed over the past decade and is currently in the 

initial statesstages of implementation. It is intended to provide consistency among USFS 

administrative units to efficiently administer BMPs and demonstrate performance and 

accountability at multiple scales in an adaptive management context. The program is intended to 

meet or exceed state BMP objectives as well as to simplify and standardize water quality 

protection measures and monitoring on NFS land. (USDA Forest Service 2012) 

The National Core BMPs integrate existing state and USFS regional BMPs under one 

umbrella to facilitate an agency-wide BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

program. The National Core BMPs provide a general, non-prescriptive framework of BMPs for 

the broad range of activities that occur on NFS lands. (Ibid.) 

b. Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework 

The USFS’s Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is a comprehensive approach for 

classifying watershed condition, implementing integrated restoration in priority watersheds on 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Italic
25 of 51 

national forests and grasslands, and tracking and monitoring outcome-based program 

accomplishments for performance accountability (USDA Forest Service 2011). The policy goal 

of the USFS WCF is “to protect National Forest System watersheds by implementing practices 

designed to maintain or improve watershed condition, which is the foundation for sustaining 

ecosystems and the production of renewable natural resources, values, and benefits.” The WCF 

provides a consistent way to evaluate watershed condition at both the national and forest levels. 

The WCF consists of reconnaissance-level assessments by individual national forests, 

implementation of integrated improvement activities – including those related to roads – within 

priority watersheds, validation and monitoring of watershed condition class changes, and 

aggregation of program performance data for national reporting. 

c. Forest Service Legacy Roads Project 

The USFS has been engaged in an extensive program of road improvement efforts called the 

Legacy Roads Project since 2008. The goals of this effort are to reduce the hydrologic and 

geomorphic impacts of the existing USFS road network on critical watersheds and aquatic 

resources by decommissioning or upgrading forest roads. The Legacy Roads Monitoring Project 

is a regional effort to examine the effectiveness of the road decommissioning, storm damage risk 

reduction (aka “storm-proofing”) and road storage projects. 

3. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Programs 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 58 million acres of forest and woodlands 

in eleven western states and Alaska, including 2.4 million acres within the Oregon and California 

(O&C) grant lands in western Oregon. BLM O&C regulations regarding third party road uses 

provide that “The intent and expectation of both parties to agreements is that roads are left in ‘at 

least as good condition as existingexisted prior to commencement of use’” (43 CFR 2812.6-

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
26 of 51 

2(b)(2)). The Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) requires public lands to be 

managed on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield without permanent impairment of the 

land and quality of the environment. Under Sec 502 of FLPMA, the Interior Secretary is 

authorized to provide for the maintenance of roads within and near the public lands and perform 

that work, in part, by cooperative financing with other public agencies and with private agencies 

and persons in proportion to their use. Forest roads may be constructed and maintained by 

logging operators, private landowners, the BLM, the USFS, or state or county governments. 

BLM roads, culverts, and bridges are designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with 

policies and standards found in BLM 9100 Manual Series (Engineering) for road BMPs. In 

Oregon and Washington, the BLM has recently (2011) updated BMPs and, as a result, current 

road construction and maintenance standards are substantially improved over the standards in 

existence when the CWA was enacted in 1972. BLM timber sale contracts contain extensive 

specifications related to methods and timing of road construction and maintenance. In addition, 

the BLM often includes operational restrictions in their timber sale contracts to reflect 

appropriate protections for fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

 Under rights-of-way agreements, examples exist of private companies owning roads 

constructed on BLM lands, and BLM owning roads built on private lands. There are dozens of 

rights-of-way agreements in place on O&C lands. These agreements are subject to frequent 

amendment as landowners consolidate or sell lands or split off separate corporate entities for 

business purposes, creating a complex access program. 

4. Tribal Programs 

Tribal governments in partnership with the US government dedicate substantial resources to 

improving Indian forest management (ITC 1993). Much of the responsibility for managing 
27 of 51 

Indian forests across the country is carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) with the 

involvement of tribal governments. The National Indian Forest Resources Management Act 

(NIFRMA), Title III, P.L. 101-630, directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the 

affected Indian tribes, to obtain an independent assessment of the status of Indian forest 

resources and their management. Similar to the National Forest Management Act, the NIFRMA 

requires the development of forestry management plans under which the forests are managed in 

accordance with BMPs, as approved thorough an interdisciplinary team. The Tribal Forest 

Protection Act (Pub.L. 108-278) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the 

Interior to enter into an agreement or contract with Indian tribes to carry out projects to protect 

Indian forest land. Protection of such land is particularly important for tribes because they pass 

their land on from generation to generation. This helps to ensure future availability of natural 

resources, including healthy forests and clean water. 

Many tribes have taken on significant roles in sustainable forest management. For example, 

the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin manages 95 percent of the forested portions of the 

reservation for long-term sustainability through the Menominee Tribal Enterprises which has 

received certifications for sustainable management from two groups, Scientific Certification 

Systems (The Forest Conservation Program) and the Rainforest Alliance (SmartWood), and is 

accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council. As another example, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe 

requires that all new roads be obliterated and seeded after forest harvesting activities. Similarly, 

the Blackfeet Nation has a no net new road miles policy, in that new forest roads associated with 

forest harvest must be closed, or other roads must be closed in their place. 

5. Voluntary Certification Programs 
28 of 51 

On private forestlands, significant BMP implementation can be attributed to growing 

involvement of forest owners in sustainable forestry certification programs. Several certification 

programs exist. Under one program, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) of the American 

Forest and Paper Association, member companies must meet or exceed state BMPs on companyowned forest land (Prud’homme and Greis, 2002). Because SFI is linked to state BMPs, the 

forest road BMPs applied under SFI vary by state. Some forest products companies impose 

sanctions on timber producers who fail to implement BMPs when logging on other ownerships. 

Under another, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification program, certified forest 

owners and operators follow a set of principles and criteria that support responsible forest 

management (FSC 2012). Principles and criteria include conservation of biological diversity, 

water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes. Under FSC 

certification, additional requirements tailored by region guidelines must also be met in addition 

to state BMPs. 

Under a third program, the American Tree Farm System, a written certification is issued by 

an independent third-party that attests to the sustainable management of a working forest (ATFS 

2012). In addition to requirements that they be in compliance with state BMPs, certified forest 

managers must also attest compliance with eight standards of sustainability, including the 

maintenance or enhancement of the environment and ecosystems. 

Certification programs can both help ensure implementation of state BMPs and in some 

instances require additional BMPs. Forestry operations that utilize experienced and informed 

land managers generally have higher rates of BMP implementation. Thus, many states 

recommend that landowners utilize forestry professionals (e.g., private consultants, certified 
29 of 51 

Master Loggers) when planning any forest management operations. Many certification programs 

require involvement of forestry professionals. 

E. Successes and Remaining Challenges 

The EPA notes that As described above, successful federal, state, tribal, and local programs 

for controlling stormwater discharges from logging and forest roads currently exist in many parts 

of the country and that many forest owners are implementing BMP programs to address these 

discharges. Some studies have observed trends of decreasing sediment input as forest roads are 

closed and storm-proofed or newly built or brought up to standards (e.g., Dubé et al. 2010). 

However, this does not mean that all of the existing programs have been successful at 

effectively addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads, and thesesome discharges 

continue to cause or contribute to impairments for the Nation’s waters. 

At the same time, not all forest roads are alike, and the severity of the remaining challenges 

varies. There is evidence that a majority of the water quality impacts caused by discharges from 

forest roads within a basin may be attributablecan be attributed to a relatively small subset of 

forest roads or forest road segments (Luce and often a small portion of those roads (Nelson et al., 

2010; Fly et al., 2010; Luce and Black, 2001; Luce and Black, 1999). The following section 

outlines a flexible, non-permitting approach for addressing these remaining challenges, 

recognizingThus, EPA believes that the networkfurther study of forest roads and their impacts is 

vast and diverse and that any solution should incorporate the abilityneeded in order to prioritize 

addressing the more pressing determine what additional measures may be needed to address 

remaining water quality concerns while making consistent incremental improvements to 

reduceimpacts. EPA will consider a full range of potential approaches to address water quality 

impacts more broadly.associated with discharges of stormwater from forest roads. 
30 of 51 

III. Approaches for AddressingManaging Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads, 

Including Logging Roads

A. Developing a non-permitting approach under Section 402(p)(6) of the Act

The EPA plans to propose revisions to its Phase I stormwater regulations (40 CFR 122.26) to 

specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not included in the definition of

“storm water discharge associated with industrial activity.” At the same time, the Agency intends 

to propose is considering several options for addressing significant water quality impacts caused 

by stormwater discharges from forest roads. EPA is considering designating a subset of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation utilizing a flexible, non-permitting 

approach authorizedappropriate action under section 402(p)(6) of the Act. 

The flexible approaches authorized under section 402(p) are well-suited to address the 

complexity of the forest road universe. Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA allows the EPA flexibility 

in issuing regulations to address designated stormwater discharges and does not require the use 

of NPDES permits. Specifically, the section states that the regulations “shall establish priorities, 

establish requirements for state stormwater management programs, and establish expeditious 

deadlines” and may include “performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management 

practices and treatment requirements, as appropriate.” 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(6). This flexibility is 

unique to stormwater discharges regulated under this provision and is different than the treatment 

of stormwater discharges listed in section 402(p)(2)(B) of the Act, which requires a permit for a 

stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). Section 402(p)

allows for a broad range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches and provides flexibility as 

to which stormwater discharges, if any, should be designated under Section 402(p)(6). For 

example, in lieu of regulation, EPA could support or defer to other federal, state, tribal, local, and 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, Pattern: Clear
31 of 51 

voluntary programs. If EPA does determine that regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is 

appropriate for a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads, such a regulation might 

address discharges only from roads used for logging or might address discharges based on 

contribution of the discharge to a water quality problem. Section 402(p)(6), in turn, provides 

considerable flexibility to EPA if it does designate any discharges for regulation in how it 

regulates those discharges. 

B. Key Considerations

The EPA continues to review issues related to stormwater discharges from forest roads and 

understands that any national program for addressing these discharges should be informed by 

several key considerations. The EPA recognized four key considerations while developing the 

potential approaches for managing stormwater discharges described in this notice: (1) the need to 

leverage existing BMP strategies as well as well as existing effective federal, state, tribal, and 

voluntary BMP-based programs; (2) the need to address the myriad of relevant site-specific 

factors that may arise across the landscape; (3) the need to prioritize actions and (4) the need to 

provide for accountability.

Forest road stormwater management programs vary across the country in response to state or 

regional factors. The EPA will work with federal agencies, states, and tribes to understand their 

programs and other existing programs (e.g., voluntary forest certification initiatives) for 

managing stormwater discharges from forest roads and will continue this collaboration 

throughout the rulemaking process. The Agency will engage other interested stakeholders in the 

process as well. This notice provides a high level discussion of existing state, federal, private and 

tribal programs to manage discharges from forest roads. The EPA is considering approaches that 
32 of 51 

utilize the frameworks of effective, existing BMP programs to minimize disruption to those 

programs.

A range of guidelines is available to assist forest owners and operators in designing and 

maintaining forest roads and selecting the appropriate BMPs to control stormwater discharges. 

For example, the EPA has issued national guidance to assist forest owners and operators with the 

protection of lakes and streams from polluted runoff that can result from forestry activity and, in 

particular, from improperly built or maintained forest roads (USEPA 2005). 

Other guidance documents have been developed by federal agencies, states, and industry, and 

standards for voluntary certification programs are also available. Building on flexible, BMPbased approaches would allow forest road owners and operators to tailor BMPs to site-specific 

factors such as soils, slope, geologic conditions, precipitation conditions, and uses. The diversity 

of the forest road networks, the different classes of roads, the different local physical conditions, 

and the broad range of road conditions and uses supports an approach that allows tailoring in 

how BMPs are selected and implemented. The approaches described in this notice would allow 

owners and operators to tailor the BMPs they use to address water quality concerns unique to 

each setting. 

The EPA also recognizes the need to consider additional factors in developing the structure 

of any potential proposed rule due to the complexity and vastness of the forest road network and 

diversity of the forested landscape. For example, the EPA is considering differences among 

forest uses; ownerships of different sizes; and types of ownership including public, private, and

tribal-owned lands; as well as forest road conditions, type, and usage. Moreover, the selection of 

appropriate BMPs can vary based on site-specific factors, including topography, road design, 

soils, geologic factors, road use, and climate. The EPA is considering proposing approaches that 
33 of 51 

ensure the appropriate management of stormwater discharges from forest roads and enable forest 

road owners and operators to consider site-specific factors in identifying the most appropriate 

BMPs. 

The EPA recognizes the importance of prioritization in allocating resources once water 

quality issues and potential solutions are identified to better leverage available resources. Under 

the potential approaches described in this notice, EPA would develop a process for evaluating 

which discharges for forest roads should be covered by regulation, and the Agency would seek

comment on this process. The approach would then incorporate the ability to prioritize 

addressing the highest priority water quality concerns, among those forest roads that are 

included, while making consistent incremental improvements to address water quality impacts

more broadly. Such an approach could facilitate the allocation of resources to address discharges 

in order to protect high quality, or pristine, waters. This flexibility would allow the allocation of 

resources in the most efficient and effective manner, based on the priorities of the particular 

location. Existing factors, requirements, or commitments could be used to assist in the 

prioritization process. For example, addressing identified forest road problems in watersheds 

providing beneficial uses such as fish spawning or public water supply may be a high priority in 

some areas while waters listed as impaired or included in an existing TMDL could be high 

priority in others. Moreover, the EPA anticipates that work already completed under existing 

programs (e.g., the EPA’s Healthy Watersheds Initiative or the USDA USFS’s Watershed 

Condition Framework, TMDL-related assessment, or Source Water Protection Plans) or input 

from third parties and the public could be valuable in determining priorities under this approach. 

Lastly, accountability is a key element of a successful approach that will help to ensure that 

stormwater discharges from forest roads are properly managed across the country and that 
34 of 51 

reasonable progress in addressing inadequately managed stormwater discharges is made over 

time. 

C. Approaches for Managing Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads under 402(p)(6)

The above considerations have informed the development of the potential general approaches 

for managing stormwater discharges from forest roads, as discussed in this section. The Agency 

intends to propose designating stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under 

section 402(p)(6) of the Act, which authorizes the EPA to use flexible, non-permitting 

approaches to address designated discharges. 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(6). The EPA presents two 

preliminary approaches below. 

The first general approach would provide for the management of stormwater discharges from 

forest roads principally through state and tribal programs. Under this approach, states and tribes

would develop and maintain stormwater management programs that meet certain criteria

established by the EPA through regulation (e.g., a set of minimum elements). The criteria would 

be based on those that make existing programs successful and could include such elements as: an 

approach for completing an inventory of forest roads; requirements for best management 

practices for forest roads; guidelines for prioritizing and addressing water quality concerns 

related to stormwater discharges from existing forest roads; accountability measures; public 

involvement; and a program for monitoring or auditing to assess program compliance and 

effectiveness. The EPA seeks comment on appropriate criteria and a process for verifying those 

criteria, such as certification by the state. The EPA anticipates that some states and tribes may 

have existing programs that meet most or all of such criteria. The forms that these elements take 

vary from state to state, as the following examples demonstrate. First, all of the programs 

described in this notice and many other existing state and tribal programs already provide for
35 of 51 

forest roads BMPs, but some of the programs are voluntary and others are mandatory. Second, 

many existing programs also already include accountability measures, but these also vary. For 

example, the California program resembles a permit program and is mandatory, and the Florida 

program, while voluntary, is enforceable where noncompliance leads to a significant risk to 

water quality. Third, some programs already include provisions to inventory and assess existing 

forest roads, but the specifics of the programs differ. For example, the Washington State RMAP 

program requires owners and operators to inventory their forest roads and outline a schedule to 

address the old roads, and the Forest Service Watershed Condition Framework provides for the 

assessments of national forests and implementation of improvement strategies within priority 

watersheds including those related to roads. The EPA continues to gather information on 

existing state and tribal programs and the elements of those programs and requests comment on 

the effectiveness of each.

Some states or tribes may need to make modifications or add elements to their programs to 

meet the criteria established by the EPA. For states or tribes that do not have such programs, the 

EPA would provide technical assistance to help them to develop such programs, drawing from 

the expertise of USFS, BLM, tribes, and states with existing programs. The EPA would consider 

the appropriate amount of time to facilitate state and tribal establishment of such programs. The 

program could also explicitly allow formal agreements such as those between state water quality

or forestry agencies and other state and federal agencies (including state or regional offices of 

federal agencies) in recognition of the existing agreements that have demonstrated improvements 

to water quality protection through implementation of BMP programs and operation and 

maintenance of forest roads on state and federal lands. State or tribal programs could also 
36 of 51 

incorporate mechanisms for assuring compliance through private or third-party certification 

programs.

The Agency could periodically review and certify that the state programs meet the minimum 

criteria identified in regulations. The EPA plans to propose and request comment on the level of 

review that the Agency would take in the development of the state programs. The EPA 

anticipates that state authorities would also include the opportunity for public input into the 

development of the state program.

Owners and operators of forest roads could be designated for regulation and would be in 

compliance with the regulation if they were operating pursuant to those programs or pursuant to 

an approved formal agreement. In states or tribal reservations where such a program would not 

be developed, owners and operators would comply directly with BMPs developed by the EPA, as 

discussed below. 

As either a backstop to the approach discussed above, or as an alternative approach, the EPA 

could develop a BMP framework that would apply directly to owners and operators of forest 

roads that discharge stormwater to waters of the US. This approach could, without using NPDES 

permits, require owners and operators of forest roads to use BMPs to control their stormwater 

discharges through development and implementation of a plan to address stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. Plans would describe the BMPs they selected, how the BMPs will control 

stormwater discharges, how they will be maintained, and how their performance will be 

assessed. This approach could also include requirements that owners or operators inventory and 

identify forest roads that discharge stormwater; implement and maintain BMPs according to a 

schedule that allows for prioritization in addressing water quality concerns related to stormwater 

discharges from forest roads; regularly assess BMP performance; and maintain records. Under 
37 of 51 

this approach, the EPA could provide guidelines for selecting appropriate BMPs that recognize 

state or tribal guidelines, regional differences and site-specific factors, as well as allow for 

formal agreements with federal and state agencies.

In recognition of the diverse universe of forest roads, as discussed above, which may include 

multiple owners and multiple users of the same corridor, this general approach could allow 

multiple owners and operators to be covered under the same plan developed for a particular area

or to develop a cooperative agreement. This approach would also allow a single plan to address 

road networks covering large areas. The plans or agreements could also indicate whether owners 

and operators have operational control over only limited or specific segments of forest road 

corridors. In these cases, owners and operators would only be responsible for the segments over 

which they have operational control. 

While the EPA has provided two general approaches above, the Agency notes that there 

could be multiple ways in which the Agency could develop the above approaches as well as 

alternative approaches, given the broad flexibility afforded by CWA Section 402(p)(6). The EPA 

invites suggestions on these approaches and alternative approaches to address stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. As stated in the summary, the EPA will again seek comment on 

any proposed rule before taking final action. 

DEPA intends to further study the impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads, 

available management practices and approaches, and the effectiveness of existing Federal, State, 

Tribal, local and private programs in managing these discharges, as it considers appropriate next 

steps.

IV. Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic
38 of 51 

The EPA is in the process of reviewing available information on both the water quality 

impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads as well as existing practices for their control. 

Consistent with past Agency actions, the EPA invites interested stakeholders and the public to 

share in the exchange of information and to engage as the Agency moves forward with the 

development of an approachconsiders alternative approaches for addressing stormwater 

discharges from forest roads, including logging roads. 

The Agency participated in the recent technical symposium hosted by the Society of 

American Foresters during which EPA scientists and engineers had the opportunity to hear 

perspectives on forest roads and the Clean Water Act from state and industry representatives 

directly. In addition, the EPA has begun communicating with states, tribes, and other federal 

agencies to understand their current forest road stormwater management programs. The Agency 

worked closely in particular with USDA (the USFS) and the Department of the Interior (the 

BLM). The EPA also welcomes information from other interested parties and plans to work 

closely with other stakeholders moving forward. 

The EPA encourages stakeholders and the public to provide input into the development of 

Agency actionsits consideration of appropriate measures to address stormwater discharges from

forest roads and is already planning to host public meetings and webcasts to provide a forum for 

them to do so. 

EV. Next Steps 

EPA is initiating work on this rulemaking effort and plans to hold listening sessions to obtain 

stakeholder input this summer. The Agency anticipates proposing a rule by fall 2013 and taking 

final action by fall 2014.

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt

Formatted: Font: Bold, Not Italic
39 of 51 

IVThe Agency will move expeditiously to propose a revision to its Phase I stormwater

regulations (40 CFR 122.26) to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not 

included in the definition of “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity.” EPA is 

aware that a Congressional moratorium on NPDES permitting of some logging roads is set to 

expire on September 30, 2012, and intends to move expeditiously to complete this revision. EPA 

will also study the water quality impacts of forest roads and existing federal, state, tribal, and 

voluntary programs designed to address them to determine if additional Agency action is 

necessary. EPA also plans to hold listening sessions to obtain stakeholder input this summer on 

its consideration of how best to address stormwater discharges from forest roads.

VI. Request for Comment 

The EPA requests comment on the potential approaches that the Agency is considering for 

regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads outlined in this notice as well as other 

potential approaches for addressing thesestormwater discharges. from forest roads. The Agency 

also seeks comment on the process that the Agency would develop for evaluating which 

discharges for forest roads should be covered by regulation, the minimum criteria of such 

programs, and on the process for verifying those criteria. The EPA also invites suggestions on 

alternative approaches to address stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

The Agency seeks input on examples of successful existing BMP-based state programs, tribal 

programs, and voluntary certification-oriented- programs for managing stormwater discharges 

from forest roads; how these programs are implemented; how program accountability is assured; 

the costs of implementing those programs, including costs incurred by owners or operators of 

forest roads as well as the costs incurred by the organizations responsible for implementation and 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
40 of 51 

enforcement; the demonstrable successes of these programs; and the lessons learned in 

implementing such programs. 

The EPA will again seek commentinput on any proposed ruleadditional measures to address 

such discharges before taking finaladditional action. 

VVII. References 

Adams, Darius M.; Haynes, Richard W.; Daigneault, Adam J. 2006. Estimated timber 

harvestTimber Harvest by U.S. regionRegion and ownershipOwnership, 1950-2002. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-659. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station. p. 64 p. 

Aitken, W.W. 1936. The reactionRelation of soil erosionSoil Erosion to stream 

improvementStream Improvement and fish lifeFish Life. Journal of Forestry. 34:1059-1061. 

Anderson, H.W., Hoover, M.D. and K.G. Reinhart. 1976. Forest and waterWater: Effects of 

forest managementForest Management on floods, sedimentationFloods, Sedimentation, and 

water supplyWater Supply. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-18. San 

Francisco, CaliforniaCA. 

American Tree Farm System (ATFS). 2012. http://www.treefarmsystem.org. (visited April 

2012). 

Berry, W., Rubinstein, N., Melzian, B. and B. Hill. 2003. The Biological Effects of Suspended 

and Bedded Sediment (SABS) in Aquatic Systems: A Review. United States Environmental 

Protection AgencyUSEPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and 

Environmental Effects Laboratory, Narragansett, RI and National Health and Environmental 

Effects Laboratory, Midcontinent Ecology Division, Duluth, MN. August 20, 2003. 

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt
41 of 51 

http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/sediment/appendix1.pdf.http://www.epa.gov/waterscie

nce/criteria/sediment/appendix1.pdf (visited April 2012). 

Beschta, R.L. 1981. Management implicationsImplications of sediment routing 

researchSediment Routing Research. Chapter in: Measuring and assessingAssessing the 

effectivenessEffectiveness of alternative forest management practicesAlternative Forest 

Management Practices on water qualityWater Quality. NCASI Technical Bulletin 353. National 

Council for Air and Stream Improvement. New York, NY. August 1981. 

Beschta, R.L.; Bilby, R.E.; Brown, G.W. 1987. Stream temperatureTemperature and aquatic 

habitat: fisheriesAquatic Habitat: Fisheries and forestry interactions.Forestry Interactions. In: 

Salo, E.; Cundy, T., eds. Streamside management: forestryManagement: Forestry and fishery 

interactionsFishery Interactions. Contrib. 57. Seattle: University of Washington, College of 

Forest Resources: 191-232. 

Binkley, D. and T.C. Brown. 1993. Forest practicesPractices as nonpoint sourcesNonpoint 

Sources of pollutionPollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin 29(5): 729-740. 

Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; Chalfant, G.R.; Townsend, M.A. 1976. Slope stabilityStability in road 

constructionRoad Construction: a guideGuide to the constructionConstruction of stable 

roadsStable Roads in westernWestern Oregon and northernNorthern California. Portland, OR: 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 102 p. 

Clayton, J.L. 1983. Evaluating slope stability priorSlope Stability Prior to road constructionRoad 

Construction. Res. Pap. INT-307. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest 

Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 6 p.
42 of 51 

Dissmeyer, George E.; [Editor] 2000. Drinking waterWater from forestsForests and 

grasslandsGrasslands: a synthesisSynthesis of the scientific literature. Scientific Literature. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-39. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 246 p. 3. 

Dubé, Kathy, A. Shelly, J. Black, K. Kuzis. 2010. Washington Road Sub-Basin Scale 

Effectiveness Monitoring First Sampling Event (2006-2008) Report. CMER 08-801. Olympia, 

WashingtonWA. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 102 p. 

Dunne, T.; Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in environmental planningEnvironmental Planning. San 

Francisco:, CA. W.H. Freeman. 818 p.

Eaglin, G. S. and W. A. Hubert. 1993. Effects of loggingLogging and roadsRoads on 

substrateSubstrate and troutTrout in streamsStreams of the Medicine Bow National Forest, 

WyomingWY. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 844-846. 

Elliot, W. 2000. Roads and Other Corridors (Ch. 9). Pages 85-101. In G. Dissmeyer, ed. 

Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. USDA 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC. 

Elliot, W.J. and Hall, D.E. 1997. Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) forest 

applications.Forest Applications. General Technical Report INT-GTR-365. Moscow, ID: 

Intermountain Research Station. 11 p. 

Fly, C., Grover-Wier, K., Thornton, J., Black, T., Luce, C. 2010 Bear Valley Road Inventory 

(GRAIP) Report In Support of the Bear Valley Category 4b Demonstration. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Boise National Forest. 54 pp.
43 of 51 

FPAC. 2001. Section B – Forest Roads Issue Paper. In Report of the Forest Practice Advisory 

Committee on Salmon and Watersheds. Oregon Forest Practices Advisory Committee on Salmon 

and Watersheds. Oregon Department of Forestry. Salem, Oregon. 

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2012. http://www.fsc.org. (Visited April 2012) 

Furniss, M.J.; Roelofs, T.D.; Yee, C.S. 1991. Road constructionConstruction and 

maintenanceMaintenance. In: Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences of forestForest and rangeland 

managementRangeland Management on salmonid fishesSalmonid Fishes and their 

habitatsHabitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD:. American Fisheries Society:. 297-323. 

Gibbons, D.R.; Salo, E.O. 1973. An annotated bibliographyAnnotated Bibliography of the 

effectsEffects of loggingLogging on fishFish of the Western United States and Canada. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-10. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 145 p.

Grace, J.M. III and B.D. Clinton. 2006. Forest road managementRoad Management to protect 

soilProtect Soil and waterWater. ASABE Paper No. 068010. St. Joseph, MichiganMI. 

Gucinski, H., M. Furniss, R. Ziemer, and M. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: A synthesisSynthesis

of scientific informationScientific Information. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, Portland, OR. 

Hammond, C.J.; Miller, S.M.; Prellwitz, R.W. 1988. Estimating the probability of landslide 

failureLandslide Hazard Assessment using Monte Carlo simulation. In: Proceedings of the 24th 

symposium on engineering geology and soils engineering; 1988 February 29; Coeur d’Alene, ID. 

Logan: Utah State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: 319-331. 
44 of 51 

Harr, R. D., W. C. Harper and J. T. Krygier. 1975. Changes in storm hydrographs after road 

buildingStorm Hydrographs After Road Building and clear-cuttingClear-Cutting in the Oregon 

Coast Range. Water Resources Research 11: 436-444. 

Heede, B.H. 1980. Stream dynamicsDynamics: an overviewOverview for land managersLand 

Managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-72. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture,USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 26 p.

Henjum, M.G.; Karr, J.R.; Bottom, D.L. [and others]. 1994. Interim protectionProtection for latesuccessional forests, fisheriesLate-Successional Forests, Fisheries, and watersheds: national 

forests eastWatersheds: National Forests East of the Cascade crestCrest, Oregon and 

Washington. Bethesda, MD: Wildlife Society. 245 p.

Hicks, B. J., J. D. Hall, P. A. Bisson and J. R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonidsSalmonids to 

habitat changes. In Habitat Changes. Ch. 14 of Influences of forestForest and rangeland 

managementRangeland Management on salmonid fishesSalmonid Fishes and their habitatsTheir 

Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 483-518. 

IDT. 1996. Unpublished accident tables, October 7, 1996. Idaho Department of Transportation. 

Office of Highway Safety, 3311 West State Street, Boise, ID 83703-5881.

Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), 2007. National Overview of Tribal Forestry. Proceedings in 

Trust and Transition: Perspectives on Native American Forestry. April 30, 2007. University of 

Washington. Available for viewing at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVwbdg24Hk

(viewed March 29, 2012). 
45 of 51 

Jackson, W.L. and Beschta, R.L. 1984. Influences of increased sand deliveryIncreased Sand 

Delivery on the morphologyMorphology of sandSand and gravel channelsGravel Channels. 

Water Resources Bulletin. 20(4): 527-533. 

King, J.G.; Tennyson, L.C. 1984. Alteration of streamflow characteristics following road 

constructionStreamflow Characteristics Following Road Construction in north-centralNorth 

Central Idaho. Water Resources Research. 20(8): 1159-1163. 

Lee, D.C.; Sedell, J.R.; Rieman, B.E. 1997. Broadscale assessmentAssessment of aquatic 

speciesAquatic Species and habitatsHabitats. In: Quigley, T.M.; Arbelbide, S.J., tech. eds. An 

assessmentAssessment of ecosystem componentsEcosystem Components in the interiorInterior

Columbia basinBasin and portionsPortions of the Klamath and Great Basins: volume III. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station: 1057-1496. Chapter 4. (Quigley, T.M., tech. ed.; Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment). 

Lewis, J. 1998. Evaluating the impactsImpacts of logging activitiesLogging Activities on 

erosionErosion and suspended sediment transportSuspended Sediment Transport in the Caspar 

Creek watershedsWatersheds. In: Ziemer, Robert R., technical coordinator. Proceedings of the 

conferenceConference on coastal watershedsCoastal Watersheds: the Caspar Creek story, 6 May 

1998; Ukiah, California. General Tech. Rep. PSW GTR-168. Albany, California: CA. USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of 

Agriculture:. 55-69.
46 of 51 

Lisle, T.E. 1982. Effects of aggradationAggradation and degradationDegradation on riffle-pool 

morphologyRiffle-Pool Morphology in natural gravel channels, northwesternNatural Gravel 

Channels, Northwestern California. Water Resources Research. 18(6): 1643-1651. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Oregon. 

Water Resources Research, Vo. 35, No. 8 p. 2561-2570. 

Luce, C.H. and T.A. Black. 2001. Effects of trafficTraffic and ditch maintenanceDitch 

Maintenance on forest road sediment production. In: Proc., PpForest Road Sediment Production. 

V64-V74, Proceedings of the Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, 25-29 

March 2001, Reno, NevadaNV. 

MacDonald, L.H.; Smart, A.W.; Wissmar, R.C. 1991. Monitoring guidelinesGuidelines to 

evaluate effectsEvaluate Effects of forestry activitiesForestry Activities on streamsStreams in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA/USEPA 910/9-91-001. Seattle: US Environmental 

Protection Agency, WA, USEPA, Region 10. 166 p.

Madej, M. A. 1982. Sediment Transport and Channel Changes in an Aggrading Stream in the 

Puget Lowland, Washington. In Sediment Budgets and Routing in Forested Drainage Basins. 

Swanson, et al. Editors. United States Department of Agriculture.USDA. Pacific Northwest 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-141. 

Meehan, W.R., ed. 1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and 

their habitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. 751 p.

Megahan, W. F. 1972. Subsurface flow interceptionFlow Interception by a logging roadLogging 

Road in mountainsMountains of Central Idaho. pp. 350-356 in Watersheds in Transition. 
47 of 51 

Proceedings of a symposium on "Watersheds in Transition.". Fort Collins, Colorado, June 19-22, 

1972. AWRA. Urbana, IllinoisIL. 

Megahan, W.F. and W.J. Kidd. 1972. Effect of logging roads on sediment production 

ratesLogging Roads on Sediment Production Rates in the Idaho batholithBatholith. Res. Pap. 

INT-123. Ogden, UT: US Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 14 p.

Megahan, W.F., J.P. Potyondy, and K.A. Seyedbagheri. 1992 . Best management practices and 

cumulative effectsManagement Practices and Cumulative Effects from 

sedimentationSedimentation in the South Fork Salmon River: an Idaho case studyCase Study. 

Pages 401-414 in R.J. Naiman, ed., Watershed Management: Balancing Sustainability and 

Environmental Change. New York:, NY, Springer-Verlag. 

Mills, K., L. Dent and J. Robben., 2003. Oregon Department of Forestry Wet Season Road Use 

Monitoring Project Final Report. Oregon Department Ofof Forestry Forest Practices Monitoring 

Program Technical Report # 17. June, 2003. 

Montgomery, D.R. 1994. Road surface drainage, channel initiationSurface Drainage, Channel 

Initiation, and slope instabilitySlope Instability. Water Resources Research. 30(6): 1925-1932. 

NCASI. 2001. Forest roadsRoads and aquatic ecosystemsAquatic Ecosystems: A reviewReview

of causes, effectsCauses, Effects and management practicesManagement Practices. Pages 70. 

National Committee for Air and Stream Improvement, Corvallis, Oregon. 
48 of 51 

Neary, D.G., G.G. Ice, C.R. Jackson. 2009. Linkages between forest soilsBetween Forest Soils

and water qualityWater Quality and quantityQuantity. Forest Ecology and Management. 

258(10):2269-2281. 

Nelson, N., Cissel, R., Black, T., Luce, C. 2011. Monitoring Road Decommissioning in the 

Mann Creek Watershed: Post-storm Report Payette National Forest. US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 33 pp.

Norris, L.A.; Lorz, H.W.; Gregory, S.V. 1991. Forest chemicalsChemicals. In: Meehan, W.R., 

ed. Influences of forestForest and rangeland managementRangeland Management on salmonid 

fishesSalmonid Fishes and their habitatsHabitats. Spec. Publ. 19. Bethesda, MD: American 

Fisheries Society: 207-296. 

Patric, J.H. 1976. Soil erosionErosion in the eastern forestEastern Forest. Journal of Forestry. 

74(10): 671-677. 

Rehder, K.J. and J.D. Stednick, 20062007. Effectiveness of Erosion and Sediment Control 

Practices for Forest Roads. Report to San Dimas Development and Technology Laboratory, 

USDA Forest Service, San Dimas, CA. September 2006.

Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment productionProduction from forest road surfacesForest 

Road Surfaces. Water Resources Research 20: 1753-1761. 

Rhodes, J.J.; McCullough, D.A.; Espinosa, F.A., Jr. 1994. A coarse screening processCoarse 

Screening Process for evaluationEvaluation of the effectsEffects of land management 

activitiesLand Management Activities on salmon spawningSalmon Spawning and rearing 
49 of 51 

habitatRearing Habitat in ESA consultations.Consultations. Tech. Rep. 94-4. Portland, OR: 

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission. 127 p. 

Rothwell, R.L. 1983. Erosion and sediment productionSediment Control at road-stream 

crossingsRoad-Stream Crossings. Forestry Chronicle 23: 62-66. 

Trautman, M.B. 1933. The general effectsGeneral Effects of pollutionPollution on Ohio fish 

lifeFish Life. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 63:69-72. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water & the Forest Service. USDA Forest Service, Washington, 

DC. FS-660. January 2000. 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Who Owns America’s Forests,? NRS-INF-06-08, May 2008, 8p. p. 

2. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Watershed Condition Framework,. FS-977., May 2011. 31p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/

(visited April 2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 2008. The US Forest Service - An Overview. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/documents/USFS_An_Overview_0106MJS.pdf (visited April 2012). 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, 

FS-990a. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. April 2012. 165 p. 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/index.htlm) April 2012.

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/index.html (visited April 2012). 
50 of 51 

USEPA. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Pollution from Forestry. 

EPA-841-B-05-001. Washington, DC: USEPA Office of Water. April 2005. 

USEPA. 2012. The Assessment, TMDL, Tracking And ImplementatioN System (ATTAINS). 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control (viewedvisited April 2012). 

USFS. 2008. The US Forest Service - An Overview. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/documents/USFS_An_Overview_0106MJS.pdf (visited April 2012). 

Van Lear, D.H.; Taylor, G.B.; Hansen, W.F. 1995. Sedimentation in the Chattooga River 

watershedWatershed. Tech. Pap. 19. Clemson, SC:. Clemson University, Department of Forest 

Resources. 61 p. 

Wemple, B.C.; Jones, J.A.; Grant, G.E. 1996. Channel network extensionNetwork Extension by 

logging roadsLogging Roads in two basins, westernTwo Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. 

Water Resources Bulletin. 32(6): 1195-1207. 

Williams, C.D. 1999. Current Status of Roads on National forest road policy: Problems and 

solutionsForest System Lands. Pacific Rivers Council. January, 1999. 

Williams, T.M.; Hook, D.D.; Limpscomb, D.J. 1999. Effectiveness of best management 

practicesBest Management Practices to protect water qualityProtect Water Quality in the South 

Carolina Piedmont. In: Haywood, James D., ed. Proceedings of the tenth biennial southern 

silvicultural research conferenceTenth Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-30. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture,USDA Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 271–276. 
51 of 51 

Title: Notice of Intent to AddressRevise Stormwater Regulations to Specify that an NPDES 

Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads, Including Logging Roads, 

using a Non-Permitting Approach under the Clean and to Seek Comment on Approaches for 

Addressing Water Act Quality Impacts from Forest Road Discharges

Dated: 

_______________________________ 

Nancy K. Stoner 

Acting Assistant Administrator

Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, Pattern: Clear