Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads i 

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................iii 

A. Methodology EPA Used to Sort and Code Public Comment Letters ...................................................iv 

B. Components of a Coded Comment Letter............................................................................................v 

C. Locating Comments and EPA’s Response in the Final Document .................................................... vi 

D. Attachments.........................................................................................................................................xi

E. Acronyms..............................................................................................................................................xi 

Chapter 1 – Response Essays

Response 1: Comments expressing support.........................................................................................1-1 

Response 2: Comments requesting extension or suspension of the comment period .........................1-2 

Response 3: Comments related to the request for comment on the May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent and the 

Agency’s responses to those comments................................................................................................1-3 

Response 4: Comments suggesting that the EPA delay or suspend taking final action on the proposed 

revisions.................................................................................................................................................1-4 

Response 5: Comments suggesting that the revision does not address legal uncertainty....................1-6 

Response 6: Comments supporting the objective of the revision but suggesting alternate language or 

approaches for clarifying requirements...................................................................................................1-8 

Response 7: Comments on the categorization of logging roads, forest roads, or silvicultural activities as 

point or nonpoint sources......................................................................................................................1-11

Response 8: Comments on the categorization of silvicultural activities, logging, logging roads, or forest 

roads as industrial or non-industrial or on whether logging roads are immediate access roads to industrial 

facilities..................................................................................................................................................1-13

Response 9: Comments on the addition of language to Phase I stormwater regulations on “rock crushing, 

gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage” and on the meaning and scope of these terms.............1-18

Response 10: Comments asserting that the revision is substantive and not just a clarification and that it 

therefore requires the EPA to conduct additional analysis or consultations..........................................1-20

Response 11: Comments on the definitions of the terms logging road or forest road...........................1-21

Response 12: Comments on the benefits of forests on water quality and aquatic life; the impacts of 

stormwater discharges from logging roads, forest roads, and silviculture on water quality; existing 

programs for addressing water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads, forest roads, 

and silviculture; and the documentation of these topics........................................................................1-22

Response 13: Comments on regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads or logging roads.. 1-25

Response 14: Comments asserting that the EPA should provide funding to states.............................1-27

Response 15: Introductions, salutations, references, journal articles, studies, reports, background or 

descriptive information, and other text..........................................................................................1-28
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads ii

Chapter 2 – Individual Comments and Responses 

1. General Statement of Support..........................................................................................................2-1 

2. Extension of Comment Period, Endorsements, Incorporate by Reference ...................................2-32

3. EPA’s Handling of Comments on the Notice of Intent...................................................................2-34

4. EPA’s or the United States’ Position on NEDC v Brown................................................................2-35

5. Requests for the EPA to Delay Action.........................................................................................2-37

6. Assertions that the EPA Should seek Legislative Support to Specify That Permits Are Not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads.....................................................................................2-70

7. Assertions that Revision Does Not Address Legal Uncertainty.......................................................2-72

8. Suggested Alternative Language or Approaches for Revision.........................................................2-90

9. Assertions that Logging Roads or Forest Roads Are Point Sources or Nonpoint Sources.............2-93

10. Addition of Language to Phase I Stormwater Regulations on “Rock Crushing, Gravel Washing, Log 

Sorting and Log Storage” and the Meaning of These Terms.............................................................2-100

11. Assertions that Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads Are Industrial Discharges and an 

NPDES Permit Should Be Required...................................................................................................2-102

12. Assertions that the EPA’s Revision Is In Fact Substantive...........................................................2-122

13. Definitions of the Terms Forest Road or Logging Road................................................................2-125

14. Section 404 Requirements........................................................................<No comments received>

15. Impacts of Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads and Existing Programs to Address Them

............................................................................................................................................................2-130

16. Regulating Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads ..............................................................2-175

17. Assertions that the EPA Should Provide Funding to States ..........................................................2-191

18. References, Descriptions, and Other Information Received..........................................................2-192
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads iii

Introduction

On September 4, 2012, the EPA published a proposal to revise its Phase I stormwater 

regulations to clarify that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads (77 Fed. Reg. 

53834, September 4, 2012). The EPA accepted written comments on the proposed rule

until October 4, 2012. The Agency accepted comments electronically via Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195 at www.regulations.gov, by mail, or by hand delivery.

The EPA received over 90 public comment letters on the proposed rule. The EPA 

coded1 these letters, parsing them into approximately 500 individual comments. The 

EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the 

proposed rule. This document contains these comments and EPA’s responses to them.

The document consists of the following sections: 

• Introduction: This section provides an overview of this document and 

familiarizes the reader with the process that the EPA used to organize individual

comments into similar themes or issues for response. The section will also help 

the reader to find comments and their responses. 

• Chapter 1 – Response Essays: This chapter contains the response essays that 

the EPA developed in response to themes or issues raised by commenter(s). 

• Chapter 2 – Individual Comments and Responses: This section contains 

individual comments and their response(s). The EPA assigned one or more 

response essays to each individual comment. 

This Introduction describes the following:

A. Methodology EPA used to sort and code public comment letters

B. Components of a coded comment letter

C. Locating comments and EPA’s response in the final document

D. A ttachments

E. Acronyms

 

1 EPA coded public comment letters using issue categories developed for the proposed rule. See Table 1.
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads iv

A. Methodology the EPA Used to Sort and Code Public Comment Letters

In responding to public comments, the EPA used the following methodology to sort and 

code comment letters into similar topics for response (see next page for an explanation 

of these terms): 

1. Reviewed each letter in its entirety and assigned each letter an Author ID.

2. Identified the substantive issues addressed in each letter and assigned them to 

specific issue categories, resulting in multiple comment IDs for most letters. Not 

all letters contained substantive comments.

3. Prepared a response for each comment (in the form of a broad essay addressing 

each major topic, with responses to individual comments referencing the 

appropriate essay), and made revisions to the final rule if appropriate.

The next section describes how a coded comment letter looks after it has been coded

(so the reader can locate specific comments and responses). Note that a comment

letter may have been split up into multiple comment IDs, each of which have associated 

responses. 
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads v 

B. Components of a Coded Comment Letter

The following diagram illustrates the components of a coded letter once they have been 

entered into the comments database. Refer to the section below on Locating Comments 

and EPA’s Response in the Final Document to learn how to find a comment and the 

response.

Issue Category: Reflects the

subject area addressed by the 

comment

Comment ID (last three 

numbers): Sequential 

numbering of individual 

thoughts/comments within a 

letter

Comment ID: Composed of the author ID 

and comment ID; a unique ID in the database 

to identify a particular comment

Author ID (first four 

numbers): Sequential 

numbering of comment 

letter authors

Attachment Number: 

When multiple documents

were submitted by an 

author at the same time, 

they were assigned an 

attachment number
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads vi

C. Locating Comments and EPA’s Responses in the Final Document

There are several ways for readers to locate comments. The Table of Contents will 

assist readers in locating comments and their associated responses, which are grouped 

by issue category. Table 1 is the list of issue categories that EPA used in parsing and 

coding comments; readers may simply proceed to the appropriate section in the 

document (see the Table of Contents) and read all comments on a given subject. Table 

2 provides a list of the commenters; some readers may wish to locate comments from a 

specific commenter. Using these resources and the search functions in Acrobat Reader, 

readers can easily locate any comments of interest.2

Table 1. Issue Categories: The table is a listing of all issue categories used for coding.

Issue Category Description/ Title

1 General statement of support

2 Extension of comment period, endorsements, incorporate by reference

3 EPA’s handling of comments on the Notice of Intent

4 EPA’s or the United States’ position on NEDC v Brown

5 Requests for the EPA to delay action

6 Assertions that the EPA should seek legislative support to specify that permits are 

not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads

7 Assertions that revision does not address legal uncertainty

8 Suggested alternate language or approaches for revision

9 Assertions that logging roads or forest roads are point sources or nonpoint 

sources

10 Addition of language to Phase I stormwater regulations on “rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage” and the meaning of these terms

11 Assertions that stormwater discharges from logging roads are industrial 

discharges and an NPDES permit should be required

12 Assertions that the EPA’s revision is in fact substantive

13 Definitions of the terms forest road or logging road

14 Section 404 requirements

15 Impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads and existing programs for 

addressing them

16 Regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads

17 Assertions that the EPA should provide funding to states

18 References, descriptions, and other non-comment information

 

2 This document has been published in Adobe Acrobat. The Acrobat Reader provides a number of 

features to assist readers in locating information. First, readers may use the search function (Ctrl + F or 

use the menu Edit, then Search) to search for specific key words or phrases. Second, a reader may use 

the search function to locate comments from a specific commenter by searching for the commenter’s 

Document ID. (See Table 2 below.) In this case, the search terms would include the last four digits of the 

commenter’s Document ID, which will appear in the responses as “Comment ID XXXX-A1-001.001,” 

where the Xs represent the last four digits of the Document ID. (The other characters in the Document ID 

are the Docket ID for this rulemaking.)
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads vii

Table 2. List of Authors: The table provides a list of authors and the associated author ID.

Document ID First Name

Middle 

Name Last Name Organization

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0185 Dan Dessecker Ruffed Grouse Society

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0186 Anonymous

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0187 David P. Tenny National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0188 Steven W. Koehn Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0189 Charlie Morgan Mississippi Forestry Commission (MS FC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0190

Howard M. 

Persinger, Jr. and Brian S. Keiling West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0191 Carl E. Garrison, III Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0192 Linda Casey Alabama Forestry Commission (AL FC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0193 Tom Partin American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0194 Thomas O'Rourke, Sr. Yurok Tribe

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0195

Ted 

Sturdevant and Leonard Young

State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and 

State of Washington Department of Ecology (WA DNR and 

Ecology)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0196 Charles Randy Dye West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0197 Michelle Bonnet Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0198 Daniel J. Dructor American Loggers Council (ALC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0199 Wib Owen

North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer 

Services (NC DACS)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0200 Cam Crawford South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0201 C.A. "Buck" Vandersteen The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0202 Robert W. Slocum, Jr. NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0203 Tom Partin American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0204 David Harrelson, Sr. St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0205 Galen Schuler Green Diamond Resource Company

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0206 Michael Beardsley Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0207 Ronald H. Hufford Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0208 Alan M. Robertson Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0209 Robert S. Qualman Qualman Tree Farm

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0210 Bryan Hulka Slade Creek LLC
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads viii

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0211 Paul Lyskava Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0212 Deb Hawkinson Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0213 Russell Drechsel Madison Paper Industries

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0214 J.R. "Randy" Bush Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0215 Bruce R. ZumBahlen Z Acres Tree Farm

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0216 L. Mundt

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0217 Coleman A. Doggett Doggett Tree Farms

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0218 M. Boyd

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0219 Zak Covar Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0220 Walter H. Lange Lange Tree Farm

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0221 Daniel E. Stuber IV Forest2Market, Inc.

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0222 Allan Ryder Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0223 Max Braswell Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0224 James R. Karels Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0225 John W. Bryant American Forest Management (AFM)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0226 Robert Bauer Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0227 J. Tedrick Racliff Jr. Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0228 Andrew Johnson Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0229

Steven H. 

Gunderson and C. Randy Dye

Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and 

National Association of State Foresters (NASF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0230 Kevin Godbout Weyerhaeuser Company

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0231 Candace Schnoor John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0232 Vance Wright Wright Forestry LLC

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0233 Mike Blosser Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0234 Tom Martin American Forest Foundation (AFF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0235 Michael Krancer Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Agency (PA DEP)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0236 Greg Haller Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0237 Cindy Mitchell and Peter J. Heide Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0238 Carl Portman Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0239 Heather Parent and Douglas Denico

Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine 

Forest Service (ME DEP and MFS)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0240 Oscar Baumhoff Baumhoff & Company, LLC
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads ix

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0241 Monica M. Lear Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0242 Richard Garber Boise Inc.

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0243 David P. Tenny National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0244 Eric Carlson Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0245 Bryan Smalley Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0246 Earl Gustafson Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0247 George L. Geissler

Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (OK 

DAFF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0248 Jan A. Poling American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0249 Paul R. Howe Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0250 Peter J. Daugherty Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0251 Shawn Keough Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0252 Wayne Brandt Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0253 Earl Gustafson Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0254 Robert S. Lynch Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDAA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0255 C. Moon

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0256 J. P. Bain

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0257 Salem G. Saloom Saloom Properties, LLC

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0258 Kristina McNitt Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0259 Bill Crapser Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0260 George D. Greig Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PA DA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0261 Bill Imbergamo Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0262 J. E. Miller Vermont Law School

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0263 David Schmidt Schmidt Family Forest LLC

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0264 John C. Magruder Magruder Family Tree Farm

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0265 Josiah Pierce The Pierce Place

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0266 Michael T. Goergen Jr. Society of American Foresters (SAF)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0267 Mark Riskedahl Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0268 Elroy Zemke and Jane F. Severt Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0269

Paul 

Kampmeier and Chris Winter

Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0270 G. M. Ostermayer University of Montana
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads x

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0271 George Edman Edman Company

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0272 Michael E. Case The Westervelt Company

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0273 William E. Snyder State of California Natural Resources Agency

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0274 Owen Graham Alaska Forest Association (AFA)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0275 Robert J. Olszewski Plum Creek

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0276 Ken Johnson and Paul DeLong Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195-0277 William O'Neill Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Introduction

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads xi

D. Attachments

Attachments that contained additional data or information and were considered a 

comment on the proposed revisions were coded into the appropriate issue category, 

similar to standard comment letters. These comments and responses will appear in

Chapter 1.

Attachments that were not considered a comment on the proposed revisions were not 

coded to an issue category. In cases where the author referred to an attachment in the 

text of the comment, EPA added a cross-reference to the appropriate document ID. 

EPA reviewed and considered all attachments in responding to comments, but only 

responded to those that were directly relevant to the proposed revisions and were 

therefore considered as a unique comment. Please refer to Response 12 and Response 

15. 

E. Acronyms

BMP Best Management Practice

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act 

DOJ Department of Justice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FR Federal Register

FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act (aka Clean Water Act)

MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit

NOI Notice of Intent

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NEDC Northwest Environmental Defense Center

obo On behalf of

RTC Response to Comment

SIC Standard Industrial Classification
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Chapter 1: Response Essays
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-1

Response 1: Comments expressing support

The EPA received many comments supporting the Agency’s plan to revise Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that 

stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity 

and that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater 

discharges. The EPA also received comments expressing support for the Agency’s efforts to engage with stakeholders 

and the public in outreach activities. Many of these commenters also explained the rationale for their support. 

The EPA thanks these commenters for their views. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-2

Response 2: Comments requesting extension or suspension of the comment period

The EPA received requests to extend or suspend the public comment period on the proposed revisions. After careful 

consideration, the EPA decided to not extend or suspend the public comment period. The EPA believes that the October 

4, 2012 deadline provided adequate time for the public to review and provide meaningful comment on the proposed 

revisions. The proposal merely affirms the current practice of not requiring an NPDES permit for discharges from logging 

roads. The public was aware of the EPA’s plan to propose this rule revision, and its reasons for doing so, since May 23, 

2012 when the EPA first issued a formal notice indicating its intent to propose this change. Moreover, on May 24, 2012

and again on September 4, 2012, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed amicus curiae briefs explaining the 

administrative steps that the EPA planned to take, and is taking in the final rule, to clarify “expeditiously” that an NPDES 

permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. 

See also Response 4: Comments suggesting that the EPA delay or suspend taking final action on the proposed revisions. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-3

Response 3: Comments related to the request for comment on the May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent and the Agency's 

responses to those comments

The EPA received comment asserting that the Agency has not responded to the comments received on the May 23, 2012

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 (77 Fed. Reg. 30473, May 23, 2012). While the EPA has reviewed the comments received in response to 

the Notice of Intent, the Agency explained in the Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To Clarify That 

an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads (77 Fed. Reg. 53837, September 4, 

2012) that the EPA would not be developing responses to those comments as part of this rulemaking. The EPA stated “If 

you submitted comments in response to the earlier Federal Register Notice that you believe to be relevant to the rule 

proposed today, please resubmit your comments in accordance with the process outlined above.” Ibid. 

Some of these commenters asserted that the Agency should have responded to their comments on the water quality 

impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads or forest roads and to the studies and references that they 

provided on the topic before proceeding with finalizing the proposed revisions. See Response 12. Others commented on

approaches for addressing water quality impacts from logging road or forest road discharges. See Response 13. The EPA 

did not propose and is not promulgating new requirements for stormwater discharges from logging roads or forest roads

at this time and therefore these comments are outside the scope of this rule. This rule simply clarifies EPA’s 

longstanding position that certain discharges are not industrial stormwater discharges as that term is defined in section 

402(p) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR part 122. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-4

Response 4: Comments suggesting that the EPA delay or suspend taking final action on the proposed revisions

The EPA received comment asserting that the Agency should delay or suspend taking final action on its proposal to 

revise the Phase I stormwater regulations in response to the Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 

F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC) ruling. Many of these commenters asserted that the Agency should have supported 

Supreme Court review of NEDC and that the EPA should delay or suspend taking final action now that the Supreme 

Court has granted review of the case. Many of these commenters also asserted that the Supreme Court’s ruling may 

provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit ruling on the Phase I stormwater regulations, on the Silvicultural 

Rule, and on whether stormwater discharges from logging roads are point sources or stormwater discharges “associated 

with industrial activity.” These commenters asserted that the ruling is relevant to the proposed rule and to whether a 

rule revision is necessary at all. They also suggested that it would be more efficient for the Agency to delay or suspend 

taking final action on the proposed revisions until after the Supreme Court rules rather than to complete one revision 

now based on the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and possibly another revision later based on the ruling of 

the Supreme Court, depending on how the Supreme Court rules. These commenters also asserted that waiting would 

cause less confusion to stakeholders and the public. Other commenters noted that the Congressional moratorium on the 

issuance of NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from logging roads was extended until March 2013 and asserted

that the EPA therefore lacks an urgent need to finalize the proposal now.

Today’s action uses the administrative process to end any uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in NEDC by 

clarifying what constitutes a discharge “associated with industrial activity.” By moving to finalize this rule expeditiously, 

the EPA is providing stakeholders the regulatory certainty needed in the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and is 

reaffirming the EPA’s long-standing regulatory position regarding the applicability of stormwater regulations to logging 

roads. In doing so, this final rule cancels out any on-the-ground impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. On May 24, 2012

and again on September 4, 2012, the Solicitor General filed amicus curiae briefs explaining the administrative steps that 

the EPA planned to take, and is taking today, to clarify “expeditiously” that an NPDES permit is not required for 

stormwater discharges from logging roads. For the comments asserting that the Agency should have supported Supreme 

Court review of NEDC v. Brown, the Solicitor General’s May 24, 2012 amicus curiae brief mentioned above provided the 

federal government’s position on the petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit (Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae, NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)) and the government’s 

September 4, 2012 brief provides its views regarding the litigation. In that brief and in EPA’s opposition to certiorari EPA 

stated, “by clarifying that channeled stormwater discharges from logging roads are not ‘associated with industrial 

activity,’ EPA’s proposed regulatory approach would render moot petitioners’ objections to the court of appeals’ 

conclusion that such discharges are subject to NPDES permitting requirements under the current regulatory scheme. . . . 

If an interested party is unhappy with the ultimate outcome of EPA’s rulemaking process, any new rule will be subject to 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-5

direct judicial review pursuant to 33 USC 1369(b) on the Agency’s developed administrative record.” US Opp. Cert. at 

*18. The Supreme Court is reviewing the NEDC v. Brown decision. The EPA will be prepared to respond to the Court’s 

decision in an appropriate manner, if a response becomes necessary. 

For comments asserting that the revision does not address legal uncertainty or suggesting that the EPA seek legislative 

or judicial support to achieve legal certainty, see Response 5. 

For general comments on the EPA’s decision to finalize the proposed revisions, see the preamble of the final rule in 

which the EPA documents its rationale for taking final action on this revision. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-6

Response 5: Comments suggesting that the revision does not address legal uncertainty

The EPA received comment asserting that stakeholders including logging road owners, operators, and users; states and 

local governments; and the public need legal certainty. Some of these commenters asserted that the proposed revisions 

do not address uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 

640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC). Others asserted that promulgating regulatory changes while the case is pending 

before the Supreme Court creates additional uncertainty. Some asserted that the proposed revisions, if finalized, would

be challenged in the courts and ultimately arrive before the Ninth Circuit (like NEDC). Others asserted that such future 

litigation would undermine regulatory certainty and create continued confusion, disruption, litigation, and costs. Some 

of these commenters asserted that the legal certainty cannot be achieved by the EPA administratively and that the 

Agency should instead have supported review of the NEDC decision by the Supreme Court (see Response 4). Some of 

these commenters asserted that the best or only path for providing legal certainty would be validation of the 

Silvicultural Rule by the Supreme Court or a decision by the Supreme Court specifying that logging roads should be 

treated as non-industrial or as nonpoint sources of pollution and not subject to NPDES permits. These commenters 

suggested that the Agency should therefore await the Supreme Court’s decision. Other commenters suggested that the 

EPA should have sought relief from Congress and that only legislative action specifying that logging roads should be 

treated as non-industrial or as nonpoint sources of pollution and not subject to NPDES permits would provide legal 

certainty. 

The EPA recognizes the need that stakeholders and the public have for legal certainty but disagrees with commenters

who assert that the revision does not address legal uncertainty or that a Supreme Court ruling or act of Congress would 

be necessary to achieve legal certainty. With today’s action, the EPA is using the tools at its disposal to end any 

uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in NEDC administratively by clarifying what constitutes a discharge 

“associated with industrial activity.” By moving to finalize this rule expeditiously, the EPA is providing the regulatory 

certainty needed in the wake of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and is reaffirming the EPA’s long-standing regulatory 

position regarding the applicability of existing stormwater regulations to logging roads. In doing so, this final rule cancels 

out any on-the-ground impacts of the Ninth Circuit’s decision. The key issue before the Supreme Court in the citizen suit 

matter is what EPA’s regulations currently require and whether appropriate deference was afforded to EPA’s 

interpretation. The US’s view is that the Court should have deferred to EPA’s interpretation of the regulations. EPA 

views any broader pronouncement about the extent of EPA’s authority to designate logging roads for regulation under 

section 402(p) as unnecessary to the decision in the case. The EPA’s action today would merely establish regulatory 

clarity in the meantime. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-7

On May 24, 2012 and again on September 4, 2012, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed amicus curiae

briefs explaining the administrative steps that the EPA planned to take, and is taking today, to clarify “expeditiously” 

that an NPDES permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. 

For comments suggesting that the final rule will be challenged in the courts, the Agency is confident that its final rule 

and its rationale are legally defensible. The EPA possesses the discretion to clarify that discharges from logging roads do 

not fit into the definition of stormwater associated with industrial activity. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-8

Response 6: Comments supporting the objective of the revision but suggesting alternate language or approaches for 

clarifying requirements

The EPA received comments supporting the revision but suggesting that the Agency use alternate language or 

approaches for clarifying requirements. Some of these commenters requested that the Agency delay or suspend taking 

final action on the proposed revision (see Response 4) but also provided suggestions to the EPA in case the Agency 

decided to move forward with a final rule. Some commenters suggested that the Agency specify which activities or 

facilities are not subject to stormwater discharge permit requirements. Some of these commenters suggested that the 

EPA indicate explicitly that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not require NPDES permits. Others suggested

that the EPA indicate that stormwater discharges from any forest road, including logging roads, or from silvicultural 

sources in general do not require NPDES permits. Others suggested that the EPA simply “remove logging” or exclude SIC 

code 2411 from the definition of stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity. 

The EPA acknowledges the support expressed for the objective of the revision but disagrees with the suggestions for 

alternate language or approaches. The EPA believes that the final language clarifies the applicability of Phase I 

stormwater regulations to stormwater discharges from logging roads by specifying which facilities are covered and 

further explaining that the remaining silvicultural facilities are not included. The Agency’s intent is simply to clarify 

existing requirements and not to issue any new requirements, interpretations, or exemptions. The final language 

indicates explicitly which facilities are included in the definition of stormwater discharges “associated with industrial 

activity” (i.e., “Facilities classified within Standard Industrial Classification 24, Industry Group 241 that are rock crushing, 

gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities”) and further 

explains that “not included are all other types of silvicultural facilities.” This approach negates the need to specify which 

activities or facilities are excluded or to “remove logging” or exclude SIC code 2411. The Agency believes that the four 

listed activities continue to be appropriately defined as “associated with industrial activity” and should not be redefined 

as non-industrial. 

Some commenters suggested that the EPA assert that logging roads are nonpoint sources. For these comments, see 

response above and Response 7. 

Other commenters suggested that the EPA assert that neither logging, nor logging roads, nor stormwater discharges 

from logging roads are associated with industrial activity. Similarly, others asserted that all nonpoint source silvicultural 

activities listed in 40 CFR 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities. See response above and 

Response 8. As the EPA notes in the preamble, the supplemental language in the Phase I rule includes the term 

“immediate access road.” The EPA considers “immediate access roads” to refer to roads which are exclusively or 

primarily dedicated for use by the industrial facility. See 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48009 (Nov. 16, 1990). These “immediate 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-9

access roads” do not include public access roads that are state, county, or federal roads such as highways or Bureau of 

Land Management roads which happen to be used by the facility. See id. The Phase I regulation defines the term “storm 

water discharge associated with industrial activity” to include stormwater discharges from facilities identified in the rule 

by standard industrial classification or “SIC” code at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Phase I regulation included in the 

definition of that term SIC code 24 (Lumber and Wood Products) which includes 2411 (logging), but the Agency also had 

specified in the Phase I rule that the term does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the 

NPDES program under other parts of the EPA’s regulations, including the Silvicultural Rule. The EPA had previously 

specified under the Silvicultural Rule which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program (40 CFR 

122.27). The EPA intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater 

runoff from other silvicultural activities. For the “silvicultural point source[s]” (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log 

sorting, and log storage facilities) regulated under the Phase I rule, the term “storm water discharge associated with 

industrial activity” includes “immediate access roads” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii)). Unlike “immediate access roads” 

associated with industrial facilities, many logging roads have multiple uses, including recreation and general 

transportation, and commonly extend over long distances (i.e.; may not provide “immediate access” to an industrial 

site). The intent of the EPA in this rulemaking is that the NPDES program requirements be implemented with regard to 

“immediate access roads” in the same way they were implemented prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit.

Some commenters suggested that the EPA specify that logging roads are not immediate access roads to industrial 

facilities. Some commenters disagreed and asserted that they are immediate access roads. See response above, 

Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 

The EPA also received comment on the addition of language to Phase I stormwater regulations on “rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage” and on the meaning and scope of these terms, especially as they relate to 

incidental or temporary log stacking, sorting, and storage that may occur during harvesting operations. Specifically, 

some commenters asserted that the EPA should indicate that incidental log stacking, sorting, or storage that may occur 

at an active timber harvesting site does not transform that timber harvesting into an industrial activity. Similarly, some 

commenters suggested that the EPA should promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion by adding language to the 

final rule or preamble reiterating the interpretations that the EPA set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General 

Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, in which the Agency discussed that discharges 

from “harvesting operations”, “incidental stacking” and “temporary storage” do not require permit coverage. The EPA 

believes that defining these terms is beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The terms “rock crushing, gravel washing, log 

sorting, and log storage” are already defined at 40 CFR 122.27(b)(2)-(3). The EPA believes that the existing definitions 

sufficiently convey the meaning and scope of these terms, that the regulated community is familiar with these terms 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-10

and has been implementing the existing provisions. This notice is not intended to change existing practices. Therefore, 

the EPA is not changing the existing definitions or including additional language in the final rule. See also Response 9. 

See also the preamble of today’s action for a discussion on the Agency’s rational for the final rule. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-11

Response 7: Comments on the categorization of logging roads, forest roads, or silvicultural activities as point or 

nonpoint sources 

The EPA received various comments on the proper categorization of logging roads, forest roads, and silvicultural 

activities including harvesting, transport, rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, log storage, etc. as either point 

sources or nonpoint sources. Some commenters asserted that some or all of these are nonpoint sources and that the 

Agency should indicate this in the final rule. Some asserted specifically that natural runoff from logging roads or forest 

roads, even when channeled through culverts and ditches, is a nonpoint source. Some of these commenters also

suggested that the EPA should defend the Silvicultural Rule or assert through the current rulemaking that logging roads 

or forest roads are nonpoint sources beyond the reach of the NPDES program and that stormwater runoff from these

roads is best managed through best management practices (BMPs) outside of the NPDES program. Some commenters 

also suggested that any further action by the EPA on logging roads or forest roads under its 402(p)(6) authority should 

be conducted under the assumption that these roads are nonpoint sources to avoid bringing them or other sources into

a regulatory program under 402(p)(6). See Response 13. 

Others asserted that logging roads are point sources. To support their positions, these commenters pointed to the 

statutory definition of point source or to the ruling of the Ninth Circuit in NEDC. Similarly, the EPA received comment 

asserting that the proposal to revise Phase I Stormwater Regulations, in response to the Ninth Circuit Court decision of 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown (2011), ignores the statutory definition of “point source” under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA). The EPA received comment asserting that defining all logging roads as nonpoint source would 

be erroneous because of the inclusion of pipes, ditches and channels as “point sources” in the Clean Water Act 

definition of point source. This comment asserted that the EPA therefore cannot exclude pipes, ditches and channels 

along logging roads from the Phase I rule based on the assertion that pollution from those sources is nonpoint in nature.

The EPA also received comment on the text appearing in footnote 1 of the proposed rule which stated that “Nothing in 

this proposed rule should be construed as conceding that discharges of stormwater from logging roads constitute point 

source discharges, a question on which the Supreme Court has granted review for the October 2012 term.” Some 

commenters interpreted this statement as a declaration by the EPA that stormwater discharges from logging roads are 

nonpoint sources and expressed either agreement or disagreement. 

The Agency is not declaring or defining logging roads, forest roads, or any silvicultural activity as either point sources or 

nonpoint sources as part of today’s action. The EPA does not need to determine whether logging roads or other 

silvicultural activities are point sources or not because this rulemaking is only intended to clarify what discharges are

associated with industrial activity and therefore require NPDES permits. The CWA does not require NPDES permits for all 

point sources of stormwater. Under the 1987 Amendments to the CWA, which added section 402(p), Congress 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-12

established a temporary moratorium on all stormwater permitting except for certain listed discharges. These listed 

dischargers are: discharges with respect to a permit had already been issued before Feb. 4, 1987, point sources that EPA 

has defined as associated with industrial activity, or from municipal separate storm sewer systems serving populations 

above certain sizes, or that the EPA has specifically designated to be regulated to protect water quality or is a significant

contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States. 33 USC 1342(p)(2), (p)(6). Even if some logging road discharges

are point sources of stormwater, they do not require permits unless and until the EPA defines them as sources of 

industrial stormwater under section 402(p)(2) or designates them for regulation under section 402(p)(2)(E) or (p)(6). 

Today the Agency is revising 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that the only activities under SIC code 2411 that are 

“industrial” are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. Logging roads are not included in this 

definition. Today’s action ends any uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit’s holding in NEDC administratively by 

clarifying what constitutes a discharge “associated with industrial activity.” This revision does not remove any existing 

exemptions or add any new requirements. As discussed in the preamble, the EPA did not intend logging roads 

themselves to be regulated as industrial facilities, but, in light of NEDC, the EPA is modifying 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) to 

clarify the Agency’s intent. This clarifies, contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s decision in NEDC, and consistent with the United 

States’ brief before the Court, that discharges of stormwater from silviculture facilities other than the four specifically 

named silviculture facilities identified above do not require an NPDES permit. 

See also the brief on petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for 

United States as Amicus Curiae, NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)) and the brief on writ of certiorari to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, 

NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)). 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-13

Response 8: Comments on the categorization of silvicultural activities, logging, logging roads, or forest roads as 

industrial or non-industrial or on whether logging roads are immediate access roads to industrial facilities

The EPA received comments on the categorization of silvicultural activities, logging, logging roads, and forest roads as 

either industrial or non-industrial and on whether or not logging roads are immediate access roads to industrial facilities. 

Some commenters suggested that the EPA should clarify that all harvest activities that occur in the woods are nonindustrial, nonpoint source silvicultural activities. Some suggested that the EPA should indicate explicitly that all 

silvicultural nonpoint source activities listed in 40 CFR 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities. 

Similarly, some suggested that the EPA should focus on the Ninth Circuit’s characterization of “logging” as industrial 

activity and specify in response that logging activities including harvesting operations are, in fact, non-industrial. Some 

commenters asserted that incidental log stacking, sorting, and storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site 

does not transform that timber harvesting into an industrial activity and requested that the Agency clarify. See Response 

9. 

In contrast, other commenters asserted that logging operations including log hauling and transport constitute “industrial 

activity” under the Clean Water Act. Some commenters asserted that the EPA should distinguish active, industrial 

logging roads that generate stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity from other logging roads or forest 

roads and that the former should remain regulated under the EPA’s Phase I stormwater regulations. Others asserted 

that the EPA has not articulated a rational basis consistent with the Act for categorizing some phases of timber 

harvesting process as “industrial” while categorizing other phases of the same process as non-industrial. Some asserted 

that where those roads utilize pipes, ditches, and other point sources to collect and convey stormwater that they 

generate stormwater associated with industrial activity and that the EPA is required to regulate them under the Phase I 

stormwater regulations. Others noted the inclusion of SIC code 24 in the Phase I stormwater regulations and asserted 

that, therefore, stormwater runoff from logging is a stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity. Such 

commenters asserted that exempting industrial logging roads stormwater discharges from regulation under the NPDES 

permit program fails to proactively “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s 

waters,” the objective of the CWA. Similarly, others pointed to the Phase I preamble and regulatory language asserting

that logging roads are “material handling sites...used for the transportation or conveyance of any raw material” or 

“immediate access roads” to industrial facilities and that, therefore, stormwater discharges from such roads require 

permit coverage under the Phase I stormwater regulations. Some commenters suggested that the EPA not focus any 

discussion on “access roads.” Such commenters also asserted that logging companies and industrial forestland owners 

should bear the cost of eliminating or minimizing channeled sediment delivery from their roads into the nation’s waters 

just as other industries face permitting costs under the Clean Water Act. Another commenter suggested that the EPA 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-14

regulate what the commenter described as point source discharges of pollutants from industrial logging roads under the 

existing NPDES permit program, and not rely on best management practices with what the commenter asserted to be 

limited regulatory oversight. The commenter also asserted that BMPs are inadequate. 

Some commenters asserted that the EPA cannot move discharges from regulation under Phase I stormwater regulations 

to regulation under a Phase II program. Such commenters asserted that the Act only allows the EPA to exclude a 

stormwater discharge from the Phase I stormwater regulations if it is not associated with industrial activity and that it is 

not for the EPA to say whether or not these discharges are associated with industrial activity. 

The term “stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity” is an ambiguous term that the EPA is authorized to 

interpret. As one commenter noted, Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “industry” as “any particular branch of 

producing, esp. manufacturing, enterprise” or “any large-scale business activity.” This is particularly appropriate for 

stormwater which poses regulatory challenges due to the vast number of facilities potentially affected and the variable 

nature of stormwater discharges. EPA currently estimates that the stormwater program nearly triples the number of 

NPDES permittees. See EPA website listing approximate numbers of permittees regulated, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/performance/cwa/index.html#1. Congress could not have expected the 

EPA to require industrial stormwater permits for every kind of production or business activity in the country. As relevant 

to silvicultural activities, in describing the scope of the term “associated with industrial activity,” several members of 

Congress explained in the legislative history that the term applied if a discharge was “directly related to manufacturing, 

processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. October 

15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987). The Phase I rule defined the statutory term “associated 

with industrial activity” by adopting the language used in the legislative history and supplementing it with a description 

of various types of areas (e.g., material handling sites or sites used for the storage and maintenance of material handling 

equipment) that are directly related to an industrial process and to industrial facilities identified by the EPA. 

As commenters acknowledged, the EPA exercised its discretion to further clarify the term “associated with industrial 

activity” in a variety of ways, such as excluding wholesale, retail, service, and commercial activities. 55 Fed. Reg. at 

48,007. The EPA again expanded upon what is and is not included in the term in creating and interpreting a “no 

exposure” exemption for industrial facilities. 64 Fed. Reg. 68,786 (Dec. 8, 1999). For example, the EPA decided that final 

products, such as cars, can be exposed outdoors and not trigger the industrial stormwater permitting requirements, 

whereas a manufacturing facility that left “intermediate products” outdoors, such as car engine parts, would not qualify 

for the “no exposure” exemption and would need to obtain an industrial stormwater permit. Id.

The definition of “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” in the Phase I rule includes stormwater 

discharges from facilities identified in the rule by standard industrial classification or “SIC” code at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-15

Whereas the Phase I regulation included in the definition of that term SIC code 24 (Lumber and Wood Products) which 

includes 2411 (logging), the Agency also exercised its discretion to specify in the Phase I rule that the term does not 

include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program under other parts of the EPA’s 

regulations, including the Silvicultural Rule. As discussed above, the EPA had previously specified under the Silvicultural 

Rule which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program (40 CFR 122.27). The EPA intended to 

regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, 

and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities.

The EPA believes that these four activities named in the Silvicultural Rule and referenced in the Phase I rule reasonably 

defines the types of activities Congress intended to be regulated as industrial: those activities “directly related to 

manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” These activities can generate the types 

of pollutants the EPA thinks Congress had in mind in directing the regulation of stormwater associated with industrial 

activity. Log sorting and storage activities, for instance, involve a variety of materials that can come into contact with 

stormwater discharges, such as coarse saw dust, other wood waste material, petroleum and other products for 

equipment maintenance (fuels, motor oils, hydraulic oils, lubricant fluids, brake fluids, and antifreeze), herbicides, 

pesticides, and fertilizers, and material handling equipment (forklifts, loaders, vehicles, chippers, debarkers, cranes, etc.) 

Final NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities, 60 FR 50804, 50835 (Sept. 29, 1995.) 

Rock crushing and gravel washing involve materials such as fuels, solvents, detergents, and plastic pellets; finished 

materials such as metallic products; fertilizers; pesticides; and waste products such as ashes, slag, and sludge. Id. at 

50920.

In contrast, this country’s sprawling network of logging roads, owned and managed by shifting patchworks of different 

entities, are not “directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.” 

Vol. 132 Cong. Rec. H10932, H10936 (daily ed. October 15, 1986); Vol. 133 Cong. Rec. H176 (daily ed. January 8, 1987). 

In view of the legislative history, the EPA does not believe that this vast system of roads, traversing hundreds of millions 

of acres of federal public land, state and local public land, county land, tribal land, private company-owned land, and 

family-owned land are the types of operations Congress intended the EPA to regulate as “industrial.” 

Finally, the mere fact that logging and other silvicultural activities are sometimes referred to in common parlance as 

“industrial” does not mean that the EPA is required to include those activities in its definition of “associated with 

industrial activity” for purposes of stormwater permitting requirements. Nor does the definition of four activities related 

to logging as “associated with industrial activity” mean that logging roads themselves must be encompassed by that 

definition as well. In response to the comment that it makes no sense for the four specified activities to be defined as 

industrial while the larger process they serve is not, and that logging is the only reason that rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage take place, the EPA disagrees. The fact that the Agency regulates certain aspects of 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-16

an activity does not mean it must regulate every aspect. The only reason that logs are harvested is so that they can be 

put to some other use, which the EPA may or may not characterize as industrial. For example, the Agency also does not 

include in its definition of “associated with industrial activity” many of the end uses of harvested lumber, such as its 

installation in a house as shelving or other furniture. The EPA includes the manufacture of kitchen cabinets in its 

definition of “associated with industrial activity,” but not the installation of cabinets into kitchens, which is part of the 

larger process of kitchen cabinetry and undisputedly the only reason kitchen cabinets are manufactured. Again, just 

because the EPA defines certain parts of a process as industrial activity does not mean that everything related to that

process must be industrial. 

The EPA discussed immediate access roads in the preamble to the proposed and final clarification rules. As discussed in 

these preambles, the supplemental language in the Phase I rule also includes the term “immediate access road.” The 

EPA considers “immediate access roads” to refer to any type of road that is exclusively or primarily dedicated for use by 

the industrial facility. See 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48009 (Nov. 16, 1990). These “immediate access roads” do not include 

public access roads that are state, county, or federal roads such as highways or Bureau of Land Management roads 

which happen to be used by the facility. See id. The Phase I regulation defines the term “storm water discharge 

associated with industrial activity” to include stormwater discharges from facilities identified in the rule by standard 

industrial classification or “SIC” code at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14). The Phase I regulation included in the definition of that 

term SIC code 24 (Lumber and Wood Products) which includes 2411 (logging), but the Agency also had specified in the 

Phase I rule that the term does not include discharges from facilities or activities excluded from the NPDES program 

under other parts of the EPA’s regulations, including the Silvicultural Rule. The EPA had previously specified under the 

Silvicultural Rule which silvicultural discharges were to be included in the NPDES program (40 CFR 122.27). The EPA 

intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, 

log sorting, and log storage facilities) and to exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other 

silvicultural activities. For the “silvicultural point source[s]” (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log 

storage facilities) regulated under the Phase I rule, the term “storm water discharge associated with industrial activity” 

includes “immediate access roads” (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii)). Unlike “immediate access roads” associated with industrial 

facilities, many logging roads have multiple uses, including recreation and general transportation, and commonly extend 

over long distances (i.e.; may not provide “immediate access” to an industrial site). The intent of the EPA in this 

rulemaking is that the NPDES program requirements be implemented with regard to “immediate access roads” in the 

same way they were implemented prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit.
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-17

See also the preamble of the final rule. See also the brief on petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae, NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)) and 

the brief on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for United States as 

Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)).

For comments on the categorization of logging roads, forest roads, or silvicultural activities as either point sources or 

nonpoint sources, see Response 7. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-18

Response 9: Comments on the addition of language to Phase I stormwater regulations on “rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage” and on the meaning and scope of these terms

The EPA received comment requesting clarification on the addition of language to Phase I stormwater regulations on 

“rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage.” Some commenters asserted that the EPA was creating new 

requirements with the addition of this language. The EPA disagrees. As explained in the preamble of the final rule, the 

EPA had previously specified under the Silvicultural Rule (40 CFR 122.27) which silvicultural discharges were to be 

included in the NPDES program (i.e., rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities). The EPA 

intended to regulate those same “silvicultural point source[s]” under the Phase I rule and to exclude from the Phase I 

regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities. The revisions clarify that for the purposes of defining 

stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under SIC code 2411 that are “industrial” 

are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. Thus, this revision does not remove any existing 

exemptions or create new requirements but rather clarifies existing requirements.

The EPA also received comment on the meaning of the terms “rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log 

storage” and suggesting that the EPA define or further explain them. Some commenters were unsure of the meaning or

scope of these terms, especially as they relate to temporary or incidental log stacking, sorting, or storage that may occur 

during harvesting operations. Such commenters expressed concern that previously unregulated temporary or incidental 

staging areas would inadvertently be brought into the Phase I stormwater regulations or that the inclusion of the terms

“rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage” in the revised Phase I regulatory language would be applied 

inappropriately to legitimately non-industrial silvicultural activities that commonly occur in the field at a harvesting site. 

Some commenters suggested that the EPA include language in the final rule or preamble reiterating the interpretations 

that the EPA set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 

Industrial Activity, in which the Agency discussed that discharges from “harvesting operations”, “incidental stacking” and 

“temporary storage” do not require coverage. 

The EPA disagrees that additional language is necessary. The terms “rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log 

storage” facilities are already defined at 40 CFR 122.27(b)(2)-(3). The EPA believes that the existing definitions 

sufficiently convey the meaning and scope of these terms, which the regulated community is familiar with and has been 

guided by for over two decades, and additional language to clarify them is unnecessary. Therefore, the EPA is not 

changing the existing definitions or including additional language in the final rule. 

The EPA also received comment questioning why the distinction was made between log hauling and the four activities

that are included in the proposed rule (rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage). See Response 13 and 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-19

the preamble to today’s action. The EPA notes that the objective of today’s rule is to clarify existing requirements. The 

EPA is not creating new requirements or removing existing exemptions as part of this rulemaking. 

See also Response 6 and Response 8. 

The commenter asserts that log hauling facilities have no independent utility but rather serve to facilitate industrial 

logging activities and that if they are included then log hauling should also be included. The EPA notes that the Agency is 

not creating additional requirements as part of this rulemaking. Rather, the EPA is clarifying existing requirements. See 

the preamble to today’s action. 

See also Response 6, Response 8, and Response 13. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-20

Response 10: Comments asserting that the revision is substantive and not just a clarification and that it therefore 

requires the EPA to conduct additional analysis or consultations

The EPA received comment asserting that the revisions to Phase I stormwater regulations are substantive. Similarly, the 

EPA also received comment asserting that the Agency is rolling back the Phase I stormwater regulations to reduce the 

number of kinds of polluting activities that require NPDES permits. The commenter points to the decision of the Ninth 

Circuit court of appeals and asserts that the court held stormwater discharges from pipes, ditches, and channels along 

active, industrial logging roads requires NPDES permits under the existing NPDES permit regulations as written. These 

commenters asserted that the EPA must therefore analyze impacts and complete consultation requirements under the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The EPA also received comment asserting that the potential cost of the rule as proposed 

is significant. 

The EPA disagrees with these comments. Today’s action neither creates nor removes either requirements or

exemptions. Rather, the action clarifies existing requirements and exemptions. The EPA notes these interpretations 

were offered in the Agency’s briefs in the NEDC case. The final rule clarifies that, for the purposes of assessing whether 

stormwater discharges are “associated with industrial activity,” the only facilities under SIC code 2411 that are 

“industrial” are: rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage. This clarifies, contrary to the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in NEDC, that discharges of stormwater from silviculture facilities other than the four specifically named 

silviculture facilities identified above do not require an NPDES permit. This clarification is consistent with the EPA’s longstanding practice of not requiring NPDES permits for these discharges. It is also consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s 

remand of the Phase II stormwater rules to EPA in Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 863 (9th 

Cir. 2003) to decide whether “402(p)(6) requires EPA to regulate forest roads” because if EPA was already regulating 

these discharges, the Ninth Circuit would have had no reason to remand the question to the Agency for consideration. 

Because the final rule clarifies existing regulations and does not impose new or remove existing regulatory 

requirements, this action has no economic, public health, or environmental impacts, will not affect any species listed as 

endangered or threatened, and does not trigger any requirements under the ESA. 

See also the brief on petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for 

United States as Amicus Curiae, NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)) and the brief on writ of certiorari to the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, 

NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011)).

See also Response 12 and Response 13. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-21

Response 11: Comments on the definitions of the terms logging road or forest road

The EPA received comments on the terms logging road and forest road and on their definitions. Some commenters 

suggested that the EPA should define these terms. Similarly, some asserted that a definition of logging roads is required 

to clarify the intent of this revision. Others asserted that the EPA may eventually need to define these terms in the 

future if the Agency later creates new requirements for stormwater discharges from forest roads. Some of these 

commenters described what they see as the differences between logging roads and forest roads and provided the EPA 

with potential approaches for distinguishing or defining them. The EPA has reviewed these comments. 

Others suggested that the EPA clarify that an NPDES permit is not required for stormwater discharges from any forest 

road and not just from logging roads. See Response 6, Response 7, and Response 8. 

The EPA is not defining either of these terms as part of this rulemaking. The EPA believes that it is unnecessary to define 

either forest road or logging road as part of this action. The objective of this rulemaking is to clarify that stormwater 

discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges. The 

EPA believes that the final language sufficiently clarifies the applicability of Phase I stormwater regulations to 

stormwater discharges from logging roads. The final language indicates explicitly which facilities are included in the 

definition of stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity” (i.e., “Facilities classified within Standard 

Industrial Classification 24, Industry Group 241 that are rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities 

operated in connection with silvicultural activities”). Moreover, the final language further explains that “not included are 

all other types of silvicultural facilities.” This approach negates the need to define logging road or forest road as part of 

this action. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-22

Response 12: Comments on the benefits of forests on water quality and aquatic life; the impacts of stormwater 

discharges from logging roads, forest roads, and silviculture on water quality; existing programs for addressing water 

quality impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads, forest roads, and silviculture; and the documentation of 

these topics

The EPA received comments describing the benefits that forests have on water quality and aquatic life and on the water 

quality impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads, forest roads, and silviculture as well as existing programs 

for addressing them. Some of these commenters provided the EPA with studies or references. The EPA thanks the 

commenters. Some commenters asserted that the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from logging roads 

and other forest roads are well-documented and suggested that the Agency should regulate them. Some further noted 

that the Agency received a report from one of its contractors in 2008 on those issues and asserted that the Agency 

already has all of the information it needs in order to regulate stormwater discharges from forest roads. Some 

commenters referred to this study as the Endicott report, in reference to Douglas Endicott, the principal investigator for 

the report. These commenters suggested that if information gaps remain, the Agency should specify what information is 

needed and indicate on what schedule that information will be collected. 

Other commenters noted that the notice of proposed rulemaking did not discuss the water quality impacts of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads and asserted that the EPA downplayed the importance of addressing these 

discharges. Specifically, one of these commenters asked why the Endicott report was not specifically mentioned or cited 

in either the May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent or the September 4, 2012 proposal. Other commenters pointed to existing 

programs and suggested that a national regulation is unnecessary. Such commenters asserted that state BMPs have 

been effective at protecting water quality and that, therefore, no need exists for a new federal regulatory role with 

respect to forest roads. Some asserted that neither BMPs; nor existing state, federal, or tribal programs; nor voluntary 

or nonpoint source control programs sufficiently protect water quality. Some commenters noted that the Agency has 

indicated that it continues to study these issues and asked about the objectives, methods, and timeline of this new study 

and whether the EPA is collecting new data or just synthesizing existing information. Some of these commenters 

asserted that the information the Agency already has is comprehensive and asked why the information previously 

gathered by the Agency or received from Endicott is inadequate to move forward with requiring permits for stormwater 

discharges from logging roads or forest roads or designating and regulating stormwater discharges from these roads. 

Similarly, others asked what specific additional information is still needed. Some commenters provided references to 

studies for the EPA to use as the Agency moves forward. Some requested that the Agency should review and respond to 

the studies included or cited in public comments and to fully explain the Agency’s choice whether or not to regulate 

channeled discharges from logging roads or forest roads through the NPDES permit. The EPA also received comment 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-23

asserting that even if the EPA is only maintaining the status quo, that the EPA should still recognize the impacts 

associated with discharges from logging roads and forest roads. 

The EPA thanks commenters for their comments. The EPA is not proposing new regulations for stormwater discharges 

from forest roads, including logging roads, at this time. While the EPA has not developed a specific schedule for 

addressing stormwater discharges from forest roads, the Agency notes that, in response to the partial remand under 

Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. US EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), the Agency continues to review available 

information on the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads, as 

well as existing practices to control those discharges and is considering a range of options to address such discharges, 

which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency’s 

section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The EPA believes that the broad range of flexible approaches under section 

402(p)(6) may be well-suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. 

While engaged in a prior effort to gather information on the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest 

roads, including logging roads, and the methods and programs for addressing these impacts, the EPA received 

contractor support to assist the Agency in its information-gathering efforts. In 2008, the EPA received a report from the 

contractor prepared by Douglas Endicott of the Great Lakes Environmental Center who served as principal investigator 

of the effort. The EPA conducted a preliminary review of that report but has not yet conducted formal review of the 

report or finalized it for publication. However, the EPA notes that much of the information included in the May 23 

Notice of Intent came directly from that report. 

Similarly, the EPA is using much of the same information and studies gathered during the prior information gathering 

effort as the Agency continues to review available information on the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges 

from logging and forest roads and existing practices to control those discharges. While the EPA anticipates including 

much of the information gathered during the previous study, the EPA is reviewing the literature to ensure that the 

Agency is up to date. The EPA is also working with states, sister federal agencies, and other entities and reviewing 

descriptions of their programs to ensure that the Agency has the most accurate and current information on existing 

practices and programs for managing stormwater discharges from logging and forest roads.

The EPA thanks commenters who provided suggestions regarding an approach to logging roads under Section 402(p)(6) 

or copies or citations of relevant studies. These will be helpful as the EPA continues its data- and information-gathering 

efforts. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-24

The EPA also received comment asserting that the review will be inconclusive given the complexities associated with 

forest roads at a national scale and that forest owners and state regulatory authorities face uncertainty. The EPA 

believes that the Agency’s current efforts will provide sufficient data and information to move forward with decisions. 

See also Response 13. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-25

Response 13: Comments on regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads or logging roads 

The EPA received many comments on regulating stormwater discharges from forest roads or logging roads. Some 

commenters suggested that the Agency should not create additional requirements for stormwater discharges from 

logging roads or forest roads through this rulemaking. Some suggested that the Agency should not create additional 

requirements for stormwater discharges from forest roads or logging roads either now through this rulemaking or 

through a future rulemaking. Some commenters asserted that any new regulations would create significant burden and 

suggested that the Agency evaluate impacts before proceeding with any new requirements. Similarly, some asserted 

that new regulations would make forest management difficult or would lead forest owners to develop their land or sell 

their land to developers. Some asserted that the EPA should not focus on logging or forest roads but rather on what they 

see as larger contributors of water quality impacts such as agriculture or grazing. 

In contrast, other commenters asserted that the Agency should establish requirements for stormwater discharges for 

either forest roads or logging roads or both and discussed what they see as the minimum elements of such regulations. 

Some explained their rationale pointing to the water quality impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads or 

logging roads. Some commenters described approaches or suggested provisions of potential new requirements. Some 

suggested that the Agency specify which discharges might be included in any future regulation (e.g., point sources only). 

Others suggested that the EPA consider a full range of potential approaches. Some suggested a permit approach. Some 

suggested regulations with federal oversight. Others suggested non-regulatory approaches such as guidelines or third 

party certification programs. Some commenters asked why the EPA is discussing stormwater discharges from forest 

roads and not just logging roads. 

The EPA is not proposing new regulations for stormwater discharges from forest roads or logging roads at this time. 

Comments expressing support or criticism of any approaches toward regulating stormwater discharges from forest 

roads or logging roads, aside from whether logging roads should be regulated through the industrial stormwater 

permitting program, are outside the scope of today’s action and therefore do not require a response. The purpose of 

today’s rulemaking is to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges 

associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not 

required for these stormwater discharges. This action neither creates nor removes either requirements or exemptions. 

However, the EPA notes that, in response to the partial remand under Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. US EPA, 344 

F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003), the Agency continues to review available information on the water quality impacts of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads, as well as existing practices to control those 

discharges and is considering a range of options to address such discharges, which could include designating a subset of 

stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency’s section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The EPA 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-26

believes that the broad range of flexible approaches under section 402(p)(6) may be well-suited to address the 

complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. The EPA intends to present information about best 

practices and programs for managing logging road discharges, and identify any gaps in its data, as part of any proposed 

rulemaking it may undertake in the future that might involve logging roads. In the meantime, it continues to work on 

compiling and analyzing the most up to date data, including helpful information that commenters submitted as part of 

their response to today’s rulemaking.

See also Response 12. 
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-27

Response 14: Comments asserting that the EPA should provide funding to states

The EPA received comments asserting that the Agency should provide funding to states to support their implementation 

of state BMP programs. Such commenters encouraged the EPA to apply its section 319 authorities more broadly to 

provide funding assistance to state forestry agencies. 

The EPA has reviewed these comments. The EPA is not making any changes to funding mechanisms under its section 319 

authority as part of this rulemaking. The objective of this rulemaking is to clarify that stormwater discharges from 

logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges. 

The EPA also notes that Section 319 already authorizes the use of grant funding aimed at addressing silvicultural best 

management practices and that many states are utilizing Section 319 funds to develop forestry BMP education, 

implementation, and effectiveness programs as well as cost-share funds for the installation of structural BMPs such as 

bridge mats and culverts.
Chapter 1: Response Essays 

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 1-28

Response 15: Introductions, salutations, references, journal articles, studies, reports, background or descriptive 

information, and other text

The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. In addition to 

substantive comments, comment letters also included such text as introductions, salutations, journal articles, studies, 

reports, background or descriptive information, descriptions of the individuals or organizations submitting comments, 

their programs, best management practices (BMPs), other descriptive text. The EPA also received information from 

commenters describing the programs and BMPs of other entities (e.g., states and federal agencies). The EPA has 

reviewed the information provided by commenters and notes that the Agency has responded to all substantive 

comments related to the final rule revision. See also Response 12. 

The EPA also thanks commenters who provided studies, articles, or references. These will be helpful to the Agency as it 

continues its data-gathering efforts and considers options to address discharges from logging roads. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Chapter 2: Individual Comments and 

Responses
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 1: General Statement of 

Support

Pages 2-1 to 2-31 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-1

1. GENERAL STATEMENT OF SUPPORT

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.002

Author Name: Dessecker Dan

Organization: Ruffed Grouse Society

Issue Category: 1

The EPA is to be commended for proposing to explicitly delineate that stormwater discharges from forest roads are not industrial 

discharges. The recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court that these discharges are indeed "associated with industrial activity" has 

needlessly and substantially complicated the opportunity for industrial and nonindustrial forest landowners to practice sound forest 

stewardship. The proposed EPA action will help clarify the responsibilities of forest landowners as they utilize existing and new forest 

roads to facilitate forest management activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 8. 

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.004

Author Name: Dessecker Dan

Organization: Ruffed Grouse Society

Issue Category: 1 

Excessive regulatory oversight of stormwater discharges from forest roads will diminish the likelihood that these landowners will initiate 

the active forest management required to sustain wildlife of young forest habitats. Therefore, the Ruffed Grouse Society supports the 

EPA's proposal to clarify that no NPDES permit is required to address stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0188-A1.001.002

Author Name: Koehn Steven

Organization: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision concerning the 

silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-2

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.002

Author Name: Morgan Charlie

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Commission (MS FC)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision concerning the 

silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.002

Author Name: Brian S. Keiling Howard M. Persinger, Jr.

Organization: West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

Issue Category: 1 

Our members concur with the opinion expressed in 1976 by the EPA that state best management practices (BMPs) are the most effective 

method of addressing potential water quality impacts from forest roads and forest management activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0191-A1.001.002

Author Name: Garrison, III Carl

Organization: Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DF)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision concerning the 

silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-3

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.002

Author Name: Casey Linda

Organization: Alabama Forestry Commission (AL FC)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to srlvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision concerning the 

silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.002

Author Name: O'Rourke, Sr. Thomas

Organization: Yurok Tribe

Issue Category: 1 

The Yurok Tribe supports EPA's decision to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not discharges "associated with 

industrial activity" and do not require an NPDES permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.004

Author Name: O'Rourke, Sr. Thomas

Organization: Yurok Tribe

Issue Category: 1

For this reason, the Tribe supports EPA's decision to revise 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that "industrial activity" requiring an 

NPDES permit does not include stormwater runoff discharges from the construction, maintenance, or use of roads associated with 

silvicultural activities, or from the roads themselves.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.001
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-4

Author Name: Leonard Young Ted Sturdevant

Organization: State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and State of Washington Department of Ecology (WA DNR and 

Ecology)

Issue Category: 1

We concur with EPA's approach of modifying its stormwater regulations to clarify that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) Permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads, with the exception of existing requirements for 

rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage facilities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.002

Author Name: Dye Charles

Organization: West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision concerning the 

silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.002

Author Name: Bonnet Michelle

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC)

Issue Category: 1 

DEC supports EPA's assertion that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not stormwater discharges associated with an 

industrial activity requiring Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.002

Author Name: Dructor Daniel

Organization: American Loggers Council (ALC)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-5

Issue Category: 1

The American Loggers Council agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System ("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.002

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 1

The North Carolina Forest Service supports the USEPA proposal to modify federal rule 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that the 

NPDES program requirements be implemented with regard to "immediate access roads" in the same way they were implemented prior to

the Ninth Circuit decision. We support the notion that, unlike 'immediate access roads' that are associated with industrial facilities, many 

logging and forest roads have multiple uses, including recreation and general transportation, and commonly extend over long distances. 

Permitting through the NPDES should only be required with regards to access roads to the previously identified "rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting or log storage" facilities. 

In addition, the North Carolina Attorney General has agreed to sign-on as a party of an Amicus memo that was prepared by the State of 

Arkansas, regarding the outcomes of the litigation that resulted in the US EPA decision to pursue making this proposed revision to the 

NPDES regulations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.002

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 1

We support the USEP A's proposal to revise the federal Phase-! NPDES regulations to specify that stormwater discharges from logging 

roads are not stormwater discharges "associated with industrial activity." We also support USEP A's effort to pursue flexible, 

non-regulatory options for managing stormwater discharges from forest roads. Over the 40 year history of the Clean Water Act, 

silvicultural nonpoint sources of potential pollution have been appropriately managed by delegation to states and subsequent enactment 

of state-based regulations and/or development of forestry best management practice (BMP) programs.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-6

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.002

Author Name: Crawford Cam

Organization: South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

Issue Category: 1

SCFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.002

Author Name: Vandersteen C.A.

Organization: The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

Issue Category: 1

LFA agrees with the EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to 

the NEDC v. Brown decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.002

Author Name: Slocum, Jr. Robert

Organization: NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

Issue Category: 1

The NCFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 

permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.003

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-7

Issue Category: 1

AFRC agrees with and supports EPA's objective in this rulemaking proposal not to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals NEDC v. Brown decision. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.002

Author Name: Harrelson, Sr. David

Organization: St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

Issue Category: 1

St. Joe Timberland agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.003

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company

Issue Category: 1 

Green Diamond agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate response to the NEDC v. Brown decision because forest roads 

are not part of or appurtenant to industrial facilities, as EPA has recognized for over thirty years.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.002

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 1

We applaud EPA's continued support in the NOI for its 1976 determination that water quality impacts from forest roads, and forestry 

generally, are best addressed through state-adopted best management practices (BMPs).
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-8

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.002

Author Name: Hufford Ronald

Organization: Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

Issue Category: 1

TFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.002

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Sheffield, Vermont, I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.002

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Brentwood, Tennessee I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.002
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-9

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Hyde County, North Carolina, I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.003

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 1

PFPA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.002

Author Name: Hawkinson Deb

Organization: Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

Issue Category: 1

The Forest Resources Association agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System ("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.002

Author Name: Drechsel Russell

Organization: Madison Paper Industries

Issue Category: 1

Madison Paper Industries agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-10

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0214-A1.001.002

Author Name: Bush J.R.

Organization: Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

Issue Category: 1

VFPA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.002

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Cottage Grove, Minnesota who owns woodland in Wisconsin, I heartily agree with the EPA's decision to 

not require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0216.001.001

Author Name: Mundt L.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 1

We do agree with the decision not to require clean water act permits for forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0218.001.001

Author Name: Boyd M.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-11

Organization: 

Issue Category: 1

As a professional forester I support the position that NPDES stormwater discharge permits are not required for forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0219-A2.001.002

Author Name: Covar Zak

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

Issue Category: 1

The TCEQ supports EPA's revision of the Phase I stormwater regulations to specify that stormwater discharges from logging roads are 

not stormwater discharges "associated with industrial activity." The proposed revision would 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 an NPDES permit under section 402 

of the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.002

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Swanton, Ohio and the 2010 Ohio Tree Farmer of the Year, I agree with and support EPA's objective not 

to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.002

Author Name: Stuber IV Daniel

Organization: Forest2Market, Inc.

Issue Category: 1

Forest2Market, Inc. agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-12

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.002

Author Name: Ryder Allan

Organization: Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

Issue Category: 1

Timber Resource Group agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.002

Author Name: Braswell Max

Organization: Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 1

AFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0224-A1.001.002

Author Name: Karels James

Organization: Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF)

Issue Category: 1

SGSF supports the intention of the proposed rule to clarify which silvicultural stormwater discharges are associated with an industrial 

activity. We agree with EPA that only four activities are industrial: rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities 

operated in conjunction with silvicultural activities. 

SGSF also agrees with EPA that roads used for silvicultural activities are not "immediate access roads" associated with industrial 

facilities, given that they have multiple uses, cross ownership boundaries, and can extend over long distances. We concur with EPA that 

natural runoff from forest roads, even when channeled through culverts and ditches is a nonpoint source, and that this proposed revision 

clarifies that an NPDES permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-13

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 7 and Response 8. 

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.002

Author Name: Bryant John

Organization: American Forest Management (AFM)

Issue Category: 1

I agree with and support EPA's objective not to- require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination,Systern ('ODES"), permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.002

Author Name: Bauer Robert

Organization: Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)

Issue Category: 1

KFIA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.002

Author Name: Racliff Jr. J.

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

Issue Category: 1

MFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.002
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-14

Author Name: Johnson Andrew

Organization: Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

Issue Category: 1

GPI agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0229-A1.001.002

Author Name: C. Randy Dye Steven H. Gunderson

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and National Association of State Foresters (NASF)

Issue Category: 1

Our organizations generally support EPA's proposed rule for the reasons outlined below. 

NASF and ACWA recognize that a mismanaged road associated with logging activities can cause water quality issues. We acknowledge 

that NPDES permits are effective for reducing point source pollution and achieving water quality standards. However, we support EPA's 

proposal that multi-sector NPDES permits are not the most effective mechanism to control these dispersed sources nationally. <FN4> 

Based on our collective experience, we agree with EPA that a national requirement to issue NPDES permits to logging roads is not likely 

to be the most efficient way to measurably improve water quality or overall forest health. 

We agree with EPA's proposal to clarify that EPA never intended for logging roads to be regulated as industrial facilities under Phase I of 

the stormwater program. We support EPA's proposed revisions to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that for the purposes of defining 

stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2411 

that would be defined as industrial are "rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage". <FN5> 

Further, we support EPA's proposal given that: 

• Imposing a new unfunded mandate on state permitting authorities would strain limited state permitting resources by substantially 

increasing the multi-sector NPDES program workload. 

• A multi-sector NPDES permitting approach would constrain states' abilities to use a range of tools and practices more specifically 

focused on the highest priority problem areas and opportunities. 

• Even general permits - which can be relatively straightforward to develop - require states have sufficient resources to implement and 

maintain the general permit and authorizations under it; to effectively inspect, monitor, and report on permittees, to offer compliance 

assistance, training, and outreach, and to conduct enforcement. 

• National multi-sector permitting requirements that add administrative costs and increased exposure to litigation could diminish many 

landowners' commitment to owning and caring for working forests, and drive them towards less desirable land uses from a water quality 

standpoint. EPA has acknowledged that forest landscapes are consistently associated with the nation's best water quality. 

• Under state authorities, states may still decide to issue permits to manage adverse water quality impacts from these and other types of 

discharges, including those that may result from logging road construction/operation. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-15

In conclusion, CWA § 402(p) allows for a broad range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to address stormwater discharges. 

<FN4> Based on further data, or legal policy considerations, should EPA determine that NPDES permits are required, a general permit 

approach likely would garner state support as a resource and environmentally efficient approach. 

<FN5> We note that legal questions such as whether logging roads are classified as "industrial activities" are pending Supreme Court 

review in Decker v. NEDC (No. 11-338, certiorari granted 6/25/12).

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.002

Author Name: Schnoor Candace

Organization: John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

Issue Category: 1

Deere agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.002

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 1 

As a family forest owner from Blackridge, Virginia, I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.002

Author Name: Blosser Mike

Organization: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

Issue Category: 1

LP agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-16

stormwater discharges from forest roads 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.002

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 1 

The American Forest Foundation agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.002

Author Name: Krancer Michael

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

Issue Category: 1 

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) supports EPA's conclusion that stormwater discharges from forest 

roads, including logging roads, should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act which allows for a broad range of 

flexible approaches that are better suited for addressing forest road ownership, management, and use, and supports a state-based 

regulatory approach when necessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.004

Author Name: Krancer Michael

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

Issue Category: 1

Further, we support EPA's proposal given that: 

• Imposing a new unfunded mandate on state permitting authorities would continue to strain limited state permitting resources by 

substantially increasing the multi-sector NPDES program workload. 

• A multi-sector NPDES permitting approach would constrain states' abilities to use an existing range of tools and practices more 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-17

specifically focused on the highest priority problem areas and opportunities. 

• Even general permits, which can be relatively straightforward to develop, requires that states have sufficient resources to implement 

and maintain the general permit and the authorizations under it. 

• National multi-sector permitting requirements that add administrative costs and increased exposure to litigation could diminish many 

landowners' commitment to owning and caring for working forests, and drive them towards less desirable land uses from a water quality 

standpoint. EPA has acknowledged that forest landscapes are consistently associated with the nation's best water quality.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0236-A1.001.001

Author Name: Haller Greg

Organization: Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

Issue Category: 1

Pacific Rivers Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposal to add 

language to existing regulations regarding discharges of stormwater from silviculture activities. Pacific Rivers Council's (PRC's) 

mission is to protect and restore rivers, their watersheds, and the native species that depend on them. As such, we are committed to 

helping solve an ongoing problem related to the quality of surface waters nationwide: the delivery of sediment and other pollutants to 

streams and other water bodies from logging roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.002

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 1 

WFPA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0238-A1.001.001

Author Name: Portman Carl

Organization: Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-18

Issue Category: 1

The Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC) is writing to support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 

assertion that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not stormwater discharges associated with an industrial activity requiring 

Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.001

Author Name: Douglas Denico Heather Parent

Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Forest Service (ME DEP and MFS)

Issue Category: 1

The Maine Forest Service (MFS) and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) fully support EPA's proposal to modify 40

CFR 122.26 to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an 

industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This 

clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision that silvicultural activities are exempted from the requirements of a National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.002

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 1 

As a family forest owner from Centerville Idaho 83631, I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0241-A1.001.003

Author Name: Lear Monica

Organization: Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF)

Issue Category: 1

Our organizations generally support EPA's proposed rule for the reasons outlined below. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-19

NASF and ACWA recognize that a mismanaged road associated with logging activities can cause water quality issues. We acknowledge 

that NPDES permits are effective for reducing point source pollution and achieving water quality standards. However, we support EPA's 

proposal that multi-sector NPDES permits are not the most effective mechanism to control these dispersed sources nationally. <FN4> 

Based on our collective experience, we agree with EPA that a national requirement to issue NPDES permits to logging roads is not likely 

to be the most efficient way to measurably improve water quality or overall forest health. 

We agree with EPA's proposal to clarify that EPA never intended for logging roads to be regulated as industrial facilities under Phase I of 

the stormwater program. We support EPA's proposed revisions to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to clarify that for the purposes of defining 

stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity, the only activities under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 2411 

that would be defined as industrial are "rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage". <FN5> 

Further, we support EPA's proposal given that: 

• Imposing a new unfunded mandate on state permitting authorities would strain limited state permitting resources by substantially 

increasing the multi-sector NPDES program workload. 

• A multi-sector NPDES permitting approach would constrain states' abilities to use a range of tools and practices more specifically 

focused on the highest priority problem areas and opportunities. 

• Even general permits - which can be relatively straightforward to develop - require states have sufficient resources to implement and 

maintain the general permit and authorizations under it; to effectively inspect, monitor, and report on permittees, to offer compliance 

assistance, training, and outreach, and to conduct enforcement. 

• National multi-sector permitting requirements that add administrative costs and increased exposure to litigation could diminish many 

landowners' commitment to owning and caring for working forests, and drive them towards less desirable land uses from a water quality 

standpoint. EPA has acknowledged that forest landscapes are consistently associated with the nation's best water quality. 

• Under state authorities, states may still decide to issue permits to manage adverse water quality impacts from these and other types of 

discharges, including those that may result from logging road construction/operation. 

In conclusion, CWA § 402(p) allows for a broad range of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to address stormwater discharges. 

<FN4> Based on further data, or legal policy considerations, should EPA determine that NPDES permits are required, a general permit 

approach likely would garner state support as a resource and environmentally efficient approach. 

<FN5> We note that legal questions such as whether logging roads are classified as "industrial activities" are pending Supreme Court 

review in Decker v. NEDC (No. 11-338, certiorari granted 6/25/12).

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.002

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-20

Issue Category: 1

We applaud EPA's continued support for its 1976 determination that water quality affects from forest roads, and forestry generally, are 

best addressed through state-adopted best management practices (BMPs).

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.005

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 1

Boise agrees with the EPA's stated objective for the proposed rulemaking in 77 Fed. Reg. 53834, clarifying that silviculture activities are 

not point sources and, as such, these activities are exempt from NPDES stormwater permit requirements.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.002

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 1 

NAFO agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.002

Author Name: Carlson Eric

Organization: Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

Issue Category: 1

ESFPA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits 

for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-21

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.002

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 1

SLMA agrees with EPA in this proposed rule that stormwater discharge from forest roads should not be required to obtain NPDES

permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.002

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 1 

The Wisconsin Paper Council supports EPA's decision to revise stormwater regulations in order to specify that a National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0247-A1.001.002

Author Name: Geissler George

Organization: Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (OK DAFF)

Issue Category: 1

We fully support EPA's proposal to modify its Phase I stormwater regulations at 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging 

roads provide access to silvicultural activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to 

facilities previously identified as "rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing 

regulatory decision concerning the silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-22

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.002

Author Name: Howe Paul 

Organization: Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

Issue Category: 1

VFA agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. The proposed revisions to the Phase 1 stormwater rule are a most appropriate response to the 

NEDC v. Brown decision. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.002

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 1 

We support the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposal to revise its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that 

stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute discharges associated with industrial activity, and that a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required. We also agree that the proposed revision clarifies EPA's long-standing 

interpretation of the stormwater discharge rules to exclude forest road runoff from NPDES permitting requirements. We also support the 

EPA's approach to clarification. By modifying the definition of "stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity" (40 C.F.R. § 

122.26(b) (14) (ii)), the EPA states affirmatively what discharges are associated with industrial activity, rather than trying to exclude a 

subset of discharges by reference.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.007

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 1

In closing, we support the proposed revision to clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not require a permit. The 

proposed rule change is a proper first step for General, Oregon Department of Justice Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry eputy 

Forester, Oregon Department of Forestry Chief, Oregon Department of Forestry , Environmental Quality headdressing the Ninth Circuit 

Court's erroneous decision. If the EPA decides to pursue additional rulemaking in this area, Oregon will welcome the opportunity to 

participate fully in that process in order to ensure that any approach adopted is practical and effective.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-23

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.002

Author Name: Keough Shawn

Organization: Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

Issue Category: 1

The ALC-Idaho agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 

permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.003

Author Name: Brandt Wayne

Organization: Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

Issue Category: 1 

MFI supports EPA's objective in this rulemaking proposal not to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.002

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 1

The WPC supports EPA's objective to clarify that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are not required 

for stormwater dischargers from forest roads, contrary to the finding of the Ninth Circuit in NEDC v Brown. The WPC shares the 

perspective of the National Governors Association, 31 state Attorneys General, the National Association of Counties, National Alliance 

of Forest Owners, other landowners, forest products companies, state forestry associations, academics and other stakeholders that the 

Ninth Circuit's decision in NEDC v Brown is in error, unnecessary and inappropriate.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0254-A1.001.002
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-24

Author Name: Lynch Robert

Organization: Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDAA)

Issue Category: 1

We commend EPA for its effort to clarify that it never intended that forest roads used by logging companies, because they have drainage 

ditches on the side of them to carry off rainwater, should become subjects of the NPDES program. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.002

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 1

As a consulting forester from Danville, Virginia, I agree with and support EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.002

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Ivor VA, I agree with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.002

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Brewton, Alabama whose Tree Farm is located in Conecuh County near Evergreen, Alabama I agree with 

and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for storm water 

discharges from forest roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-25

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0258-A1.001.002

Author Name: McNitt Kristina

Organization: Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

Issue Category: 1

OFIC agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits for 

stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.002

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 1 

The CWSF supports the intent of the proposed rulemaking to clarify that the EPA never intended to regulate logging roads as industrial 

facilities under the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.004

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 1

We support the EPA's desired effect of the proposed rule; to clarify that, contrary to the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit in NEDC v. Brown, stormwater discharges associated with silvicultural activities (with the exception of rock crushing, 

gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage which are already defined as silvicultural point sources) are not "industrial" and therefore do 

not require NPDES permits. <FN1> 

<FN1> We note that legal questions implicated by this rulemaking, such as the Standard Industrial Classification of silviculture 

activities, are currently awaiting review by the Supreme Court of the United States in Decker v. NEDC (No. 11‐338, certiorari granted 

6/25/12).
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-26

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.005

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 1

The CWSF appreciates the efforts of the EPA to provide clarity that discharges from logging roads do not constitute industrial activity 

under the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.003

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 1 

FFRC agrees with and supports EPA's objective in this rulemaking proposal not to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges 

from forest roads. The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals NEDC v. Brown decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0262-A1.001.002

Author Name: Miller J.

Organization: Vermont Law School

Issue Category: 1

I believe these clarifications are a reasonable representation of the EPA's current regulations as well as the spirit of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act or CWA). I support the proposed revision and its application to roads used and 

maintained by the forest and logging industry.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-27

Comment ID 0262-A1.001.004

Author Name: Miller J.

Organization: Vermont Law School

Issue Category: 1

I support this revision and clarification to the existing regulations for stormwater discharge and feel that it provides a legitimate and 

accurate interpretation of the EPA's intentions. Additionally, I believe that this revision is true to the spirit of the Clean Water Act and its 

legislative intent.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.002

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 1 

As a family forest owner living near Corvallis, Oregon, I agree with and strongly support EPA's objective not to require NPDES permits 

for stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.002

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Tappahannock, VA, I agree with and support EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.002

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-28

Issue Category: 1

As a family forest owner from Baldwin, Maine, I agree with and support EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.002

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 1

1. SAF supports the intention of the proposed rule, which is to clarify which silvicultural stormwater discharges are associated with 

industrial activity. We agree with the EPA that only four activities are industrial, including rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, 

and log storage facilities operated in conjunction with silvicultural activities - as defined in 40 CFR 122.27(b)(2)-(3).

2. SAF also agrees with the Notice that roads used for silvicultural activities are not “immediate access roads” associated with industrial 

facilities, given that they have multiple uses, cross ownership boundaries, and can extend over long distances.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.006

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 1 

6. However, should the US Supreme Court affirm the 9th Circuit Court opinion that some roads used for silviculture are point sources, 

we agree with the EPA that these should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act. As mentioned in the Notice, this 

section of the Act does allow for a range of flexible approaches to address the complexities of forest road ownership, management, and 

use. The best way to do this is to defer to current state BMP programs.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.002

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-29

Issue Category: 1

WCFA agrees with EPA's continued support of the silviculture exemption for forest roads as outlined in the proposed rule. The 1976 

determination that forest roads and general forestry practices are best regulated through the use of state adopted Forestry Best 

Management Practices (BMP's) for Water Quality has served to protect water quality here in Wisconsin and across the United States.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.002

Author Name: Edman George

Organization: Edman Company

Issue Category: 1

Edman Company agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 

permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.002

Author Name: Case Michael

Organization: The Westervelt Company

Issue Category: 1 

The Westervelt Company agrees with an:l supports EPA's objecjye net tu require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

C'NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.002

Author Name: Snyder William

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 1

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) supports this clarification and the adoption of this proposed 

amendment by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 40 CFR Part 122.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-30

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.006

Author Name: Snyder William

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 1

CAL FIRE believes requiring NPDES permits on logging road drainage structures would disrupt the current effective and efficient 

regulation of logging road water quality problems and thwart the rapidly advancing regulatory improvements that are being made in this 

area. CAL FIRE concurs that the EPA has the authority to specify which silvicultural discharges are included in the NPDES permit 

program. Those that have been specified by the EPA as needing and NPDES permit are: (1) rock crushing, (2) gravel washing, (3) log 

sorting, and (4) log storage facilities. 

In conclusion, CAL FIRE supports and urges the EPA to adopt the proposed revision to Stormwater Regulations to clarify that a NPDES 

Permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. CAL FIRE believes the clarification will sustain existing 

logging-road related water quality protections, and allow pending improvements in those protections to progress without interruption or 

delay. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0274-A1.001.002

Author Name: Graham Owen

Organization: Alaska Forest Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 1 

The Alaska Forest Association supports the EPA position that runoff from logging roads do not require a CWA Section 402 permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.002

Author Name: Olszewski Robert

Organization: Plum Creek

Issue Category: 1

Plum Creek agrees with and supports EPA's objective not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") 

permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-31

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0276-A1.001.002

Author Name: Paul DeLong Ken Johnson

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

Issue Category: 1

We support EPA's proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, where logging roads provide access to silvicultural 

activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except for access to facilities previously identified as "rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a long-standing regulatory decision that silvicultural 

activities are exempt from the requirements of NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.

Comment ID 0277-A1.001.002

Author Name: O'Neill William

Organization: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

Issue Category: 1 

The MDNR fully supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to modify 40 CFR 122.26 in order to clarify that, 

where logging roads provide access to silvicultural activities, they do not constitute "immediate access" to an industrial activity, except 

for access to facilities previously identified as "rock crushing; gravel washing, log sorting or log storage." This clarification codifies a 

long-standing regulatory decision concerning the silvicultural activities exempted from the requirements of a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1.
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 2: Extension of Comment 

Period, Endorsements, Incorporate by 

Reference

Pages 2-32 to 2-33 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-32

2. EXTENSION OF COMMENT PERIOD, ENDORSEMENTS, 

INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.001

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 2

On behalf of the National Alliance of Forest Owners ("NAFO"), I am writing to seek an extension of at least 60 days of the comment 

period for the above referenced Notice of proposed rulemaking ("the Notice"). As explained in greater detail below, the Notice and its 

related legal issues are discussed in a recent amicus brief filed by the Solicitor General in two pending cases (consolidated) before the 

U.S. Supreme Court. NAFO's comments on the Notice would be better informed following receipt of upcoming briefs in the case. As a 

result, NAFO suggests that it would be appropriate for the comment period to run until after the close of briefing before the Supreme 

Court and therefore requests an extension of at least 60 days.

Response 

Please refer to Response 2.

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.003

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 2

NAFO believes that the development of its comments on the Notice would benefit from review and analysis of the briefs that will be 

filed in October and November and are expected to address the issues raised in the Solicitor General's filing. Accordingly, NAFO 

respectfully requests an extension of time for the closing of the comment period of the Notice that would align with the closing of the 

briefing period before the U.S. Supreme Court, i.e. an extension of at least 60 days.

Response 

Please refer to Response 2. Refer also to Response 4. 

Comment ID 0193-A1.001.003

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 2 

Please suspend the public comment period on this proposal and reopen it once the Supreme Court has ruled.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-33

Please refer to Response 2.
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 3: EPA’s Handling of 

Comments on the Notice of Intent

Page 2-34 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-34

3. EPA’S HANDLING OF COMMENTS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.002

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 3 

Although we assume that EPA is considering all the studies and information cited in the May 23, 2012 Federal Register notice as it 

decides whether to amend the Phase I stormwater rule, we hereby formally request that EPA include in the administrative record for this 

matter all the information mentioned or cited in that Federal Register notice. Additionally, please include these comments, our June 22, 

2012 comments, and the materials we are submitting via courier in the administrative record for this matter (Docket Number 

EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195). The submitted materials include a letter and materials sent to EPA by the Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center on April 25, 2012 regarding examples of current logging road management. These examples, which include programs in 

Washington State and in United States National Forests, inform the Conservation Groups' comments and should be viewed as instructive 

in developing a strategy for reducing pollution from logging roads. Also please respond to each comment in writing. 

Before explaining the Conservation Groups' specific concerns with the proposed rule, we wish to express our disappointment with EPA's 

decision not to respond to the comments we submitted on June 22, 2012, in response to EPA's May 23, 2012 Federal Register notice. 

EPA failed to respond to the conservation community's concerns about forest roads during the Phase II rulemaking process in the late 

1990s. See Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). Since then-and for nearly ten years-EPA has failed or 

refused to respond to the remand order in that case. Now, without responding at all to the Conservation Groups June 2012 comments, 

EPA proposes to roll back the NPDES permit requirements for active industrial logging roads, while also claiming it needs to continue 

studying other forest road discharges before building a Phase II program for non-industrial and inactive forest roads. 

EPA's refusal to squarely and publicly address the well-documented pollution problem caused by logging roads is discouraging. Had 

EPA responded to our June 22 comments in the September 4, 2012 Federal Register notice, the conservation community would be in a 

much better position now to provide comments that specifically address EPA's concerns with the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision in 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). EPA must bring significantly more clarity and

transparency to its regulatory approach to stormwater discharges from logging roads. EPA can take the first step in that direction by 

responding clearly and fully to all comments submitted on its proposed rule.

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 3, Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, 

and the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 4: EPA’s or the United 

States’ Position on NEDC v. Brown 

Pages 2-35 to 2-36 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-35

4. EPA’S OR THE UNITED STATES’ POSITION ON NEDC V BROWN

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.002

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company

Issue Category: 4

Under circumstances such as these, which are common throughout the United States, the NEDC v. Brown decision is not only wrong as 

a matter of law, but it serves no purpose. NPDES permitting for forest roads will add paperwork, costs, controversy, and litigation, but 

there will be no discernible benefit because forests are already appropriately-managed and regulated for the protection of water quality 

throughout the United States.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0219-A2.001.004

Author Name: Covar Zak

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

Issue Category: 4

The Notice of Proposed Revisions states that EPA continues to review available information on the water-quality impacts of stormwater 

discharges from forest roads, which include logging roads. It is also stated that EPA is considering a range of options to address such 

discharges, which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the Agency's 

section 402(p) rulemaking authority. The TCEQ questions EPA's intent to include the larger category of forest roads when the decision 

in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown addressed stormwater runoff only from certain logging roads. The Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center case specifically addressed stormwater runoff from logging roads that was collected in a series of ditches, 

culverts, and channels and was diverted into streams and rivers. It appears that EPA is seeking to address a broader spectrum of nonpoint 

source runoff from logging roads which are specifically exempted from NPDES coverage under the Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center case. EPA therefore should not, through this rulemaking regulate all forest roads other than just logging roads. The TCEQ is 

opposed to any actions by EPA which would lead to the regulation of a more extensive universe of forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.004

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 4

SLMA filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioners in Decker v. NEDC and Georgia-Pacific-West v. NEDC based upon our belief that 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-36

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its ruling that forest roads require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 15, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0254-A1.001.003

Author Name: Lynch Robert

Organization: Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDAA)

Issue Category: 4

Clearly, EPA's determination that such roads are not "immediate access roads" or roads "associated with industrial activity" as your 

Phase I regulations define those terms is an interpretation the Ninth Circuit should have taken into account and to which it should have 

deferred. 

However, the Court didn't do that and its holding is sufficiently broad to bring into question whether this attempt at clarification can get 

the job done. That question need not be answered because, as you know, the case is now before the Supreme Court on the merits. 

On the same day your notice was published in the Federal Register, EPA filed a brief in the Supreme Court to the effect that the Ninth 

Circuit should have deferred to EPA in interpretation of this rule. It did so because the Supreme Court had accepted certiorari in this 

case in June and the briefing schedule is about to be concluded this fall. Obviously, then, oral argument will take place at some time in 

this term of the Court and a decision will be forthcoming most likely by the end of June before the term ends. 

Whatever EPA decides to do in terms of attempting to finalize this rule, and we are in no way suggesting it should not, we believe that 

any further action on this subject should inform the public of the status of the Supreme Court case and the likelihood that some 

adjustment to any completed rulemaking on this subject prior to the issuance of that decision may require further amendment to the rule 

or clarification of it to bring it into compliance with the Supreme Court's ultimate decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and to the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 5: Requests for the EPA to 

Delay Action

Pages 2-37 to 2-69 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-37

5. REQUESTS FOR THE EPA TO DELAY ACTION

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.003

Author Name: Brian S. Keiling Howard M. Persinger, Jr.

Organization: West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

Issue Category: 5 

We believe EPA should vigorously support its 36-year policy of relying on BMPs to address water quality impacts from these activities 

while awaiting a ruling on the logging road issue by the Supreme Court. We further believe the court's ruling is likely to make revision of 

current stormwater regulations unnecessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5, Response 6, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0193-A1.001.002

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 5

We appreciate the willingness of the Environmental Protection Agency to deal directly with the issues raised by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals ruling in NEDC v. Brown. However, we urge that revisions to the stormwater rules for logging roads await a decision by the 

U.S. Supreme Court in the now-pending appeals of that decision. We believe that rule revision can best be done in light of the high 

court's final decision in that case, rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.003

Author Name: Dructor Daniel

Organization: American Loggers Council (ALC)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

[Organization] believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 4 and to the preamble to today's rule. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-38

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.005

Author Name: Dructor Daniel

Organization: American Loggers Council (ALC)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.003

Author Name: Crawford Cam

Organization: South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

SCFA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.005

Author Name: Crawford Cam

Organization: South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.003

Author Name: Vandersteen C.A.

Organization: The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

Issue Category: 5 

LFA firmly believes that EPA should not finalize this Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme court.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-39

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.005

Author Name: Vandersteen C.A.

Organization: The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.003

Author Name: Slocum, Jr. Robert

Organization: NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

The NCFA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S.

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 4.

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.005

Author Name: Slocum, Jr. Robert

Organization: NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.004
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-40

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 5

However, AFRC believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before 

the U.S. Supreme Court. It is our understanding that Congress' passage of a Continuing Resolution extending the provisions of the FY 

2012 appropriations bill makes the moratorium on issuance of NPDES permits for logging roads effective until March, 2013. 

Therefore, there is no need for EPA to act at this time. We urge that revisions to the stormwater rules for forest roads await a decision 

by the U.S. Supreme Court. We believe rule revision can best be done in light of the high court's final decision in that case, rather than 

in a piecemeal fashion.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.003

Author Name: Harrelson, Sr. David

Organization: St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although St. 

Joe Timberland believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.005

Author Name: Harrelson, Sr. David

Organization: St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.004

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-41

Issue Category: 5

However, Green Diamond maintains that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is

pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.006

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to suspend further action on the Proposed Rule and await the result of the Supreme 

Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.003

Author Name: Hufford Ronald

Organization: Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

TFA members believe that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 1 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.005

Author Name: Hufford Ronald

Organization: Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-42

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.003

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5. 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.007

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5 

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5. 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.003

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.007
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-43

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.003

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.007

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 5 

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.004

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

we believe that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-44

Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 4, and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.006

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.003

Author Name: Hawkinson Deb

Organization: Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

FRA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.005

Author Name: Hawkinson Deb

Organization: Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-45

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.003

Author Name: Drechsel Russell

Organization: Madison Paper Industries

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

Madison Paper Industries believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending 

before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 1. 

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.005

Author Name: Drechsel Russell

Organization: Madison Paper Industries

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0214-A1.001.003

Author Name: Bush J.R.

Organization: Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

VFPA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0214-A1.001.005

Author Name: Bush J.R.

Organization: Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-46

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.003

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

But, I urge you to delay your final rule while the review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Family 

forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.007

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5 

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0218.001.002

Author Name: Boyd M.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 5

Although rule-making such as is being considered by EPA may be an appropriate response, it is prudent to await the final decision from 

the Supreme Court, which will determine the scope and need for rule-making if indeed any is necessary. The number of possible 

outcomes of the Supreme Court decision, most relevant being the upholding of the Silvicultural rule excluding forest roads as industrial 

activity and treated as non-point sources discharges, means EPA should suspend actions subject to clarification and guidance.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-47

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.003

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.007

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5 

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.003

Author Name: Stuber IV Daniel

Organization: Forest2Market, Inc.

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

Forest2Market, Inc. believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before 

the U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.005

Author Name: Stuber IV Daniel
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-48

Organization: Forest2Market, Inc.

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.003

Author Name: Ryder Allan

Organization: Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

Timber Resource Group believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending 

before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.005

Author Name: Ryder Allan

Organization: Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.003

Author Name: Braswell Max

Organization: Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

AFA members believe that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme Court.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-49

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.005

Author Name: Braswell Max

Organization: Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.003

Author Name: Bryant John

Organization: American Forest Management (AFM)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

[Organization] belieVes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

US Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.005

Author Name: Bryant John

Organization: American Forest Management (AFM)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.003

Author Name: Bauer Robert

Organization: Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-50

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

KFIA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.005

Author Name: Bauer Robert

Organization: Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.003

Author Name: Racliff Jr. J.

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

Mississippi Forestry Association believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is 

pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.005

Author Name: Racliff Jr. J.

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-51

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.003

Author Name: Johnson Andrew

Organization: Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

GPI believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.005

Author Name: Johnson Andrew

Organization: Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.004

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 5

EPA Should wait for the Ruling from the Supreme Court Prior to Finalizing the Proposed Rule 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I stormwater program in its 

review of the NEDC v. Brown decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. Thus, the scope of the 

Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. For instance, if the 

Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no further need for 

EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no need for a 

rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. Moreover, the 

Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-52

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.008

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 5

In closing, while the point source/nonpoint source and Phase I questions are pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask that EPA 

put all regulatory action (Phase I and Phase II) related to forest roads on hold until the Supreme Court decides the questions before it.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.003

Author Name: Schnoor Candace

Organization: John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision; however, 

Deere believes EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.005

Author Name: Schnoor Candace

Organization: John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

Issue Category: 5

For all the above reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.003

Author Name: Wright Vance
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-53

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.007

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.003

Author Name: Blosser Mike

Organization: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

LP believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.005

Author Name: Blosser Mike

Organization: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-54

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.003

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

we believe that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court,

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.007

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 5 

Recommendation to EPA to Delay Final Rulemaking, Forest Owners Need Certainty 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. AFF 

continues to support the position that forest roads should not be considered point sources of pollution. Thus, the scope of the Supreme 

Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. If the Supreme Court upholds the 

1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no further need for EPA to consider forest roads 

under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no need for a rulemaking on whether discharges 

from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. The Supreme Court may provide further clarity or 

guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. It is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I 

permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which would create more uncertainty on this issue for family forest owners 

and undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. For all these reasons, it would be appropriate 

for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.003
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-55

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

WFPA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.005

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.003

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until, while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.007

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-56

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.006

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 5

However, since the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear the appeal of the Ninth Circuit's decision in NEDC v. Brown, we believe that 

EPA should suspend the proposed rulemaking activity until after the Supreme Court has issued its ruling. This will prevent unnecessary 

iterative revisions to EPA rules and will allow for a more deliberate and linear path moving forward on the part of the EPA and the 

regulated community. In fact, this current EPA rule revision may be unnecessary after the court rules. Moreover, any rulemaking action 

on the part of EPA at this time, prior to the court decision, could lead to confusion regarding permit applicability for state regulators and 

landowners, unnecessary litigation, and an interruption in the forest biomass supply chain.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.003

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

NAFO believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court. 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. In 

addition, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it is 

highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which could 

perpetuate confusion and legal uncertainty pending and following the outcome of the Supreme Court case. For all these reasons, it would 

be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-57

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.007

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 5

II. EPA Should Await the Ruling from the Supreme Court Prior to Finalizing the Proposed Rule 

In its comments to EPA's Notice of Intent Regarding Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads (77 Fed. Reg. 30473), NAFO made 

clear that revising the Phase I stormwater permitting regulations in response to NEDC v. Brown was a sound approach if the Supreme 

Court did not accept review of the case. Just days after NAFO's comments were filed, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. As NAFO 

explained in its prior comments, revisions to the Phase I regulations may be an effective stop gap measure, but they do not provide full 

regulatory certainty to federal, state, county, tribal and private forest owners and managers given that litigation over such regulatory 

revisions before the Ninth Circuit is a near certainty. Nor does the Proposed Rule address the point source/nonpoint source question 

currently pending before the Supreme Court. Thus, NAFO urges EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court review before taking final 

action on the Proposed Rule. 

Indeed, if the Ninth Circuit ruling were final and not subject to review before the Supreme Court, NAFO would support EPA finalizing 

the proposed rule as soon as practicable. Now, however, the scope of the Court's holding could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and 

whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest 

roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial 

activity and require NPDES permits. 

In addition, the Supreme Court is reviewing the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the same regulation that EPA is proposing to amend in 

the Proposed Rule. It is logical to await the outcome of the Supreme Court's review of an appellate interpretation of a regulation before 

proceeding to amend the same regulation in question. It would also seem to be a more efficient use of agency resources to perform 

rulemaking once (if at all), rather than engage in multiple rounds of proposed and final rules. 

In short, depending on the scope of its ruling, the Supreme Court can provide complete regulatory certainty to NAFO's members where 

EPA cannot. Should the Supreme Court's ruling call for EPA regulatory action in response, then EPA can act at that time. In the interim, 

rather than expend resources and engage in an action that may prove unnecessary or subject to further amendment, NAFO urges EPA to 

await the outcome of the Supreme Court action before finalizing the Proposed Rule.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.010

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-58

Issue Category: 5

Therefore, while the point source/nonpoint source and Phase I questions are pending before the Supreme Court, it would be prudent for 

EPA to put all regulatory action (Phase I and Phase II) related to forest roads on hold until the Supreme Court decides the questions 

before it. Then, following Supreme Court review, any further EPA action under Phase II, if necessary, should be conducted from the 

standpoint of EPA's historical position that forest roads are nonpoint sources and avoid seeking a novel regulatory approach that would 

bring them and potentially other current nonpoint sources into Section 402(p)(6).

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 7 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.003

Author Name: Carlson Eric

Organization: Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

ESFPA believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.005

Author Name: Carlson Eric

Organization: Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it is imperative for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.003

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 5

However, SLMA believes the EPA should wait until a decision has been released by the Supreme Court regarding NEDC v. Brown, as it 

will be reviewing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision this fall. Waiting for the Supreme Court's decision would allow for the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-59

rule revision to be done in light of the high court's final decision in that case, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Additionally, it is our 

understanding that the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress extends the moratorium on requiring NPDES permits for forest roads 

until March, 2013, so there is not an urgent need for the EPA to finalize this rule ahead of the Supreme Court decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.002

Author Name: Poling Jan

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Issue Category: 5

Given the potential significant implications of the Ninth Circuit's decision, AF&PA understands the EPA's goal of solidifying its 

long-standing position that discharges from forest roads do not require CWA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits. However, we strongly urge the EPA to defer action on the Proposed Rule until the U.S. Supreme Court completes its 

review of the Ninth Circuit's decision. 

The United States, a multitude of state Attorneys General, those in the fiber supply chain, and others agree that the Ninth Circuit's 

decision is incorrect and that forest road stormwater discharges should not require NPDES permits. In fact, the United States stated in its 

brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that the Ninth Circuit "misinterpreted both of the EPA regulations at issue in this case. Properly 

construed, each of those rules independently dictates the conclusion that NPDES permits are not required for the discharges at issue in 

this case" (Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, at 11). Thus, the matters covered by the Proposed Rule 

are directly at issue in the matters being considered by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees that the Ninth Circuit erred and 

vacates the decision, the need for further rulemaking could be alleviated. In any event, the Supreme Court could provide further clarity 

on whether forest roads are point sources or discharges from forest roads are discharges associated with industrial activity. If EPA 

proceeds with rulemaking prior to the Supreme Court's decision, it may be forced to revise the rulemaking to address any inconsistencies 

with the Supreme Court's decision. Moreover, proceeding at this time will require EPA to develop regulations around an erroneous 

decision that constrains the agency's decision making authority.. Finally, if EPA finalizes this rulemaking, it is almost certain that the 

final rule will be litigated before the Ninth Circuit, causing continued confusion to owners and users of these roads, disruption to the fiber 

supply chain, and unnecessary litigation expense.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.005

Author Name: Poling Jan

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Issue Category: 5 

In summary, AF&PA requests that EPA wait until the U.S. Supreme Court completes its review of the NEDC v. Brown decision. That 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-60

decision could provide the needed certainty regarding whether forest roads are point or non-point sources or whether stormwater 

discharges from such roads are industrial activities. Depending on the Court's ruling, further regulatory action may be unnecessary. If the 

Supreme Court's ruling requires additional regulatory action, EPA will have the benefit of the Supreme Court's direction as it proceeds 

with its rulemaking. Such an approach will avoid expenditure of unnecessary resources and the potential need for further regulatory 

revisions to be consistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.003

Author Name: Howe Paul 

Organization: Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

Issue Category: 5

However, we urge you to delay your final rule until the Ninth Circuit opinion is reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.005

Author Name: Howe Paul 

Organization: Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

Issue Category: 5 

The most prudent course is for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review. 

Forest owners and forestry businesses need certainty on this issue. VFA highly encourages EPA to delay its decision on this rule while 

we await the Supreme Court's ruling. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.003

Author Name: Keough Shawn

Organization: Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

the ALC-Idaho believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-61

U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.005

Author Name: Keough Shawn

Organization: Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

Issue Category: 5 

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.004

Author Name: Brandt Wayne

Organization: Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

Issue Category: 5 

MFI believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. 

Supreme Court, however. It is our understanding that the current Continuing Resolution extends the provisions of the FY 2012 

appropriations bill, including the moratorium on issuance of NPDES permits for logging roads, until March, 2013. Therefore, there is 

no need for EPA to act at this time. We urge that revisions to the stormwater rules for forest roads await a decision by the U.S. Supreme 

Court and believe rule revision can best be done in light of the high court's final decision in that case, rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.003

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 5

However, the WPC respectfully urges the EPA to wait for a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court before finalizing the Proposed Rule. The 

Supreme Court has granted certiorari. Depending on the scope of its ruling, the Supreme Court can provide a measure of regulatory 

certainty to stakeholders which the EPA cannot.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-62

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5.

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.006

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 5

Inasmuch as the point source, nonpoint source and Phase I issues are pending before the Supreme Court, the WPC respectfully urges the 

EPA to refrain from all regulatory decision making related to forest roads until the Court issues its decision on the these important 

questions.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4, Response 7, and Response 8. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.003

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule while the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Forest 

owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case is pending.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.007

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 5

Private forest owners need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the Supreme 

Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.003
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-63

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.007

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.003

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 5 

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case is 

pending.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.007

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-64

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0258-A1.001.003

Author Name: McNitt Kristina

Organization: Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are, with minor modification, an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. 

Brown decision, although OFIC believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is 

pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. For all these reasons, it would be appropriate 

for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4, Response 5, and Response 6. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0260-A1.001.003

Author Name: Greig George

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PA DA)

Issue Category: 5 

However, we believe that a better approach would be to delay this proposed rulemaking until the conclusion of the pending review of 

NEDC v. Brown by the United States Supreme Court. The Court's decision could render the need for a new rule moot, or cause a 

different consideration of what a new rule should actually say. This approach would avoid the potential for any new litigation under the 

rulemaking process before the Court's decision is even known.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-65

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.004

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 5

However, FFRC believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before 

the U.S. Supreme Court. It is our understanding that the current Continuing Resolution extends the provisions of the FY 2012 

appropriations bill, including the moratorium on issuance of NPDES permits for logging roads, until March, 2013. Therefore, there is no 

need for EPA to act at this time. We urge that revisions to the stormwater rules for forest roads await a decision by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. We believe rule revision can best be done in light of the high court's final decision in that case, rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4, Response 5, Response 6, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.003

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 5 

I would, however, urge you to delay your final rule until the Supreme Court renders a decision on its review of the Ninth Circuit Opinion.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.003

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule until while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case 

is pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 13. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-66

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.007

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 5

Finally, family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we 

await the Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.003

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 5 

However, I would urge you to delay your final rule while review of the Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Family forest owners need certainty on this issue, and additional regulations on this issue create uncertainty while the court case is 

pending. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.007

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 5

Family forest owners like myself need certainty on this issue, and I encourage you to delay your decision on this rule while we await the 

Supreme Court's ruling, which could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.003

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 5 

3. While we support the intent of the proposed rule, we question the need to move forward with it now in light of the pending US 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-67

Supreme Court review of this issue. Since the 9th Circuit Court remanded this case back to District Court for further considerations, 

moving forward with rulemaking at this time may lead to additional confusion and uncertainty. SAF strongly recommends that this final 

rulemaking be postponed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.007

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 5

As stated previously, our members working in forests across the country seek certainty from the EPA in this rule making process. The 

best way to do this is to delay this rulemaking pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.007

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 5 

For this reason, and those listed above, we encourage EPA to slow the rule making process until the Supreme Court completes its review 

of the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v Brown 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.003

Author Name: Edman George

Organization: Edman Company

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

Edman Company believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before 

the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-68

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 1 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.005

Author Name: Edman George

Organization: Edman Company

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.003

Author Name: Case Michael

Organization: The Westervelt Company

Issue Category: 5 

The proposed revisions to the Phase I storm water rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NDEC v. Brown decision, although 

The Westervelt Company believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending 

before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.005

Author Name: Case Michael

Organization: The Westervelt Company

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.003

Author Name: Olszewski Robert

Organization: Plum Creek
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-69

Issue Category: 5

The proposed revisions to the Phase I storrnwater rule are an appropriate proposed response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, although 

[Organization) believes that EPA should not finalize the Proposed Rule while review of that Ninth Circuit opinion is pending before the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.005

Author Name: Olszewski Robert

Organization: Plum Creek

Issue Category: 5

For all these reasons, it would be appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4.
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 6: Assertions that the EPA 

Should Seek Legislative Support to Specify 

That Permits Are Not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges From Logging 

Roads

Pages 2-70 to 2-71 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-70

6. ASSERTIONS THAT THE EPA SHOULD SEEK LEGISLATIVE 

SUPPORT TO SPECIFY THAT PERMITS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR 

STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM LOGGING ROADS

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.007

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 6

While the USEPA's effort to clarity the intent of the NPDES rules is a noble and worthwhile effort, only through Congressional action to 

fully and unequivocally exempt silvicultural-related activities from NPDES permitting will the forestry community be assured 

oflong-term regulatory visibility and stability.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to Response 5 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.003

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 6 

Unfortunately, reliance on this policy has been interrupted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, as the agency is well aware. We are disturbed that EPA has neither supported review of this 

decision by the Supreme Court nor sought relief from Congress to provide the necessary legal certainty but has instead embarked on an 

uncertain administrative path.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4. Refer also to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.009

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 6

Finally, WCFA strongly encourages EPA to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Defense Center v. Brown by 

supporting legislative action through Congress. It is our opinion that only a congressional act will remove any uncertainty regarding 

NPDES permit requirements for logging roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-71

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 7: Assertions that Revision 

Does Not Address Legal Uncertainty

Pages 2-72 to 2-89 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-72

7. ASSERTIONS THAT REVISION DOES NOT ADDRESS LEGAL 

UNCERTAINTY

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.004

Author Name: Dructor Daniel

Organization: American Loggers Council (ALC)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.004

Author Name: Crawford Cam

Organization: South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 8 and to the preamble to today's rule. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-73

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.004

Author Name: Vandersteen C.A.

Organization: The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. The 

scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule raising the question whether the Proposed Rule is even 

necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. There would be no need for 

a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. Moreover, 

the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. It is highly likely that 

a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth circuit, which would undermine any 

regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 8 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.004

Author Name: Slocum, Jr. Robert

Organization: NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, 

it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.004

Author Name: Harrelson, Sr. David
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-74

Organization: St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835; n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.005

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court follows the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and holds that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.004

Author Name: Hufford Ronald

Organization: Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-75

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, 

it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.004

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.004

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.004

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-76

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.005

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.004

Author Name: Hawkinson Deb

Organization: Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-77

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.004

Author Name: Drechsel Russell

Organization: Madison Paper Industries

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0214-A1.001.004

Author Name: Bush J.R.

Organization: Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. 

Finally, it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, 

which would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-78

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.004

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5.

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.004

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 7 and Response 8. 

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.004

Author Name: Stuber IV Daniel

Organization: Forest2Market, Inc.

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-79

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.004

Author Name: Ryder Allan

Organization: Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.004

Author Name: Braswell Max

Organization: Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-80

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.004

Author Name: Bryant John

Organization: American Forest Management (AFM)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater prograrn in it's review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. The 

scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules, that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be 

need fOr a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity .and require NPDES permits - - the 

Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations, Finally, it is highly likely 

that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subjectto litigation, in the Ninth Circuit which would undermine 

any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.004

Author Name: Bauer Robert

Organization: Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, 

it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.004
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-81

Author Name: Racliff Jr. J.

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.004

Author Name: Johnson Andrew

Organization: Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.005

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 7 

Finally, it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-82

which would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. For all these reasons, it would be 

appropriate for EPA to await the result of the Supreme Court's review.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.004

Author Name: Schnoor Candace

Organization: John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

Issue Category: 7

EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1) that the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Therefore, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the proposed rule and whether it is even necessary. Specifically, 

if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no further need 

for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. Additionally, there would be no need for a 

rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. Moreover, the 

Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it is highly likely 

that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which would undermine 

any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.004

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 7 

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.004

Author Name: Blosser Mike
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-83

Organization: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silviculture! Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations.

Finally, it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, 

which would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.004

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.004

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 7 

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-84

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.004

Author Name: Carlson Eric

Organization: Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, 

it is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.004

Author Name: Howe Paul 

Organization: Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

Issue Category: 7 

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase 1 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. The 

scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether it is even necessary. Specifically, if the Supreme 

Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and concludes that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no further need for EPA to 

consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. Also, there would be no need for a rulemaking on 

whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Furthermore, it is quite likely that a final ruling excluding forest roads from Phase 1 permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth 

Circuit, which would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-85

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.004

Author Name: Keough Shawn

Organization: Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.004

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my clients' forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 6. 

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.004

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-86

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 6 and Response 7. 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.004

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 7 

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 6 and Response 7. 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.004

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed Rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as non-point sources under the Clean Water Act. 

This would insure that my roads will not be subject to NPDES permits, but would continue to be regulated by the State of Oregon.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5 and Response 6. Refer also to Response 7 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.004

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 7

While the proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-87

Response 

Please refer to Response 5 and Response 6. Refer also to Response 7 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.004

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 7

While the Proposed rule to move forestry activities out of the "industrial activities" category makes sense, the best outcome to provide 

certainty is validation by the courts or by Congress that forest roads should be treated as nonpoint sources of pollution under the Clean 

Water Act. This ensures that my forest roads will not be subject to NPDES permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5 and Response 6. Refer also to Response 7 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.008

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 7

Additionally, if the rulemaking process moves forward we are concerned the proposed rule will prove to be a temporary fix for the 9th 

Circuit decision and will result in further litigation.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5.

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.003

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 7

The Ninth Circuit Court therefore ruled that the Silviculture Rule cannot exempt logging runoff from regulation as a point source if that 

runoff is collected and discharged from ditches, culverts, and channels into nearby streams, especially if it is an industrial activity 

(MacCurdy 2010). The Silviculture Rule cannot modify the point source definition; only Congress has that power (Cecchini-Beaver 

2012). Only if the Supreme Court upholds this historic Silviculture Rule and declares logging as a valid non-industrial activity or 

Congress crafts an exemption of logging activities within the point source definition, will stormwater associated with logging roads be 

legally exempt from Phase I Stormwater Regulations and NPDES permits for industrial stormwater. The proposed revisions to Phase I 

Stormwater Regulations are therefore a premature reaction to what will ultimately not be decided by the EPA.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-88

Response 

Please refer to Response 5, Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.004

Author Name: Edman George

Organization: Edman Company

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a non point source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I reguiations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.004

Author Name: Case Michael

Organization: The Westervelt Company

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n. 1), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest roads are a nonpoint source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need for a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase 1 regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final ruie excluding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-89

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.004

Author Name: Olszewski Robert

Organization: Plum Creek

Issue Category: 7

As EPA recognizes in the Proposed Rule (at 77 Fed. Reg. 53835, n.1 ), the Supreme Court is considering issues beyond the Phase I 

stormwater program in its review of the Ninth Circuit's decision, particularly the question of whether forest roads are point sources. 

Thus, the scope of the Supreme Court's ruling could be relevant to the Proposed Rule and whether the Proposed Rule is even necessary. 

Specifically, if the Supreme Court upholds the 1976 Silvicultural Rule and rules that forest cads are a non point source, then there is no 

further need for EPA to consider forest roads under any aspect of the section 402(p) stormwater program. In addition, there would be no 

need tor a rulemaking on whether discharges from forest roads are associated with industrial activity and require NPDES permits. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court may provide further clarity or guidance on the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Phase I regulations. Finally, it 

is highly likely that a final rule exciuding forest roads from Phase I permitting will be subject to litigation in the Ninth Circuit, which 

would undermine any regulatory certainty pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Response 

Please refer to Response 4 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 8: Suggested Alternative 

Language or Approaches for Revision

Pages 2-90 to 2-92 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-90

8. SUGGESTED ALTERNATE LANGUAGE OR APPROACHES FOR 

REVISION

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.006

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 8

EPA Should Clarify that Logging is Not an Industrial Activity and that Phase II Regulation Only Apply to Point Source Discharges 

EPA's emphasis in the proposed rule on whether logging roads are "immediate access roads" to an industrial site should be clarified. As 

previously stated in NEDC v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit focused on whether "logging" is an "industrial activity." This rulemaking appears 

to be silent on this important question. To promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion, EPA should explicitly set forth in the 

preamble that (i) all silvicultural nonpoint source activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial 

activities; and (ii) that incidental log stacking, sorting, and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site does not 

transform that timber harvesting into an industrial activity. Direct clarity on this matter is important; if not, we are left to reach this 

end-end point by exclusion (the rule defines industrial activity by describing rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage) 

and the absence of clarity creates further opportunity for more litigation on this matter.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5 and Response 6. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and Response 9. 

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.008

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 8

EPA needs to carefully clarify in the preamble or rule language that all site harvesting operations are exempt, consistent with prior EPA 

interpretations, such as the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. In that 

1995 document, EPA provided a broad list of specific silvicultural activities that are part of harvesting operations and are specifically not 

required to be covered by the permit. Boise requests that EPA provide clarification and confirmation in the current proposed rule that 

incidental stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on a site prior to initial transport is exempt. (See also the National Alliance 

of Forest Owners and AF&PA's more comprehensive submissions on this issue)

Response 

Please refer to Response 6. Refer also to Response 9 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.006

Author Name: Tenny David
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-91

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 8

I. The Clean Water Act Regulatory Scheme Should Not Require NPDES Permits For Stormwater Discharges From Forest Roads 

There is consensus across the Executive Branch and among state Attorneys General, forest landowners, and other stakeholders that the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011), <FN1> and that NPDES permits 

under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are an inappropriate vehicle to regulate stormwater discharges from forest roads. In NEDC, 

the Ninth Circuit interpreted EPA's longstanding Clean Water Act regulations to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges from 

logging roads, even though EPA's long-held position had been that all forest roads were nonpoint sources not subject to NPDES 

permitting and regulation. See 40 C.F.R. 122.27. <FN2> While NAFO believes that EPA should not issue a final rule until the Supreme 

Court completes its review of NEDC v. Brown, NAFO supports EPA's objective as articulated in the Proposed Rule to keep forest road 

stormwater control measures outside of NPDES permitting, as such an approach is wholly consistent with EPA's long-standing 

interpretation of both the statute and its governing regulations. 

Specifically, EPA made its position clear in 1990 that stormwater discharges from logging and its immediate access roads were excluded 

from the Phase I stormwater rule. See 55 Fed. Reg. 47,990 (Nov. 16, 1990) ("The existing regulations at 40 C.F.R. 122.27 currently 

define the scope of the NPDES program with regard to silvicultural activities. . . . The definition of discharge associated with industrial 

activity does not include activities or facilities that are currently exempt from permitting under NPDES. EPA does not intend to change 

the scope of 40 C.F.R. 122.27 in this rulemaking. Accordingly, the definition of ‘storm water discharge associated with industrial 

activity' does not include sources that may be included under SIC 24, but which are excluded under 40 C.F.R. 122.27."). Litigation over 

the Phase II stormwater rule, where petitioners faulted EPA for not designating forest road discharges for Phase II, confirmed the 

established understanding that forest roads stormwater was not associated with industrial activity. See Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 

832, 860-63 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Despite this obvious understanding of EPA, the EDC petitioners, and the regulated community that forest roads were outside the Phase 

I stormwater permitting program and were under study by EPA under Phase II pursuant to the remand in EDC v. EPA, the Ninth Circuit 

instead interpreted EPA's Phase I regulations (specifically the definition of "storm water discharge associated with industrial activity" at 

40 C.F.R. 122.26(b)(14)) to include "logging" within the scope of Phase I stormwater permitting requirements. In short, the NEDC v. 

Brown decision has unnecessarily muddled an issue that has long been considered clear. EPA has never intended logging, "logging" 

roads, or any forest road to be subject to NPDES permitting under the Phase I stormwater program, and the CFR text should be clarified 

to reflect that intent. 

The Ninth Circuit interpreted EPA's regulations to mean that all "logging" activities under Standard Industrial Classification ("SIC") 

2411 were subject to Phase I regulation and permitting. The Proposed Rule clarifies EPA's original intent that Phase I regulation and 

permitting for silviculture are limited to those silvicultural point sources defined at 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b)(2)-(3) (rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities). The Proposed Rule further states that "all other types of silviculture facilities" are not 

included in Phase I regulation. NAFO supports EPA's proposed regulatory amendment, but, as explained below, urges EPA to await the 

outcome of the Supreme Court's review before taking final action. 

<FN1> The Proposed Rule cites to the first Ninth Circuit opinion, rather to the opinion following briefing on rehearing. NAFO suggests 

that EPA cite to the second Ninth Circuit opinion, which is the subject of Supreme Court review.

<FN2> EPA differentiates between “logging” roads and “forest” roads based on the applicable decisions by the Ninth Circuit. That court 

determined in NEDC that EPA’s list of industrial activities in 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) subject to the Phase I stormwater NPDES permit 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-92

requirement encompassed SIC 241 – Logging. This made “logging roads” part of the Phase I permit requirement because EPA included 

“immediate access roads” as part of every industrial activity for permit purposes. Forest roads are in the broader category that was 

subject to the 2003 remand in EDC v. EPA. In neither case did the court define what roads fall in these categories and we believe that 

EPA will find it a complex task to define the roads given the multiple ownerships and uses in forests that these roads support.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 6, and Response 11. For the comment on citing the Ninth Circuit, the EPA will cite the second 

Ninth Circuit opinion in the final rule. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.004

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 8

Removing silvcultural practices, including logging activity and logging roads, from regulation defining "discharges associated with 

industrial activity" is critical. By clarifying EPA's original intent through the silvicultural exemption Wisconsin's forestry community 

will be able to move forward with important and necessary timber harvests while continuing our exceptional protection of water 

resources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 6. Refer also to Response 1 and the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 9: Assertions that Logging 

Roads or Forest Roads Are Point Sources or 

Nonpoint Sources

Pages 2-93 to 2-99 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-93

9. ASSERTIONS THAT LOGGING ROADS OR FOREST ROADS ARE 

POINT SOURCES OR NONPOINT SOURCES

Comment ID 0186.001.004

Author Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: 

Issue Category: 9

The EPA has a responsibility to regulate point source pollution into bodies of water in order to improve and protect the human 

environment. Ignoring a major industrial source of point source pollution is irresponsible and ignores both the intent and the letter of the 

law.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7, Response 12, and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.002

Author Name: Leonard Young Ted Sturdevant

Organization: State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and State of Washington Department of Ecology (WA DNR and 

Ecology)

Issue Category: 9

Proceeding with further study under the Section 402(p)(6) authority should afford EPA sufficient flexibility in tailoring a program that is 

responsive to the wide variation that exists among forest types, management practices and roadrelated water quality implications 

throughout the United States.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.007

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 9 

The Proposed Rule discusses the Phase II regulatory program under Section 402(p)(6) in connection with EPA's actions in response to 

the partial remand in EDC v. EPA and EPA's recent Notice of Intent. Throughout the discussion, EPA refers to "stormwater discharges" 

that could be subject to Phase II regulation, which EPA to date has limited to NPDES permits. We recommend that EPA make clear that 

Phase II regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is limited to point source discharges of stormwater regulated through Section 402 NPDES 

permits. 

Last, EPA should utilize this rulemaking to affirm its long-established view that forest roads are nonpoint sources beyond the reach of 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-94

the NPDES program. We understand that EPA intends to perform a Phase II evaluation of forest roads. We are, however, concerned that 

once the evaluation is complete, EPA would then use Section 402(p)(6) to "regulate" point source stormwater discharges outside the 

NPDES program. We believe that is unnecessary as statebased forestry BMP programs are clearly the means by which forest roads have 

been and should continue to be regulated and managed. Given the many complexities associated with forest roads at a national scale, the 

outcome of a 402 (p)(6) process is likely to be inconclusive, leaving forest owners and state regulatory authorities uncertain as to what is 

expected.

Response 

Please refer to Response 6, Response 7 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.004

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 9

[W]e continue to support the position that forest roads should not be considered point sources of pollution.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7.

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.005

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 9 

Second, EPA should make clear with regard to discharges subject to regulation under Phase II (Section 402(p)(6)) that such regulation is 

limited to point source discharges of stormwater. Finally, EPA should take this opportunity to restate its previous conclusions that forest 

roads are nonpoint sources best regulated under best management practices outside of the stormwater program.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 7.

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.009

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 9

Second, the preamble to the Proposed Rule discusses the Phase II regulatory program under Section 402(p)(6) in connection with EPA's 

actions in response to the partial remand in EDC v. EPA and EPA's recent Notice of Intent. Throughout the discussion, EPA refers to 

"stormwater discharges" that could be subject to Phase II regulation, which EPA to date has limited to NPDES permits. Given the current 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-95

dispute in the NEDC v. Brown citizen suit on whether forest roads are point or nonpoint sources, and given recent Supreme Court 

precedent interpreting the term "discharge," S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006), NAFO 

recommends that EPA make clear that Phase II regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is limited to point source discharges of stormwater 

regulated through Section 402 NPDES permits. 

Indeed, not only should EPA affirm that the Section 402(p)(6) program applies only to point sources regulated through NPDES permits, 

EPA should also re-affirm its long-established view that forest roads are nonpoint sources beyond the reach of the NPDES program. 

Thus, while EPA intends to fulfill its obligation under the EDC v. EPA remand and perform a Phase II evaluation of forest roads, it 

would not be appropriate after that evaluation for EPA to engage in an unprecedented use of Section 402(p)(6) to "regulate" point source 

stormwater discharges outside the NPDES program.

Response 

Please refer to Response 6, Response 7, Response 12, and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.003

Author Name: Poling Jan

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Issue Category: 9 

While we urge EPA to wait for the Supreme Court's decision before it proceeds with this rulemaking, if EPA continues with this 

rulemaking, AF&PA offers the following technical comments: 

First, EPA states that it intends the Proposed Rule to clarify its long-standing interpretation that silvicultural industrial activities for 

purposes of defining stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities are limited to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting 

and log storage. The preamble to the Proposed Rule states that EPA "did not intend logging roads themselves to be regulated as industrial 

facilities" (77 Fed. Reg. 538371). AF&PA agrees with and supports the view that logging roads should not be regulated as industrial 

facilities and that stormwater discharges from logging roads are not point source discharges associated with industrial activity. 

Since1976, in the Silvicultural rule, EPA has defined "silvicultural point source" to include only four silvicultural activities and has 

exempted silvicultural activities "such as ...harvesting operations ... and road construction and maintenance from which there is natural 

runoff" from of the definition of silvilcultural point source: 

Silvicultural point source means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance related to rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, 

or log storage facilities which are operated in connection with silvicultural activities and from which pollutants are discharged into 

waters of the United States. The term does not include non-point source silvicultural activities such as nursery operations, site 

preparations, reforestation and subsequent cultural treatment thinning, prescribed burning, pest and fire control, harvesting operations, 

surface drainage, or road construction and maintenance from which there is natural runoff. <FN1> 

In the preamble to the silvicultural rule, EPA explained that "only discharges from four activities related to silviculture enterprises, rock 

crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage facilities, are considered point sources and thus subject to the NPDES permit 

program." 41 Fed. Reg. 24,709, 24,710 (June 18, 1976); see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(e) (2009) ("The following discharges do not require 

NPDES permits: . . . Any introduction of pollutants from non point-source agricultural and silvicultural activities. . . but not discharges 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-96

from. . . silvicultural point sources as defined in § 122.27."). EPA further clarified its position in 1990 that stormwater discharges from 

logging and its immediate access roads were excluded from the Phase I stormwater rule. See 55 Fed. Reg. 47,990 (Nov. 16, 1990). In 

2003, the EPA issued an Interpretive Statement that its silvicultural rule is "clear on its face" in that it identifies an exclusive list of the 

four silvicultural activities that are considered "point sources. <FN2>" The 2003 Interpretive Statement noted that "Congress expressly 

delegated to EPA the power to define "nonpoint source" in the context of silviculture to address the appropriate pollutant controls for 

silvicultural activities." Id. at 4, citing 33 U.S.C. § 208(b)(2)(F) and 304(f)(A).

<FN1> 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b)(1) (2009) (underlined emphasis added)

<FN2> 2003 Interpretive Statement at 3 (listing rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities which are operated 

in connection with silvicultural activities)

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. 

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.005

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 9 

Phase II regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is limited to point source discharges of stormwater regulation through Section 402 NPDES 

permits and that forest roads are nonpoint sources outside the scope of the NPDES program.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.007

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 9 

Following a decision from the Court, subsequent EPA action under Phase II should be consistent with the EPA's long-standing 

perspective that forest roads are nonpoint sources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0260-A1.001.002

Author Name: Greig George
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-97

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PA DA)

Issue Category: 9

If the proposed revisions to the Phase I stormwater rule are determined to be an appropriate action at this time to the NEDC v. Brown 

decision, we certainly support the clarification of the long standing policy not to require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System ("NPDES") permits for stormwater discharges from forest roads because those roads are non-point sources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7. Refer also to Response 1 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.004

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 9

4. SAF notes the EPA's continued position that forest roads are nonpoint sources (see Footnote 1 in the Notice). We agree that natural 

runoff from forest roads - including logging roads - is a nonpoint source, even when natural runoff is channeled in ditches and culverts 

that are inherent in road construction and maintenance. In some cases, the lack of ditches and culverts would increase the risk of 

increased sediment loss.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.004

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 9 

C. EPA cannot amend the Phase I rule based on an incorrect and outdated belief that pipes, ditches and channels along logging roads are 

nonpoint sources of pollution. 

EPA states that "[t]he intent of the EPA in this notice of proposed rulemaking is that the NPDES program requirements be implemented 

with regard to ‘immediate access roads' in the same way they were implemented prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit." 77 Fed. Reg. 

at 53836. EPA did not clearly explain in the September 4, 2012 Federal Register notice that EPA is amending the rule because it believes 

that logging roads produce only nonpoint source pollution. However, EPA did state in that notice that in the Phase I rule EPA only 

intended to regulate four silvicultural point sources and that, based on the silvicultural rule (40 C.F.R. § 122.27), EPA intended "to 

exclude from the Phase I regulation stormwater runoff from other silvicultural activities." 77 Fed. Reg. at 53836. EPA also claims in the 

Northwest Environmental Defense Center litigation that, based on its interpretation of the silvicultural rule, it considers stormwater 

discharges along logging roads to be nonpoint source pollution that is not subject to the NPDES permit program. 

For at least three reasons, the assertion that logging roads produce only nonpoint source pollution is not a valid justification for amending 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-98

the Phase I rule. First, the assertion is clearly erroneous because, as previously explained, the Clean Water Act unambiguously defines 

pipes, ditches and channels as "point sources." The EPA therefore cannot exclude pipes, ditches and channels along logging roads from 

the Phase I rule based on the assertion that pollution from those sources is nonpoint in nature. Second, and similarly, CWA section 

402(p) only allows EPA to exclude a point-source discharge of stormwater from regulation if it is not associated with industrial activity. 

A determination by EPA that logging roads produce only nonpoint source pollution is not equivalent to, and does not substitute for, a 

determination that logging roads are not associated with industrial activity. Third, if EPA continues to believe that logging roads produce 

only nonpoint source pollution, then there is no reason at all to amend the Phase I rule because that rule would not and could not apply to 

logging roads in the first place. 

In fact, because the Phase I rule only applies to point-source discharges of stormwater, by proposing to amend the rule EPA 

acknowledges that logging roads can produce point-source discharges that are subject to the Phase I rule. It is therefore impossible for 

the NPDES program requirements to be "implemented with regard to ‘immediate access roads' in the same way they were implemented 

prior to the decision by the Ninth Circuit." Rather than rely on an outdated rationale for not requiring NPDES permits for point-source 

discharges of stormwater along logging roads, EPA should provide a thoughtful and valid explanation for excluding those discharges 

from the Phase I rule. That explanation should also account for and squarely respond to the Ninth Circuit's holdings in Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center.

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 3, Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, 

and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.002

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 9

The proposal to revise Phase 1 Stormwater Regulations, in response to the Ninth Circuit Court decision of Northwest Environmental 

Defense Center v. Brown (2011), ignores the statutory definition of "point source" under the Clean Water Act (CWA). According to the 

CWA, a "point source" is defined as: 

any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete 

fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, landfill leachate collection system, vessel or other floating craft 

from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include return flows from irrigated agriculture or agricultural 

stormwater runoff. (40 CFR 122.2) 

This legal definition of "point source" under the CWA focuses on the mechanism of discharge and not the source of the pollutant, which 

the Silviculture Rule uses to define the exemption of logging roads from point source regulation (Cecchini-Beaver 2012). Because the 

Silviculture Rule defines the logging exemption based on the source of the pollutant and not the mechanism of discharge, this rule 

conflicts with the statutory definition of "point source" and was thus deemed invalid by the Ninth Circuit Court. This decision was based 

on legal precedents from over 40 years ago, in which the courts ruled that the EPA cannot exempt pollution sources from the NPDES 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-99

program if they meet the statutory definition of a point source (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Train 1975; Natural Resources 

Defense Council v. Costle 1977).

Response 

Please refer to Response 7. Refer also to the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 10: Addition of Language to 

Phase I Stormwater Regulations on “Rock 

Crushing, Gravel Washing, Log Sorting, and 

Log Storage” and the Meaning of These 

Terms

Pages 2-100 to 2-101 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-100

10. ADDITION OF LANGUAGE TO PHASE I STORMWATER 

REGULATIONS ON "ROCK CRUSHING, GRAVEL WASHING, LOG 

SORTING, AND LOG STORAGE" AND THE MEANING OF THESE 

TERMS

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.006

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 10

Finally, we are somewhat concerned regarding two aspects related to the USEPA's proposed NPDES rule revisions. Positively, the 

proposed revision would clarify that only certain activities would be subject to NPDES permitting, including "log sorting" and "log 

storage". However, during a timber harvest operation, it is commonplace for trees to be dragged or carried to a centralized staging area 

within the forest, where the trees are stripped of their limbs and mechanically prepared for loading onto log trucks for transport. These 

centralized staging areas are referred to by many regionally-specific names, with log deck, log landing, log ramp, or log setout being the 

most common terms. It is a concern that temporary, in-woods staging areas may be inadvertently and mistakenly interpreted to be "log 

sorting" industrial facilities, since there is some minor degree to which trees and logs are sorted apart, manipulated, handled, and 

pre-staged for loading onto a log truck for delivery to an industrial processing or storage destination. 

Likewise, in certain parts of the U.S., particularly in the northeastern and Lake-state regions, timber is harvested during the winter when 

the ground is frozen. Logs from these harvested trees are then temporarily stacked in piles alongside forest roads. The logs are then 

loaded onto trucks and transported after the winter thaw when road conditions allow improved travel. As noted above, it is a concern that 

these temporary log piles may be mistakenly interpreted to· be "log storage" industrial facilities. 

Temporary log staging or handling areas, and temporary roadside log pile stacks clearly fall under the nonpoint source category of storm 

water runoff associated with silvicultural activities. However, given the ephemeral and unwieldy nature of recent litigation and 

subsequent court rulings related to NPDES issues, it remains a concern that additional investigations and attempts to regulate temporary 

log staging areas and temporary roadside log stacks could occur. We believe that further clarification to USEPA's Silvicultural Rule ( 40 

CFR 122.27) stating that these temporary log staging or handling areas, and temporary roadside log pile stacks are part of ongoing 

silvicultural activities, and are not industrial facilities, could help prevent future misinterpretation.

Response 

Please refer to Response 9. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.007

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 10

EPA should clarify that all harvest activities which occur in the woods are non-industrial, nonpoint source silvicultural activities, and 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-101

therefore not subject to the stormwater permitting requirements. We believe that the language provided in the proposed rule (40 CFR 

Section 122.26(b)(14)(ii), listing "rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities" (emphasis added) as activities that 

would be considered industrial activities and subject to NPDES stormwater permits is too broad. Thus the language could be 

inappropriately applied to legitimate silvicultural, non-industrial activities that commonly occur in the field at a harvesting site.

Response 

Please refer to Response 6 and Response 9. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.004

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 10

In the alternative, if the EPA finalizes the Proposed Rule, the WPC respectfully recommends that the EPA should clarify that: (1) all 

silvicultural nonpoint source activities listed in 40 CFR §122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities; (2) 

incidental log stacking, sorting and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site do not transform that timber harvesting 

into an industrial activity;

Response 

Please refer to Response 9. Refer also to Response 6, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 11: Assertions that 

Stormwater Discharges From Logging 

Roads Are Industrial Discharges and an 

NPDES Permit Should Be Required

Pages 2-102 to 2-121 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-102

11. ASSERTIONS THAT STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM LOGGING 

ROADS ARE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES AND AN NPDES PERMIT 

SHOULD BE REQUIRED

Comment ID 0186.001.003

Author Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: 

Issue Category: 11

Silviculture practices necessitate the development of numerous facilities, and, like most other industries, these facilities often generate 

point source pollution that is subject to NPDES regulations. There is no compelling reason to make a special exclusion for the 

silviculture industry, or to think that the forest industry is incapable of obtaining NPDES permits like every other industry. 

Section 402(p)(5) directs the EPA to establish "procedures and methods to control stormwater discharges to the extent necessary to 

mitigate impacts on water quality." Failure to address discharges from forest roads, which are a major source of TDS, herbicides, 

fungicides, pesticides, and vehicle fluids, ignores this legislative directive.

Response 

Please refer to Response 8. Refer also to Response 7, Response 12, and the preamble of today's rule. 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.004

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 11

First, removing logging from the regulation defining "discharges associated with industrial activity" is critical. As EPA recognizes in the 

NOI, an industrial activity must obtain an NPDES permit under the stormwater program's Phase 1. By clarifying EPA's original intent 

when it adopted this regulation in 1990, the agency will move logging into the flexible Phase 2 portion of the program where EPA has the 

discretion to determine whether NPDES permits are necessary. While this does not restore the nonpoint source status of forest roads, it 

allows EPA to continue with its 36-year policy of relying on BMPs to address water quality impacts from these activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 8. Refer also to Response 7. 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.002

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 11
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-103

The Clean Water Act Regulatory Scheme Should Not Require NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges from Forest Roads 

We strongly believe that NPDES permits under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act are an inappropriate vehicle to regulate stormwater 

discharges from forest roads. Forest roads fit into a very broad use category and we believe EPA has correctly determined that NPDES 

permits covering forest roads would be a complex, perhaps impossible permitting task.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0236-A1.001.002

Author Name: Haller Greg

Organization: Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

Issue Category: 11

Therefore, PRC stongly urges EPA to not move forward with its proposal to "clarify" that stormwater discharges from logging roads do 

not require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) generally prohibits discharges of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States except 

through the NPDES permit program. Congress defined "point source" as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance." <FN1> 

Congress included "rock" and "sand" in its definition of "pollutant," encompassing sedimentation. <FN2> Because logging roads and 

associated ditches often intercept rainfall, concentrate flows, divert waters from natural flowpaths, then deliver surface water to stream 

channels, they fall within this statutory definition. 

EPA proposes to "clarify that stormwater discharges from logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with 

industrial activity and that a NPDES permit is not required for these stormwater discharges." <FN3> PRC strongly disagrees with this 

proposal. Exempting industrial logging roads' stormwater discharges from regulation under the NPDES permit program fails to 

proactively "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters," the objective of the CWA. 

<FN4> Best management practices (BMPs) are not sufficient to curb the continued delivery of pollutants from industrial logging roads 

to streams. 

<FN1> 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 

<FN2> Id. § 1362(6). 

<FN3> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (Sept. 4, 2012). 

<FN4> 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).

Response 

Please refer to Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 10, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0236-A1.001.004
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-104

Author Name: Haller Greg

Organization: Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

Issue Category: 11

III. The NPDES Permit Program Provides a Readily Available, Proven Mechanism for Regulating Sediment Delivery from Logging 

Roads 

Because of their well-documented adverse impacts to watersheds, it is critically important for EPA to support and provide for the 

regulation of sediment delivery from logging roads. These point sources have escaped scrutiny for far too long. The NPDES permit 

program is a readily available, effective mechanism EPA and its partner state agencies can use to regulate sediment delivery from 

logging roads. EPA asserts it feels other authority available under the CWA provide for better flexibility to deal with the diverse 

ownership of industrial logging roads, <FN16> but the NPDES permit program provides sufficient flexibility through the option of using 

general permits and crafting individual permit provisions with specificity for various landowners, locations, and road uses. 

Further, the NPDES permit program provides for accountability and enforcement to a degree not demonstrated in alternative, untested 

regulatory options. The NPDES permit program has drastically reduced the amount of point source pollution into our nation's waters 

without unduly burdening economic development. EPA and partner state agencies can work together to inform and educate relevant 

landowners of the importance and necessity of addressing logging road discharges through the NPDES permit program. EPA and the 

states can also determine proper permitting costs relative to various landowners and the volume, duration, and regularity of discharges 

from their respective logging roads. Because commercial logging operations constitute "industrial activity" under the CWA, <FN17> it 

is appropriate that logging companies and industrial forestland owners bear the cost of eliminating or minimizing channeled sediment 

delivery from their roads into the nation's water. Other industries similarly face permitting costs under the CWA. 

IV. Best Management Practices Are Not Sufficient to Prevent Discharges of Pollutants from Logging Roads 

PRC strongly urges EPA to regulate point source discharges of pollutants from industrial logging roads under the existing NPDES 

permit program, and not to rely on best management practices with minimal regulatory oversight. BMPs typically lack quantified criteria 

to measure discharges into streams such that they provide sufficient levels of accountability. Further, adequate BMP implementation is 

subject to a broad range of interpretations depending on what is deemed practicable by the respective responsible party in any given 

location. BMPs have not prevented streams from being listed as impaired due to forestry activities. In addition, enforcement of BMPs is 

not consistent and made difficult by the lack of quantifiable criteria associated with them in many instances. 

PRC asks that EPA thoroughly review and respond to the Endicott report brought to the agency's attention previously by conservation 

groups that outlines the insufficiency of BMPs to prevent logging roads' stormwater discharges from reaching streams. <FN18> We 

further ask EPA to fully explain in any future decisions related to this proposal why the Endicott report has not led the EPA to determine 

the NPDES permit program provides a more effective mechanism to eliminate logging road-derived pollutants from streams, if that is 

the outcome of this rulemaking process. 

V. Conclusion

Because industrial logging roads can and do channel stormwater discharges directly into streams, they can and should be regulated as 

point sources under the CWA. BMPs have not proven effective to stop logging roads' stormwater discharges into streams, diminishing 

water quality, harming aquatic species and human water supplies, and delaying the recovery of species listed under the Endangered 

Species Act. The NPDES permit program has enough flexibility to allow EPA and state agencies to craft appropriate permits for diverse 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-105

landowners in various locations with forest roads. PRC strongly urges EPA not to move forward with its proposal to "clarify" that 

logging road stormwater discharges do not require NPDES permits, but instead use the NPDES permit program to at last begin the 

process of effectively ending logging road discharges into the nation's waters.

<FN16> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834, 53836 (Sept. 4, 2012). 

<FN17> 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B). 

<FN18> Endicott, D., National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best 

Management Practices - Final Report (prepared for the U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Office of Wasterwater Management Permits 

Division), Contract No. EP-C-05-066, Task Order 002) (2008). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.004

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 11

Should EPA proceed with this rulemaking either before or after the Supreme Court's ruling, NAFO would like to offer some further 

suggestions to the Proposed Rule preamble for both regulatory precision and regulatory certainty. First, EPA's emphasis on "access 

roads" in the Proposed Rule is misplaced; the clarification provided in the Proposed Rule should be focused on the Ninth Circuit's 

characterization of "logging" as "industrial activity," and how logging activities (i.e. timber harvesting operations) are, in fact, 

non-industrial.

Response 

Please refer to Response 6 and Response 8.Refer also to Response 9 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.008

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 11

III. EPA Should Make Clear in the Preamble That Logging is Not an Industrial Activity and that Phase II Regulation Only Applies to 

Point Source Discharges 

If EPA moves to finalize the Proposed Rule, NAFO proposes two further clarifications to the preamble language. First, EPA's emphasis 

(at 77 Fed. Reg. 53836) on whether logging roads are "immediate access roads" to an industrial site is misplaced and incomplete. In 

NEDC v. Brown, the Ninth Circuit focused first on whether "logging" is an "industrial activity." The preamble appears to be silent on 

this question, other than by exclusion (by describing rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage as "industrial activity"). 

To promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion, EPA should explicitly set forth in the preamble that (i) all silvicultural nonpoint 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-106

source activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities; and (ii) that incidental log 

stacking, sorting, and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site does not transform that timber harvesting into an 

industrial activity. Indeed, EPA can reiterate the interpretations it set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, in which it made clear that: 

Discharges from nonpoint source silvicultural activities, including harvesting operations . . . are not required to be covered. It is EPA's 

determination [that] harvesting activities include: the felling, skidding, preparation (e.g. delimbing and trimming), loading and initial 

transport of forest products from an active harvest site. . . . EPA also interprets the definition of harvesting operations to include 

incidental stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on the harvest site prior to its initial transport to either an intermediate 

storage area or other processing site. EPA considers this activity to be an inherent part of harvesting operations. 

60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50835 (1995). These clarifications will solidify the appropriate scope of Phase I regulations as applied to 

silviculture. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 8. Refer also to Response 6, Response 9, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0267-A2.001.002

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul A. Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

As discussed in more detail in this letter, EPA should distinguish active, industrial logging roads from other logging or forest roads on 

the landscape. The former should remain regulated under EPA's Phase I rule because they generate "stormwater discharges associated 

with industrial activity." Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, et al., 640 F.3d 1063, 1085 (9th Cir. 2011). As to inactive, 

non-industrial, and other forest roads, in response to the remand order in Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 

2003), EPA should build a Phase II program to address stormwater discharges along those roads. That program should be regulatory, not 

voluntary, and it should not replace the Phase I permit requirement for active industrial logging roads. Moreover, any Phase II program 

should not defer to existing state, federal and tribal programs because that is prohibited by statute and widely available scientific 

literature demonstrates that those programs do not protect water quality or designated beneficial uses. As EPA recognizes, "[s]tormwater 

discharges from logging roads, especially improperly constructed or maintained roads, may introduce significant amounts of sediment 

and other pollutants into surface waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts." 77 Fed. Reg. at 30,476. EPA's 

Phase II program for forest roads should therefore supplement EPA's Phase I regulation of active, industrial logging roads. 

1. EPA can and should regulate stormwater pollution from active, industrial logging roads differently than it regulates stormwater 

pollution from other forest roads, including inactive and non-industrial logging roads. 

EPA should recognize the important differences between active industrial logging roads, on the one hand, and forest roads, including 

inactive logging roads and logging roads on nonindustrial lands, on the other hand. As discussed in more detail below, all forest 

roads-whether active, inactive, industrial or non-industrial-have the potential to generate stormwater discharges that pollute streams and 

adversely impact water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Because more effective programs could limit all forest road pollution and the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-107

resulting adverse impacts to water quality, we support EPA's efforts to build a Phase II program to address forest road stormwater 

discharges. However, that program should supplement, not replace, EPA's regulation of the subset of logging roads that generate 

"stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity." We therefore request that EPA take a tiered approach to regulating 

stormwater discharges from logging roads. EPA should continue requiring NPDES permits for stormwater discharges along logging

roads that support active timber hauling in large forests or on lands managed primarily for timber production. For stormwater discharges 

along other forest roads, including inactive and non-industrial logging roads, EPA should build a nation-wide Phase II program to limit 

those harmful discharges. 

A. EPA must regulate and require NPDES permits for active industrial logging roads that discharge to streams via point sources.

Logging roads that are used to support currently active industrial logging should remain regulated under EPA's Phase I stormwater rule 

because, where those roads utilize pipes, ditches and other point sources to collect and convey stormwater, they generate "stormwater 

discharges associated with industrial activity" that EPA is required to regulate under Phase I. EPA's Phase I authority derives from 

sections 402(p)(1) through (4) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(1) -- (4). As is clear from the Act, section 402(p)(2) 

required EPA to require NPDES permits for a variety of stormwater discharges, including "a discharge associated with industrial 

activity." In 1990, EPA opted to require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial logging activities. <FN1> 

EPA's Phase I rule makes it clear that NPDES permits are required for discharges from "immediate access roads" and "material handling 

sites" used for the transportation or conveyance of any raw materials. Logging roads that facilitate industrial-scale timber harvest by 

providing ingress and egress to logging sites-logging roads that are used to haul heavy equipment in and out of forests managed 

primarily for timber harvest and that are also used to haul cut timber out of those forests-meet the requirements of the rule and qualify as 

roads that support the requisite "industrial activity." Indeed, EPA recognizes that many logging roads are associated with industrial 

activity: "[p]rivate 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." 77 Fed. Reg. at 

30,475. Accordingly, where those logging roads use pipes, ditches and channels to discharge stormwater to jurisdictional waters, section 

402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act and EPA's Phase I rule require those discharges to obtain an NPDES permit.

As Congress intended, NPDES permits are an extremely effective mechanism for reducing pollution and protecting clean water. EPA 

should stand by its decision to require NPDES permits for industrial logging operations because industrial logging roads are a 

widespread and significant pollution source that NPDES permits could help remedy. Logging companies and industrial forestland

owners should bear the cost of reducing logging road pollution just like all the other industrial and construction sectors that have been 

required to comply with NPDES permits since at least 1990. Moreover, NPDES permits need not be overly burdensome: EPA and state 

agencies have decades of experience with NPDES permits and, because each state with an authorized NPDES program will develop its 

own permits, the permits could respond to local needs without overly burdening landowners. 

If EPA takes any action in response to the NEDC v. Brown decision, EPA should simply clarify what industrial logging activities are 

subject to the Phase I rule and NPDES permit requirement. For example, EPA could reiterate that the Phase I rule only applies to 

point-source discharges of stormwater and that truly "natural runoff"-stormwater that is not collected and channeled before discharge to 

streams-is a nonpoint source of pollution that still does not require an NPDES permit. EPA could also take the position that the Phase I 

rule does not apply to inactive logging roads and non-industrial forest roads because they do not have the requisite "industrial activity" to 

bring them within the rule. EPA guidance could also address and provide guidance to the regulated community about the circumstances 

in which owners and operators need to obtain NPDES permits for active industrial logging roads that cross multiple ownership, concerns 

that EPA raised in the May 23 Federal Register notice.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-108

B. EPA should regulate stormwater discharges from other forest roads, including inactive and non-industrial logging roads, under a new 

Phase II program.

It is a mistake for EPA (or anyone else) to assume that all logging roads support "industrial activity" and so require NPDES permits 

under the Phase I rule. Many logging roads may not meet the regulatory thresholds stated in the Phase I rule either because they do not 

support "industrial" logging (they are not part of "industrial" operations) or because they are inactive (there is no ongoing "activity"). For 

example, those that own minimal amounts of forestland and those who harvest timber on lands primarily dedicated to other uses-i.e., 

residences, pasturing, or small farming-may not be "industrial" within the meaning of the Act and Phase I rule. EPA recognizes that "62 

percent [of private forest land] is owned by families and individuals" and that "[m]ost of the family forest owners (around 61 percent) 

own fewer than 10 acres of forest land." 77 Fed. Reg. at 30,475. EPA should consider whether those who own fewer than 10 acres of 

forestland are engaging in "industrial logging" for purposes of the Phase I rule. Similarly, logging roads that do not support any logging 

activities may not meet the "industrial activity" requirement of the rule and so may not require NPDES permits during the time of 

inactivity. 

These other forest roads, including non-industrial and inactive forest roads, are also sources of deleterious stormwater pollution 

warranting attention and regulation under section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, the Conservation Groups support EPA's 

efforts to develop a nation-wide Phase II program to address stormwater pollution from those and other forest roads. Any new program, 

however, should not substitute for regulating and requiring NPDES permits for stormwater discharge from pipes, ditches and channels 

along active industrial logging roads. 

Under the Act, the only stormwater discharges that are subject to Phase II regulation are those that EPA did not regulate in the Phase I 

rule. In other words, Phase I discharges and Phase II discharges are mutually exclusive: a discharge regulated under Phase I cannot be 

subject to Phase II and Phase II can only apply to discharges not regulated under Phase I. Phase I required permits for the stormwater 

discharges listed in section 402(p)(2), including "stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity," and under that authority 

EPA regulated and required NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial "logging" activities, including

industrial logging roads. EPA cannot now move those particular discharges into a Phase II program. In other words, any new Phase II 

program can supplement the NPDES permit requirement for point-source stormwater discharges from active industrial logging roads, 

but it cannot replace it.

However, EPA can distinguish industrial logging roads from inactive roads (roads without any current industrial activity) and from 

non-industrial logging roads and then regulate stormwater discharges from those roads in a Phase II program pursuant to the remand 

order in EDC v. EPA remand. EPA made a similar distinction when it required NPDES permits for construction sites greater than one 

acre but exempted smaller construction sites from the NPDES permit requirement. As it did with construction activities, we urge EPA to 

recognize the different varieties of logging roads on the landscape and to regulate them accordingly.

A tiered approach to regulating forest roads is also consistent with the science around logging road pollution and the ongoing use of the 

roads. The intensity of use is one factor that heavily influences whether a logging road will pollute nearby streams and how significant 

that pollution will be. Additionally, where timber companies or landowners are actively using logging roads to haul equipment and 

timber, the people and equipment required to better manage the road to reduce logging road pollution are already on-site and so better 

able to apply stormwater pollution prevention plans to the road segments that are discharging to streams. For these reasons it makes 

perfect sense to direct more intensive regulation (via NPDES permits) to logging roads used for active industrial logging operations. For 

similar reasons, it also makes sense to direct less intensive regulation to the inactive, non-industrial, and other forest roads. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-109

A tiered approach could also be consistent with the NPDES permit rules on the books today. EPA's rules generally distinguish between 

silvicultural activities (the growing of trees) and industrial logging activities (the harvesting of trees in the forest). Silviculture is the art 

and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, and quality of forest vegetation for the full range of forest resource 

objectives, while logging is the harvesting of those trees in the forest. Indeed, because numerous courts have concluded that EPA's 

silvicultural rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.27, is not an NPDES permit exemption for point-source discharges of pollutants or stormwater 

associated with silvicultural activities, EPA could regulate point-source stormwater discharges along inactive logging roads under a 

Phase II program. <FN2> A tiered approach could recognize that stormwater discharges associated with silvicultural activities (the 

growing of trees) are not industrial in nature while also recognizing that stormwater discharges associated with industrial logging 

operations require NPDES permits under Phase I.

Finally, a tiered approach could address concerns about the reach of the NEDC v. Brown decision while also recognizing and addressing 

legitimate concerns about industrial logging road pollution. After the Ninth Circuit decided NEDC v. Brown, many expressed concern 

that requiring NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with industrial logging activities would unduly burden small 

forestland owners-that it would expose those landowners to citizen suit litigation and liability under the Clean Water Act-and also overly 

burden the Forest Service and other agencies that manage hundreds of thousands of acres of forestland. By regulating inactive and 

non-industrial logging roads under a Phase II program but requiring NPDES permits only for the active industrial logging roads that 

discharge to streams via point sources, EPA could clarify the scope and impact of the NEDC v. Brown decision and adequately respond 

to the EDC v. EPA remand while also assuaging concerns about the scope and impact of EPA's stormwater regulations.

C. The elements of an effective Phase II program. 

EPA's authority to develop Phase II programs derives from sections 402(p)(5) and (6) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(5) 

& (6). Section 402(p)(6) requires EPA to issue regulations that "designate stormwater discharges, other than those discharges described 

in paragraph (2), to be regulated to protect water quality and [to] establish a comprehensive program to regulate such designated 

sources." 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(6); see also 402(p)(5)(C) . Any Phase II program must meet certain requirements: "The program shall, at 

a minimum, (A) establish priorities, (B) establish requirements for State stormwater management programs, and (C) establish 

expeditious deadlines." Id. "The program may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and 

treatment requirements, as appropriate." Id.

While the NPDES program has been remarkably successful in reducing surface water pollution from regulated point sources, nonpoint 

source programs under sections 208 and 319 of the Clean Water Act are widely acknowledged to be ineffectual. <FN3> Indeed, EPA 

acknowledges that the majority of the nation's remaining water quality impairment comes from nonpoint source pollution. <FN4> The 

failure of the nonpoint programs has been ascribed primarily to the lack of mandatory monitoring requirements, the lack of agency and 

citizen enforcement actions, and the lack of penalties for noncompliance. <FN5>

If EPA chooses to regulate forest road stormwater discharges in a Phase II program, EPA should ensure that its program contains all 

elements necessary to ensure that effective protection of our waterways is finally achieved. At a minimum EPA should develop a 

regulatory program that includes the measures that help make the NPDES permit program so effective: required discharge monitoring; 

agency and citizen enforcement opportunities; and civil penalties for noncompliance with the program. Additionally, any Phase II 

program must explicitly require the regulated community and stormwater discharges from forest roads to attain and maintain water 

quality standards. To ensure that the regulatory program protects water quality, as required by section 402(p)(6), EPA's program must 

include performance benchmarks, accountability, and management standards designed to achieve water quality goals. An initial 

inventory should be required to identify problem roads and road features; a timeline to fix those problems established with EPA or the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-110

state regulatory agency; and a monitoring schedule with required checkpoints reporting back to the regulatory agency to ensure that the 

treatments used are effective and to ensure that the schedule is being followed. Any Phase II program must also prioritize disconnecting 

forest roads from the stream network, i.e. reducing hydrologic connectivity between forest roads and nearby rivers and streams, as 

Washington State's program does. See 77 Fed. Reg. 30,477.

EPA may not simply defer to existing regulatory programs, as EPA suggests in the May 23, 2012, Federal Register notice. See 77 Fed. 

Reg. at 30,476 ("Under 402(p) EPA could build on or defer to other federal, state, tribal, local, and voluntary programs."). Section 

402(p)(6) requires EPA to "establish a comprehensive program to regulate such designated sources." Although EPA may incorporate 

into its program elements of existing and successful programs from other jurisdictions, EPA may not simply defer to those programs but 

must instead establish a comprehensive program that meets the requirements of the Act and protects water quality. Moreover, as will be 

explained in the following sections, EPA has already conducted the requisite study, and already has more than enough information, to 

justify regulating forest road stormwater discharges under a Phase II program.

<FN1> 40 C.F.R. §122.26(b)(14)(ii) (designating facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classification 24, which includes SIC 2411 

(Logging)).

<FN2> See Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, et al., 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011); League of Wilderness Defenders 

v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that 40 C.F.R. § 122.27 is not an NPDES exemption for point-source pesticide 

discharges associated with forestlands); North Carolina Shellfish Growers Ass'n v. Holly Ridge Associates, 278 F. Supp. 2d 654 

(E.D.N.C. 2003) (holding that 40 C.F.R. § 122.27 is not an NPDES permit exemption for stormwater drainage ditches associated with 

forestlands); Envt'l Prot. Info. Ctr. v. Pacific Lumber Co., No. 01-2821, 2003 WL 25506817 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2003) (holding that 40 

C.F.R. § 122.27 does not exempt stormwater drainage ditches associated with forestlands from the NPDES permit requirement); and see 

also Driscoll v. Adams, 181 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 1999) (holding that discharges of collected and channeled stormwater associated with 

timber harvest are subject to the NPDES permit requirement).

<FN3> William L. Andreen, Water Quality Today-Has the Clean Water Act Been a Success?, 55 Ala. L. Rev. 537, 542-43 (2004) 

(praising effectiveness of NPDES program and ability of the program to achieve results "without causing any significant harm to the 

economy in terms of unemployment or growth or investment"); Glicksman at 71-73 (indicating "[n]onpoint sources are responsible for 

about sixty percent of state water quality standard violations").

<FN4> Glicksman at 72; Andreen at 544 n. 36, 42; National Level Assessment at 3 (stating EPA reported that nonpoint source pollution 

was the dominant source of remaining surface water pollution).

<FN5> See Andreen at 548-50, 592 (describing hallmarks of NPDES regulation that have made it a successful program); Glicksman at 

63-64, 71-73, 77-78.

Response 

Please refer to Response 3, Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, and the 

preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0267-A2.001.004
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-111

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul A. Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

5. Conclusion. 

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), and EPA's Phase I stormwater rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, require NPDES 

permits for stormwater discharges associated with "industrial activity." Logging activities in state forests and on other large, forested 

tracts owned or managed specifically for timber production are clearly "industrial" in nature, as EPA determined when it included 

Standard Industrial Classification 2411 ("Logging") in the Phase I rule. Accordingly, where stormwater associated with those activities 

is collected and discharged via point sources, NPDES permits are the appropriate regulatory tool, as Congress determined in section 

402(p). If EPA chooses to develop an additional program to address stormwater discharges from forest roads, including inactive and 

non-industrial logging roads, we respectfully request that EPA ensure that the program is as stringent as practicable so that it actually 

functions to protect water quality.

Response 

Please refer to Response 8. Refer also to Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.003

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

As to the substance of EPA's proposal, the Conservation Groups request that EPA abandon its effort to amend the Phase I stormwater 

rule as it pertains to discharges from active, industrial logging roads, and that EPA also adopt and implement a Phase II program for 

inactive, nonindustrial and other forest roads as soon as possible. As EPA recognizes, "[s]tormwater discharges from logging roads, 

especially improperly constructed or maintained roads, may introduce significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants into surface 

waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts." 77 Fed. Reg. at 30476. Where such discharges occur along active, 

industrial logging roads they do, and should, require NPDES permits. Where such discharges occur along other forest roads, they should 

be subject to a rigorous Phase II program that protects water quality. 

1. The Clean Water Act requires EPA to regulate stormwater discharges associated with industrial logging activities. 

Active, industrial logging roads should remain regulated under EPA's Phase I rule because they generate "stormwater discharges 

associated with industrial activity." See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2); Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063, 

1085 (9th Cir. 2011). In the most recent Federal Register notice, EPA recognizes that if a point source discharge is "associated with 

industrial activity," it must be regulated pursuant to the NPDES permit program. 77 Fed. Reg. at 53835. In a footnote, EPA states that it 

is not "conceding that discharges of stormwater from logging roads constitute point source discharges * * *." 77 Fed. Reg. at 53835. Yet 

EPA also fails to explain how it could exclude discharges from pipes, ditches and channels associated with logging roads from the 

definition of point source. 

Of course EPA cannot create such an exemption. The Clean Water Act includes a specific and broad definition of "point source" that 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-112

includes "any pipe, ditch [or] channel * * *." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (emphasis added). And EPA regulations have long defined the term 

"discharge of a pollutant" to include "additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff which is collected or 

channelled by man." 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (emphasis added). Courts have therefore held that the plain language of the Silvicultural Rule 

does not, and cannot, redefine logging road point sources as non-point sources. Northwest Envt'l Defense Ctr., 640 F.3d at 1080; League 

of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1185-86 (9th Cir. 2002); Natural Res. Def. 

Council v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1377 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Environmental Protection Information Ctr. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 2003 WL 

25506817 (N.D. Cal. 2003). According to the statutory definition of point source, pipes, ditches and channels are point sources and must 

be regulated as such. 

Nor can there be any question that logging is an industrial activity. In the September 4, 2012 Federal Register notice EPA states: "This 

notice proposes adding language to the existing stormwater regulations to clarify that, for the purposes of assessing whether stormwater 

discharges are ‘associated with industrial activity,' the only facilities under SIC 2411 that are ‘industrial' are: rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage." 77 Fed. Reg. at 53835. However, in promulgating the Phase I rule, EPA without reservation or 

exception included SIC code 24, including SIC code 2411, on the list of facilities considered to be engaged in industrial activity. 40 

C.F.R. § 12.26(b)(14)(ii). As the Ninth Circuit held in Northwest Environmental Defense Center: "[i]t is undisputed that ‘logging,' which 

is covered under SIC 2411 (part of SIC 24), is an ‘industrial activity.' SIC 2411 defines ‘logging' as ‘[e]stablishments primarily engaged 

in cutting timber and in producing . . . primary forest products or wood raw materials . . . in the field." 640 F.3d at 1083-84. 

EPA's original inclusion of logging on the list of regulated industries implements the plain meaning of the statutory language. See 40 

C.F.R. §122.26(b)(14)(ii) (designating facilities classified as Standard Industrial Classification 24, which includes SIC 2411 (Logging)). 

The ordinary meaning of "industrial" is "of, connected with, or resulting from industries"; the dictionary defines "industry," in turn, as 

"any particular branch of producing, esp. manufacturing, enterprise" or "any large-scale business activity." Webster's New World 

Dictionary 689-90 (3rd ed. 1988). EPA therefore cannot limit the Phase I rule to only four specific activities associated with industrial 

logging. 

There can be little question that logging - cutting trees in the field as defined by SIC 2411 - is an industrial activity. Modern day logging 

involves extensive large-scale harvesting operations across large swaths of land, which requires a wide variety of heavy machinery, 

including harvesters and "feller bunchers," skidders and forwarders, log loaders, massive trucks for hauling the logs to sawmills, and 

extensive heavy machinery used to grade, gravel and maintain the haul routes. <FN1> 

Furthermore, the preamble and response to comments for the Phase I rule also clearly demonstrate that logging is an industrial activity 

for purposes of the Phase I permitting program. In discussing the scope of the term "associated with industrial activity," EPA stated that 

it was deciding to "exclude from the definition of industrial activity, as § 122.26(b)(14) of today's rule, those facilities that are generally 

classified under the Office of Management and Budget [SIC] as wholesale, retail, service, or commercial activities." 55 Fed. Reg. at 

48007 (emphasis added). Logging does not fit within any of those categories. Moreover, EPA stated that "facilities identified by SIC 24 

(except 2434) . . . are expected to have the following activities, processes occurring on-site: storing raw materials; . . . the use of 

unhoused manufacturing and heavy industrial equipment; and generating significant dust or particulates.." Id. EPA therefore concluded 

explicitly that "these are classes of facilities which can be viewed as generating stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity 

requiring a permit." Id. For more than twenty years, EPA has acknowledged the plain fact that logging is an industrial activity. 

Indeed, federal and state governments refer to logging as industrial. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Oregon Employment 

Department state that the forestry and logging subsector is made of three industries, one of which is "logging." <FN2> According to the 

North American Industry Classification System, which has largely replaced the Standard Industrial Classification system, logging is 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-113

listed as industrial code 1133. <FN3> The U.S. Census Bureau states with regard to NAICS 133 that "[t]his U.S. industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in one or more of the following: (1) cutting timber; (2) cutting and transporting timber . . ." <FN4> 

Even the timber industry itself refers to logging as industrial. The American Forest and Paper Association, on a page of its website 

entitled "Our Industry" declares that the "forest products industry" is a "top 10 manufacturing employer in 48 states." <FN5> The 

National Alliance of Forest Owners states that it is focused on the "U.S. industry of private forest owners/managers and their business 

needs."<FN6> The Oregon Forest Industries Council represents large private forestland owners and forest products 

manufacturing-related firms. <FN7> The Southern Forest Product Association describes itself as "one of the foremost trade 

organizations in the forest products industry." <FN8> The Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association states that it "has provided 

leadership in the Lake States forest products industry for over 65 years." <FN9> The New Mexico Forest Industry Association works to 

"[p]romote and provide public relations for the forest industry and to stimulate interest, use and involvement in the forest products 

industry." <FN10> This list could go on and on, but the point is clear. Even the logging companies and their trade associations 

consistently refer to logging as an "industry" and to logging activities as "industrial." There is no rational basis based on the plain 

meaning of the statutory language for EPA or the timber industry to back away from that characterization only in the case of a regulatory 

program designed to protect the environment. If EPA is to amend the Phase I rule, it must explain why "logging" is not an industrial 

activity or why point-source discharges along logging roads are not associated with industrial activity. Yet EPA has utterly failed to 

explain that. 

2. EPA has not identified a rational basis or factual evidence that would justify limiting the reach of the Phase I rule and NPDES permit 

requirement to stormwater discharges from rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities operated in connection 

with silvicultural activities. 

EPA stated in the Phase I rule that "logging" is an industrial activity that generates stormwater discharges associated with industrial 

activity. The rule states: "[t]he following categories of facilities are considered to be engaging in ‘industrial activity' for purposes of 

paragraph (b)(14)...." 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14) (emphasis added). The rule then undisputedly includes logging on the list of regulated 

industries. See id. § 122.26(b)(14)(ii) (listing facilities classified as SIC 24, which includes SIC 2411, "Logging"). EPA now proposes to 

amend the language of 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14)(ii) to limit the scope of facilities under SIC 2411 deemed to be engaging in industrial 

activities. Specifically, the proposed rule would limit the facilities subject to the NPDES permit requirement to rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, or log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities. 77 Fed. Reg. at 53835, 53836, 53838. 

But EPA has failed to provide any justification, based on the plain language of the statute, as to why EPA no longer considers logging to 

be "industrial activity" or why EPA believes that point-source discharges along logging roads are not "associated with" industrial 

activity. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B). EPA has failed to articulate any basis, much less a rational basis, for treating some phases of the 

logging process as industrial while treating other parts of that same process as non-industrial. 

By listing SIC 241 ("logging") on the list of industrial activities subject to the Phase I rule, EPA recognized that logging is an "industrial 

activity" within the meaning of CWA section 402(p). Further, by attempting to capture silvicultural-related rock crushing, gravel 

washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities through its listing of SIC 241, even EPA's proposed rule recognizes that those four 

facilities derive their "industrial" nature from the larger process that they serve: logging. It therefore makes absolutely no sense for EPA 

to claim that those four facilities are industrial while also claiming that the larger process they serve is not industrial. For this reason, 

EPA's proposed rule is fundamentally, and irretrievably, flawed. In any event, at a minimum, EPA must articulate a rational basis for its 

determination that some logging activities are industrial (rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, log storage) while others are not 

(timber hauling). 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-114

A. If rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities operated in connection with silvicultural activities are 

industrial in nature, so logging and timber hauling must be industrial in nature. 

The Conservation Groups submit that there is no valid way to justify treating logging and timber hauling as non-industrial while at the 

same time treating rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities as industrial activities subject to the Phase I rule. 

Rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage facilities are not discrete industrial activities that take place on their own, they 

are an integral part of the larger process of logging. Indeed, those four activities are inextricably intertwined with logging-they have no 

independent utility apart from what they contribute to the larger process of extracting timber from the forest and transporting it to the 

mills. Consequently, because EPA agrees that rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting, and log storage facilities that are categorized as 

SIC 241 are "industrial" in nature, EPA must also agree that other activities within SIC 241 are also "industrial" in nature. 

The process of getting timber out of the forest and to the mill starts with the building or upgrading of logging roads and ends with log 

storage and sorting at the mill. After a timber company or landowner decides to harvest timber in a particular location it must then 

evaluate the existing road network to determine whether it provides the necessary access to the harvesting location. If existing roads 

already provide that access, then the timber company or landowner will prepare the road surface so the road is capable of supporting, 

during all seasons when the work will be done, the heavy trucks that haul the heavy equipment and timber. If they need to build new 

roads to provide that access they will do that. Either way, a large part of preparing the roads involves ensuring the stormwater collection 

system is properly moving stormwater off the roads and ensuring that the road is properly surfaced, both of which help ensure that trucks 

will not get bogged down in mud during wet weather. Dumping and spreading tons and tons of gravel on the road is the usual method for 

ensuring that the road surfaces will remain operable during wet weather. Once the stormwater collection systems are in good shape and 

the roads properly surfaced, the timber company or landowner can then haul in the heavy equipment it needs to build the landings, 

harvest the timber, load the logs onto logging trucks, haul the timber out of the forest and to the mill, move the remaining slash into piles, 

and complete any other required work before moving to the next harvesting location. 

In the context of logging, then, the only reason to operate rock crushing and gravel washing facilities is to obtain materials to surface the 

logging roads and landings so they will support industrial logging activities. And the only reason to operate log sorting and storage 

facilities is to receive the timber that is cut and hauled out of the forest. Rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage 

facilities are thus inextricably intertwined with logging because they would not even exist but for the harvesting and hauling activities. 

Those facilities have no independent utility-they do not perform any function at all except to facilitate the industrial logging activities 

that take place. They are clearly not independent industrial activities, but are integral phases of the industrial activity of "logging." 

EPA has not articulated a rational basis consistent with the Clean Water Act for categorizing some phases of the timber harvesting 

process as "industrial" while categorizing other phases of that same process as "non-industrial." See Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d at 1085 ("As we explained in NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d at 1306, "if[logging] activity is industrial in nature, and 

EPA concedes that it is [see SIC 2411], EPA is not free to create exemptions from permitting requirements for such activity."). At a 

minimum, EPA must articulate why it considers rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage facilities to be industrial but 

does not consider timber harvesting and hauling to be industrial even though all the activities are part of the same process of removing 

timber from the forest and transporting it to the mills. 

B. EPA must explain the criteria it used to decide to limit the reach of the Phase I rule's NPDES permit requirement. 

The proposed rule does not provide a discussion of what criteria EPA has applied in determining whether logging more generally - apart 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-115

from the four limited activities described - meets the definition of industrial activity. We therefore request clear and explicit guidance 

from EPA as to what criteria it has used to determine that logging more generally is not an industrial activity. 

Using the criteria that EPA announced and applied during the Phase I rulemaking, logging is quite clearly an industrial activity and 

nothing in the proposed rule justifies treating it as anything else. As discussed above, in the preamble to the Phase I rule EPA stated that 

it was excluding from the definition of industrial activity facilities that were generally classified as "wholesale, retail, service, or 

commercial activities." 55 Fed. Reg. at 48007. Clearly, logging does not fit into any of the above categories. Similarly, in the Phase I 

preamble EPA noted that activities included in the original list of industrial activities, including explicitly SIC 2411 (logging), are 

expected to involve the storage of raw materials, the use of heavy industrial equipment, and the generation of significant amounts of dust 

and particulates. Id. As EPA initially found in 1990, logging and logging roads clearly meet those criteria. The criteria announced in the 

Phase I rule therefore clearly indicate that logging must be considered an industrial activity. At the same time, those criteria do not 

provide any basis for EPA's proposed amendment to the Phase I rule. 

Moreover, the criteria that EPA purportedly used to identify nonpoint source silvicultural activities are in conflict with the Clean Water 

Act. EPA stated that it had used three criteria to identify nonpoint sources associated with silvicultural activities: 

(i) The pollutants discharged are induced by natural processes, including precipitation, seepage, percolation, and runoff; 

(ii) The pollutants discharges are not traceable to any discrete or identifiable facility; and 

(iii) The pollutants discharged are better controlled through the utilization of best management practices. 

41 Fed. Reg. 24709, 24710 (June 18, 1976). 

All three of these criteria are clearly in conflict with Section 402(p) of the statute. With respect to the first criteria, section 402(p) only 

applies to stormwater - i.e. stormwater discharges that are "induced by precipitation." Congress has therefore spoken directly to this issue 

and determined that stormwater discharges that are induced by precipitation and associated with industrial activity must be regulated 

pursuant to the NPDES permit program. The same can be said with respect to each of the other two criteria as well. Regardless of 

whether or not storm water can be traced to any discrete or identifiable facility, it must be regulated if it is "associated with industrial 

activity." Congress, in fact, required that municipal stormwater, which is clearly not traceable to a discrete facility, be subject to the 

NPDES permitting program, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(C)-(D), and this criteria is not embodied in the statutory language of Section 

402(p)(2). Similarly, Congress has not granted to EPA the discretion to exempt sources of stormwater listed in Section 402(p)(2) from 

the NPDES permit program based on whether or not best management practices would provide a useful means of controlling pollution. 

EPA may have discretion to do so with respect to sources not listed in 402(p)(2) through the procedures outlined in Section 

402(p)(5)-(6), but the applicability or usefulness of BMPs has no role to play in identifying "industrial activity" that is subject to the 

NPDES permitting program. Rather, those BMPs can be incorporated into the permits that are developed by state agencies on a 

state-by-state basis. 

EPA has set forth no criteria or explanation for how its decision to amend the Phase I rule falls within the discretion delegated to the 

agency by statute. The original rationale set forth by the agency in 1976 for designating four limited activities as the only ones subject to 

the NPDES permit program clearly conflict with the amendments to the Clean Water Act made by Congress in 1987. Furthermore, the 

criteria EPA used to designate "industrial activities" in 1990 clearly apply to logging activities in general and logging roads in particular. 

EPA must do more to explain the basis for its decision to amend the Phase I rule.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-116

<FN1> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvester (forestry). A complete catalogue of logging machinery and equipment is

available on the Forestry Department’s website at Virginia Tech University. See http://web1.cnre.vt.edu/harvestingsystems/. For a video

of a harvester at work, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQmtEdOphy8&feature=related. Examples of typical log loaders doing

their jobs are here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13m4zx4shqU&feature=related;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHT0-GKxi9s. For photos of various kinds of logging trucks, see 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logging_truck.

<FN2> http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00006527

<FN3> http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag113.htm

<FN4> http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97/def/1133.HTM

<FN5> http://www.afandpa.org/ourindustry.aspx?id=438

<FN6> http://nafoalliance.org/about-nafo/

<FN7> http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag113.htm; http://www.ofic.com/

<FN8> http://sfpa.org/about/

<FN9> http://timberpa.com/association/about-us

<FN10> http://www.nmfia.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=5&Itemid=6

 

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 3, Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, 

and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.005

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

D. Industrial logging roads are "immediate access roads" and EPA's interpretation to the contrary is incorrect. 

EPA also appears to believe that the logging roads at issue in NEDC v. Brown, and others like them, do not qualify as "immediate access 

roads" as that term is used in the Phase I rule. EPA states: 

The EPA considers ‘immediate access roads' to refer to roads which are exclusively or primarily dedicated for use by the industrial 

facility. 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 48009 (Nov. 16, 1990). These ‘immediate access roads' do not include public access roads that are state, 

county, or federal roads such as highways or Bureau of Land Management roads which happen to be used by the facility. 

77 Fed. Reg. at 53836. EPA then states: "Unlike ‘immediate access roads' associated with industrial facilities, many logging roads have 

multiple uses, including recreation and general transportation, and commonly extend over long distances (i.e.; may not provide 

‘immediate access' to an industrial site)." 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-117

EPA appears to misunderstand key facts about the roads at issue in the Northwest Environmental Defense Center case. The two roads at 

issue in that case are located within the Tillamook State Forest, a state forest that is wholly-owned by the State of Oregon and that is 

managed year-round for timber harvest. The roads are designated in numerous timber sale contracts as the access roads for specific 

logging sites covered by the contracts. And the timber sale contracts obligate the purchasers of the rights to harvest timber at those 

locations to maintain the two roads so that they will continue to facilitate the industrial activity that takes place. The two roads at issue 

are clearly "immediate access roads" because they are designated access routes for the industrial logging activities that take place and 

they are used to transport raw materials-timber harvested in the forest. The two roads are not incidentally used for timber hauling based 

on the logging truck driver's decision about which route to take, as would be the case with public highways or other county roads. Rather, 

the truckers are obligated to use the two roads to access the sites and haul timber out of the forest. Furthermore, although the two roads 

may be publicly owned, they are located in a state forest that is actively managed yearround for the production of timber. The fact that 

the two roads happen to be publicly-owned does not make them any less "immediate access roads." 

In any event, whatever EPA may think about the two roads at issue in NEDC v. Brown, EPA has completely failed to explain why 

logging roads on private industrial forest lands are not "immediate access roads" or should not be subject to the NPDES permit 

requirement. Timber companies across the nation own large tracts of forest land that contain logging roads. Just like the roads at issue in 

NEDC v. Brown, those private logging roads are built and maintained to facilitate industrial activities like hauling heavy equipment, 

accessing logging operations, and transporting cut timber out of the forest. If EPA is correct that the phrase "immediate access roads" 

does not refer to certain publicly-owned roads, that would have no bearing on logging roads on private industrial forest lands, nor would 

it justify excluding those roads from the NPDES permit program. 

Finally, although the Ninth Circuit focused its analysis on whether the two roads qualify as "immediate access roads," the Phase I rule is 

quite clearly broad enough to capture, and require permits for, stormwater discharges along all industrial logging roads. The Phase I rule 

requires permits for "material handling sites" "used for the transportation or conveyance of any raw material." Additionally, the rule's

narrative text is illustrative, not exhaustive, so stormwater discharges that are clearly "associated with" logging require NPDES permits 

even if they are not specifically listed. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14) ("For the categories of industries identified in this section, the term 

includes, but is not limited to...."). Under any of these criteria, logging roads specifically designed, built, maintained, and used for 

timber hauling are clearly "associated with" industrial logging activities. 

E. EPA's belief that logging roads should be covered by Phase II is not a sufficient reason for amending the Phase I rule. 

EPA states that, in response to the remand order in Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, it is considering addressing forest road 

discharges under a Phase II program developed pursuant to CWA section 402(p)(5) and (6). Specifically, in a section of the September 4, 

2012 Federal Register notice entitled "rationale," EPA states: "The EPA believes that stormwater discharges from forest roads, including 

logging roads, should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act because the section allows for a broad range of 

flexible approaches that may be better suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use." 

EPA cannot exclude logging roads from the Phase I rule simply because it believes they are better addressed in a Phase II program. If 

EPA continues to believe that logging roads are nonpoint sources then this reasoning of EPA's is specious: CWA section 402(p) only 

applies to point sources, so EPA could never build a Phase II program for logging roads if they are categorically nonpoint sources of 

pollution. Equally important, EPA's preference for a Phase II program is neither relevant to nor a valid basis for amending the Phase I 

rule because it does not address or explain how stormwater discharges along active, industrial logging roads are not "associated with 

industrial activity." As previously noted, EPA can only exclude logging roads from the Phase I rule if EPA validly determines that 

logging roads do not produce stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. That logging roads may be better addressed 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-118

through a Phase II program is irrelevant to that determination. 

The September 4, 2012 Federal Register notice fails to articulate a rational basis for EPA's proposal to exempt the cutting and hauling of 

timber from the definition of "industrial activity." Because EPA has not explained how the proposed rule is consistent with the Clean 

Water Act, the Conservation Groups respectfully request that EPA abandon the proposed rule. Additionally, if EPA decides to finalize 

the proposed rule, EPA must evaluate the environmental impacts of changing the rule before finalizing any amendment that narrows its 

regulatory scope.

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.008

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

5. Conclusion. 

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), and EPA's Phase I stormwater rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, currently require 

NPDES permits for stormwater discharges associated with "industrial activity." Logging activities in state forests and on other large, 

forested tracts owned or managed specifically for timber production are clearly "industrial" in nature, as EPA determined when it 

included Standard Industrial Classification 2411 ("Logging") in the Phase I rule. Even EPA recognizes that many logging roads are 

associated with industrial activity: "[p]rivate 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." 77 Fed. Reg. at 30,475. Logging roads facilitate industrial-scale timber harvest by providing ingress and egress for 

logging sites, by supporting the hauling of heavy equipment in and out of forests managed primarily for timber harvest, and by 

supporting the hauling of timber to mills. Logging roads are an integral part of the industrial process of obtaining raw timber and turning 

it into finished products. Where those logging roads use pipes, ditches and channels to discharge stormwater to waters of the U.S., 

section 402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act requires those discharges to be authorized by an NPDES permit. EPA should therefore abandon 

its effort to amend the Phase I rule to overturn the court of appeals' decision in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown. 

EPA should also build a Phase II program to address stormwater discharges along inactive, non-industrial, and other forest roads, in 

response to the remand order in Environmental Defense Center v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003). That program should be 

regulatory, not voluntary, and it should not replace the Phase I permit requirement for active industrial logging roads. As EPA 

recognizes, "[s]tormwater discharges from logging roads, especially improperly constructed or maintained roads, may introduce 

significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants into surface waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts." 77 

Fed. Reg. at 30476. EPA's Phase II program for forest roads should therefore supplement EPA's Phase I regulation of active, industrial 

logging roads.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-119

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0269.001.001

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 11

These comments are submitted on behalf of numerous groups that oppose an NPDES permit exemption for stormwater discharges along 

active, industrial logging roads but that support EPA's development of a Phase II regulatory program for stormwater discharges along 

other forest roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 8. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.004

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 11

Feasibility of Applying NPDES Permitting Requirements to Stormwater Runoff from Logging Roads 

Assuming the Silviculture Rule is not upheld by the Supreme Court and a modified point source definition does not pass through 

Congress, the EPA will need to adopt a manageable permitting procedure for logging roads within the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program. A specific and manageable NPDES permit at federal and state levels to deal with logging roads 

can be adapted from currently existing permitting procedures within the NPDES Stormwater Program, since the program already covers 

stormwater discharges from construction and industrial activities. EPA and the states have already crafted workable permit solutions to 

handle a variety of point source discharges, including municipal stormwater (which includes extensive networks of roads), stormwater 

runoff from industrial facilities (and associated access roads), and stormwater runoff from construction sites larger than one acre 

(including associated roads). Two permitting programs in particular, EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for industrial 

stormwater discharges and Construction General Permit (CGP) for construction sites, and their associated state permits, are applicable to 

logging roads, since they emphasize the creation of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), the implementation of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), effluent turbidity standards, and monitoring of stormwater discharges. These general permits are

applicable to industrial and construction-related activities occurring over large areas with multiple access roads; one NPDES permit 

could feasibly cover the logging roads of an entire logging operation. 

Because the majority of states hold jurisdictional control over their own NPDES permit program, as authorized by the EPA, NPDES 

permits will not amount to regulatory redundancy. Current states' Forest Practices Acts, Streamside Management Acts, and Habitat 

Conservation Plans will guide the regulatory requirements for each state. Rather than a nationwide, one-size-fits-all approach that fails to 

account for climatic, geologic, and topographic variation, as is often stated as an argument against regulation, the BMPs adopted as 

regulatory standards will still be regionally specific. The main difference will be the non-voluntary nature of the BMPs. The fact that 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-120

regulatory facets of states' current Forest Practices Acts and Streamside Management Acts will be absorbed into NPDES permitting 

requirements is simply a fact of progress, not of redundancy.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 8. Refer also to Response 5, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.006

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 11

If the EPA is compelled to regulate stormwater runoff from logging roads, the use of NPDES permits will significantly increase 

accountability of logging operations and significantly increase implementation of BMPs (which, in most cases, have proven effective). 

These general NPDES permits can be feasibly adapted from MSGP and CGP Permits within the NPDES stormwater program. Point 

source regulation of stormwater from logging roads will also increase monitoring requirements, which will significantly advance state 

knowledge of its own water quality within logging areas. 

Although it can be argued that regulatory permits will significantly increase compliance costs of logging operations, especially for 

private forest-owners, this increased compliance cost is a necessary step in ensuring the accountability of logging operations nationwide 

and conforming to the legal application of the CWA. Runoff from logging roads, through ditches, channels, and culverts, falls under the 

legal definition of point source, which the Silviculture Rule cannot legally modify. The application of a regulatory framework at state 

and federal levels will also create jobs in the permitting and compliance sector of state and federal governments. Before moving forward 

with this point source regulation, however, the EPA will need to explicitly define what constitutes a logging road, to include both current 

and legacy roads associated with logging activities. Without that specification, water quality impairments from logging roads will still 

persist.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13 and to the preamble to the final rule. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, Response 11, Response 12, and 

Response 15. 

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.004

Author Name: Snyder William

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 11

California contains approximately 16.6 million acres of commercial timberland (federal, private, state, county, and municipal), with 

about 7.3 million acres privately owned timberland under CAL FIRE's regulatory jurisdiction. These lands contain tens of thousands of 

miles of forest, ranch, and utility access roads. While a significant portion of these roads are used for timber operations, most of them are 

also used for multiple purposes such as recreation, access for wildland fire fighting, and access for maintenance for power transmission 

lines. CAL FIRE concurs with EPA that logging roads do not (except in rare circumstances which are handled differently) provide 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-121

immediate access to an industrial site, and therefore should continue to be regulated as non-point sources and not require National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 7 and Response 8.
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 12: Assertions that the 

EPA’s Revision Is In Fact Substantive

Pages 2-122 to 2-124 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-122

12. ASSERTIONS THAT THE EPA’S REVISION IS IN FACT 

SUBSTANTIVE

Comment ID 0186.001.002

Author Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: 

Issue Category: 12

The proposed forest road rule redefines the term "industrial" to exclude all facilities other than those specifically listed in the rule. 

Changing the legal definition of an industrial facility exceeds the EPA's rulemaking authority and undermines the original intent of the 

legislation.

Response 

Please refer to Response 10. Refer also to Response 8. 

Comment ID 0217.001.003

Author Name: Doggett Coleman

Organization: Doggett Tree Farms

Issue Category: 12

In addition to the adverse economic effects, most of the scientific studies that I have read indicate that the effect of logging on water 

quality is minimal. Several of our tree farms are along watersheds with a minimum amount of soil disturbance (little farming or timber 

harvest) and my anecdotal observation is that huge amounts of soil are carried down nearby rivers, not as the result of human activity, but 

from the scouring action of rapid streamflow as the result of heavy rains. It is my opinion that we do not need any additional regulations 

for regulations sake. Before such a drastic step is taken, we should at least have scientific studies of the amount of siltation added by both 

natural occurrences and human activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.006

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 12

3. Before amending the Phase I rule EPA must initiate and complete consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 

U.S.C. § 1536. 

Although EPA asserts in the September 4, 2012 Federal Register notice that the proposed rule change will not have any environmental 

impacts, in fact the proposed rule change itself demonstrates that EPA is rolling back the Phase I rule to reduce the number and kinds of 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-123

polluting activities that require NPDES permits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit clearly held that stormwater discharges 

from pipes, ditches and channels along active, industrial logging roads require NPDES permits under the existing NPDES permit 

regulations as written. Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, et al., 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). And EPA has 

repeatedly recognized that logging road stormwater pollution is a widespread and chronic pollution source that impairs water quality and 

can adversely affect aquatic ecosystems. 77 Fed. Reg. at 30476. Because EPA is changing the rules to eliminate the NPDES permit 

requirement for logging roads, and because that change will reduce the protections available for aquatic species and waters subject to the 

Clean Water Act, EPA must initiate and complete consultation under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act to ensure that the proposed 

rule change will not jeopardize listed species or adversely designated critical habitat. EPA must evaluate the impacts of eliminating 

NPDES permits for discharges from industrial logging roads before EPA finalizes the proposed rule change. 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to evaluate expected impacts to listed species and designated critical 

habitat before authorizing, funding, or taking any discretionary action. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2); National Association of Homebuilders v. 

Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644, 669 (2007). The consultation process is intended to ensure that planned agency actions do not risk 

jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species. The consultation process also offers valuable protections against the risk of a 

substantive ESA violation and ensures that environmental concerns will be properly factored into the decisionmaking process as 

intended by Congress. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Houston, 146 F.3d 1118, 1128-29 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Federal agencies must go through the ESA section 7 consultation process if proposed actions may affect a listed species. In the 

Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (now NOAA 

Fisheries) note that the term "affect" is a verb that means "to bring about a change" and that 

May affect [is] the appropriate conclusion when a proposed action may pose any effects on listed species or designated critical habitat. 

When the Federal agency proposing the action determines that a "may affect" situation exists, then they must either initiate formal 

consultation or seek written concurrence from the Services that the action "is not likely to adversely affect" ... listed species. 

The threshold for a "may effect" determination is very low. Any possible effect, whether beneficial, benign, adverse or of an 

undetermined character, triggers the formal consultation requirement. 51 Fed. Reg. 19926, 19949 (June 3, 1986); Final ESA Section 7 

Consultation Handbook (Mar. 1998). Upon the conclusion of formal consultation, the ESA directs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or 

the NOAA Fisheries Service to issue a biological opinion detailing how the agency action affects the species. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(b)(3)(A). 

These statutory requirements apply here. EPA's proposal to eliminate the NPDES permit requirement for stormwater discharges from 

industrial logging roads is a discretionary federal action that may affect aquatic and other species that are listed and protected under the 

Endangered Species Act. Indeed, there is ample information demonstrating that stormwater discharges from logging roads are a 

significant source of pollution that is adversely affecting water quality and listed species. We discussed these impacts in detail in the 

Conservation Groups' June 22, 2012 comment letter, and we hereby incorporate by reference that letter and all the materials referenced 

therein. As is plain from our June 22 letter and supporting materials, sediment discharged from culverts, ditches, and channels along 

logging roads still fouls rivers and streams across the United States. State efforts to control these impacts have often failed, as evidenced 

by the extensive miles of streams listed by the EPA and states as water qualitylimited, as well as by the many listings of imperiled aquatic 

species under the Endangered Species Act. It is therefore critical that the EPA continue to regulate and require NPDES permits for 

stormwater discharges from logging roads. 

As we stated in our June 22, letter: 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-124

According to an EPA-commissioned report, "forestry-related sediment is a leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and 

streams nationwide." <FN11> Remarkably, EPA indicates that "up to 90% of the total sediment production from forestry operations" 

comes from logging roads and steam crossings.<FN12> A significant portion of this sediment is collected and discharged directly into 

rivers and streams through ditches, channels, and culverts. <FN13> In some areas of the Pacific Northwest, up to 75% of forest road 

drainage systems may directly enter rivers and streams. <FN14> Sedimentation from forest roads is a serious problem that current 

management and regulation has failed to control, and we encourage EPA to take this opportunity to address the legacy of forest roads and 

its effect on our nation's waterways. 

EPA explicitly recognizes that fine sediment from forest roads "can adversely affect the survival of dozens of sensitive aquatic biota 

(salmon, trout, other native fishes, amphibians, and macroinvertibrates) where these species are located." Id. EPA concluded in the 

Federal Register notice that these dynamics have already been "well documented." Id. Similarly, Endicott concluded as follows: 

The physical impacts of roads have detrimental effects on fish and fish habitat. Mechanisms through which 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, and migration barriers. The physical impacts of roads discussed above have widespread and 

profound effect on fish habitat and fish communities in populations across a wide range of environments and conditions (Lee at al., 

1997). 

Endicott also notes that impacts from sedimentation can "often lead[] to complete loss of salmonid fisheries." Clearly, there can be no 

questions that stormwater from industrial logging roads and forest roads are harming and will continue to harm beneficial uses without 

adequate regulation. 

Given the well-documented harm caused by logging road pollution, EPA must initiate ESA consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and NOAA Fisheries before EPA eliminates the NPDES permit requirement for stormwater discharges from industrial logging 

roads.

<FN11> Endicott, D. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their

Prevention by Best Management Practices – Final Report (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, 

Office of Wastewater Management Permits Division) (Contract No. EP-C-05-066, Task Order 002), at 2 (citing EPA’s 2000 and 2002 

National Water Quality Inventories).

<FN12> Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, EPA Guidance Paper 

840-B-93-001c, at 27 (1993); see also Endicott at 9.

<FN13> Endicott at 43-44, 49.

<FN14> Id.; See also Mills, Keith, P.E., Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Roads, Drainage and Sediment Delivery in the Kilchis 

River Watershed 4-5 (Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project, June 1997), available at 

www.oregon.gov/ODF/privateforests/docs/kilchis.pdf [hereinafter “Mills Report”] (citing studies indicating 25 to 75% of forest road 

drainage directly enters streams and rivers).

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final 

rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 13: Definitions of the Terms 

Forest Road or Logging Road

Pages 2-125 to 2-129 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-125

13. DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS FOREST ROAD OR LOGGING ROAD

Comment ID 0188-A1.001.004

Author Name: Koehn Steven

Organization: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defining the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.004

Author Name: Morgan Charlie

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Commission (MS FC)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defiling the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations. We look forward to the results of this review and will continue to offer input as the opportunity 

arises.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11. Refer also to Response 13 and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0191-A1.001.004

Author Name: Garrison, III Carl

Organization: Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DF)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defming the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-126

Response 

Please refer to Response 11 and Response 13.

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.004

Author Name: Casey Linda

Organization: Alabama Forestry Commission (AL FC)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defining the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations. We look forward to the results of this review and will continue to offer input as the opportunity 

arises.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.004

Author Name: Dye Charles

Organization: West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defining the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations. We look forward to the results of this review and will continue to offer input as the opportunity 

arises.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11. Refer also to Response 13 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.003

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that US EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p )( 6). This will certainly be a daunting task, starting with simply defining the 

term "forest road" and then addressing the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that must be considered when 

evaluating storm water management options.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-127

Response 

Please refer to Response 11. Refer also to Response 13 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.003

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 13

However, it is concerning that USEPA appears to be making a distinction between the status of the Phase 1-NPDES exemption for 

"logging roads" versus "forest roads." A road that is constructed or maintained upon forestland for the purposes of forest management 

and associated silvicultural activities may be used interchangeably for logging purposes or other forestry I silvicultural purposes. The 

same processes are used to manage storm water runoff and nonpoint source pollution from a road that exists within a forest, regardless of 

whether a specific road or road segment is intended for logging or other forestry use.

We urge the USEP A to revise NPDES regulations to specify that stormwater discharges from all "forest roads" are exempt from 

permitting requirements; not just logging roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0247-A1.001.004

Author Name: Geissler George

Organization: Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (OK DAFF)

Issue Category: 13

We recognize that EPA has a difficult and challenging task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of 

which logging roads are a part) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). Defining the term "forest road" and then prescribing ways 

to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships, physical conditions and actual uses of those roads will require close collaboration with 

the states and other stakeholders. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 11, Response 12, and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.005

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 13
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-128

We recognize that this rulemaking presents a difficult and challenging task, starting with simply defining the term "forest road" to 

addressing the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships, users, and physical conditions, which are different from other stormwater discharges 

addressed thus far.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11, Response 12, and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.006

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 13

Our primary concern with language in the proposed rule is how "forest roads" will be defined. There is uncertainty regarding the unclear 

use of "forest roads" versus "logging roads". As natural resource professionals working to sustainably manage a public resource we feel 

this ambiguity is reason for concern. Further definition of "forest roads" is necessary to provide proper guidance to resource managers. 

The true intent of the proposed rule remains unknown until further clarification can be provided.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11.Refer also to Response 5, Response 6, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0276-A1.001.004

Author Name: Paul DeLong Ken Johnson

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of"forest roads" (of which logging 

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defining the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships, and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 12 and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0277-A1.001.004

Author Name: O'Neill William

Organization: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

Issue Category: 13

We understand that EPA has a larger task ahead in determining how to treat the broader category of "forest roads" (of which logging 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-129

roads are a subset) under the Clean Water Act Section 402(p)(6). We see this as a very difficult and challenging task starting with simply 

defining the term "forest road" and then going on to address the multiple jurisdictions, ownerships and physical conditions that will be 

encompassed by your deliberations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 11 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 15. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 15: Impacts of Stormwater 

Discharges From Forest Roads and Existing 

Programs for Addressing Them

Pages 2-130 to 2-174 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-130

15. IMPACTS OF STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM FOREST ROADS 

AND EXISTING PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THEM

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.004

Author Name: Brian S. Keiling Howard M. Persinger, Jr.

Organization: West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

Issue Category: 15

The West Virginia Legislature passed the Logging Sediment Control Act in 1992. This law sets guidelines for logging companies to use 

when timbering. The law requires loggers to follow legislatively enacted Best Management Practices that prevent soil erosion or run-off 

that could potentially cause problems in nearby streams, rivers or other bodies of water. Follow up studies have found that BMPs 

currently in use in West Virginia are effective in protecting soil and water resources. Nationwide, compliance with state BMPs has been 

documented to be over 90%. This is an exceptional compliance rate for any regulatory scheme.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 12 and the preamble to today's rule.

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.003

Author Name: O'Rourke, Sr. Thomas

Organization: Yurok Tribe

Issue Category: 15

The Tribe is committed to managing roads within the Yurok Reservation in a manner that protects water quality. The Tribe has an active 

Forestry Department overseen by its Director, James Erler, a California Registered Professional Forester. Furthermore, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) has a process to review timber harvest operations on the Yurok Reservation and requires roads to be built and maintained 

with Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet or exceed those BMPs listed in the Pacific Regional Handbook for Logging Practices. 

Finally, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service approved the Yurok Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) for 22,237 acres of fee lands the Yurok Tribe purchased in 2011. The HCP has stringent requirements for the assessment and 

management of roads for this property, including accelerating road upgrading and decommissioning to reduce road-related sediment 

delivery to streams. 

The Yurok Tribe maintains gravel roads on the Yurok Reservation that are on the BIA road inventory list consistent with the 5 Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program and its Water Quality and Stream Habitat Protection Manual for County Road Maintenance in 

Northwestern California Watersheds. More information on this program and the manual is available at: www.5counties.org. In addition, 

the Yurok Tribe Environmental Program has a proven track record of successfully permitting government actions on the Yurok 

Reservation to protect water quality. This includes issuing water quality certifications to the California Department of Transportation 

(CalTrans), Humboldt County, and Del Norte County for road repair projects.

As described above, the Yurok Tribe currently manages its forest roads under an extensive combination of tribal and federal regulation 

and voluntary guidelines. This is true for many other tribes as well.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-131

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.003

Author Name: Leonard Young Ted Sturdevant

Organization: State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and State of Washington Department of Ecology (WA DNR and 

Ecology)

Issue Category: 15

Washington State's historic Forests & Fish Law (Forests & Fish) put in place a system of forest practice safeguards for private and state 

land managers that is among the most protective in the nation, while maintaining a stable regulatory environment. Under approved road 

maintenance and abandonment plans, the objective is to achieve disconnection between the road network and the stream system and 

fully mitigate sediment delivery at stream crossings. We estimate that a total of 21,390 miles of road have been brought up to standards 

or permanently retired by state and industrial landowners, and estimate the work will be fully completed between 2016 and 2021. 

We take great pride in the hard work Washington's forest landowners have done to make forest roads protective of water quality. Any 

option considered by EPA for addressing forest roads must recognize states with programs that have strong standards and criteria, such 

as ours, as functionally equivalent. We also caution that a new rule-based system should maintain the values of regulatory and legal 

stability that are central to Washington's approach. 

As you may know, Washington's system recognizes that unique considerations should be applied with respect to different land 

ownership and management categories. EPA should do the same. Requirements to address the unique challenges faced by small forest 

landowners should be different from those applicable to larger land managers. Federal land managers present another unique challenge. 

The United States Forest Service is party to a Memorandum of Agreement with the Washington State Department of Ecology to abide by 

Forests & Fish standards. Achieving water quality protection is impossible without equitable requirements for this portion of the forest 

roads system.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 13.

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.003

Author Name: Bonnet Michelle

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC)

Issue Category: 15

The State of Alaska's (State) promulgated statues and implementing regulations provide adequate water quality protection from

stormwater-related discharges from forest roads, including logging roads. The State also manages forest roads through regulations 

developed under the direction of the "Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act." The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is the 

lead agency for administration of the Act and its implementing regulations. DEC is the lead agency for water quality management and 

has approved the regulations as constituting the nonpoint source pollution control requirements for forest practices activities in the state 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-132

(Alaska Statute Sec. 41.17.055(d) and Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 11 AAC 95.185(h)). 

Included in the regulations are several sections specific to road construction, maintenance, and closure (see 11 AAC 95.285- .335). 

These regulations are comprehensive and are briefly summarized below: 

Road Location: Includes direction to minimize the number of stream crossings and to avoid marshes and wetlands.

Road Construction: Specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling erosion and sedimentation during road construction.

Road Drainage: Sets minimum drainage standards such as spacing of cross drainage culverts and includes BMPs to minimize erosion in 

ditches.

Bridge Standards: Specifies bridge installation requirements to control surface runoff and sedimentation and to

minimize impacts on resident and anadromous fish.

Culverts and Other Water Crossing Provisions: Specifies hydrologic design conditions, fish passage requirements and

conditions to reduce sedimentation.

Road Maintenance: Specifies BMPs and maintenance practices to control drainage and minimize erosion of the

road surface and subgrade.

Road Closure: Specifies closure procedures to control runoff and minimize erosion.

Material Extraction and Disposal Sites: Specifies location considerations and BMPs to minimize erosion and protect

water quality.

Rehabilitation after Mass Wasting: Specifies BMPs to use after mass wasting events to stabilize the slide path and

minimize erosion.

Blasting Standards: Specifies blasting standards to minimize impacts on fish-bearing waters.

Similar BMPs have been developed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and are outlined in the USFS Region 10 Soil & Water 

Conservation Handbook (FSH 2509.22). In 1997, the state of Alaska certified these BMPs as being consistent with those of the Alaska 

Forest Resources & Practices Regulations. 

Stormwater management via BMPs is integral to water quality protection. On-going BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

conducted by the State of Alaska and the USFS has demonstrated that, when properly implemented, the BMPs for road construction,

maintenance, and closure outlined in the Alaska Forest Resources & Practices Regulations and the U.S. Forest Service's Soil & Water 

Conservation Handbook are effective at maintaining water quality. 

DEC maintains that the Alaska approach to regulating logging and forest roads is successful at protecting water quality and supports the 

continued use of these BMP-based programs in lieu of requiring forest roads to be permitted under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-133

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.005

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 15

North Carolina's forestry BMPs are available in the 'Water Quality' section of our website, www.ncforestservice.gov.

Experience has shown that BMP usage, nonpoint source pollution control, and water quality regulatory compliance in the forestry 

community can be achieved through targeted education, coupled with proactive site monitoring and rigorous follow-up remedial actions. 

The Southern Group of State Foresters recently published the findings of forestry BMP performance from across the southern region of 

the U.S. From this report, we can see that the implementation ofBMPs related to forest roads in the South, on average, approaches 90 

percent. Thus, if a NPDES or other permitting regime were implemented for forest roads, there would need to be a solid justification as 

to the need to expend the significant opportunity costs associated with attempting to capture the last remaining incremental I 0 percent of 

forest roads in which BMP performance would appear to be in need of improvement. This 2012 regional report is available from the 

Group's website, www.southernforests.org.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 13.

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.004

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 15

North Carolina administrative code rules entitled the Forest Practices Guidelines Related to Water Quality (abbreviated as FPGs) were 

enacted in 1990 and require that all forestry sites which disturb soil to implement measures which prevent, restrain, control, and/or limit 

sedimentation into streams and bodies of water. On average, the N.C. Forest Service conducts upwards of 3,000 to 4,000 water quality 

FPG compliance inspections annually. Over the last 10 years, the overall statewide compliance rate with all of the FPG rules has 

averaged around 95%. It is our feeling that this high level of compliance, which includes measures to manage runoff from forest roads, 

has contributed greatly to the protection of North Carolina's water resources. 

Additional state regulations limit certain forestry activities, including forest road placement, in an effort to protect water quality within 

geographically-specific regions of the state. Furthermore, in 2004 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers worked cooperatively with the N.C. 

Forest Service to develop guidance regarding forest roads in wetlands in an effort to minimize overall impacts to waters of the U.S. 

during forest road construction and maintenance, all of which collectively addresses stormwater runoff from such roads in wetlands. 

Forestry BMP Program Management and Inter-Agency Cooperation 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-134

The N.C. Forest Service is engaged in numerous aspects of forestry-related activities across the state, including monitoring forestry sites 

for compliance with water quality rules. Technical BMP assistance and inspections are provided by our agency's field personnel in 

alllOO counties of North Carolina. More in-depth technical assistance is provided by the agency's Water Quality Foresters and a 

state-level team of water quality specialists. During the State Fiscal Year 2010-2011, personnel in the N.C. Forest Service recorded in 

excess of27,700 hours devoted to water quality and BMP program delivery statewide. 

A wide range of training, education. and demonstration projects have been implemented in the last decade, in an effort to increase the 

awareness and functional knowledge of forestry BMPs with forest operators. These projects include videos, demonstrations, training 

workshops and a temporary bridgemat loan program for loggers to protect stream crossings when harvesting timber. The N.C. Forest 

Service works closely with the NC ProLogger Program to reach out to loggers across the state on the importance of using BMPs. 

The N.C. Forest Service works cooperatively with the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources to manage compliance, 

education, funding and training on how to manage nonpoint source pollution from silvicultural activities. In 2012, the agency executed a 

revised Memorandum of Understanding with the N.C. Division of Land Resources which describes in more detail how forestry-related 

land disturbing activities in North Carolina will be monitored for compliance with the state FPG rules, and how to streamline

enforcement of noncompliant situations. At this time, our agency is working with the Division of Land Resources to develop statewide 

workshops for interagency training to reinforce how forestry sites are inspected and what the expectations are regarding compliance with 

state rules and the use of forestry BMPs. 

Forestry BMPs and Roads

In 2006 North Carolina's forestry BMP manual was extensively revised with oversight from a multi-disciplinary technical committee. 

Among the many aspects of forest management that are covered in this manual, we included detailed recommendations on managing, 

maintaining, constructing, and closing-out forest roads. In addition, North Carolina has a supplemental publication for landowners for 

managing forest access roads in steep terrain, entitled "The Layman's Guide to Private Access Road Construction in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains." 

Forestry BMP Monitoring, Research, and Acconntability 

The N.C. Forest Service has undertaken recurring monitoring ofBMP use on forestry sites across North Carolina for nearly a decade. 

Monitoring of BMP implementation across the state was conducted over two cycles of site evaluations occurring between 2000-2003, 

and again from 2006-2008. More than 770 logging jobs were evaluated during these studies. Statewide, the implementation of BMPs for 

forest roads were found to be 80% and 84%, respectively. Given the voluntary nature of BMPs, this relatively high rate of 

implementation would illustrate that forest roads are largely being managed in a manner which is sufficient to not contribute to 

widespread, pervasive, or ongoing degradation of water resources. This summer, the N.C. Forest Service is undertaking a third cycle of 

statewide monitoring in an effort of continuous improvement. 

Beginning in 2007, the N.C. Forest Service partnered with the USDA-Forest Service Southern Research Station, N.C. State University 

Department of Forestry, and N.C. Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services Research Stations to conduct a paired-watershed 

research study to evaluate the effectiveness of forestry BMPs and to identifY any significant effects of clearcut timber harvesting on a 

wide range of water quality parameters in multiple perennial streams of the piedmont eco-region of North Carolina. Thus far the results 

indicate that when appropriate riparian buffers are established, and forestry BMPs are implemented, there are negligible impacts to water 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-135

quality from clearcut timber harvesting, which includes their associated forest or logging access roads. Data collection and sampling will 

continue through 2013 at which time a full data analysis will occur and the results published in peerreviewed scientific journals. This 

study is similar in nature to many other BMP effectiveness studies that have been conducted across the country, nearly all of which 

indicate that forestry BMPs are effective. 

The state-implemented regulatory standards, when coupled with market-driven forest certification programs, and the delivery of forest 

cost-share programs, collectively drive the accountability of forestry BMP implementation across North Carolina. The recurring 

monitoring of BMP implementation reinforces the viability and value of using BMPs. The regulatory framework in North Carolina

which governs forestry activities are founded upon the use of appropriate BMPs or other equally effective measures to protect water 

quality. Anecdotally, our agency's personnel have seen a marked increase in the awareness and implementation of forestry BMPs as a 

result of increased accountability placed upon the forest industry through voluntary forest certification programs such as SFI, FSC, and 

Tree Farm. Likewise, when landowners participate in federal or state cost share programs for forest management on their property, the 

landowners are contractually obligated to implement forestry BMPs. The essence of managing non point source runoff pollution from 

forestry sites is based upon the flexibility for each state to identifY and implement rules, procedures, or programs which are most likely 

to have success in their respective state.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.006

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 15

In 2011 the N.C. Forest Service completed a report summarizing lessons learned from the 2006 revision of the state's forestry BMP 

manual. With the manual having been in-place for a few years, we solicited customer feedback on the merits and applicability of the new 

forestry BMPs and the manual itself. This report, entitled "Lessons Learned on the Revision of the North Carolina F orestrv BMP 

Manual" focuses on the state BMP manual; however it contains some key lessons learned which could be applicable to the USEPA's 

effort to address stormwater discharges from forest roads in a flexible, non-regulatory and stakeholder-driven process. 

Since the inception of forestry BMPs over 40 years ago, much of the focus on training and education has centered upon loggers, 

foresters, large-acreage land managers, and 'forest operators' who typically have a direct influence on the actions undertaken upon 

forestland, with regards to timber management, harvesting, road work and similar activities. One lesson learned in retrospect is that there 

needs to be a renewed emphasis of focus to reach nonindustrial private forest landowners. These individual or family-owned forests are 

vital to the sustainability of our nation's forests, particularly in the eastern half of the United States. Reaching out to forest owners will be 

timeconsuming, costly, and challenging to quantify. But increasing our collective education and training will go a long way towards 

implementing effective measures for preventing, controlling, or otherwise managing nonpoint source pollution from silvicultural 

activities.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-136

Please refer to Response 15 and Response 13.

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.002

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 15

AFRC filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioners in Decker v. NEDC and Georgia-Pacific-West v. NEDC based upon our belief that 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its ruling that forest roads require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act. It continues to be our position that water quality impacts from forestry operations, 

including forest roads, are best addressed through best management practices (BMPs). AFRC believes EPA's silvicultural exemption, 

which has been in effect throughout a period of significant improvement in operational controls of nonpoint pollution from forest roads, 

is valid and should be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 12 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.005

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 15

Second, we have worked closely with our state forester over the years in developing an effective BMP program for controlling water 

quality impacts from forest management activities in our state. This spring the PLC of Maine held BMP refresher trainings in 

conjunction with the Maine Forest Service that reached over 400 loggers. Maine's current BMP manual is written in both English and 

French and can be found here: http://www.maine.qovidoc/mfs/pubsibmp manual.htm. 

Additionally, we have worked closely with our members to develop a 100% voluntary point-of-harvest Master Logger Certification 

(MLC) program, offering independent third party certification of logging companies' harvesting practices. The certification system is 

built around standards that have been cross-referenced to all of the world's major green certification systems, that have been adopted by 

several other North American states and Canadian provinces, and that have been awarded international recognition by receiving the 

world's first SmartLogging® certificate from the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood® program. In 2003, the Professional Logging 

Contractors of Maine formed an independent 501(c)3 organization, The Trust to Conserve Northeast Forestlands (TCNF), to administer 

the Northeast Master Logger Certification (NEMLC) program with the broader goal of "enhancing the health of working forest 

ecosystems through exceptional accountability" throughout the Northern Forest region. The program has also been recognized as a 

source of responsibly harvested forest products throughout the forest products industry and has achieved the Forest Stewardship Council 

(FSC) standard for Controlled Wood and for Chain of Custody when Master Logger harvests are conducted on FSC-certified land. 

With these voluntary programs already resulting in significant water quality improvements from timber harvesting activities, we do not 

feel that an additional regulatory burden that would require a permitting process would have a significant positive environmental impact 

that would justify the permitting process. Once again thank you for your determination that the water quality issues are best addressed 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-137

through state adopted BMP programs.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.005

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use both Vermont's Acceptable Management Practices (AMPs) to protect water quality, and my own, as I am 

a practicing civil/ sanitary engineer. In fact, I am certified to the American Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest 

certification system, verifying that my practices are working on the ground to protect clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, I routinely have installed water bar systems across roads and trails that are copied by many other landowners and used 

by the county forester as an example of superior erosion control of road sediments. I have also installed sediment control on road runoff 

streams, and aquifer replenishment systems to stormwater detention ponds, so that no sediment leaves the road ROW, and no stormwater 

leaves my property. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.005

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American 

Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to 

protect clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, I hand construct water bars on logging roads to move water off the road to prevent soil erosion and use gravel to 

protect roads where needed, just this month I am accepting bids for pines we are selling. In the contract documents we are requiring any 

road work to be in compliance with BMP's and for a bond to be posted to insure the work is done correctly. Our Consulting forester will 

oversee the work. I have become certified as a "Master Tree Farmer" by the Agricultural Extension Service, and part of the training is in 

BMP's. It is in our own best interest to use BMP's. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and Response 15. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-138

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.005

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American 

Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to 

protect clean water. 

On my tree farm, we border estuaries for almost two miles. These estuaries have been deemed primary nursery areas by the State of 

North Carolina and are already subject to stringent state and federal regulations. Of our 265 acre Tree Farm, 80 acres, or 30% is already 

tied up in forested buffers to protect water quality. Due to these regulations, these acres are passively managed, and are an economic 

drag on the overall management of the tree farm. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.002

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 15

PFPA is also the administrative host and sponsor of the Pennsylvania Sustainable Forestry Initiative®, which has provided training to 

more than 7,000 loggers, foresters and others in proper design and use of Pennsylvania's erosion and sedimentation BMP's to minimize 

stormwater runoff from logging operations. These BMPs are working. According to the 2010 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality 

Monitoring and Assessment Report (305/303 report), less than three-tenths of one percent of the impaired stream miles in Pennsylvania 

can be attributed to either silvicultural activities or forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.005

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 15

As a family forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. My grandparents passed on their 

land to me forty years ago and soon it will be in the family for 100 years. During my grand parents' ownership, it was rented for pasture 

to local farmers. The pasturing of cattle along the stream through our property caused severe erosion. Once I assumed ownership, the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-139

open areas were planted to spruce and pine. Now, it is certified by the American Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited 

forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to protect clean water. 

Recently, I had the spruce and pine thinned as part of a planned timber harvest. The harvest area straddled a creek where three drainages 

converge on the property. As required by Wisconsin's Managed Forest Law to use BMP's, I applied for three water crossing permits from 

the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources at a cost of $50 each. Each permit required me to show how the crossings would be made, 

photos of each crossing from both sides of the streams, and posting each permit facing the stream. I also had a 50 foot buffer marked 

along the stream to protect the riparian areas. 

Yet, my diary farmer neighbor up stream to my property can pasture his cattle without any permits where the cows routinely cross the 

creek causing erosion on his property and sediment in the stream flowing onto my property. This stream eventually flows into Lake 

Superior, three miles away. To me, EPA's focus on forest management activities that ignore far more serious problems to natural 

waterways is misguided. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0216.001.002

Author Name: Mundt L.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 15

We are managing our property with best management practices to protect our watershed, streams, and lakes. This is a constant process 

and are utilizing expertise from the management agency's appropriate to the practice both for forestry and agriculture, public and private. 

We also are doing stream bank stabilization projects with our cost share partners in the watershed. We believe the current regulations are 

entirely sufficient to satisfy the need to protect our water resources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.005

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American Tree 

Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to protect 

clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, I have installed grassed waterways and stream side buffers to prevent soil entering the drainage ditches.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-140

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0224-A1.001.003

Author Name: Karels James

Organization: Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF)

Issue Category: 15

We firmly believe that the current state BMP programs is the correct approach to controlling runoff from forest roads, as well as all other 

forestry-related nonpoint source pollution. The programs are based on continual improvement and have achieved unequaled success in 

managing nonpoint source pollution resulting from forestlands

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.003

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 15

Additionally, an NPDES permit program is unnecessary as forest road systems are well managed through successful state forestry Best 

Management Programs (BMPs). For over 30 years, state BMPs have been effective at protecting water quality and, quite frankly, there is 

no need for a new federal regulatory role with respect to forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.005

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American 

Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to 

protect clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, I leave buffers of trees along stream banks to prevent erosion. I limit stream crossings to as little as possible, but 

when necessary, I plan ahead and use BMP's to minimize the effects to the stream. I have 2300 acres under a conservation easement 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-141

with the Va. Dept. of Forestry. Being the sixth generation landowner and a BS in Forestry from Va Tech, I understand the importance 

of managing water quality. My goals are to actively manage my land for generations to come to have this land in better condition than 

through no management because regulations make it to expensive. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.005

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 15

AFF works nationwide and in partnership with local, state, and national groups to provide hands‐on, onthe‐ ground support for America's 

over 10 million family forest owners, owners, giving them the tools they need to manage healthy and sustainable woodlands and protect 

water quality along with various other forest resources. Our largest program for family forests, the American Tree Farm System® 

(ATFS) and our on‐the‐ground conservation pilots, provide AFF with over 70 years of experience working with family forest owners 

using voluntary, incentive‐based approaches and know these approaches work when it comes to protecting important resources like 

water quality. 

Voluntary, Incentive‐based Approaches Work for Clean Water 

Through our programs, including ATFS, AFF works on the ground with family forest owners to help them protect their water quality. 

We do this through our voluntary certification program, where Tree Farmers agree to implement water quality best management 

practices in their forests and we then verify it by inspections and third‐party auditing. 

Take Janet and Steve Funk, the proud owners of a 360 acre Tree Farm in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Steve and Janet began with a dream to 

live near the woods and streams of the West, where they might find opportunity to camp occasionally. In the early 1970's, the

opportunity to live their dream fell into their lap, when job opportunities near Coeur d'Alene allowed for the purchase of a derelict farm 

in a small mountain valley. 

The Funk's new farm was all but perfectas the farm was -truly neglected and in need of a good deal of work. For one, the Wolf Lodge 

Creek, a class 1 stream that runs through the Funks property for a half mile, showed a history of frequent channelization as the cobble 

bed‐load shifted. While the stream was beautiful, clear water with an abundance of cutthroat trout, the stream banks had no vegetation 

and were eroded. Severe flooding in 1974 eroded what little riparian areas existed, and an oil pipeline rupture contaminated Wolf Lodge 

Creek in 1983. 

The Funks took action, leading a community watershed effort to restore the creek as well as protect it from periodic floods. They 

provided landowner education and guidance, working together with government agencies to clean up the stream. 

On their own land, the Funks re‐engineered the waterway to prevent further erosion, restore riparian buffer zones, and increase stream 

health. Faced with steep gradients, the Funks were able to use alternatives to traditional dams to better restore the stream environment to 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-142

its natural function and flow. The Funks also took great care with the roads and hillsides on their land, maintaining culverts and ditches 

to divert runoff. 

The Funks exemplify the commitment that family forest owners across the country certified to the American Tree Farm System have 

made to keep our water clean. The Funks' story - like the stories of the more than 89,000 ATFS-certified family forest owners - 

demonstrate that best management practices ARE effective in ensuring the protection of clean water and we should continue to ensure 

that family forest owners have the tools, resources, and technical assistance they need to implement these BMPs.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.003

Author Name: Krancer Michael

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

Issue Category: 15

Pennsylvania has well established, codified erosion and sediment control requirements in 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 102 regulations, which 

are applicable to earth disturbance activities related to timber harvest operations including the construction of logging roads. A state 

established permit process, not under the requirements of the federal NPDES permit, has been in place for 40 years. This permit requires 

a person who is undertaking a timber harvest activity to obtain a state Erosion and Sediment (E&S) Permit if the total of all earth 

disturbance activities associated with the timber harvest, including logging roads, log landing areas, and skid trails exceeds 25 acres. 

Timber harvest activities that do not exceed the 25 acre earth disturbance threshold for permit requirements must still implement best 

management practices (BMPs) and if conducting earth disturbance of 5,000 square feet or greater must develop a written E&S plan. 

Under these Pennsylvania regulations, BMPs, as that term is defined, must be utilized for any earth disturbance activity associated with 

timber harvesting. Utilization of BMPs required by the 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 102 regulations ensures compliance with Pennsylvania 

water quality standards. 

The proof of Pennsylvania's success with this approach is demonstrated in our streams showing minimal impact from timber harvesting 

activities, including logging roads. Of the approximately 86,000 miles of waterways in Pennsylvania, the draft 2012 Pennsylvania 

Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, identifies that only nineteen miles of streams and rivers are impaired by 

silvacultural activity (0.022%) and only two miles of streams and rivers impaired by logging roads (0.002%). 

Pennsylvania also supports the Stewardship Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program which began in 1995 and is an industry driven effort 

developed to ensure sustainability of forest and timber resources, The SFI program forms local partnerships between the forest products 

industry, forest landowners and general public to manage forest land to meet the needs of the present without compromising future forest 

benefits, and ensuring that timber harvest activities are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. The SFI Program is a voluntary 

program that promotes outreach and training, through the SFI Program landowners can receive assistance in the development of timber 

harvest plan and support to enhance their ability to make good forest management decisions. Loggers can learn safer job related skills 

and how to conduct timber harvest operations in a more environmentally sound manner by implementing sound and practical water

quality protection BMPs.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-143

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.005

Author Name: Krancer Michael

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

Issue Category: 15

In conclusion, Pennsylvania believes that not to require permits is a sensible approach and in accordance with the Commonwealth's 

approach to erosion control and stormwater management as applied to logging roads and timber harvest activities. This approach has 

been successful, and has proven that NPDES permits are not necessary to protect the water resources that the state is already effectively 

protecting. The demonstrated success of Pennsylvania's state program would serve as a good template for consideration by EPA in this 

proposed rulemaking.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 12, and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0236-A1.001.003

Author Name: Haller Greg

Organization: Pacific Rivers Council (PRC)

Issue Category: 15

I. Key Findings PRC Has Shared with Federal and State Agencies

• Sediment from roads is the leading cause of water quality impairment on forestlands in the United States. 

• Many people rely on water supplies originating on or downstream from forestlands. Regulating stormwater discharges from logging 

roads is a small price to protect and restore the natural storage and filtration capacity of healthy forest watersheds. 

• Forestlands provide important spawning habitat for a wide range of aquatic species, including salmon, steelhead, bull trout, and 

numerous amphibians. Sediment from forest roads suffocate fish, smother eggs and fry, and fill pools, making them shallower, more 

easily warmed, and less livable for fish that need cool water to survive. 

• Regulating logging road stormwater discharges means healthier fisheries, benefiting anglers and wildlife viewers. 

• Regulating logging road stormwater discharges also incentivizes road owners to properly maintain their roads to minimize such 

discharges, which means safer and more reliable access to all the recreational opportunities provided by forestlands. 

EPA claims that its proposal to continue avoiding regulation of logging road stormwater discharges will have "no economic, public 

health, or environmental impacts" because the proposed action merely "clarifies existing regulations." <FN5> While EPA might be 

proposing to maintain the "status quo" with regards to its regulatory failures, it is important that EPA be forthright with the public about 

the economic, public health, and environmental impacts associated with logging road stormwater discharges, including diminished 

fisheries for commercial, recreational and cultural purposes, increased municipal water treatment costs, and delayed recovery for species 

listed under the Endangered Species Act, including Coho and Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. EPA's notice in the Federal 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-144

Register fails to mention this critical information, downplaying the importance of solving the longstanding problem of logging road 

stormwater discharges through a readily available, effective regulatory mechanism like the NPDES permit program. 

II. Logging Roads and Stream Health. 

As the EPA is aware, logging roads have multiple adverse impacts on watershed functions, and their aquatic and terrestrial habitats and 

biota. <FN6> Roads are the leading cause of water quality impairment on forestlands nationwide, and present one of the major sources of 

increased sediment delivery. <FN7> Roads directly affect natural sediment and hydrologic regimes by altering streamflow, sediment 

loading, sediment transport and deposition, channel morphology, channel stability, substrate composition, stream temperatures, water 

quality, and riparian conditions within a watershed. <FN8> Roads damage watershed integrity by intercepting rainfall, concentrating 

flow, and diverting water from natural flowpaths. <FN9> Runoff converted to surface flows in roadside ditches warms water rapidly 

prior to entering streams. <FN10> Elevated summer stream temperatures negatively affect salmonids and amphibians. <FN11> 

Surface erosion, road-related landslides, and stream channel diversion over roadways can deliver large amounts of sediment into 

streams. <FN12> Roads-produced fine sediments reduce pool volumes, increase channel widths, and exacerbate seasonal temperature 

extremes. <FN13> Pools provide multiple habitat functions and are an essential habitat for native salmonids at a variety of lifestages; 

loss of pool volume and quality thus negatively affects native salmonids. <FN14> Especially following storms, sediment delivery from 

roads can be catastrophic and reduce survival rates of eggs and juvenile fish, reduce food availability for aquatic species, and reduce 

aquatic habitat generally. <FN15> 

As EPA moves forward with its proposal, PRC asks EPA to review and respond to the scientific literature cited to fully explain its choice 

to either regulate channeled logging road discharges through the NPDES permit program or further delay proactive regulation of this 

point source pollution. 

<FN1> 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 

<FN2> Id. § 1362(6). 

<FN3> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (Sept. 4, 2012). 

<FN4> 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). 

<FN5> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834, 53837 (Sept. 4, 2012). 

<FN6> Trombulak and Frissell, Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities, Cons. Bio. 14: 13-30 

(2000); Czech at al., Economic associations among causes of species endangerment in the United States, BioScience, 50: 593-601 

(2000) (finding that roads have highest proportional association with species endangerment compared with other casues, and estimating 

that roads in the U.S. contribute to the endangerment of 94 aquatic species). 

<FN7> Furniss et al., Road construction and maintenance, pp. 297-323 in W.R. Meehan, ed., Influences offorest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitat, Am. Fish. Soc'y Sp. Publ. 19, Bethesda, MD (1991). 

<FN8> Lee et al., Broadscale assessment of aquatic species and habitats, pp. 1057-1496 in Quigley et aL, eds., An assessment of 

ecosystem components in the interior Columbia Basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins, USDA Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, PNW-GTR-328, Portland, OR (1997). 

<FN9> Fumiss et al., Road construction and maintenance, pp. 297-323 in Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences afforest and rangeland 

management on salmonid fishes and their habitat, Amer. Fish. Soc'y Sp. Publ. 19, Bethesda, MD (1991); USDA Forest Service, 

Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 3-46 (2000). 

<FN10> Rhodes et al., A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in Endangered Species Act Consultations, CRITFC Tech. 

Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR (1994). 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-145

<FN11> Beschta et al., Stream temperatures and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry interactions, Streamside Management: Forestry 

and Fishery Interactions, pp. 191-231, Univ. of WA Inst. Of Forest Res. Contribution No. 57, Seattle, WA (1987); Meehan, W.R., ed., 

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, Amer. Fish. Soc. Special Publ. 19 (1991); 

McCullough, D.A., A review and synthesis of effects of alterations to the water temperature regime on freshwater life stages of 

salmonids, with special reference to Chinook salmon, USEPA Tech. Rept. EPA 910-R-99-010, USEPA, Seattle, WA (1999); Jackson et 

al., Timber harvest impacts on small headwater stream channels in the coast ranges of Washington, J. Am. Water Res. Ass'n, 37: 

1533-49 (2001); Dunham et al., Influences of temperature and environmental variables on the distribution of bull trout within streams at 

the southern margins of its range, N. Am. J. Fish. Mgrnt., 23: 894-904 (2003). 

<FN12> Furniss et al., Road construction and maintenance, pp. 297-323 in Meehan, W.R., ed. Influences afforest and rangeland 

management on salmon id fishes and their habitat, Amer. Fish. Soc'y Sp. Publ. 19, Bethesda, MD (1991); Henjum et al., pp. 129-168 in 

Karr and Chu, eds., Interim protection for late-successional forests, fisheries, and watersheds, National Forests East of the Cascade 

Crest, Oregon and Washington, Eastside Forests Scientific Soc'y Panel, The Wildlife Soc'y, Bethesda, MD (1994); MacDonald et al, 

Monitoring guielines to evaluate effects of forestry activities on streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, EPA/9 10/9-91-001, 

USEPA and Univ. of WA, Seattle, WA (1991); Rhodes et al., A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in Endangered 

Species Act Consultations, CRITFC Tech. Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR (1994). 

<FN13> Rhodes et al., A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in Endangered Species Act Consultations, CRITFC Tech. 

Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR (1994). 

<FN14> McIntosh et al., Historical changes in pool habitats in the Columbia River Basin, Ecological Applications, 10:1478-96 (2000); 

Meehan, W.R., ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, Amer. Fish. Soc. Special 

Publ. 19 (1991); Rhodes et al., A Coarse Screening Process for Potential Application in Endangered Species Act Consultations, CRITFC 

Tech. Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR (1994). 

<FN15> Bjorrin and Reiser, Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams, in Meehan, W.R., ed., Influences of Forest and Rangeland 

Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats, Amer. Fish. Soc. Special Publ. 19 (1991); Chapman, D.W., Critical review of

variables used to define effects offines in redds of large salmonids, Trans. Am. Fish. Soc'y, 117(1): 1-21 (1988); Everest et al., Fine 

sediment and salmonid production: a paradox, pp. 98-142 in Colt and White, eds., Streamside management: forestry and fishery 

interactions, Contribution No. 57, WA Inst. of Forest Research, Univ. of WA, Seattle, WA (1987).

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 10. 

Comment ID 0238-A1.001.003

Author Name: Portman Carl

Organization: Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC)

Issue Category: 15

The State of Alaska promulgated statutes and implemented regulations to protect water quality from stormwater-related discharges from 

forest and logging roads. The State manages runoff from these roads through regulations developed under the direction of the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Act for water quality management and pollution control. Best Management Practices (BMP) are in place 

to control erosion and sedimentation during road construction and to address ongoing drainage. Ongoing monitoring demonstrates the 

effectiveness of this approach. Similarly, the U.S. Forest Service has also developed BMPs that are consistent with those of the Alaska 

Forest Resources and Practices Regulations. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-146

The State of Alaska is highly successful at protecting water quality through its current approach. RDC supports the continued use of the 

State's BMP-based programs, in lieu of requiring permitting under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.003

Author Name: Douglas Denico Heather Parent

Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Forest Service (ME DEP and MFS)

Issue Category: 15

The Maine Forest Service (MFS) and Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are mandated by the state legislature to work with 

Maine's forestry community to develop forestry Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and report on BMP usage 

and effectiveness. 

It is no coincidence that the USDA Forest Service's Forest Water People Report ranked Maine Number 1 in the Northeast in the land's 

ability to produce clean drinking water. This ranking was largely due to Maine's extensive forests, the same forests that sustain Maine's 

forest products industry and are currently managed using voluntary BMPs without NPDES permitting. 

(http://vvww.na.fs.fed.us/pubs/detail.cfm?id=5257). Further, Maine practices continuous improvement in BMP's; our current BMP 

manual has served as a model for many states and agencies across the nation.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.005

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American 

Tree Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to 

protect clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, we are currently (past 5 years) working with Trout Unlimited on stream restoration, including the planting of shrubs 

and trees for shade along more than 12 miles of class one streams. This project includes bank stabilization, placement of boulders and 

Tree Root wads for stream flow control and improved fish habitat. 

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-147

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.005

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 15

It continues to be our position that water quality impacts from forestry operations, including forest roads, are best addressed through best 

management practices (BMPs). SLMA believes EPA's silvicultural exemption should be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.004

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 15

The NOI solicits comments on examples of (among others) successful BMP-based state programs and voluntary certification programs 

for managing stormwater discharges from forest roads. 

Paper Council members depend on sustainable, productive forests for their raw material whether as virgin wood fiber or recovered waste 

paper. These firms may own forest resources; they routinely interact with a range of entities focused on forest management and 

environmental protection including: (a) county, state, federal and tribal agencies, (b) private forest landowners (through the WPC 

members' own forestry programs and/or the national and state Tree Farm System), and (c) timber producers (loggers) and transporters of 

harvested forest products. 

Paper Council members employ professional foresters. They are knowledgeable about the various types, locations and purposes of forest 

roads described in the NOl and they utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) for water quality and third party certification programs to 

address stormwater runoff. 

Wisconsin is a nationally recognized leader in BMP implementation rates and participation in forest certification programs. 

In Wisconsin, the BMP program is administered by the state's Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). A significant segment of the 

Field Manual for Loggers, Landowners and Land Managers addresses Forest Roads, with other chapters addressing related topics such 

as Planning (forestry activities), Stream Crossings, Riparian Management Zones, and Wetlands. It is our understanding that the WDNR 

intends to submit information on the practice and achievements of BMP applications in this state. It is the Paper Council's perspective 

that Wisconsin's BMPs are effectively applied in state and county forests and on private industrial and non-industrial parcels enrolled in 

the Wisconsin Managed Forest Law (MFL) program and on other properties not participating in the MFL. Regular field monitoring, led 

by the WDNR, is verifying the efficacy of BMPs in addressing stormwater runoff from forest roads. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-148

Paper Council members which directly utilize pulpwood also are active participants in third party certification programs such as the 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFr), the American Tree Farm Program (administered here by the Wisconsin Tree Farm Committee), and 

the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Indeed, it is common for individual companies to be certified in more than one program.

Regardless of their single or multiple certifications, they are regularly subject to rigorous audits to assure they are compliant. 

The Paper Council is most familiar with the SFI and is aware that the national SFI program intends to respond with more detailed 

information regarding its third party, independent certification practices and achievements. 

We would like to note that the SFI's Implementation Committee in Wisconsin operates an inconsistent practices program. The program 

allows the Implementation Committee to: (a) gather spontaneous inquiries from any individuals (who are provided confidentiality) 

concerned about forest operations; (b) facilitate an investigation if SFI participants are involved; (c) provide updates and responses to the 

inquirer; and (d) apply educational and/or corrective actions responsive to any activity or condition determined to be inconsistent with 

the SFI Standard. Participants must be compliant with the SFI Standard in order to maintain their certification. 

Additionally, wood-using participants in the SFI program in Wisconsin have invested $1,533,775 since 2006 to help fund education and 

training programs for loggers and other forest professionals, plus outreach to private, non-industrial forest owners and environmental 

education institutions. More than $1 million of the total was directed to logger/forest professionals' education and training (guided by the 

annually updated Wisconsin Training Standard) with the majority of those efforts focused on BMPs for water quality.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. Refer also to Response 13. 

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.004

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 15

We also understand that EPA continues to review available information on the waterquality impacts of stormwater discharges from 

forest roads, as well as existing practices to control those discharges. We understand that the EPA is considering a range of options to 

address such discharges, which could include designating a subset of stormwater discharges from forest roads for regulation under the 

Agency's section 402(p) rulemaking authority.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.006

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 15

We welcome this review, and expect that if the EPA takes an outcome-based approach, it will conclude that Oregon's current approach of 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-149

best management practices is an efficient and effective way to achieve the stormwater discharge goals of the Clean Water Act for forest 

roads, and can serve to inform the EPA's approach.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.002

Author Name: Brandt Wayne

Organization: Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

Issue Category: 15

It is MFIs position impacts to water qualtity from forestry operations, including forest roads, are best addressed through best 

management practices (BMPs). BMPs and many other forest management guidelines afford adequate protections for water quality 

during road construction and maintenance. MFI believes EPA's long standing silvicultural exemption is valid and should be upheld by 

the Supreme Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.005

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 15

When assisting them with their timberland, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. I designate 

streamside management zones to prevent soil erosion into waterways, plan timber harvests in a way that minimizes the possibility of 

water quality issues, and ensure that forest roads are maintained properly, among other things.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.005

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. 

On my Tree Farm, I have installed warm season grass buffers around field edges, seeded logging roads and decks, installed water 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-150

diversion bars and provided grass water ways for crop land drainage. Voluntary programs through the NRCS and FSA used to 

accomplish these practices have far better results than mandated standards such as the ones I feel would be contained in the NPDES 

permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.005

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American Tree 

Farm System® standards, a thirdparty audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to protect 

clean water. 

As an active tree farmer who does 98% of the work on our farm we are cognizant of the BMP standards and we adhere to these standards 

for clean water quality. All of our roads and fire lanes, totaling some 15-18 miles on Saloom Properties, LLC Tree Farm are properly 

crowned, water barred with turnouts to prevent unnecessary erosion and regularly maintained. Each logging operation, of which we are 

in the process at this writing, adheres to Best Management Practices. We request inspection by the Alabama Forestry Commission post 

operations to justify and document our Best Management ! Practices. One of those inspections has occurred in the past month. As you are 

aware, the Alabama Forestry Commission through their BMP coordinator has just made a presentation to the Society of American 

Foresters held in Spokane, Washington. This presentation is titled "Partnership and Education Lead to BMP Success in Alabama." With 

Alabama's 22.8 million forested acres, we lead the nation in Best Management Practices, and we are a testament to those valuable 

practices for the entire nation. Other practices that we adhere to for clean water quality are drive-through-fords with minimal stream 

impact, adequate bridges to span larger streams with water diverted off roads away from these streams and creeks. Our riparian zones 

and buffers are adequately stocked and protected.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.003

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 15

As stated in previous comments (available at http://wflccenter.org/infomaterials/letters_of_comment.php) submitted to the EPA in 

response to the May 23, 2012 Notice of Intent, the CWSF continues to believe that the long-standing and proven best management 

practices (BMPs) administered by the states as the most effective way to address stormwater runoff associated with silvicultural 

activities.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-151

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.006

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 15

The CWSF continues to support the proven BMP programs administered by the states as the most effective way to address stormwater 

runoff associated with silvicultural activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.002

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 15

It continues to be our position that water quality impacts from forestry operations, including forest roads, are best addressed through best 

management practices (BMPs), as well as the myriad protections for water quality and standards for road construction and maintenance 

followed by the Forest Service and BLM. FFRC believes EPA's silvicultural exemption, which has been in effect throughout a period of 

significant improvement in operational controls of nonpoint pollution from forest roads, is valid and should be upheld by the Supreme 

Court.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 4 and Response 6. 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.005

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and am subject to Oregon's superb Forest 

Practices Act administered by the Oregon Department of Forestry. I am certified to the American Tree Farm System standards 

(third-party audited) and continue to review water quality and fish habitat improvement demonstrations and research to apply to our own 

lands. We continually maintain our water drainage structures (a bridge and many culverts) to prevent any "blow-outs" or excessive 

erosion and work to be "fish friendly" where applicable. We have an active quality road rocking program with over 62% of our road 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-152

system surfaced to provide all-weather access and reduce erosion. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.005

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 15

As a forest owner, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. In fact, I am certified to the American Tree 

Farm System® standards, a third-party audited forest certification system, verifying that my BMPs are working on the ground to protect 

clean water. 

On my Tree Farm, totaling 351 acres, I cross streams when only absolutely necessary. The crossings that I use follow all Best

Management Practices for Water Quality as outline by the Virginia Department of Forestry. These guidelines minimize the erosion and 

sedimentation into streams without burdensome regulation. Maintaining water quality and protecting the Chesapeake Bay are one of my 

management objectives for the property!

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.005

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 15

As required by Maine law, I already use Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality. We do not need a redundant layer 

of rules added on to our burdens, especially in a poor economy. Landowners are the environmental heroes who are conserving America's 

woodlands. More rules and expense will only help drive us to find ways to earn money that do not help preserve water quality. As a 

member of the American Tree Farm System my land is already certified to the highest standards for the preservation of all environmental 

values. 

On my Tree Farm we take water quality seriously. We maintain waterbars on our roads and replace culverts that are failing. We have 

spent a great deal of time chasing ATVs off our land because they were running through streams and vernal pools. We have repaired 

most of the ATV damage to our streams and roads at this point. It is because of the damage that can be caused by ATVs and trucks that 

I do not maintain a complete road system on my land. I need to build temporary roads when I harvest trees precisely because I am 

protecting water quality. If we do not have roads in an area the vehicles do not get in there and have their fun making mud. Regulating 

my ability to build new temporary roads would punish me for caring about water quality.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-153

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.005

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 15

5. As a nonpoint source, foresters, landowners, and loggers have had unequaled success in implementing state-based programs of Best 

Management Practices (BMPs). Every state with significant commercial forestry has a BMP program tailored to the unique conditions 

found in that state. BMPs are widely applied --- even where voluntary --- with the national average at 90% and continuously improving. 

<FN1> States have fine-tuned their BMP programs over time, and regular monitoring informs training workshops held in states across 

the country. Research has found forestry BMPs to be highly effective at controlling impacts. <FN2> And more recently, forest 

certification programs such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the American Tree Farm 

System have fostered even greater implementation of BMPs. Quite simply, forestry BMP programs have a demonstrated track record of 

success that would be put at significant risk if this is taken out of the hands of the states. 

<FN1> Ice, G.G., E. Schilling, and J. Vowell. 2010. Trends in forestry best management practices implementation. J. For. 

108(6):267-273. 

<FN2> Brief for Society of American Foresters et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Decker v. Northwest Environmental 

Defense Center, No. 11-338, and Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, No. 11-347 (S.Ct. Sept. 4, 

2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.008

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 15

We encourage the agency to continue to recognize the efficacy of state BMP programs in control of runoff from forest roads and specify 

that stormwater discharges from forest roads are "not associated with industrial activities," which will offer the EPA some flexibility in 

determining how runoff from forestry activities will be monitored in the future. Water quality from managed or unmanaged forests 

routinely continues to be the best in the nation.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 8 and to the preamble to the final rule. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-154

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.010

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 15

The existing infrastructure of BMP programs continues to garner high BMP compliance levels and should be supported and maintained.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12, Response 13, and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0267-A2.001.003

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul A. Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 15

2. EPA should clarify the objectives, methods and timelines for further study relating to the impacts of stormwater discharges from forest 

roads, available management practices, and the effectiveness of existing Federal, State, Tribal, local and private programs in managing 

these discharges.

EPA states in the Federal Register notice that it intends to conduct further study into specific issues related to forest road discharges, 

which include: 1) the impacts of stormwater discharges from forest roads; 2) available management practices and approaches; and 3) the 

effectiveness of existing Federal, State, Tribal, local and private programs in managing these discharges. We request that EPA provide 

more specific information on the need for, design of and execution of the program of study identified in the Federal Register notice. 

A. EPA should provide explicit analysis and discussion of existing gaps in available scientific and policy information that are relevant to 

the agency's consideration of how to address stormwater discharges from forest roads.

Since at least 2004, and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Envt'l Defense Ctr., 344 F.3d at 832, EPA has been charged with determining 

whether and how to regulate discharges from forest roads pursuant to the Clean Water Act. In that decision, the Ninth Circuit remanded 

the Phase II rule for the agency to "consider in an appropriate proceeding Petitioners' contention that §402(p)(6) require EPA to regulate 

forest roads." Id. at 863. EPA has not, subsequent to the remand, issued a determination relating to Petitioners' contention that forest 

roads should be subject to regulation, nor has EPA, prior to the most recent Federal Register notice, requested information from the 

public on this topic or released any further information on the impacts of discharges from forest roads on water quality.

With the most recent Federal Register notice, however, EPA concludes that further study is required prior to determining whether and 

how to regulate discharges from forest roads. Given the eight year delay in providing a response to Petitioners in Envt'l Defense Ctr., we 

request that the agency identify with particularity existing data gaps the agency intends to address through further study.

An articulation of the existing data gaps is critical to ensuring that the agency moves forward with future study in a transparent, 

systematic and expeditious manner. As will be discussed below, the ways in which forest roads impact water quality, the degree of 

impact, the means of addressing discharges, and the various types of programs used by States, Tribes, and other entities have already 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-155

been studied, documented and analyzed by the scientific community, agencies and stakeholders in great detail. Before making a rational 

decision to delay regulatory action in favor of further study, EPA must provide to the public an explanation for why the existing 

information is inadequate to support agency decision-making at this point in time, eight years after the remand in Envt'l Defense Ctr. We 

therefore request an explanation from EPA as to why the existing data and information is inadequate to make a decision at this time as to 

how discharges from industrial logging roads and forest roads should be regulated pursuant to the Clean Water Act.

Moreover, EPA previously commissioned a report, published in 2008, that addressed specifically the impacts to water quality from 

forest roads and available BMP programs and the questions that EPA now states that it intends to address through further study. <FN6> 

The Endicott report "concisely answers" many pertinent questions based on "literature searches and evaluation of available data." Those 

questions include: 1) "What is the nature and extent of water quality impairments due to forest roads across the country?" 2) "What are 

state programs that address forest roads?" 3) "Are voluntary regulatory BMP programs effective?" 4) "What are the circumstances 

producing effective BMP implementation?" and 5) "How can failing BMPs be improved?" Given that EPA has already commissioned 

and received a report that addresses the specific question posed by the agency in the Federal Register notice, we request further 

clarification from the agency as to why the existing information is inadequate and what additional information EPA intends to develop 

through a program of further study. We also note that EPA, in its Federal Register notice, neglected to identify this study as pertinent and 

relevant to the subject matter and did not alert the public and stakeholders to the existence of this information.

B. EPA already has more than enough data documenting that industrial logging roads and forest roads cause significant impairment of 

water quality and harm beneficial uses.

Nearly forty years after the Clean Water Act's enactment, sediment discharged from culverts, ditches, and channels along forest roads 

still fouls rivers and streams across the United States. EPA's own reports (referenced below) show that forest roads have major impacts 

on water quality. State efforts to control these impacts have often failed, as evidenced by the extensive miles of streams listed by the EPA 

and states as water quality-limited, as well as by the many listings of imperiled aquatic species under the Endangered Species Act 

("ESA"). It is therefore critical that the EPA begin to regulate these discharges under 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act.

According to an EPA-commissioned report, "forestry-related sediment is a leading source of water quality impairment to rivers and 

streams nationwide." <FN7> Remarkably, EPA indicates that "up to 90% of the total sediment production from forestry operations" 

comes from logging roads and steam crossings. <FN8> A significant portion of this sediment is collected and discharged directly into 

rivers and streams through ditches, channels, and culverts. <FN9> In some areas of the Pacific Northwest, up to 75% of forest road 

drainage systems may directly enter rivers and streams. <FN10> Sedimentation from forest roads is a serious problem that current 

management and regulation has failed to control, and we encourage EPA to take this opportunity to address the legacy of forest roads and 

its effect on our nation's waterways.

The Federal Register notice itself provides extensive information documenting that discharges from industrial logging roads and forest 

roads cause impairment of water quality. As EPA states unequivocally in the Federal Register, "[s]tormwater discharges from logging 

roads, especially improperly constructed or maintained roads, may introduce significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants into 

surface waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts." 77 Fed Reg. at 30476. EPA acknowledges that pollution 

from forestry and related activities is among the "top twelve probable sources of impairment for rivers, streams, and coastal shorelines." 

Id. Similarly, the Endicott study also concludes that the "physical impacts of forest roads on streams, rivers, downstream water bodies 

and watershed integrity can be dramatic and have been well documented."

Nor can there be any question that stormwater pollution from industrial logging roads and forest roads is harming and has the potential to 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-156

harm beneficial uses, including spawning and rearing habitat for salmon and steelhead and drinking water supplies. Important 

ecological, economic, and social consequences stem from the sediment discharged from ditches, channels, and culverts along forest 

roads. Ecologically, fine and coarse-grained sediment loading degrades water quality and detrimentally affects fish and other aquatic 

species' habitat. <FN11> Sedimentation affects streams by reducing pool depth, altering substrate composition, reducing interstitial 

space, and causing braiding of channels, <FN12> which reduce carrying capacity. The effects of road construction and associated 

maintenance account for a majority of sediment loads to streams in forested areas; in addition, stream crossings also can impede fish 

passage. <FN13>

For instance, sediment loading creates problems in salmonid migration, spawning, incubation, and juvenile rearing, reducing the success 

of the Pacific Northwest's and northern California's iconic native salmon (e.g., coho, chinook, chum) and steelhead runs and sometimes 

even leading to the complete loss of salmonid fisheries. <FN14> In turn, diminished runs harm tribal and fishing communities who rely 

on salmon harvest for their culture and livelihoods.

Bull trout are particularly sensitive to sediment and logging road pollution. Roads have the potential to adversely affect all of the habitat 

components necessary for the survival and recovery of bull trout: water temperature, substrate composition and stability, habitat 

complexity and connectivity. After the bull trout was listed in 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found the Forest Service's Inland 

Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) to be inadequate. "The main issues with the adequacy of PACFISH and INFISH were adequacy of the

refugia network, roadrelated impacts and the lack of implementation of road management S&Gs intended to address these impacts, lack 

of restoration emphasis within the PACFISH and INFISH area, and adequacy of monitoring and watershed analysis efforts." 

(PACFISH/INFISH Biological Opinion at page 90). In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reiterated, "Existing roads are 

considered a primary source of sediment-related impacts to bull trout in developed watersheds (USDI 1998), contributing to the 

degraded baseline conditions and were part of the rationale for listing bull trout as threatened." <FN15>

Sedimentation negatively affects bull trout embryo survival and juvenile bull trout rearing densities. <FN16> An assessment of the 

interior Columbia Basin ecosystem revealed that increasing road densities were associated with declines in four nonanadromous 

salmonid species (bull trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout (Oncorhyncus clarkii bouvieri), westslope cutthroat trout (O. c. lewisi), and 

redband trout (O. mykiss spp.)) within the Columbia River basin, likely through a variety of factors associated with roads. Bull trout 

were less likely to use highly roaded basins for spawning and rearing and, if present in such areas, were likely to be at lower population 

levels. <FN17> These activities can directly and immediately threaten the integrity of the essential physical or biological features 

necessary for bull trout survival.

Furthermore, sedimentation of rivers and streams can lead to degradation of what many Americans believe is the most important

commodity produced by forestlands-clean water. <FN18> Water quality degradation often results in more expensive treatment of 

municipal drinking water, a significant percentage of which comes from national forest lands and other forested lands. <FN19> For 

example, in Washington State 86 percent of the population is served by a few very large

public water systems, nearly all of which draw from national forest lands. Water from national forest lands supply about 80 percent of 

Oregon's population of 2.8 million people. <FN20> Sediment pollution also reduces storage reservoir capacity and damages irrigation 

pumps. <FN21> Thus, the consequences of water pollution from forest roads cannot be denied, nor can their cost to the public.

EPA explicitly recognizes that fine sediment from forest roads "can adversely affect the survival of dozens of sensitive aquatic biota 

(salmon, trout, other native fishes, amphibians, and macroinvertibrates) where these species are located." Id. EPA concluded in the 

Federal Register notice that these dynamics have already been "well documented." Id. Similarly, Endicott concluded as follows:
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-157

The physical impacts of roads have detrimental effects on fish and fish habitat. Mechanisms through which 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, and migration barriers. The physical impacts of roads discussed 

above have widespread and profound effect on fish habitat and fish communities in populations across a wide range of environments and 

conditions (Lee at al., 1997).

Endicott also notes that impacts from sedimentation can "often lead[] to complete loss of salmonid fisheries." Clearly, there can be no 

questions that stormwater from industrial logging roads and forest roads are harming and will continue to harm beneficial uses without 

adequate regulation.

C. EPA already has extensive information on existing BMPs and the variety of State, Tribal and other types of programs used to regulate 

industrial logging roads and forest roads.

EPA also already has comprehensive information on the available state forest road BMP programs, and we therefore question why EPA 

needs to collect additional information prior to determining how to regulate industrial logging roads and forest roads pursuant to the 

Clean Water Act point source permitting program. In particular, Endicott provides a detailed state-bystate description of BMP 

implementation data for eleven key states, including Oregon, Washington, California, Idaho, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Maine, North 

Carolina, Minnesota and Virginia. Endicott also discusses whether voluntary or regulatory BMP programs are effective, and the report 

discusses how often states revise their BMPs and what processes are used to correct inadequate BMPs.

Given the existing information provided by the Endicott report, which was commissioned by EPA, we request that the agency provide 

further information on what gaps currently exist in the information regarding available BMP programs at the State, Tribal or other levels. 

To the extent that EPA determines that relevant gaps do exist, the agency should determine the method and timeline employed to fill 

those identified gaps.

D. Widely available and discussed scientific information and data establishes that BMPs are not adequate to protect water quality and 

beneficial uses.

In addition to information on the specifics of state-based programs, EPA already has or can easily access a plethora of scientific studies 

and information documenting that BMPs alone are not adequate and effective at protecting water quality and beneficial uses. The 

Endicott report summarizes much of the available scientific information, and our comments identify and discuss a selection of the other 

relevant scientific works. 

As discussed by Edicott, BMPs are "largely procedural, describing the steps to be taken in determining how a site will be managed," but 

they lack "practical in-stream criteria for regulation of sedimentation from forestry activities." <FN22> The selection and 

implementation of BMPs are often "defined as what is practicable in view of ‘technological, economic, and institutional consideration.'" 

<FN23> The ultimate effectiveness of the BMPs are therefore impacted by the individual land manager's "value system" and the 

perceived benefit of protecting the resource values as opposed to the costs of operations.

Endicott notes that although BMPs may generally be able to mitigate pollution from forestry activities, the "exception to this 

generalization is unstable locations in key problem areas of the PNW (Idaho, northwest California, western Oregon and Washington, and 

southeast Alaska) where conventional BMPs for road construction may not be sufficient to prevent adverse effects on stream channel 

and fish habitat (Binkley and MacDonald, 1994)." <FN24>
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-158

There is additional scientific work that documents that BMPs are ineffective at addressing impacts, and, in particular, cumulative 

impacts from continued logging and road density. Espinosa et al. 1997 demonstrated that aquatic habitats were severely damaged by 

roads and logging in several watersheds despite BMP application. <FN25> The authors further noted that the blind reliance on BMPs in 

lieu of limiting or avoiding activities that cause aquatic damages serves to increase aquatic damage. Even activities implemented with 

somewhat effective BMPs still often contribute negative cumulative effects (Ziemer et al 1991, <FN26> Rhodes et al. 1994, <FN27> 

Espinosa et al 1997; Beschta et al. 2004 <FN28>). MacDonald and Rittland 1989 <FN29> concluded that roads typically double 

suspended sediment yield even with state of the art construction and erosion control and that suspended sediment contributions from 

surface erosion, alone, from roads in the absence of mass failure, are typically in the range of 5 to 20 percent above background and 

remain at elevated levels for as long as roads are in use. Kattleman 1996 <FN30> concluded that BMPs could do little to reduce sediment 

delivery from roads at stream crossings.

Given the synthesis prepared for EPA by Endicott as well as body of scientific work that discusses the limitations of BMPs, particularly 

in the Pacific Northwest, we ask that EPA clarify why it needs further study on the impacts of discharges from industrial logging roads 

and forest roads and the effectiveness of BMP-based programs. We again ask that EPA articulate with specificity relevant gaps in 

existing scientific data and information and how the agency intends to address those gaps through further study. Does EPA intend to 

collect additional data and, if so, how will those studies be designed and implemented and by whom according to what time frame? Or, 

does EPA simply need to synthesize existing scientific information, which appears to have been done already by Endicott pursuant to 

contract with EPA.

3. Oregon's Program for Regulating Industrial Logging Roads and Forest Roads is Clearly Inadequate to Protect Water Quality.

Because NEDC v. Brown originated in Oregon on state forestlands managed by the Oregon Department of Forestry, and because EPA's 

Federal Register notice failed to discuss Oregon's program, we provide a discussion of Oregon's state-based management program that 

relates to logging and forest roads. The 60-day Notice Letter attached to the complaint in NEDC v. Brown, which EPA has in its files, 

clearly documents numerous, extensive exceedances of Oregon's water quality standards resulting from the discharge of polluted 

stormwater from active logging roads in the Tillamook State Forest. Moreover, as will be discussed below, Oregon law does not require 

that discharges from forest roads comply with water quality standards, nor, in fact, has Oregon's nonpoint source program achieved 

compliance with water quality standards. However EPA decides to move forward with regulating forest roads, it must recognize that in 

Oregon, at bare minimum, the existing laws, regulations and policies are not adequate to protect water quality and beneficial uses.

A. Oregon's Regulation of Logging Road Pollution.

Oregon's logging roads are regulated under the Forestry Practice Act, ORS 527.765 and ORS 527.770. Pursuant to ORS 527.765(1): 

The State Board of Forestry shall establish best management practices and other rules applying to forest practices as necessary to insure 

that to the maximum extent practicable nonpoint source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest

operations on forestlands do not impair the achievement and maintenance of water quality standards established by the Environmental 

Quality Commission for the waters of the state. Such best management practices shall consist of forest

practices rules adopted to prevent or reduce pollution of waters of the state. Factors to be considered by the board in establishing best 

management practices shall include, where applicable, but not be limited to:

(a) Beneficial uses of waters potentially impacted;
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-159

(b) The effects of past forest practices on beneficial uses of water;

(c) Appropriate practices employed by other forest managers;

(d) Technical, economic and institutional feasibility; and

(e) Natural variations in geomorphology and hydrology.

The State Board of Forestry then establishes best management practices for logging roads in Oregon Administrative Rules Division 625 

(OAR 629-625-0000 through 629-625-0700), but does not address forest roads not associated with logging. As is evident from these 

provisions, compliance with state water quality standards is only required "to the maximum extent practicable." 

Consequently, the Oregon Forest Practices Act fails to prevent forest roads from causing or contributing to violations of water quality 

standards. Many forest roads formerly used for logging, and their associated ditches, channels, and culverts, have never been upgraded to 

comply with today's BMPs. <FN31> A detailed evaluation and recommendations for improvement to the Oregon Forest Practice Act 

with regards to roads can be found in a report prepared by the Independent Multidisciplinary Science Team in 1999. <FN32>

In addition, nonpoint source pollution from logging roads is subject to Oregon's Environmental Quality Commission's standards. OAR 

340-041-007(5). However, so long as the logging roads are operated in good faith compliance with the best management practices 

established by the State Board of Forestry they will not be found to violate water quality standards. Id. Because pollution from logging 

roads prior to NEDC v. Brown was treated as nonpoint source pollution, the Environmental Quality Commission's standards have not 

necessarily applied; rather, the best management practices are the predominant way in which logging roads are regulated, and, as 

discussed above, by statute those management practices are only required to ensure compliance with water quality standards to the 

"maximum extent practicable."

B. Oregon's Regulation of Logging Roads Pollution Fails to Protect Water Quality.

Thus far, Oregon has failed to protect water quality from the significant pollution caused by logging roads. Prior to NEDC v. Brown, 

Oregon attempted to regulate storm water runoff from logging roads as nonpoint source pollution. Congress recognizes the political and 

logistical challenges to regulating nonpoint pollution as well as the well-documented and extensive impacts nonpoint pollution has on 

water quality. In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, 16 U.S.C. § 1455b ("CZARA"), Congress incentivized 

states to eliminate nonpoint source pollution by requiring EPA and NOAA to withhold a percentage of Clean Water Act ("CWA") and 

Coastal Zone Management Act ("CZMA") grant funds from states that fail to submit coastal nonpoint programs that protect water 

quality. 16 U.S.C. § 1455b(a)(2). Consequentially, CZARA required Oregon to create a nonpoint source pollution program that included 

steps to control nonpoint source pollution from logging roads.

Oregon repeatedly submitted a coastal nonpoint program, which also repeatedly failed to receive full approval from the EPA and 

NOAA, largely because it did not propose adequate regulation of forest practices. In fact, forestry is the most significant use of land in 

the area subject to Oregon's Coastal Nonpoint Program. In 1998, addressing Oregon's first attempt to regulate forest land in its Costal 

Nonpoint Program, EPA and NOAA found that, "additional management measures are necessary to attain and maintain water quality 

standards and fully protect beneficial uses." In addition, EPA and NOAA stated:

Although Oregon has the basic legal and programmatic tools to implement a forestry program in conformity with [CZARA], these tools 

are inadequate to ensure that water quality standards are attained and maintained and beneficial uses protected. This conclusion is based 

on best available information, including the most recent 303(d) listings for Oregon waters, which indicate water quality impairments 

from forestry. Related to these water quality impairments, Oregon has a number of aquatic species, in particular anadromous salmonids, 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-160

that are endangered, threatened, or otherwise seriously at risk, due in part to forestry activities that impair coastal water quality and 

beneficial uses, including salmon spawning, rearing, and migration habitat.... Thus, Oregon will need to adopt additional management 

measures for forestry in areas adjacent to coastal waters not attaining or maintaining applicable water quality standards for protecting 

beneficial uses, or that are threatened by reasonably foreseeable increases in pollutant loadings from new or expanding forestry 

operations....

EPA and NOAA concluded their 1998 findings by requiring Oregon to resubmit a coastal program with regulations for forestry 

operations that had additional management measures.

In October 2002 and March 2003, after receiving an extension for the plan, Oregon resubmitted its Coastal Nonpoint Program. Once 

again, EPA and NOAA rejected this plan citing Oregon's failure to provide sufficient additional management measures for forestry 

operations. In November 2007, Oregon submitted to EPA and NOAA a document that again attempted to demonstrate compliance with 

the requirement that it provide additional management measures for forestry. But once again, EPA and NOAA found that Oregon's

Program still did not satisfy the conditions for additional management measures for forestry. In its 2008 response to Oregon's submitted 

2007 documents, EPA and NOAA stated:

Based on Oregon's recent submittal and our understanding of Oregon's Forestry Program, EPA and NOAA still believe that Oregon

lacks adequate management measures under the Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) rules for protecting water quality and the 

degradation of beneficial uses from forestry activities. EPA and NOAA's primary concerns, stated in the 1998 conditional findings and 

reiterated in the 2004 interim decision document, remain. Oregon still lacks adequate measures for protecting riparian areas of medium, 

small and non-fish bearing streams, high risk landslide areas, and for addressing the impacts of legacy roads. A broad body of science 

continues to demonstrate that the FPA rules do not adequately protect water quality.

In other words, Oregon once again failed to meet its nonpoint source control requirements because it could not get a handle on forestry 

pollution. In sum, both EPA and NOAA have already extensively reviewed Oregon's attempts at regulating forest roads and logging 

operations more broadly as nonpoint sources of pollution subject to best management practices, and EPA and NOAA have already 

concluded that those efforts have failed to protect water quality and beneficial uses. EPA, therefore, knows full well that Oregon's 

program for regulating forest roads is inadequate, which must inform whether and how EPA chooses to regulate industrial logging roads 

and forest roads under Phase I or Phase II of the stormwater program.

4. Other state and federal programs are also inadequate to protect water quality.

EPA suggests in its Federal Register notice that further regulation of forest roads may be unnecessary because of the existence of state 

nonpoint source control programs that attempt to regulate the discharge of stormwater from logging areas in general and from 

construction and reconstruction of forest roads-often referred to as state forest practices programs. <FN33> Unfortunately, these 

programs suffer from many of the same defects as other nonpoint programs and are inadequate substitutes for the regulation of point 

source discharges under 402(p)(6). When determining the effectiveness of state programs, EPA should not rely on studies that evaluate 

only general effectiveness of BMPs or extrapolate from regional studies to determine how BMPs are applied nationally, as it appears to 

do in this notice when citing to Prud'homme and Greis, 2002. Rather, the EPA should base its decision solely on the documented and 

repeated success and percent implementation for BMPs that address roads specifically, and not forestry practices generally, for each 

state and its programs.

Forest practices programs uniformly rely on best management practices (BMPs) to address the issues associated with logging roads. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-161

However, comprehensive monitoring of the effectiveness of logging road BMPs in achieving water quality standards does not 

demonstrate that the BMPs are protecting water quality, nor does it undermine the abundant evidence that stormwater infrastructure 

along logging roads continues to deposit large quantities of sediment into rivers and streams. <FN34> Even as new information becomes 

available about BMP effectiveness, many states do not update their logging road BMPs, and some states have retained BMPs that have 

been discredited for some time, such as using fords when they are known to have greater water quality impacts than other types of stream 

crossings. <FN35> If the measure of success is whether a nonpoint source control program has achieved compliance with state water 

quality standards, the state forest practices programs have failed.

Furthermore, as discussed in this letter, these programs are only triggered when active logging operations occur. The lack of a 

requirement in most states to bring existing, inactive logging roads and other forest roads up to some consistent standard results in many 

forest roads that are not currently being used for logging falling through the regulatory cracks and continuing to have a negative impact 

on our water quality. Currently, only the State of Washington requires that old roads be upgraded to comply with today's standard BMPs. 

Across most of the country, the oldest, most harmful logging roads have been grandfathered and continue to deliver sediment into 

streams and rivers. <FN36>

A. Montana's programs are inadequate to protect water quality.

Montana's program, much like Oregon and other states, only requires the application of BMPs where there is a project; otherwise roads 

are left untended and become unmanaged problems. For example, the Montana DNRC HCP covered the aquatic species bull trout, 

westslope cutthroat and redband trout. It was approved in December 2011 for a period of 50 years. Several provisions in the HCP 

regarding road construction and maintenance render it an inadequate surrogate for point source discharge permits. The Environmental 

Protection Agency's Montana office submitted comments on both the draft and final environmental impact statements expressing 

concerns about the road management provisions.

Montana's HCP increases permanent and temporary road densities on forest lands. It allows for the construction of 1,387 miles of 

permanent roads and an unquantified amount of temporary roads that will be used for industrial hauling of logs and logging equipment. 

The HCP allows 15 years for corrective actions on high risk sediment sites in bull trout streams to be completed and 25 years for 

cutthroat and redband trout streams. The HCP does not require that culverts be regularly monitored to ensure that they do not plug with 

debris and fail. It only requires that culverts be monitored for fish passage. This HCP will not adequately protect water quality, yet this 

HCP, and others like it, are often the only plans addressing forest roads.

In addition to the HCP, every two years a subset of logging sites on state, Forest Service, industrial and private non-industrial lands 

throughout the state of Montana are audited to determine whether BMPs have been applied correctly. The sites audited must meet the 

following criteria:

• Harvested within two years prior to the field review.

• Minimum harvest size is 5 acres.

• Minimum size and volume per acre:

- west-side sites - 3,000 or more board feet per acre removed

- east-side sites - 1,500 or more board feet per acre removed

• A portion of the sale must be located within 200 feet of a stream or have at least one Class I or II stream crossing on the road system 

associated with the harvest (access route and/or haul route) located on the ownership group's property within the field review project area 

or stream crossings are located on road for which the ownership group being reviewed had some maintenance responsibility that was 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-162

associated with the harvest/sale that is being reviewed.

The review technique consists of a one-time field inspection and assessment. This approach documents erosion and sedimentation 

problems occurring in the first two years after harvest. This is generally the critical period for erosion associated with timber harvests. 

Some practices conducted during harvest cannot easily be evaluated during a post-harvest field review and are not considered during the 

field review. The assessment is based on visual appraisals of practices and impacts to surface soils and streams. The results are a 

"snapshot in time" of the practices and subsequent impacts. They do not necessarily reflect future impacts. Sites are split among the three

teams so there is a possibility for inconsistency.

Montana BMP audits are only done on a small subset of recent timber sales. They are not indicative of the condition of most forest roads. 

Additionally, agencies such as the Forest Service do not have the budgets to maintain their road systems and typically BMPs are not 

routinely done on roads unless a timber sale is planned. For example, a January 30, 2004 draft Analysis of the Management Situation by 

the Forest Service for the Flathead National Forest Plan Revision at page 4-2, shows that the Flathead has average annual maintenance 

for 1,245 miles of roads. There is a backlog for road maintenance on 3,547 miles. The estimated annual budget for maintenance and 

backlog is $6,200,000 with the estimated annual budget for road maintenance of only $957,000. Clearly BMPs are not being applied to 

forest roads when there is such a budget shortfall.

B. The U.S. Forest Service's Watershed Condition Framework is untested and cannot be relied upon to protect water quality.

The Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) is an initiative launched by the U.S. Forest Service in 2011 for "proactively implementing 

integrated restoration on priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands." <FN37> The WCF focuses restoration activities - 

including road treatments - in those watersheds that have been identified as priorities for restoration (at least two priority watersheds for 

each forest and grassland). Developing Watershed Restoration Action Plans (WRAPs) is a key step in improving a watershed's condition 

class through the implementation of essential projects. Since the WCF was launched, many forests are in the process of implementing 

their WRAPs, and some have yet to begin. The WCF Framework directs WRAPs be based on a 5-year program of work to improve 

condition class scores, which is achieved once all project planning is completed for each WRAP.

The USFS estimates that WRAPs will take 6 years or more to complete, of which it could take 3 or more years just to finish 

environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the essential projects in addition to the initial

assessments and project designs. <FN38>

The WCF indicates that a "watershed is considered to have moved to an improved condition class and reported as such when all of the 

essential projects necessary to move a watershed to an improved class and identified in a [WRAP] are completed." <FN39> There is no 

requirement that before a watershed can be moved to an improved class it actually show positive effects on the ground. The projects 

simply need to be completed.

Most forests completed at least two Watershed Restoration Action Plans, but are years out from implementing the essential projects 

within each WRAP. It is not proven that the WCF or WRAPs will meet with success to actually improve watershed integrity, and the 

process does not require that watershed health actually improve on the ground. For these reasons, EPA cannot rely on the WCF process 

as a surrogate for regulating point source discharges from forest roads.

C. The U.S. Forest Service Core BMPs cannot be relied upon to protect water quality.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-163

The National Core BMP technical guide was released in April 2012 and national BMP monitoring protocols have not yet been 

developed. <FN40> When they are completed they will be contained in Volume 2 of the technical guide (FS-990b). <FN41> The 

National Core BMPs in the technical guide are deliberately general and non-prescriptive. The National Core BMPs require the 

development of site-specific BMP prescriptions based on local site conditions and requirements to achieve compliance with established 

State, tribal, or national water quality goals. However, because the document is national in scope, it cannot address all possible practices 

or practices specific to local or regional soils, climate, vegetation types, or state-specific requirements. It is expected that State 

requirements and BMP programs, Forest Service regional guidance, and the land management plan will provide the criteria for 

site-specific BMP prescriptions. The National Core BMPs provide direction on "what to do" and the local direction will provide 

direction on "how to do it." <FN42> The National Core BMPs and monitoring protocols have not been developed for site-specific 

application and cannot be relied upon as a substitute for regulating point source discharges from forest roads.

As is evident from EPA's own studies, the information cited by EPA in the May 23 Federal Register notice, and the preceding discussion 

of some existing programs, the current regulation of stormwater discharges from forest roads is inadequate to protect water quality. 

Regulation under 402(p)(6) will help correct the deficiencies of these programs by ensuring forest road owners and operators apply 

mandatory management standards for all forest roads, in a manner that is transparent and enforceable, to achieve compliance with water 

quality standards and the Clean Water Act.

<FN6> Endicott, D. 2008. National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by 

Best Management Practices - Final Report (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of 

Wastewater Management Permits Division) (Contract No. EP-C-05-066, Task Order 002).

<FN7> Endicott at 2 (citing EPA's 2000 and 2002 National Water Quality Inventories).

<FN8> Guidance Specifying Management Measures For Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters, EPA Guidance Paper 

840-B-93-001c, at 27 (1993); see also Endicott at 9.

<FN9> Endicott at 43-44, 49.

<FN10> Id.; See also Mills, Keith, P.E., Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Roads, Drainage and Sediment Delivery in the Kilchis 

River Watershed 4-5 (Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project, June 1997), available at 

www.oregon.gov/ODF/privateforests/docs/kilchis.pdf [hereinafter "Mills Report"] (citing studies indicating 25 to 75% of forest road 

drainage directly enters streams and rivers).

<FN11> See generally Endicott at 16-20, 31-38 (explaining effects of turbidity and sedimentation on aquatic species); Mills Report at 5.

<FN12> Rieman and McIntyre 1993 at 6.

<FN13> Shepard et al. 1984 at 1; Cederholm and Reid 1987 at 392; Furniss et al. 1991 at 301.

<FN14> Endicott at 31-37.

<FN15> Biological Opinion of the Effects to Bull Trout and Bull Trout Critical Habitat from Road Management Activities On National 

Forest System and Bureau of Land Management Lands in Western Montana, April 29, 2008, Page 8.

<FN16> Shepard et al. 1984 at 6; Pratt 1992 at 6.

<FN17> Quigley and Arbelbide 1997 at 1183.

<FN18> Endicott at 8-9; H. Michael Anderson, Water Quality Planning for the National Forests, 17 Envtl. L. 591, 592 (1987).

<FN19> Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 66 Fed. Reg. 3244, 3245 (Jan. 12, 2001); Endicott at 23.

<FN20> See Water and the Forest Service at http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/policy-analysis/water.pdf (January 2000).

<FN21> Endicott at 23; 66 Fed. Reg. at 3267; Robert L. Glicksman, Pollution on the Federal Lands II: Water Pollution Law, 12 J. Envtl. 

L. & Pol'y 61, 73 (1993).

<FN22> Endicott 2008 at 70.

<FN23> Id. at 72.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-164

<FN24> Id. at 91.

<FN25> Espinosa, F.A., Rhodes J.J., and McCullough, D.A. 1997. The failure of existing plans to protect salmon habitat on the 

Clearwater National Forest in Idaho. J. Env. Management 49: 205-230.

<FN26> Ziemer, R. R., J. Lewis, T. E. Lisle, and R. M. Rice. 1991b. Long-term sedimentation effects of different patterns of timber 

harvesting. In: Proceedings Symposium on Sediment and Stream Water Quality in a Changing Environment: Trends and Explanation, 

pp. 143-150. International Association of Hydrological Sciences Publication no. 203. Wallingford, UK.

<FN27> Rhodes, J.J., McCullough, D.A., and Espinosa Jr., F.A., 1994. A Coarse Screening Process for Evaluation of the Effects of 

Land Management Activities on Salmon Spawning and Rearing Habitat in ESA Consultations. CRITFC Tech. Rept. 94-4, Portland, OR.

<FN28> Beschta, R.L., Rhodes, J.J., Kauffman, J.B., Gresswell, R.E, Minshall, G.W., Karr, J.R, Perry, D.A., Hauer, F.R., and Frissell, 

C.A., 2004. Postfire Management on Forested Public Lands of the Western USA. Cons. Bio., 18: 957- 

967.

<FN29> MacDonald, A. and Ritland, K.W., 1989. Sediment Dynamics in Type 4 and 5 Waters: A Review and Synthesis. 

TFW-012-89-002, Wash. Dept. of Natural Resources, Olympia, Wash.

<FN30> Kattleman R., 1996. Hydrology and water resources. Pages 855-920 in SNEP Science Team, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project 

Final Report to Congress: Status of the Sierra Nevada, vol. 2. Davis: Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of

California. Wildland Resources Center Report no 39.

<FN31> See Glen Spain, Dam, Water Reforms, and Endangered Species in the Klamath Basin, 22 J. Envtl. L. & Litig. 49, 65 n. 60, 

83-84 (2007) (noting the National Marine Fisheries Service and other independent reviewers have critiqued

the OFPA and determined it to be insufficient to prevent salmonid species' extinction).

<FN32> Recovery of Wild Salmonids in Western Oregon Forests: Oregon Forest Practices Act Rules and the Measures in the Oregon 

Plan for Salmon and Watersheds. (Technical Report 1999-1 to the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Governor's Natural 

Resources Office, Salem, Oregon.) located at

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/imst/reports/1999-1.pdf. See also NOAA-NMFS, 2010. 75 Federal Register 29489-29506 Listing Endangered 

and Threatened Species: Completion of a Review of the Status of the Oregon Coast volutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon; 

Proposal to Promulgate Rule Classifying Species as Threatened (May 26, 2010) located at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-26/html/2010-12635.htm; Oregon Department of Forestry. 1997. Forest Roads, drainage 

and sediment delivery in the Kilchis River Watershed. Report for the Tillamook Bay National Estuary Project (rating 31% of the road 

length was rated certain or possible for sediment delivery to streams) located at 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/privateforests/docs/kilchis.pdf?ga=t; Skaugset, Arne and Marganne Allen, Oregon Department of Forestry 

Forest Practices Monitoring Program. 1996. Road Sediment Monitoring Project Report: Survey of Road Drainage in Western Oregon. 

ODF Technical Report (monitoring on state and private lands found a general lack of filtering of drainage waters near streams and that a 

significant proportion of active and inactive roads can deliver sediment to streams by ditch delivery) located at 

http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/privateforests/docs/RoadSediment.pdf?ga=t.

<FN33> 77 Fed. Reg. 30,476.

<FN34> Endicott at 166.

<FN35> Id. at 155-56.

<FN36> See Endicott at 118-19.

<FN37> Watershed Condition Framework (WCF), p. vi; FS-977, May 2011.

<FN38> WCF at 17.

<FN39> WCF at 16.

<FN40> National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands - National Core BMP 

Technical Guide, 2012.

<FN41> BMP Technical Guide at 2.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-165

<FN42> BMP Technical Guide at 2.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 3 and to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.003

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 15

Since 1995, Wisconsin's Forestry BMPs for Water Quality have been monitored on nearly 600 timber sales. BMPs are correctly 

implemented over 90% of the time, across all land ownerships; federal, state, county, and private. In addition, when BMPs are used there 

are no observable impacts to water quality over 99% of the time. Beyond monitoring, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has 

also researched the effectiveness of Forestry BMPs, specifically riparian management zones (RMZs) or buffers that are immediately 

adjacent to lakes and streams. This research has found that RMZ BMPs adequately protect water quality. Results indicate no discernible 

difference in water quality following silvicultural activities in Wisconsin's forests.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.007

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 15

4. EPA should move quickly to develop and implement a Phase II program for nonindustrial, inactive and other forest roads that 

discharge stormwater to streams. 

In addition to recommending that EPA abandon the proposed Phase I rule amendment, the Conservation Groups also strongly 

recommend that you move forward with a Phase II regulatory program, under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act, to address the 

ongoing water quality problems resulting from nonindustrial, inactive and all other forest roads not subject to Phase I. This program 

should be developed in a manner that addresses the on-going degradation of our nation's waterways from forest road pollution, and 

eliminates the current violations of the Clean Water Act. With this letter, we once again remind you of the welldocumented problems 

stemming from forest roads. In addition, we put forward an outline of key elements of a regulatory program to be addressed as you 

develop the new Phase II program. 

A. Forest roads continue to have a significant impact on water quality in streams and should be regulated under EPA's Clean Water Act 

regulations. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-166

Forest roads impact beneficial uses of waterways through a variety of means, namely: 

• Road use and inadequate maintenance leads to excessive fine sediment entering stream channels. 

o Most road surfaces are made of erodible material. Exposure to rainfall leads to surface runoff, which carries the sediment into streams 

(Sugden and Woods 2007). 

o Surface erosion is strongly related to maintenance - less maintenance results in increased delivery of fine sediment to streams (Weaver 

and Hagans 1999, Reiter et al. 2009). 

o Changes in road drainage (often brought on by heavy use) can increase erosion and sediment delivery (Brooks et al. 1991, Sheridan 

2007). 

o Culverts - if too small to meet storm capacity - can get plugged. Water then overtops the road, which can divert streamflow onto the 

road surface and/or can erode fill (Best et al. 1995, Bloom 1998, Wemple et al. 2001). 

o Excess suspended sediment can interfere with drinking water treatment (Dellasala et al. 2011). 

o Fine sediments can adversely affect fish. Reproductive success is reduced when sediment interrupts the ability of eggs to metabolize. 

Young fish that have not emerged from the interstitial spaces of spawning gravel areas can be smothered. And the abundance and quality 

of spawning substrate can be severely affected by sedimentation. (Cederholm et al. 1980, Eaglin and Hubert 1993, GLEC 2008). 

• Roads can potentially increase the frequency of landslides - depositing large amounts of debris into streams. 

o As debris pours into the creek, it fills pools, aggrades the streambed, and covers spawning gravels suffocating fish (Trombulak and 

Frissell 2000). 

o Roads built with side-cast techniques and mid-slope roads on steep ground (that used unstable fill) are usually the most prone to failure 

(USDA FS 2000a, Swanston 1991). 

o Large volumes of material from landslides can be deposited to streams and can scour channels for some distance (Weaver and Hagans 

1999, GLEC 2008). 

• Roads can alter stream morphology - which can result in increased water temperature. 

o Roads can intercept subsurface flow and re-route the water through ditches, crossdrains and stream crossings (USDA FS 2000a). 

During storms, this system operates like an extension of the stream network - increasing peak flows (Wemple et al. 1996). 

o Changing peak flows can alter the channel dimensions of the stream, often making them wider and/or deeper, which can lead to 

increased water temperatures (USDA FS 2000a). 

o Roads in valley bottoms can restrict the area where the stream can move (meander). Stream velocities could increase which then leads 

to increased bank erosion (USDA FS 2003). 

• Roads often contain undersized or poorly built culverts at stream crossings - resulting in blocked or restricted passage for aquatic 

organisms. 

o Culverts - the most widely used crossing type - primarily prevent upstream migration, reducing spawning habitat for aquatic organisms 

(including threatened and endangered fish). If the culvert has a poor outlet, fish can be injured/killed as they move downstream (Clancy 

and Reichmuth 1990, Cupp et al. 1999, Hendrickson et al. 2008). 

As briefly outlined above, it is well-established in the scientific literature that sedimentation from forest roads has a major impact on 

beneficial uses of our nation's rivers and streams. According to the 2008 National Level Assessment of Water Quality Impairments 

Related to Forest Roads and Their Prevention by Best Management Practices Final Report, "Among all pollutants measured in streams, 

sediment has the largest effect on stream biota" (GLEC 2008). Sedimentation has major impacts on stream water quality and fish habitat. 

The health of a stream depends greatly on the ability of fish and other organisms to survive. Therefore, sedimentation is a major concern 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-167

for the overall health of forest streams. 

In EPA's latest water quality report to Congress, sediment continues to be identified as one of the top 10 causes of impairments in 

assessed rivers and streams (US EPA 2009). The ‘Wadeable Streams Assessment' included in that report concludes that excess 

streambed sediments (and nutrients) have the highest impact on biological condition (US EPA 2009). The U.S. Forest Service has also 

identified sediment (turbidity and bedload) to be one of the most significant water quality problems on national forests (USDA FS 

2000b; see generally relevant materials sent to EPA by the Northwest Environmental Defense Center on April 25, 2012 and resubmitted 

with this letter). 

In the Federal Register EPA has acknowledged the impact of forest roads on streams, stating: "[s]tormwater discharges from logging 

roads, especially improperly constructed or maintained roads, may introduce significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants into 

surface waters and, consequently, cause a variety of water quality impacts." 77 Fed. Reg. at 30476. EPA acknowledges that pollution 

from forestry and related activities is among the "top twelve probable sources of impairment for rivers, streams, and coastal shorelines." 

Id. Knowing these effects of forest roads, EPA would be remiss to not address the issue by instituting a Clean Water Act Phase II 

regulatory program. 

B. Non-industrial and other forest roads should be regulated by EPA with a regulatory program under Section 402(p)(5) and (6) of the 

Clean Water Act; essential regulatory elements should be applied nationally, regardless of land ownership. 

EPA's authority to develop Phase II programs derives from sections 402(p)(5) and (6) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(5) 

& (6). Section 402(p)(6) requires EPA to issue regulations that "designate stormwater discharges, other than those discharges described 

in paragraph (2), to be regulated to protect water quality and [to] establish a comprehensive program to regulate such designated 

sources." 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(6); see also 402(p)(5)(C). Any Phase II program must meet certain requirements: "The program shall, at a 

minimum, (A) establish priorities, (B) establish requirements for State stormwater management programs, and (C) establish expeditious 

deadlines." Id. "The program may include performance standards, guidelines, guidance, and management practices and treatment 

requirements, as appropriate." Id. 

While the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program has been remarkably successful in reducing surface 

water pollution from regulated point sources, nonpoint source programs under sections 208 and 319 of the Clean Water Act are widely 

acknowledged to be ineffectual. Andreen at 542-43 (praising effectiveness of NPDES program and ability of the program to achieve 

results "without causing any significant harm to the economy in terms of unemployment or growth or investment"); Glicksman at 71-73 

(indicating "[n]onpoint sources are responsible for about sixty percent of state water quality standard violations"). Indeed, EPA 

acknowledges that the majority of the nation's remaining water quality impairment comes from nonpoint source pollution. Glicksman at 

72; Andreen at 544 n.36, 42; GLEC at 3 (stating EPA reported that nonpoint source pollution was the dominant source of remaining 

surface water pollution). The failure of the nonpoint programs has been ascribed primarily to the lack of mandatory monitoring 

requirements, the lack of agency and citizen enforcement actions, and the lack of penalties for noncompliance. Andreen at 548-92 

(describing hallmarks of NPDES regulation that have made it a successful program); Glicksman at 63-64, 71-73, 77-78. Thus, these are 

critical components that must be included in an effective Phase II regulatory program. 

As stated above, stormwater from forest roads has a profound effect on the water quality of forest streams. In order to protect beneficial 

uses, EPA needs to regulate non-Phase I forest roads under a restrictive Phase II program. EPA's Phase II regulatory approach should, at 

the minimum, include the following essential elements to ensure that water quality protection will be achieved during a reasonable 

compliance period: 1) an inventory of all roads (i.e., including unauthorized, unused and temporary roads); 2) a plan for action; 3) a 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-168

schedule for completion; 4) performance measures that achieve water quality standards; 5) accountability measures through enforcement 

(i.e., civil penalties); 6) a monitoring program; and 7) adaptive management. 

1. Inventory of all roads. 

All forest landowners should develop and maintain an inventory of all roads and submit that inventory to the regulatory agency. The 

inventory should include roads currently being used, roads no longer used, temporary roads, and unauthorized roads. In addition, the 

inventory should contain minimum information about the condition of the roads. Field verification may be warranted. 

2. Plan for action. 

Forest landowners should submit a plan for action to the regulatory agency for approval. The plan should include the following: (a) a 

map of all roads, fish passage barriers and drainage problems; (b) a list of roads, prioritizing roads with passage barriers, drainage

problems, and landslide risk and dealing with the worst first; (c) proposed treatments (i.e., decommissioning, maintenance, 

improvements); (d) work detail; (e) a schedule for implementation; and (f) a storm plan to handle emergency maintenance and repairs. 

The plan for action should prioritize disconnecting forest roads from the stream network, i.e., reducing hydrologic connectivity between 

forest roads and nearby rivers and streams. Any changes to the work plan should be approved by the regulatory agency. A good example 

of this is Washington State's regulatory program (See 77 Fed. Reg. 30477; see generally relevant materials sent to EPA by the Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center on April 25, 2012 and resubmitted with this letter). 

3. Schedule for completion. 

Forest landowners should submit for agency approval an overall schedule for addressing all impacts to streams from their road network. 

The schedule should include interim milestones and expected completion dates to bring roads up to standards. Some tasks, such as 

maintenance, will be ongoing to ensure impacts are eliminated or reduced, but should also be included in the schedule. The schedule 

helps secure a commitment from the landowner that water quality protection will occur within a reasonable timeframe. 

4. Performance measures - Water quality standards. 

EPA should establish clear and understandable performance measures. Performance measures are on-the-ground outcomes that may be 

met through a combination of different best management practices (BMPs). An example of a site-specific performance measure from 

Washington State is: no visible plume of sediment. To meet this, a broad range of BMPs may be implemented such as sediment barriers, 

mulching, improving road surfaces, settling basins, etc. If a sediment plume is observed, then water quality standards are not being met 

and BMPs need to be evaluated and improved. 

In some states that already mandate BMPs, additional BMPs can and should be developed where those BMPs are not adequate to meet 

the performance measures. In states that have no mandatory BMPs, a full suite of BMPs will have to be developed to meet the 

performance measures. By establishing performance measures, EPA will allow for flexibility while still maintaining a consistent level of 

protection for the designated and existing uses adopted in each state's water quality standards. 

For example, the program must ensure that the use of BMPs is verified to ensure that BMP implementation will achieve the results 

expected, namely meeting the performance standards and protecting water quality. There is extensive scientific research that documents 

that BMPs are often ineffective at addressing impacts, and, in particular, cumulative impacts from roads often are not accounted for. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-169

<FN15> Because some, if not all, states operate under the principle that landowners' implementing recommended or required BMPs is 

the equivalent of meeting water quality standards, it is essential that any permit require a demonstration that BMPs meet the performance 

measures and other water quality goals. 

Annual reports should be submitted summarizing (at minimum) the BMPs implemented and road maintenance completed that year. 

Landowners should also be required to submit, every 3-5 years, a supplemental report on whether performance measures are being met. 

This will ensure that road maintenance and implementation of BMPs are tracked by the regulatory agency, and that the implementation 

of those BMPs actually meets performance measures. Annual water quality monitoring should also be used to verify that BMPs and 

performance measures are sufficient to achieve or maintain water quality. If water quality standards are still not being met for a water 

body, additional measures should then be required. 

In developing these performance measures, EPA must be comprehensive in providing full protection of existing and designated

beneficial uses. For example, when analyzing culverts, consideration of fish passage must include all life cycle stages of relevant fish. In 

areas of nonfish bearing streams, consideration for protection of amphibians must include addressing passage concerns that are essential 

for purposes of allowing populations to recolonize. Likewise, culverts should be designed not only to accommodate 100-year floods with 

debris passage but should also consider locally-projected impacts of global climate change. 

5. Accountability - Enforcement - Civil Penalties. 

EPA should ensure the regulatory program establishes accountability. Objectives must be understood from the beginning so it is clear 

when a road is in compliance. Checks and balances are needed to ensure inventories are complete, BMPs are being implemented and 

built correctly, BMPs are effective as designed, water quality standards are being met, and schedules are being adhered to. EPA and state 

water quality protection agencies should retain authority to implement enforcement actions, such as stop work orders and imposition of 

civil penalties, if these elements are not adhered to. In addition, citizens should retain the right to file lawsuits if EPA is not enforcing the 

Clean Water Act or landowners are not complying with it. 

6. Monitoring. 

EPA should include a monitoring component - beyond the annual reports described in #4. Monitoring should cover implementation to 

ensure actions are being taken as planned and to keep track of progress over time. Monitoring should also assess effectiveness - whether 

the program, BMPs and/or other activities are indeed effective at reducing impacts to beneficial uses of the Nation's waters.

7. Adaptation. 

Although landowners, agencies and the public appreciate predictability, there will be times when changes need to be made to meet the 

desired outcomes. As stated repeatedly in this letter, the goal is to ensure forest roads are compliant with the Clean Water Act. If 

measures and practices outlined in an EPA regulatory program are not meeting the goal, then the program needs to be reviewed and 

changed. 

As is often stated by stakeholders, the development of the program, implementation, and results should all be transparent. In addition, it 

should be consistent enough to be applicable from state to state, across landownerships and between EPA regions while also considering 

geographic and climatic differences. The program should be equitably administered and should achieve results in a timely fashion. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-170

Forest roads are impacting water quality across the nation in violation of the Clean Water Act. We urge the EPA to step forward and 

address this issue, just as it has done with industry, municipalities, construction sites, dairy farmers, transportation infrastructure, and 

other pollution sources. We would be willing to work with you as you move forward in developing an effective Phase II regulatory 

program for non-Phase I forest roads.

<FN15> Espinosa et al. 1997 demonstrated that aquatic habitats were severely damaged by roads and logging in several

watersheds despite BMP application. The authors further noted that the blind reliance on BMPs in lieu of limiting or

avoiding activities that cause aquatic damages serves to increase aquatic damage. Even activities implemented with

somewhat effective BMPs still often contribute negative cumulative effects (Ziemer et al. 1991, Rhodes et al. 1994).

Response 

Thank you for your comments. The EPA has reviewed all comment letters and responded to the comments received on the proposed rule. 

Please refer to Response 3, Response 4, Response 7, Response 8, Response 9, Response 10, Response 11, Response 12, Response 13, 

and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.005

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 15

Impacts of Logging Operations on Water Quality throughout the West 

Assuming the Silviculture Rule is upheld by the Supreme Court, and logging is maintained as a non-industrial activity and determined a 

non-industrial point source, the EPA will regain the flexibility to address the stormwater impacts of logging roads through 

non-regulatory means and Best Management Practices (BMPs) provided by Section 402(p)(6) of the CWA. However, the question 

remains if forestry BMPs are effective at reducing stormwater runoff and if the implementation rates are sufficient to satisfactorily 

mitigate stormwater impacts on water quality. 

Throughout the West, logging operations have posed a significant threat to water quality, with runoff commonly containing sediment, 

nutrients, and heavy metals (Cecchini-Beaver 2012). To defend against erosion, logging roads are often designed to collect stormwater 

in ditches, channels, and culverts, which can lead directly into nearby surface water (Winter 2010). The sediment in this runoff can bind 

with heavy metals and pesticides, can increase water treatment costs downstream (National Research Council 2008), and can negatively 

impact fish spawning and rearing habitat (Cecchini-Beaver 2012). Other potential impacts of forestry activities include runoff of 

nutrients and organic and inorganic chemicals due to fertilizer and pesticide application, and increased water temperatures due to 

removal of riparian vegetation (USEPA 2005). 

Persistent Impacts of Logging Operations 

Documented impacts on water quality from silviculture-related activities predate well-established Best Management Practices, but also 

continue under contemporary forest practices controlled by state legislation such as Forest Practices Acts and Streamside Management 

Acts. In the state of California, according to California's State Water Resources Control Board (SWRBC), silviculture contributed 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-171

pollution to 17% of the state's polluted rivers and 21% of polluted lakes in 1996, several years after the state enacted Forest Practice 

Rules (SWRBC 2000). 

In a recent analysis, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MTDEQ) determined that the state of Montana has "164 

waterbodies (stream segments or lakes) identified as impaired form forestry-related activities; forest roads and silviculture are the 

primary sources of impairment." Forest roads (construction and use) account for 17% of impaired waterbodies and 8% of total impaired 

stream miles throughout the state; and 48% of all forested watersheds contain at least one impaired waterbody (MTDEQ 2012, See 

Section 3.1.2). These impairments persist, even with Montana's Streamside Management Act, which requires BMPs within Streamside 

Management Zones, and promotes voluntary BMPs outside of those 50-foot streamside zones (Logan 2001). These impairments persist, 

even with voluntary BMP implementation rates hovering around 97 % for the last decade (Ziesak 2010). 

In paired catchment studies in the western Cascade Mountains of southern Oregon, statistically significant increases in local and 

downstream streamflow and sediment yield were observed following contemporary methods of forest harvest promoted by Oregon 

Forest Practices Act. These particular sites involved aerial skyline logging for 65 percent clear-cuts of the Fenton Creek watershed 

(Zegre 2008). Similar studies in Oregon have found significant, local effects on hydrology, sediment, temperature, nutrients, and aquatic 

invertebrates due to contemporary timber harvest practices (OFRI 2009). 

Using Idaho as an example, the negative impact of sediment and silviculture activities can also be clearly seen, even after the 

implementation of Idaho's Forest Practices Act in 1974. Sediment has been identified as the "biggest water quality problem in Idaho 

streams. For over 90% of the streams on the state's 1998 303(d) list, sediment was identified as a pollutant of concern" (Rowe et al., 

2003, p. 1). In 2010, sediment impacted 27% of Idaho's assessed streams and almost half of the impaired streams. Although only 12% of 

those impaired streams were given a probable cause, 5% of those streams identified silviculture as the probable cause of impairment 

(USEPA 2010). Salmonid fish have especially been impacted; five species of ESA-listed salmonid fish are listed as endangered species 

due to sediment sources from logging operations and logging roads (Cecchini-Beaver 2012). 

Looking at a national scale, in 2000, according to the EPA, sediment associated with logging activities was the fifth leading source of 

stream and river impairment nationwide, with logging roads being a significant source of that sediment (Winter 2010). In that same data 

for 2012, silviculture was identified as the probable cause for only 3% of the nations' rivers and streams; however, 12% of impaired 

waters listed their cause as "unknown" and 7% listed their cause as an "unspecified nonpoint source" (USEPA 2012). States such as 

Oregon, Washington, and California also failed to give detailed information about probable stream impairment causes in their most 

recent report to the EPA. Attributing the implementation of Forest Practices Acts and other statewide Best Management Practices to an 

increase or decrease in silviculture-related stream impairments at state levels, is therefore, still a matter or speculation and generalization 

in some states, due to the lack of detailed reporting coming from those particular states. Whether or not forestry BMP's are effectively 

reducing water quality impacts on a nationwide scale is difficult to say, because state reporting on possible causes of impairment is not 

consistent. A state may list sediment as a cause of impairment, but will not go any further to identify the source of the sediment. Because 

a large portion of streams remain un-assessed, this confounds the issue even further. 

Effectiveness and Implementation of Existing Best Management Practices: What do the Numbers Really Say? 

Despite the lack of statewide and regional stream impairment data directly attributed to logging operations and logging roads, select 

studies have found significant impact to water quality related to contemporary harvesting practices (MTDEQ 2012; Zegre 2008; 

Cecchini-Beaver 2012). These impacts persist, even with current high rates of BMP implementation. The overall national 

implementation rate for forestry BMPs, for instance, is estimated at 89% (Ice, Schilling, and Vowell 2010). Implementation rates for the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-172

western region of the U.S. (California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington) are estimated at 94% (Ice et al. 

2004), with Idaho at 96% implementation, Washington at 80% (Ice, Schilling, and Vowell 2010), and Montana at 97% implementation 

(Ziesak 2010). Forestry certification programs, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), have also led to increased BMP 

implementation rates (USEPA 2005). 

In states with mandatory BMPs, correct implementation has been attributed to decreased turbidity and improved water quality in 

numerous watershed studies throughout the country (Ice and Schilling 2012), implying that BMPs, when applied correctly, can reduce 

water quality impairments. However, the fact that impairments still persist calls into question the voluntary nature of these BMPs, the 

actual widespread compliance with both voluntary and mandatory BMPs and SMZs, as well as the impact of legacy forest roads which 

may or may not fall within the scope of current Best Management Practices. 

In Montana, for instance, significant forestry related impairments (MTDEQ 2012) still persist, despite recent BMP implementation rates 

of 97%. Montana's 2010 audit, in particular, found that voluntary forestry BMPs were correctly applied 97% of the time, Streamside 

Management Zone (SMZ) requirements were met 97% of the time, and SMZ effectiveness rated at 98% (Logan 2010). What needs to be 

noted about this audit is that it only represents logging operations who responded to grant access to the team of auditors. This 

implementation study is therefore skewed towards higher compliance operations. Implementation rates in states with voluntary BMPs 

are essentially compliance rates based on a subset of logging operations that have agreed to be audited; they measure the correctness of 

implementation, not the overall rate of implementation. In terms of assessing actual implementation rates, these studies fall significantly 

short and offer a skewed interpretation of BMP implementation. States with mandatory BMPs, such as those states with Forest Practices 

Acts, may offer a more unbiased analysis of BMP implementation; however, correlation with improved water quality at state levels is 

still lacking and the incorporation of legacy forest roads into Forest Practice Rules is still a significant issue. 

Moving Forward 

Impacts on water quality from silviculture-related activities persist in the West, even under contemporary forest practices controlled by 

state legislation such as Forest Practices Acts and Streamside Management Acts. This can be attributed to a lack of consistent, mandatory 

BMPs and the need to address the stormwater impacts from legacy logging roads. The non-regulatory nature of current forestry BMPs 

prevents these BMPs from realizing their full potential, especially in states without progressive and mandatory Forest Practice Rules.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 5, Response 7, Response 8, Response 15, and the preamble to the 

final rule. 

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.003

Author Name: Snyder William

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 15

California has made and continues to make great gains in protecting water bodies from logging road related non-point source water 

pollution under the Z'Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act (FPA) and the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), as well as California's 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) and the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). A clarification, such as the one 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-173

proposed by EPA in response to the decision by the Ninth Circuit, is needed to avoid regulatory uncertainty that would put this and future 

progress at risk. 

California's FPRs minimize road sediment delivery to watercourse channels. The FPRs and the current non-point source (NPS) 

approach to forest roads in California require landowners to install a sufficient number of drainage structures per mile of road to prevent 

water quality problems. In the current NPS approach, forest land owners who conduct timber operations must provide properly 

functioning road drainage structures as necessary to protect water quality and meet the conditions of both their permitted plan and their 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) NPS permit (Conditional Waiver or General Waster Discharge Requirements 

(WDR)). Monitoring results and research studies have demonstrated that the FPRs are highly effective in protecting water quality when 

properly implemented. 

CAL FIRE emphasizes that with the proposed EPA clarification, the following will occur:

• Continued applicability and enforcement of road-related FPRs designed as best management practices (BMPs) to protect water quality 

during construction, maintenance and use. 

• Continued applicability and enforcement of project-specific Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) water quality related road mitigations. 

• Future applicability and enforcement of the currently pending package of improvements in the road-related FPRs designed to protect 

water quality, including the requirement for hydrologic disconnection of logging roads from watercourses to the extent feasible 

(preventing turbid water from a road or and inside ditch to reach a watercoruse).

• Continued applicability and enforcement of road-related measures and mitigations contained in Conditional Waivers (Waivers), 

Watershed-wide Water Discharge Requirements (WWDRs), and BMP-based Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation 

measures.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0274-A1.001.003

Author Name: Graham Owen

Organization: Alaska Forest Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 15

These minor discharges are best managed through Best Management Practices. The State of Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation has regulations addressing the pollution control requirements within the State and the State of Alaska also has a Forest 

Practices Act that includes BMPs for constructing and maintaining logging roads and other logging activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-174

Comment ID 0276-A1.001.003

Author Name: Paul DeLong Ken Johnson

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

Issue Category: 15

In Wisconsin, we have monitored nearly 600 timber sales since 1995 and found that Wisconsin's forestry best management practices 

(BMPs) are correctly used over 90% of the time across all forest landowners and that when BMPs are used, water quality impacts are not 

observed over 99% oftime. This demonstrates the success of Wisconsin's Forestry BMPs program in protecting water quality during 

forest management activities in our state.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 15. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 16: Regulating Stormwater 

Discharges From Forest Roads

Pages 2-175 to 2-190

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-175

16. REGULATING STORMWATER DISCHARGES FROM FOREST 

ROADS

Comment ID 0188-A1.001.003

Author Name: Koehn Steven

Organization: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

Issue Category: 16

Responding to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown by requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads would have 

created an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that forestry best management practices are widely 

used, over 80% in Maryland, and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses, these 

additional costs are not defensible from any standpoint.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.003

Author Name: Morgan Charlie

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Commission (MS FC)

Issue Category: 16

Responding to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown by requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads would have 

created an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that forestry best management practices are widely used 

and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land -uses these additional costs are not 

defensible from any standpoint.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.005

Author Name: Brian S. Keiling Howard M. Persinger, Jr.

Organization: West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

Issue Category: 16

The cost of changing from BMPs to another regulatory approach to forest roads would be an unnecessary burden on the landowners 

attempting to maintain productive forestland. We urge the EPA not to pursue what is likely to be a premature, unnecessary, and 

extremely costly change from its longstanding treatment of forest roads as non-point sources. 

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-176

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0191-A1.001.003

Author Name: Garrison, III Carl

Organization: Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DF)

Issue Category: 16

Responding to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown by requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads would have 

created an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that forestry best management practices are widely used 

and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses these additional costs are not 

defensible from any standpoint.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.003

Author Name: Casey Linda

Organization: Alabama Forestry Commission (AL FC)

Issue Category: 16

Responding to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown by requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads would have 

created an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that forestry best management practices are widely used 

and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses fhese additional costs are not 

defensible from any standpoint.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.003

Author Name: Dye Charles

Organization: West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)

Issue Category: 16

Responding to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown by requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads would have 

created an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that forestry best management practices are widely used 

and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses these additional costs are not 

defensible from any standpoint.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-177

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.004

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 16

In that regard, we encourage the USEP A to pursue flexible management measures and other performance-based, non-regulatory 

approaches of implementing best management practices (BMPs) to manage stormwater runoff from forest roads and other 

landdisturbing practices that are directly associated with silvicultural activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.007

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 16

Noteworthy in the Notice of Intent are detailed descriptions of how various federal land management agencies inventory, manage, and 

track the usage of roads on their lands. While we applaud those federal agencies for their work on this matter, there can be no expectation 

that non-federal forest owners undertake such a similar inventory of their roads. Such an impractical requirement to inventory and report 

on the extent of forest roads by each forest property owner in the United States would overwhelm the USEP A or its delegated state 

agency with data and information that frankly would be oflittle value; while at the same time could be construed as de-facto permitting or 

undue property encumbrance. In addition, the costs to our nation's forest owners for inventorying their roads would unquestionably drive 

more conversion of forest lands to other non-forest land uses, as property owners would continue to be "penalized by policy" for their 

intent to sustain the forests of the United States.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.006

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 16

Focusing on an issue about which AFRC members have expressed concern, AFRC asks that EPA assure that the clarifications made in 

the rule are sufficiently broad to resolve the issues of regulation of silvicultural sources generally, not just forest roads or logging roads. 

For example, there is a distinct difference between log storage facilities and log storage on a harvest site. Specifically, we suggest EPA 

reiterate the interpretations it set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-178

Industrial Activity, in which it made clear that: 

Discharges from nonpoint source silvicultural activities, including harvesting operations . . . are not required to be covered. It is EPA's 

determination [that] harvesting activities include: the felling, skidding, preparation (e.g. delimbing and trimming), loading and initial 

transport of forest products from an active harvest site. . . . EPA also interprets the definition of harvesting operations to include 

incidental stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on the harvest site prior to its initial transport to either an intermediate 

storage area or other processing site. EPA considers this activity to be an inherent part of harvesting operations. 

60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50835 (1995). 

This would promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion. EPA should explicitly state that (i) all silvicultural nonpoint source 

activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities; and (ii) that incidental log stacking, 

sorting, and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site does not transform that timber harvesting into an industrial 

activity. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 9 and Response 10. Refer also to Response 7, Response 8, Response 12, Response 13, and the preamble to 

today's rule. 

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.006

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would probably mean lowering my standards for stormwater control 

and hurt attempts to control invasive species infestations. As a practicing professional civil engineer and facilities manager I have 

dealt repeatedly with the NPDES permitting system and it is not the appropriate system to use to regulate forestry practices, or road and 

trail systems in the United States. Carrying this bureaucracy over into the working forest would definitely result in major economic loss 

to landowners, the forest harvesting industry, and the wood products industry. In fact, this appears to be the reasoning behind the original 

lawsuit by the environmental group instigating the lawsuit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.006

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 16
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-179

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. I work at a Civil Engineering firm and one of my jobs is to create Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plans (SWPPP's) in order to obtain an NPDES General Permit for utility projects where the disturbed area is over 1 acre. Our 

minimum fee is $5,000 to create this plan. As a Tree Farmer a cost of this amount would literally put most of us out of business. Our 

current timber sale is for 132 acres. A SWPPP of that size would cost $10,000 or more for a Tree Farmer and require construction of 

numerous water holding structures at a large cost. SWPPP's can only be prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer or Landscape 

architect so landowner's would literally not be able to sell timber because the SWPPP cost would be too large.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.006

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself. The roads on our tree farm have been established for decades, are 

stabilized with vegetation, and pose no threat to water quality. To go back and permit these roads would be a bureaucratic exercise that 

would add unnecessary cost in resources that would be better spent growing trees. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.006

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for storm water discharges from forest 

roads would just cost more for certified family forest owners, like my self and it would make it difficult for me to justify continued 

ownership in the face of escalating property taxes. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0216.001.003
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-180

Author Name: Mundt L.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 16

Additional permits requirements are unnecessary, redundant, and burdensome. Additional costs and regulations are unwelcome.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0217.001.002

Author Name: Doggett Coleman

Organization: Doggett Tree Farms

Issue Category: 16

I am very concerned that more expensive and time-consuming Federal Permits will be required on our Family Tree Farms. I have seen 

several estimates of the substantial cost that such regulations would add to logging. Already, the business of Tree Farming is becoming 

marginally profitable with falling product demand and stumpage prices. If such a permit system is added to our already burdensome 

regulations (Pesticides, Rare and Endangered Spp, Property and Income Taxes., etc.) I think that our only option will be to sell our 

properties, some of which have been in our family for over 100 years, and move our funds into more profitable ventures. I hope to never 

have to resort to such a course of action. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0219-A2.001.003

Author Name: Covar Zak

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

Issue Category: 16

The Notice of Proposed Revisions indicates that EPA did not intend logging roads to be regulated as industrial facilities and that the 

revised language is to clarify that intent. However, the notice also indicates that EPA believes stormwater discharges from forest roads, 

including logging roads, should be evaluated under section 402(p)(6) of the Clean Water Act. EPA indicates that this section allows for 

a broad range of flexible approaches that may be better suited to address the complexity of forest road ownership, management, and use. 

The TCEQ reiterates its comment made on EPA's 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 which was published in the May 23, 2012 Federal Register. It appears that the broad 

category of forest roads would not include mechanisms for conveying stormwater to a point of discharge. Any impacts which may be 

attributed to forest roads are more appropriately addressed under the Clean Water Act Section 319, Nonpoint Source Management 

Programs. The TCEQ requests that EPA use non-regulatory approaches to the maximum extent possible in addressing water quality 

impacts from forest roads.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-181

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0219-A2.001.005

Author Name: Covar Zak

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

Issue Category: 16

EPA indicated in the previously published 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 (May 23, 2012) that it recognizes a "one-size-fitsall" approach may not be appropriate for addressing 

forest roads across the numerous and different situations which exist in the various states. In comments on the Notice of Intent, the 

TCEQ noted that EPA's review of their ATTAINS database revealed that logging roads were identified as a specific impairment source 

in only 0.003 percent of impaired rivers and streams and 0.0005 percent of impaired lakes, reservoirs and ponds compared to silviculture 

activities which are among the top twelve probable sources of impairment for rivers, streams and coastal shorelines. The disparity in the 

percent of impairments from logging, versus the identification of logging as a probable source appears to indicate that water quality 

impacts from these activities may be extremely localized. Further, it is stated in the Notice of Intent that "[T]here is evidence that the 

majority of the water quality impacts caused by discharges from forest roads can be attributed to a relatively small subset of forest roads 

and often a small portion of those roads." The TCEQ continues to strongly encourage EPA to evaluate sufficient data to determine 

whether forest roads pose a threat to water quality prior to taking any action on this issue. If local impacts are identified, EPA is strongly 

encouraged to address these impacts with the applicable states rather than attempting to impose a nation-wide approach.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13.

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.006

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for storm water discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners like me, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent things 

like fire and invasive species infestations. The burden of losing all my Ash trees to the Emerald Ash Borer is enough. I do not need to 

deal with more regulations. I am sure you know about the Asian Long Horned Beetle.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-182

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.006

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. My timber values would be greatly reduced because costs for permits are expensive 

making smaller timber tracts worthless, which would cause less diversity in forest management. Tract sizes would have to increase to 

justify management costs. This would cause land values to fall or land use to change.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.006

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 16

Threats to Water Quality Cannot Be Solved by Regulations 

The decision by the Ninth Circuit Court to regulate forest roads as point sources of pollution sends the wrong message about the threats 

to water quality in our country. The real threats to clean water from family‐owned forests are not from owners who do not implement 

BMP's or from owners who produce runoff from logging roads. The real threats to water quality protection on family forests are the 

pressures families face from phenomena outside their control-the developer offering $20,000 an acre to convert their land to condos, the 

estate tax bill weighing on children that forces them to sell off their land, or the catastrophic wildfire or hurricane that destroys their 

stream buffers. These threats can't be solved with additional clean water regulations. To best address the threats, we need to give family 

forest owners the tools, policies, and strong markets that encourage them to keep their forests as forests. 

Ultimately, additional regulations on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from 

forest roads, could place an unnecessary burden on family forest owners with implications for forest health and economic viability. A 

lengthy, bureaucratic permit process could delay time-sensitive forest management activities, such as invasive species removal or fire 

prevention. A permitting process could also add costs to the already strapped family forest owner. Tree farming is already very 

cost-intensive, and families often generate income only once every few decades, if at all. A new permitting process would add costs as 

landowners work to keep their forests healthy with little financial return. Tree Farmers struggle every day to keep their land healthy and 

keep it a forest. With an added permit burden, more owners will find it difficult to hold on to their forest, putting more forests - and 

therefore our clean water supply - at risk.

Response 

Please refer to Response 12 and Response 13.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-183

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.002

Author Name: Douglas Denico Heather Parent

Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Forest Service (ME DEP and MFS)

Issue Category: 16

Changing federal regulation to require a NPDES permit for logging roads would have created an unnecessary cost burden for both 

landowners and government with no discernible environmental benefit, given that forestry BMP's are widely used and that water quality 

in forested landscapes already is consistently higher than other land uses. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0239-A2.001.004

Author Name: Douglas Denico Heather Parent

Organization: Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Maine Forest Service (ME DEP and MFS)

Issue Category: 16

We believe that increasingly scarce resources (of both the public and private sectors) would be better used on training, technical 

assistance, implementation of BMP practices by landowners and regular monitoring of BMP implementation and effectiveness. These

activities stand a better chance of maintaining the high water quality Maine's working forests already produce than an increased permit 

burden would.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to Response 14. 

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.006

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. 

We need forest roads to manage our property and the adjoining State, Federal and other Private Lands need use of the roads that cross our 

land. Many of these roads have been in existence for over 100 years, land owners, government agencies like wild land fire fighters and 

the public utilize these roads. Additional permitting on these roads and any new roads needed in the future will make it "Cost 

Prohibitive" to continue with the current processes (as described above) we are doing to improve the property, control disease and 

improve the water quality, let alone maintain stream quality, and we also need to have the ability to make enough profit from our forest 

lands to continue what we are currently doing. We manage a family owned property that has been in our family since 1935 and as the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-184

costs to meet with all the regulations continue to increase it is becoming more difficult to manage the lands and more regulation could 

prohibit more improvement projects in the future. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 15. 

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.004

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 16

Should the decision by the Ninth Circuit court of appeals in the case of NEDC vs. Brown (2011) stand (a decision that would overturn 

more than 35 years of national precedent with regard to logging and forest management practices), our company's access to sustainably 

managed and economically priced fiber and fuel would be adversely impacted.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0247-A1.001.003

Author Name: Geissler George

Organization: Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (OK DAFF)

Issue Category: 16

Requiring a NPDES permit for logging roads in response to the Ninth Circuit Court's decision in NEDC vs. Brown would have created a 

large and unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government agencies assigned with its enforcement. Given that forestry 

BMPs are widely accepted and used, and that water quality from forested landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses, 

these additional costs cannot be defended. Oklahoma's forestry BMP compliance rate currently exceeds 92 percent, and very few water 

quality problems attributed to forestry activity, including roads, are found during our surveys. The administrative and regulatory 

demands of a permitting program will result in little or no additional benefits to water quality.

Response 

Please refer to Response Response 1, Response 12 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.004

Author Name: Poling Jan

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Issue Category: 16

Second, if EPA continues with this rulemaking process, to avoid further confusion and regulatory uncertainty, AF&PA proposes that 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-185

EPA also explicitly clarify in the preamble that logging/harvesting activities are not industrial activities. EPA should state explicitly that 

the silvicultural nonpoint source activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting operations, are not industrial 

activities, and that incidental log stacking, sorting, and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site do not transform 

timber harvesting into an industrial activity. This would be consistent with and support the existing regulatory definition of silviculture 

point source "log sorting and log storage facilities", which is limited only to facilities whose discharges "result from the holding of 

unprocessed wood, for example, logs or roundwood with bark or after removal of bark held in self-contained bodies of water (mill ponds 

or log ponds) or stored on land where water is applied intentionally on the logs (wet decking)" (40 CFR 122.27(b)(3)) (emphasis added). 

EPA also could reiterate the interpretations it set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges 

Associated with Industrial Activity, in which it made clear that: 

Discharges from nonpoint source silvicultural activities, including harvesting operations . . . are not required to be covered. It is EPA's 

determination [that] harvesting activities include: the felling, skidding, preparation (e.g. delimbing and trimming), loading and initial 

transport of forest products from an active harvest site . . .EPA also interprets the definition of harvesting operations to include incidental 

stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on the harvest site prior to its initial transport to either an intermediate storage area or 

other processing site. EPA considers this activity to be an inherent part of harvesting operations. 

60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50835 (1995). These clarifications would solidify the appropriate scope of Phase I regulations as applied to 

silviculture. 

Finally, the preamble to the Proposed Rule refers to "stormwater discharges" that could be subject to Phase II regulation. Given the 

current dispute in the NEDC v. Brown on whether forest roads are point or nonpoint sources, and given recent Supreme Court precedent 

interpreting the term "discharge," S. D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006), AF&PA 

recommends that EPA make clear that Phase II regulation under Section 402(p)(6) is limited to point source discharges of stormwater.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 8. Refer also to Response 6, Response 9, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.003

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 16

The proposed revision removes some of the uncertainty created by the Ninth Circuit Court's May 2011 decision in NEDC vs. Decker. If 

"logging roads" require a permit, then Oregon and other similarly situated states must overlay their long-standing programs for 

regulating forest road stormwater runoff with a permitting program - a program that the EPA is not required to establish, and has 

expressly chosen not to establish. This permit program would only apply to a subset of forest roads, those that directly access a logging 

unit. This subset of roads would change every year, creating the administrative challenge of managing two overlapping regulatory 

frameworks. This approach would create an unnecessary cost burden for both landowners and government. Given that Oregon has 

established a comprehensive forestry BMP program and that forested landscapes have higher water quality than other land uses, these 

additional costs are not defensible from any standpoint.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-186

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 5. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 13.

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.005

Author Name: Brandt Wayne

Organization: Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

Issue Category: 16

If EPA processds to act without awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion, MFI recommends that the EPA assure the clarifications made in 

the rule are sufficiently broad to resolve the issues of regulation of silvicultural sources, not just forest roads or logging roads. For 

example, there is a distinct difference between log storage facilities and log storage on a harvest site. Specifically, we suggest EPA 

reiterate the interpretations it set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 

Industrial Activity, in which it made clear that: 

Discharges from nonpoint source silvicultural activities, including harvesting operations . . . are not required to be covered. It is EPA's 

determination [that] harvesting activities include: the felling, skidding, preparation (e.g. delimbing and trimming), loading and initial 

transport of forest products from an active harvest site. . . . EPA also interprets the definition of harvesting operations to include 

incidental stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on the harvest site prior to its initial transport to either an intermediate 

storage area or other processing site. EPA considers this activity to be an inherent part of harvesting operations. 

60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50835 (1995). 

This would promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion. EPA should explicitly state that (i) all silvicultural nonpoint source 

activities listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities; and (ii) that incidental log stacking, 

sorting, and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site does not transform that timber harvesting into an industrial 

activity. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1, Response 7, Response 8, and Response 11. Refer also to Response 6, Response 9, and the preamble to today's 

rule. 

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.006

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on private forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for private forest owners and make it difficult for me to help them act quickly to prevent things like fire and 

invasive species infestations.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-187

Response 

Please refer to Response 13.

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.006

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. I have seen how additional expenses, such as this one, result in reduced financial returns 

for forest landowners and can force them to convert forest land to other uses, such as residential development. I hope that you will agree 

that runoff from residential housing creates as much, if not more, of a problem than forest road runoff. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.006

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for storm water discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. If a permitting is required, the burden will be on industry as well as private landowners. 

The burden would also be an insurmountable expense of time and money for the federal government and agencies where those extra 

costs are unnecessary. That burden would hamper the entire forestry industry in Alabama making it a burden for those forest landowners 

who may see that this is too much of a problem to adequately and effectively do good silvicultural management. This proposed 

permitting will do more harm than good. Let the states regulate forest roads through our own systems that have been effective for 

decades.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.006

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 16

Focusing on an issue about which FFRC members have expressed concern, we ask that EPA assure that the clarifications made in the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-188

rule are sufficiently broad to resolve the issues of regulation of silvicultural sources generally, not just forest roads or logging roads. For 

example, there is a distinct difference between log storage facilities and log storage on a harvest site. Specifically, we suggest EPA 

reiterate the interpretations it set forth in issuing the 1995 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with 

Industrial Activity, in which it made clear that: 

Discharges from nonpoint source silvicultural activities, including harvesting operations . . . are not required to be covered. It is EPA's 

determination [that] harvesting activities include: the felling, skidding, preparation (e.g. delimbing and trimming), loading and initial 

transport of forest products from an active harvest site. . . . EPA also interprets the definition of harvesting operations to include 

incidental stacking and temporary storage of harvested timber on the harvest site prior to its initial transport to either an intermediate 

storage area or other processing site. EPA considers this activity to be an inherent part of harvesting operations. 

60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50835 (1995). 

This would promote regulatory clarity and avoid confusion. EPA should explicitly state that (i) all silvicultural nonpoint source activities 

listed in 40 C.F.R. § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting, are not industrial activities; and (ii) that incidental log stacking, sorting, 

and/or storage that may occur at an active timber harvesting site does not transform that timber harvesting into an industrial activity.

Response 

Please refer to Response 7 and Response 8. Refer also to Response 6, Response 9, Response 11, and the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.006

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 16

The additional requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest roads would be very costly in time and money for 

our timberland property. Our family is proud of the excellent job we are doing with stormwater management under our current Oregon 

Forest Practices Act, without the requirement of a NPDES permit.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to Response 15. 

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.006

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 16

Any additional regulations on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like me, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent things 

like fire and invasive species infestations. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-189

Furthermore, in this fast paced world, timber markets can be very difficult to time. If onerous permits were required then thousands of 

dollars could be lost plus the added costs of getting the permit would lower the profits further from a timber sale. Additional regulation 

costs will also make it harder and harder for me to keep the land as a Tree Farm. Local property taxes continue to increase and beginning 

January 1st, capital gains tax rates are also scheduled to go up. From a profitability stand point, increasing taxes and costly regulations 

only entice me to develop the land for higher and better uses such as residential property. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.006

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 16

An additional regulation on family forest owners, such as the requirement of an NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from forest 

roads would be costly for family forest owners, like myself, and it would make it difficult for me to act quickly on my land to prevent 

things like fire and invasive species infestations. We also have blowdowns from time to time. When they occur in the warmer weather 

we have a short period of time to get white pine out before it blue stains and loses its economic value. We have to go in and get it. A 

permitting process would not only deprive us of our income it would leave our woods clogged with down trees. This presents a fire 

danger and is a safety issue as fire and rescue would not be able to get in if someone got lost or injured in the woods.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.009

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 16

Actions that create management certainty and avoid undue economic burdens help keep managed forest competitive internationally and 

with alternative land-use activities.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13. Refer also to Response 4, Response 5, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.005

Author Name: Snyder William
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-190

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 16

Further CAL FIRE believes given: (1) the number of miels of logging roads, (2) the number of these roads with multiple-uses, (3) the 

potential number of discharge points to be regulated individually, and (4) the problem of determining which road drainage structures 

discharge into groundcover and which discharge into the waters of the United States, that a NPDES permit approach to regulating 

logging road runoff would be a costly approach that would undermine the existing effective and efficient approaches currently in use that 

are regulating logging road runoff in California. For example, millions of dollars of public and private money are expended yearly on 

upgrading or decommissioning (i.e., closing or removing) problem logging roads and stream crossings. A new requirement for NPDES 

permits, requiring both a considerable amount of landowner funds and resource professional time, will serve as a disincentive to 

continuing this valuable work that is improving both water quality and habitats for native and anadromous salmonids.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13.

Comment ID 0277-A1.001.003

Author Name: O'Neill William

Organization: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

Issue Category: 16

Changing federal regulation to require a NPDES permit for logging roads would have created an unnecessary cost burden for both 

landowners and government. Giveen that forestry best management practices are widely used and that water quality from forested 

landscapes is already consistently higher than other land uses, these additional costs are not defensible from any standpoint.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 13. Refer also to Response 15 and to the preamble to the final rule. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 17: Assertions that the EPA 

Should Provide Funding to States

Page 2-191

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-191

17. ASSERTIONS THAT THE EPA SHOULD PROVIDE FUNDING TO 

STATES

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.005

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 17

The costs associated with the management of the overall water quality and BMP program within the N.C. Forest Service can be roughly 

evaluated for the State Fiscal Year 2010-2011 by taking the number of hours dedicated to water quality and BMP program delivery (27 

,700 as noted earlier), and applying a conservative personnel pay rate to those hours ($25/hour; not including operating costs or fringe 

benefits). The resulting cost of $692,500 does not account for individual 319-Grants or other grants awarded to the N.C. Forest Service 

during that time which were specifically used for water quality, BMP, and nonpoint source project implementation. 

Given the flexibility that the USEPA has in administering stormwater discharges through the NPDES, we encourage a broader 

application of the USEP A's authorities described within Section 319 of the Clean Water Act to provide funding assistance to state 

forestry agencies in the ongoing development and monitoring of silvicultural and forest road BMPs. 

Since 2004, the N.C. Forest Service has produced a "Year in Review" brochure which summarizes water quality and nonpoint source 

program accomplishments and success stories which have directly resulted from the availability of Section 319 grants (and other grants) 

to the N.C. Forest Service. Enhanced monitoring of forest roads, and other forestry-related activities, could be possible through 

additional, recurring funding allocations to the N.C. Forest Service, either through the Section 319-Grant Program or other funding 

sources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 14. Refer also to Response 15. 
Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads

Issue Category 18: References, 

Descriptions, and Other Information

Received

Pages 2-191 to 2-235 

Response to Public Comments

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit 

is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads 

November 30, 2012

Docket #: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195

 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-192

18. REFERENCES, DESCRIPTIONS, AND OTHER INFORMATION

RECEIVED

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.001

Author Name: Dessecker Dan

Organization: Ruffed Grouse Society

Issue Category: 18

The Ruffed Grouse Society appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to clarify 

that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads as 

outlined in the EPA's 4 September 2012 Federal Register release.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 1. 

Comment ID 0185-A1.001.003

Author Name: Dessecker Dan

Organization: Ruffed Grouse Society

Issue Category: 18

Wildlife dependent upon the young forest habitats created today only through active forest management are experiencing precipitous 

population declines throughout much of the eastern United States. Birds of shrub-dominated or young forest habitats in the eastern 

United States that are currently federally listed under the Endangered Species Act include the endangered Kirtland's warbler (Dendroica 

kirtlandii) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) and the threatened Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens). 

The ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) and American woodcock (Scolopax minor) are important 

game birds throughout much of the eastern United States. These three species are experiencing population declines throughout 

significant portions of this region (Dimmick et al. 2002, Dessecker and McAuley 2004, Cooper and Parker 2009). 

Breeding Bird Survey data (1966 - 2010) document that 53% of the bird species characteristic of shrub-dominated or young forest 

habitats in the eastern United States are experiencing population declines, whereas only 29% are increasing. Conversely, within this 

same landscape and interval, 58% of the bird species characteristic of mature forest habitats are experiencing population increases, 

whereas only 29% are declining. 

Approximately 70% of the forestland in the eastern United States is controlled by nonindustrial private forest landowners.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 12. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-193

Comment ID 0186.001.001

Author Name: Anonymous Anonymous

Organization: 

Issue Category: 18

The intent of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System was to eliminate, to the extent practicably possible, discharge of 

sediment and other pollutants into streams, rivers, and lakes. The Clean Water Act establishes specific guidelines that the EPA must 

follow in determining how best to implement the act, and uses specific language in order to specify what discharges must be included in 

the agency's regulatory schemes.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to the preamble of today's rule. 

Comment ID 0187-A1.001.002

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 18

As set forth in the Notice, both EPA's proposed rulemaking and the pending U.S. Supreme Court cases spring from the Ninth Circuit's 

decision in NEDC v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in response to two petitions filed 

by the State of Oregon and forest products industry parties (U.S. Nos. 11-338 and 11-347). EPA is concurrently pursuing a regulatory 

response to the Ninth Circuit decision through the Notice. The Solicitor General filed an amicus brief to the Court in support of 

Petitioners on September 4, 2012. In that brief, the Solicitor General discusses the Notice, the legal issues implicated by both the Notice 

and the Ninth Circuit decision, as well as the effect on the litigation of any EPA final action on the Notice.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 5. 

Comment ID 0188-A1.001.001

Author Name: Koehn Steven

Organization: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MD DNR)

Issue Category: 18

The Maryland DNR Forest Service is responsible for arranging forest harvest operator Best Management Practice (BMP) training 

required for Maryland's sediment and erosion control regulations. We provide voluntary technical assistance in implementing forest 

harvesting BMPs and periodically assess statewide BMP implementation rates and effectiveness of the State's forest harvesting 

practices.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-194

Comment ID 0189-A1.001.001

Author Name: Morgan Charlie

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Commission (MS FC)

Issue Category: 18

The Mississippi Forestry Commission is responsible for wildland fire protection on 19 8 million acres, providing management assistance 

and forest information to non-industrial landowners and managing 480,000 acres of 16th School Trust Lands.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0190-A1.001.001

Author Name: Brian S. Keiling Howard M. Persinger, Jr.

Organization: West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA)

Issue Category: 18

On behalf of the West Virginia Land and Mineral Owners Association (WVLMOA), please consider the following comments in 

response to the "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 Comments on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality Impacts from Forest Road 

Discharges", published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 77 Fed. Reg. 30473 (May 23, 2012). 

The WVLMOA represents concerned West Virginians and is a collective voice to protect and advance the interests of the land and 

mineral owners within our state.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0191-A1.001.001

Author Name: Garrison, III Carl

Organization: Virginia Department of Forestry (VA DF)

Issue Category: 18

The Virginia Department of Forestry is responsible for oversight and enforcement of the silvicultural water quality program in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-195

Comment ID 0192-A1.001.001

Author Name: Casey Linda

Organization: Alabama Forestry Commission (AL FC)

Issue Category: 18

The Alabama Forestry Commission is committed to protecting and sustaining our forest resources using professionally applied 

stewardship principles and education. We will ensure Alabama's forests contribute to abundant timber and wildlife, clean air and water, 

and a healthy economy.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0193-A1.001.001

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 18

This is a request by the American Forest Resource Council and its members for a suspension of the public comment period on a proposed 

revision to 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) published in the Federal Register September 4, 2012. 

AFRC is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Oregon. It represents over 50 forest products manufacturers 

throughout the West, primarily in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana. Its members depend upon timber harvested from 

public lands as a source of supply. Many are direct purchasers of federal timber and as such will be directly affected by any changes in 

how forest roads accessing that timber are regulated. Moreover, its employees live and work near federal forest lands and utilize forest 

roads for recreation and to secure firewood.

Response 

Please refer to Response 2. Refer also to Response 15.

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.001

Author Name: O'Rourke, Sr. Thomas

Organization: Yurok Tribe

Issue Category: 18

The Yurok Tribe appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater 

Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-196

Comment ID 0194-A1.001.005

Author Name: O'Rourke, Sr. Thomas

Organization: Yurok Tribe

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions clarifying NPDES permits are not required for logging 

roads. We look forward to continuing to work with you and applicable staff in the future on this very important issue. If you have any 

questions or concerns please feel free to contact Ken Fetcho, Assistant Director, Yurok Tribe Environmental Program at 707-954-1523 

or at kfetcho@yuroktribe.nsn.us.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0195-A1.001.004

Author Name: Leonard Young Ted Sturdevant

Organization: State of Washington Department of Natural Resources and State of Washington Department of Ecology (WA DNR and 

Ecology)

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the Seattle listening session that you convened to hear from stakeholders and also the states. The information that was 

shared at the meeting and the information that was forwarded to EPA by Ecology and DNR after the meeting should prove helpful in this 

process. 

Thank you for your time and consideration of these issues. We look forward to further discussion with EPA on the Phase II regulatory 

approach. Please contact Stephen Bernath from the Washington State Department of Ecology at (360) 

407-6459/stephen.bernath@ecy.wa.gov or Darin Cramer from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources at (360) 

902-1088/ darin.cramer@dnr.wa.gov if you have any questions.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1. Refer also to Response 13 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0196-A1.001.001

Author Name: Dye Charles

Organization: West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF)

Issue Category: 18

The West Virginia Division of Forestry (WVDOF) is responsible for implementing the requirements of West Virginia code §19-1B, 

"Sediment Control During Commercial Timber Harvesting Operations", also known by its short title, the Logging Sediment Control Act 

(LSCA). This state law which requires Silvicultural BMP's is one of the most stringent in the nation. It gives the WVDOF the authority 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-197

to be notified of timbering operations, inspect timbering operations, and take both civil and criminal action against violators.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0197-A1.001.001

Author Name: Bonnet Michelle

Organization: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (AK DEC)

Issue Category: 18

The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is providing the following comments in response to the September 4,

2012 Federal Register "Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads."

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0198-A1.001.001

Author Name: Dructor Daniel

Organization: American Loggers Council (ALC)

Issue Category: 18

The American Loggers Council is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The American Loggers Council represents professional timber harvesters across the United States. Our mission includes promoting 

sustainable timber harvesting practices and working with private, federal and industrial timberland owners.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0199-A1.001.001

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 18

North Carolina's forest landowners, numbering in excess of 600,000 individuals, are responsible for the stewardship of nearly two-thirds 

of the state's 18 million acres of forest land. These family-owned forests can only be sustained when there is an unambiguous, effective, 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-198

reasonable, and affordable regulatory environment in which to manage, grow, harvest, and renew their forest lands.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.001

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 18

In addition to supporting the enclosed comments of the Southern Group of State Foresters, the North Carolina Forest Service provides 

the following comments specific to how stormwater runofffrom forest roads and associated forestry BMPs are managed in North 

Carolina.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0199-A2.001.008

Author Name: Owen Wib

Organization: North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NC DACS)

Issue Category: 18

To learn more about the potential financial hardship that NPDES permitting for forest roads would incur, we encourage the US EPA to 

evaluate a 20II report prepared by two professors from N.C. State University, entitled "Potential Administrative and Economic Impacts 

ofNPDES Permit Requirements for Forest Roads in the South," available at the following website: 

http://nafoalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/Road-Permit-Costs-in-Southl.pdf

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0200-A1.001.001

Author Name: Crawford Cam

Organization: South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA)

Issue Category: 18

The South Carolina Forestry Association is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (91 h Cir. 2011). 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-199

The South Carolina Forestry Association (SCFA) represents the wood and paper products industry. Our mission is to maintain and 

secure adoption of local, state, and federal policies that encourage management, utilization, and conservation of forest resources while 

maintaining or strengthening the pro-business climate for the wood and paper products industry.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0201-A1.001.001

Author Name: Vandersteen C.A.

Organization: The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA)

Issue Category: 18

The Louisiana Forestry Association would appreciate your consideration of our comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011) 

The Louisiana Forestry Association (LFA) is a not-for-profit trade association representing forest landowners, loggers, and the forest 

industry in Louisiana. The purpose of LFA is to promote healthy, productive forests through the practice of sustainable forestry. Our 

foresters and loggers receive training in Best Management Practices and are issues certificates for training and monitored for 

compliance. LFA supports the American Tree Farm System and Sustainable Forestry Initiative programs to certify that forestlands are 

certified to the highest standards of forest sustainability. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0202-A1.001.001

Author Name: Slocum, Jr. Robert

Organization: NC Forestry Association (NCFA)

Issue Category: 18

The NC Forestry Association is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The NC Forestry Association (NCFA) is a not-for-profit conservation organization that "actively promotes healthy, productive forests 

by supporting the efforts of landowners and forestry-related businesses and organizations who responsibly manage or use forests. The 

NCFA seeks to serve its membership through four major programs - Legislative Affairs, Training for Forestry Professionals, Education 

and Communications." This association has more than 3,800 members involved in the production of wood and paper products, wood 

suppliers, and forest landowners involved in the management and harvesting of wood. Our members have a vested interest in the 

outcome of the proposed EPA rule and its effect on landowners, timber harvesters and wood companies. The potential cost of this rule 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-200

is significant and will have a direct impact of timber harvesters and landowners. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.001

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 18

The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) offers the following comments on the above Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

AFRC is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Oregon. It represents over 50 forest products manufacturers 

throughout the West, primarily in Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho and Montana. Its members depend upon timber harvested 

from public lands as a source of supply. Many are direct purchasers of federal timber and as such will be directly affected by any 

changes in how forest roads accessing that timber are regulated. Moreover, its employees live and work near federal forest lands and 

utilize forest roads for recreation and to secure firewood. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0203-A1.001.005

Author Name: Partin Tom

Organization: American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

Issue Category: 18

Should EPA decide to act without awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion, AFRC wishes to express its support for the detailed comment 

letter submitted by the National Association of Forestland Owners. 

Again, please consider AFRC’s comments to incorporate the detailed comments of the National Association of Forestland Owners.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0204-A1.001.001

Author Name: Harrelson, Sr. David

Organization: St. Joe Timberland Company of Delaware, LLC

Issue Category: 18
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-201

St. Joe Timberland Company is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

St. Joe Timberland Company owns and manages over 500,000 acres of timberland complete with road system that is often intermingled 

with county roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0205-A1.001.001

Author Name: Schuler Galen

Organization: Green Diamond Resource Company

Issue Category: 18

Green Diamond Resource Company ("Green Diamond") is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth 

Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Green Diamond is a family-owned company established in Washington State 122 years ago. Consistent with its long-term commitment 

to responsible forestry, Green Diamond owns and sustainably manages over 750,000 acres of timberland in California and Washington. 

Green Diamond has a long history of protecting wildlife, water quality and aquatic resources on its forested lands. 

Green Diamond is representative of a forest industry that provides extensive protection for water quality under self-imposed standards 

for land stewardship as well as a variety of existing state and federal programs. In 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service (the "Services") approved a Green Diamond multi-species habitat conservation plan (HCP) for Endangered 

Species Act-listed and unlisted fish and wildlife species on nearly 300,000 acres of timberlands in Washington State. In 2007, the 

Services approved Green Diamond's Aquatic HCP and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (the "AHCP") for 

conservation of listed and unlisted aquatic species on over 384,000 acres of timberland in northern California. Both of these HCPs 

protect water quality and the aquatic resources and beneficial uses of waters flowing from Green Diamond timberlands. 

In addition to the HCPs, Green Diamond timberlands are managed under comprehensive and demanding forest practices regulations and 

permitting processes in California and Washington. Furthermore, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance work on each stream 

crossing is thoroughly regulated in each state. And, in California, Green Diamond is also required to obtain a state water quality permit 

for timber harvests and other forest management activities affecting water quality. All of this has been accomplished without National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting for forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 13. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-202

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.001

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 18

The Professional Logging Contractors of Maine submits the following comments in response to the "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 Comments on Approaches for Addressing Water Quality Impacts From Forest Road Discharges" (N01) published by the 

Environmental protection Agency (EPA) at 77 Fed. Reg. 30473 (May 23, 2012). The Professional Logging Contractors of Maine is a 

non-profit 501 (c)(3) trade organization representing logging contractors in the State of Maine.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0206-A1.001.006

Author Name: Beardsley Michael

Organization: Professional Logging Contractors of Maine (PLCM)

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the opportunity to submit initial comments on proposed process. We plan to stay engaged as you proceed with your 

evaluation and would appreciate inclusion on any stakeholder lists developed for purposes of the evaluation. If we can be of any 

assistance in answering any questions you may have about our state program, please let us know. Finally, we encourage EPA to schedule 

a listening session in Maine or in our region.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0207-A1.001.001

Author Name: Hufford Ronald

Organization: Texas Forestry Association (TFA)

Issue Category: 18

The Texas Forestry Association (TFA) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

TFA is a private non-profit trade association representing 3,000 members who are private forest landowners, consulting foresters, 

professional loggers, processing mills, and businesses that are dependent upon the economic strength of our East Texas forests. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-203

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0208-A1.001.001

Author Name: Robertson Alan

Organization: Pfalzerwald Tree Farm

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0209-A1.001.001

Author Name: Qualman Robert

Organization: Qualman Tree Farm

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0210-A1.001.001

Author Name: Hulka Bryan

Organization: Slade Creek LLC

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-204

Comment ID 0211-A1.001.001

Author Name: Lyskava Paul

Organization: Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA)

Issue Category: 18

The Pennsylvania Forest Products Association (PFPA) offers the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The Pennsylvania Forest Products Association is the leading trade group in the state representing the various sectors of the forest 

products industry. Pennsylvania leads the nation in the production of hardwood lumber. PFPA's membership accounts for approximately 

three-quarters of the state's hardwood lumber production and many of the leading pulp and fiber utilizing manufacturing facilities in the 

state. PFPA's members own or manage more than one million acres of private forest in Pennsylvania.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0212-A1.001.001

Author Name: Hawkinson Deb

Organization: Forest Resources Association Inc. (FRA)

Issue Category: 18

The Forest Resources Association is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The Forest Resources Association is a nonprofit trade association concerned with the safe, efficient, and sustainable harvest of forest 

products and their transport from woods to mill. FRA represents the businesses making up the U.S. wood supply chain-the nation's forest 

land owners and managers, logging contractors and other wood supply businesses, consuming mill procurement organizations, and

support businesses, such as providers of equipment, financial services, and information services.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0213-A1.001.001

Author Name: Drechsel Russell

Organization: Madison Paper Industries

Issue Category: 18

Madison Paper Industries is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-205

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Madison Paper Industries is located in Madison, Maine and produces publications papers utilizing locally sourced wood fiber from 

private landowners throughout the Northeast.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0214-A1.001.001

Author Name: Bush J.R.

Organization: Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA)

Issue Category: 18

The Virginia Forest Products Association (VFPA) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth 

Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

VFPA is a non-profit association representing the forest products industry in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our members represent 

many facets of the forest products production but our typical members would be classed as small businesses, with the majority family 

owned and operated. One of our organization's activities is providing input to government agencies that are involved in the promulgation 

of regulations that impact our industry's collective operations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0215-A1.001.001

Author Name: ZumBahlen Bruce

Organization: Z Acres Tree Farm

Issue Category: 18

I am taking this opportunity to comment in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) that is in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0217.001.001
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-206

Author Name: Doggett Coleman

Organization: Doggett Tree Farms

Issue Category: 18

I am a Family Tree Farmer with Tree Farms in North Carolina and Virginia. I would like to comment on the Notice of Proposed 

Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify That an NPDES Permit is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging 

Roads. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0219-A2.001.001

Author Name: Covar Zak

Organization: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TX CEQ)

Issue Category: 18

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published for public comment the Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater 

Regulations To Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads in the September 4, 

2012 Federal Register. 

The EPA announced proposed revisions to its stormwater regulations to specify that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. In the Notice of Proposal, 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations Section 122.26(b)(14)(ii) is revised to clarify that for the purposes of defining stormwater discharges associated with 

industrial activity, the only activities under SIC code 2411 - Timber Operations, that are "industrial" are rock crushing, gravel washing, 

log sorting, and log storage. 

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) provides the following comments to EPA regarding the Notice of Proposed 

Revisions.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0220-A1.001.001

Author Name: Lange Walter

Organization: Lange Tree Farm

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011). 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-207

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0221-A1.001.001

Author Name: Stuber IV Daniel

Organization: Forest2Market, Inc.

Issue Category: 18

Forest2Market, Inc. is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed 

Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 

F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Forest2Market, Inc. empowers participants in the forest and wood products and bioenergy industries to make exponentially 

better-informed decisions through the strategic application of industry expertise and unique price databases.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0222-A1.001.001

Author Name: Ryder Allan

Organization: Timber Resource Group, Inc. (TRG)

Issue Category: 18

Timber Resource Group Inc is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Timber Resource Group (TRG) is a wood procurement organization that is responsible for buying spruce/fir fogs for Stratton Lumber 

Company, a sawmill located in northwestern Maine sawing 65 million board feet annually. Between the two companies (with the same 

ownership) we employee 60+ people located primarily in Maine, but also New Hampshire and Vermont. Stratton buys logs from several 

hundred log suppliers including logging contractors, landowners and land management companies throughout the northeastern United 

States.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0223-A1.001.001

Author Name: Braswell Max
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-208

Organization: Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 18

The Arkansas Forestry Association (AFA) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

AFA is the only private, nonprofit organization that represents the entire forestry community in Arkansas. With over 1,300 members, 

AFA advocates for the sustainable use and sound stewardship of Arkansas's forests and related resources to benefit members of the 

state's forestry community and all Arkansans, today and in the future.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0224-A1.001.001

Author Name: Karels James

Organization: Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF)

Issue Category: 18

The Southern Group of State Foresters (SGSF) is comprised of the state forestry agency directors in the southern U.S. - namely, Texas, 

Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina and 

Virginia, and Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. These states individually, and collectively as the SGSF, address a multitude of forestry 

issues that affect the region's 208 million acres of forestland, including those related to forest water resources. We welcome the 

opportunity to provide comments in response to the "Notice Of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify That an

NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads," published by the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) at 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (September 4, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0225-A1.001.001

Author Name: Bryant John

Organization: American Forest Management (AFM)

Issue Category: 18

I offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed.Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in responSeto the Ninth Circuit ruling in, NEDC fr. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

My name ls John Bryant and I am employed by American Forest Management (AFM) as Northeast US Region Manager. AFM is one of 

the largest forest consulting firms in the United States. AFM currently manages over 4,7 million acres of privately owned timberland 

employing 250 employees operating from 44 offices located in 15 states, AFM'S team of forestry and support professionals are focused 

on meeting client needs by providing a complete range of forestry services. My responsibilities include oversight of management of 1.1 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-209

million acres of timberland in Maine and New Hampshire, which includes, public use, timber harvesting and road work.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0226-A1.001.001

Author Name: Bauer Robert

Organization: Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA)

Issue Category: 18

The Kentucky Forest Industries Association is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The Kentucky Forest Industries Association (KFIA) represents over 500 member companies throughout Kentucky that manufacture and 

process wood products. All of these companies are reliant on logging to supply their necessary raw material needs. The Association 

works with the entire wood industry and our mission is to help them maintain a viable business while following environmentally sound 

practices. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0227-A1.001.001

Author Name: Racliff Jr. J.

Organization: Mississippi Forestry Association (MFA)

Issue Category: 18

Mississippi Forestry Association ("MFA") is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

MFA, organized in 1938, is a not-for-profit organization representing a broad range of members in Mississippi's forestry community 

such as timberland owners, professional foresters, logging contractors, forest products manufacturers, wood fiber suppliers, state and 

federal agencies, and suppliers of products and services.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-210

Comment ID 0228-A1.001.001

Author Name: Johnson Andrew

Organization: Graphic Packaging International (GPI)

Issue Category: 18

Graphic Packaging International (GPI) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

GPI is a leading provider of packaging solutions for a wide variety of products to food, beverage and other consumer products

companies. We are one of the largest producers of folding cartons and hold a leading market position in coated-unbleached kraft, 

coated-recycled boxboard, multi-wall bag and specialty packaging. The Company's customers include some of the most widely 

recognized companies in the world. As a leading forest products company GPI relies on a sustainable and cost effect forest process for 

the raw materials of our core packaging products.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0229-A1.001.001

Author Name: C. Randy Dye Steven H. Gunderson

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and National Association of State Foresters (NASF)

Issue Category: 18

The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) <FN1> and the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) <FN2> 

appreciate the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA's) notice of proposed rulemaking to revise 

stormwater regulations to specify that a Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is 

not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads under Phase I of the stormwater program. <FN3>

<FN1> ACWA is the national, nonpartisan, professional organization of state, interstate, and territorial water quality

control officials responsible for the implementation of surface water protection programs throughout the nation. ACWA’s members are 

responsible as co-regulators for on-the-ground implementation of the CWA and in 46 states administer the statute’s NPDES program to 

control and limit discharges to waters of the United States.

<FN2> NASF represents the heads of forestry agencies in all fifty states and the US territories. Our principle clientele are private forest 

landowners, though many states also manage significant holdings of publicly owned forests. For decades now, our agencies have worked 

in conjunction with our counterpart state environmental regulatory agencies to successfully administer EPA’s silvicultural exemption 

from NPDES permitting.

<FN3> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (Sept. 4, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-211

Comment ID 0229-A1.001.003

Author Name: C. Randy Dye Steven H. Gunderson

Organization: Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) and National Association of State Foresters (NASF)

Issue Category: 18

We are pleased to provide further input to the Agency as it considers potential approaches for addressing water quality impacts from 

forest road discharges in the future. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Agency's proposal.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0230-A1.001.001

Author Name: Godbout Kevin

Organization: Weyerhaeuser Company

Issue Category: 18

Weyerhaeuser Company submits the following comments on the proposed revisions to stormwater regulations clarifying that and 

NPDES permit is not required from stormwater discharges from logging roads. By our membership association, we support the 

comments submitted by the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO). NAFO is a growing alliance of U.S. private forest owners, 

managers, and organizations dedicated to protecting and enhancing the environmental and economic values of privately owned forests. 

In this notice, EPA is proposing to: 

- Revise stormwater regulation s to specify that discharges from logging roads are not industrial activity and, therefore, not subject to 

mandatory National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Weyerhaeuser supports EPA's proposal to not require 

NPDES stormwater discharge permits from forest roads. However, we suggest that EPA need not finalize the proposed rule while review 

of the NEOC v. Brawn decision is pending resolution before the U.S. Supreme Court. 

- Second, the preamble to the Proposed Rule discusses the Phase II regulatory program under Section 402(06) in connection with EPA's 

actions in response to the partial remand in EDC v. EPA and EPA's recent Notice of Intent. The preamble refers to "storm water 

discharges" that could be subject to Phase II regulations. EPA should clarify that any future Phase II regulation under Section 402(0(6) is 

limited solely to point source discharges of storm water. 

This is a critical issue for Weyerhaeuser Company. Within the U.S., we own and manage the world's largest private inventory of 

high-quality softwood timber comprising roughly 6 million acres located in the Southeast (4 million acres) and the Pacific Northwest (2 

million acres). This ownership pattern spans diverse geographic and hydrological networks ranging from the Coastal Plain of Eastern 

North Carolina to the Cascade Mountains in Western Washington. The forest road system maintained on Weyerhaeuser lands comprise 

a "vast and varied network" traversing federal, state, county and local public land, tribal land, other private lands and a variety of 

combinations of these lands. Additionally this forest road network is used for purpose other than log hauling; activities like recreation, 

fire suppression and other traditional forestry uses.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-212

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0231-A1.001.001

Author Name: Schnoor Candace

Organization: John Deere Construction & Forestry Division

Issue Category: 18

On behalf of John Deere and our customers engaged in logging throughout the United States, we are pleased to offer comments to the 

above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") 

in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Deere & Company is a world leader in providing advanced products and services and is committed to the success of customers whose 

work is linked to the land - those who cultivate, harvest, transform, enrich and build upon the land to meet the world's dramatically 

increasing need for food, fiber and fuel. John Deere is dedicated to developing advanced equipment that helps forestry thrive, while 

logging efficiently and responsibly. Healthy forests are a logger's livelihood, so it is in their best interest and our nation's to properly 

manage these vital natural resources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0232-A1.001.001

Author Name: Wright Vance

Organization: Wright Forestry LLC

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0233-A1.001.001

Author Name: Blosser Mike

Organization: Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP)

Issue Category: 18

Louisiana Pacific Corporation is pleased to offer comments on the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-213

published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 

1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Louisiana Pacific Corporation (LP) is a multi-national company with extensive building products manufacturing facilities in the United 

States. Our business centers on producing wood composite materials used in residential housing and light commercial building. With 

wood being the major raw material in our products, LP is heavily dependent on strong and sustainable forests in the localities in which 

we operate. We strongly support various wood certification programs to ensure the long-term health of forest resources and invest in 

many programs to educate and facilitate stakeholders in productive use of those resources. Given LP's stake in sustainable forestry we 

have strong concerns with potential rule-making that will undermine the proven success in managing of our nation's forests.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.001

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments on behalf of the American Forest Foundation (AFF) in reference to the Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in 

NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0234-A1.001.008

Author Name: Martin Tom

Organization: American Forest Foundation (AFF)

Issue Category: 18

The nations over 10 million family forest owners own more forestland than the federal government or private industry, and they work 

every day to conserve and manage their forests. Every American, whether we know it or not, relies on family forest owners, who own 

more than one-third of all U.S. forests, to provide clean water and air, wildlife habitat, forest products we use every day, and places to 

hike, hunt and fish. These forests also support almost one million family-wage jobs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments. We look forward to working with you to resolve this issue, and if we can be of any 

assistance in answering any questions you may have about ATFS and how we incorporate BMPs, please let us know.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-214

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0235-A2.001.001

Author Name: Krancer Michael

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP)

Issue Category: 18

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has provided Notice of Proposed Revisions to stormwater regulations to clarify that a 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads 

(Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012, 53834-53838).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.001

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 18

Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth 

Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

WFPA was founded in 1908 as the trade association for private forestry in Washington State. Our mission is to advance sustainable 

forestry by establishing forest policies that encourage investment in forestland, protection of fish, water and wildlife. WFPA members 

grow and harvest trees on about 4 million acres in Washington State. They are large and small companies, individuals and families, many 

of whom are multi‐generational businesses, founded before statehood. We also have members that are multi‐national timber investors 

that manage globally diversified timberland portfolios for public and corporate pension plans, foundations and endowments. 

Working forests provide economic, environmental and aesthetic benefits for the public, and promotion of responsible forest 

management as a preferred land use is a benefit to all of society. Washington State is the second largest lumber producer in the nation, 

employing more than 50,000 people with a total employment impact over 118,000 in the State, primarily in rural, economically 

depressed communities. The Pacific Northwest is one of a handful of major timber-growing regions in the world. Timberland owners 

have investment choices at home and abroad and regulatory certainty is a key factor in evaluating their next investment decision. 

Regulatory uncertainty drives away investment, causes landowners to divest and consider other land use options, thereby jeopardizing 

jobs, rural economic stability and increasing poverty and social problems. Regulations that cause uncertainty drive working forests off of 

the landscape.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-215

Comment ID 0237-A1.001.006

Author Name: Peter J. Heide Cindy Mitchell

Organization: Washington Forest Protection Association (WFPA)

Issue Category: 18

In closing, we wish to thank Connie Bosma and Jeremy Bauer of the Office of Water for helping to organize and for participating in the 

June 2012 field tour of forest road BMPs in our state. An on-site, visual impression of natural resource topics is critical to the formation 

of environmental policies and we appreciate EPA's effort to add that element to their knowledge of the forest road topic.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0238-A1.001.002

Author Name: Portman Carl

Organization: Resource Development Council for Alaska (RDC)

Issue Category: 18

RDC is an Alaskan, non-profit, membership-funded organization founded in 1975. The RDC membership is comprised of individuals 

and companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, timber, tourism, and fisheries industries, as well as Alaska Native corporations, local 

communities, organized labor, and industry support firms. RDC's purpose is to link these diverse interests together to encourage a strong, 

diversified private sector in Alaska and expand the state's economic base through the responsible development of our natural resources.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0240-A1.001.001

Author Name: Baumhoff Oscar

Organization: Baumhoff & Company, LLC

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-216

Comment ID 0241-A1.001.001

Author Name: Lear Monica

Organization: Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF)

Issue Category: 18

As the President of the Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF), I submit the attached joint comments from the 

National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and the Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) regarding the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency's proposed revisions to its Phase I stormwater regulations to clarify that stormwater discharges from 

logging roads do not constitute stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity and that a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for these stormwater discharges. <FN1> The NASF and ACWA joint comments 

embody the positions of forestry agencies from the twenty Northeast and Midwest states <FN2> and the District of Columbia which 

comprise NAASF. 

State-based BMPs have demonstrated to be the most effective approach for addressing water quality impacts from forestry activities.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Please feel free to contact me directly for any clarification or additional 

information.

<FN1> As published in 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 on September 4, 2012

<FN2> Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 12 and Response 13. 

Comment ID 0241-A1.001.002

Author Name: Lear Monica

Organization: Northeastern Area Association of State Foresters (NAASF)

Issue Category: 18

The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA) <FN1> and the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) <FN2> 

appreciate the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency`s (EPA's) notice of proposed rulemaking to revise 

stormwater regulations to specify that a Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is 

not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads under Phase I of the stormwater program. <FN3> 

<FN1> ACWA is the national, nonpartisan, professional organization of state, interstate, and territorial water quality control officials 

responsible for the implementation of surface water protection programs throughout the nation. ACWA's members are responsible as 

co-regulators for on-the-ground implementation of the CWA and in 46 states administer the statute's NPDES program to control and 

limit discharges to waters of the United States. 

<FN2> NASF represents the heads of forestry agencies in all fifty states and the US territories. Our principle clientele are private forest 

landowners, though many states also manage significant holdings of publicly owned forests. For decades now, our agencies have worked 

in conjunction with our counterpart state environmental regulatory agencies to successfully administer EPA's silvicultural exemption 

from NPDES permitting. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-217

<FN3> 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (Sept. 4, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.001

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 18

Boise Inc. (Boise) appreciates the opportunity to comment on EPA's proposed regulations providing confirmation and clarification that 

silviculturel activities are exempt from NPDES stormwater discharge permit requirements.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0242-A1.001.003

Author Name: Garber Richard

Organization: Boise Inc.

Issue Category: 18

We request that EPA carefully consider our comments and those submitted by the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), of 

which Boise is a member.

Boise is a leading manufacturer of packaging and paper products, employing approximately 5,400 people in the U.S. Boise's range of 

packaging products includes linerboard and corrugating medium, corrugated containers and sheets, and protective packaging products. 

Boise's paper products include imaging papers for the office and home, printing and converting papers, and papers used in packaging, 

such as label and release and flexible packaging. As a packaging and paper company, with facilities in many states throughout all regions 

of the country, Boise relies on access to economically priced wood fiber for the manufacture of its products and also access to 

economically priced forest biomass residuals for fuel in the production of energy.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0243-A1.001.001

Author Name: Tenny David

Organization: National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO)

Issue Category: 18
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-218

The National Alliance of Forest Owners is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

NAFO represents owners and managers of approximately 80 million acres of private forests in 47 states. NAFO's mission is to protect 

and enhance the economic and environmental values of private forests through targeted policy advocacy at the national level. NAFO 

seeks common sense policy solutions to sustain the ecological, economic, and social values of forests and to assure an abundance of 

healthy and productive forest resources for present and future generations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0244-A1.001.001

Author Name: Carlson Eric

Organization: Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA)

Issue Category: 18

The Empire State Forest Products Association (ESFPA) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth 

Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Our membership consists of over 400 businesses and individuals with a vested interest in the forest products industry in New York State; 

including forest landowners, timber harvesters, furniture companies, lumber manufacturers, pulp and paper companies, and other wood 

product manufacturers from across New York State. Members own and manage 1.2 million acres of New York forests and employ over 

one-third of the 65,000 individuals employed in the forest products industry in New York State. We harvest nearly 4500 million board 

feet of timber and millions of tons of pulpwood annually. New York State is a very diverse region with many lakes and streams. To date, 

according to the 401 d listing by the Environmental protection Agency there is not a single segment of any lake, river , or stream 

impaired by our industry, a living testament to the effectiveness of current regulations and enforcement by the state-federal nexus created 

through the Clean water Act. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.001

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 18

The Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (SLMA) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. SLMA represents more than 125 privately owned saw mills in 17 states and their suppliers. Our members depend upon a 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-219

steady supply of timber accessed by forest roads on their own land, land owned by others, and federal forestlands.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0245-A1.001.006

Author Name: Smalley Bryan

Organization: Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assocation (SLMA)

Issue Category: 18

Should EPA decide to act without awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion, SLMA wishes to express its support for the detailed comment 

letter submitted by the National Association of Forestland Owners.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 4. 

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.001

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 18

The Wisconsin Paper Council (Paper Council, WPC) respectfully submits the following comments regarding the EPA's intent to revise 

stormwater regulations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.003

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 18

The Wisconsin Paper Council is the trade association of the pulp, paper and allied industry in Wisconsin. It is an incorporated, non-profit 

501(c)(6) entity. Created in 1950, the association represents its members in government and public relations. The Paper Council is 

comprised of 20 companies which are manufacturers of pulp and paper products (Regular Members) and 75 companies which are 

suppliers of goods and services to the industry (Associate and Converter Members). 

Wisconsin is the nation's leading paper manufacturing state and among the leaders in the combined output of paper and paperboard 

products. The Wisconsin forest products industry employs 60,900 individuals with annual wages of $2.74 billion, including 32,300 men 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-220

and women employed in paper manufacturing earning $1.79 billion annually. Annual shipments by Wisconsin's forest products industry 

are valued at $17.9 billion. 

Wisconsin's forest resource covers 16.2 million acres or nearly 47 percent of the state's land area. Ownership of the forest is 56 percent 

private, non-industrial; 34 percent local, county, state, federal, tribal and other government units; and 10 percent corporate and other 

private.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0246-A1.001.005

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 18

The Paper Council appreciates the EPA's initiative and believes BMP guidelines and third party certification programs are effective 

alternatives to the imposition of an NPDES permit program to address stormwater runoff from forest roads. 

Wisconsin Paper Council members are justifiably proud to be stewards of forest resources, including forest roads and their environment. 

While this stewardship is commendable, their actions are simply good business practices by an industry that is dependent on a healthy, 

sustainable forest environment for its present and future livelihood

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0247-A1.001.001

Author Name: Geissler George

Organization: Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry (OK DAFF)

Issue Category: 18

Oklahoma Forestry Services, a division of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, is responsible for managing and protecting 

the state's forest resources for present and future generations. By law, we are charged with developing and administering silvicultural 

best management practices (BMPs) in cooperation with landowners and land users to protect water quality, and have managed an 

effective water quality management program since 1976. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-221

Comment ID 0248-A1.001.001

Author Name: Poling Jan

Organization: American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA)

Issue Category: 18

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments in response to the 

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) "Notice of Proposed Revisions to Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for 

Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads" (Proposed Rule) ( 77 Fed. Reg. 53834, September 4, 2012). 

AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest products industry, representing pulp, paper, packaging and wood products 

manufacturers, and forest landowners. Our companies make products essential for everyday life from renewable and recyclable 

resources that sustain the environment. The forest products industry accounts for approximately 5 percent of the total U.S. 

manufacturing GDP. Industry companies produce about $190 billion in products annually and employ nearly 900,000 men and women, 

exceeding employment levels in the automotive, chemicals and plastics industries. The industry meets a payroll of approximately $50 

billion annually and is among the top 10 manufacturing sector employers in 47 states. 

BACKGROUND 

The EPA's proposed rule is in response to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Northwest Environmental Defense 

Center (NEDC) v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that culverts and drainage ditches along a county forest road used 

for timber harvest are "point sources" requiring special industrial discharge permits. The ruling overturns 35 years of EPA treatment of 

forestry activities and forest roads as nonpoint sources best regulated under state-developed Best Management Practices (BMPs). The 

decision currently is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the decision stands, it will have significant implications for the forest 

products industry, which depends on a continued and reliable supply of fiber to make the forest products essential to everyday life. The 

forest products industry relies on sustainably managed forests to help ensure this fiber supply. The Ninth Circuit's decision could 

jeopardize sustainable forest management activities by diverting limited funds from on-the-ground management to unnecessary 

paperwork and monitoring. Moreover, it will expose those seeking access to fiber, forest owners and states to citizen lawsuits under the 

Clean Water Act (CWA), resulting in a costly, ongoing cycle of litigation. These increased costs could result in the foregoing of 

management activities needed to provide healthy and sustainable forests, conversion of forest land to non-forest uses, and reduced tree 

plantings.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 1 and to the preamble to today's rule. 

Comment ID 0249-A1.001.001

Author Name: Howe Paul 

Organization: Virginia Forestry Association (VFA)

Issue Category: 18

The Virginia Forestry Association (VFA) is eager to provide our written comments for the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. 

Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-222

VFA is an organization of 1200 forest landowners, forest product businesses, timber harvesters and professional foresters determined to 

foster sustainable forests and vibrant wood products markets and commerce in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Our 15 million acres of 

forestland in the state serve a vital economic and environmental function for all of Virginia's citizens. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0250-A1.001.001

Author Name: Daugherty Peter

Organization: Oregon Department of Forestry (OR DF)

Issue Category: 18

The Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) oversees administration and enforcement of the Oregon Forests Practices Act (Oregon 

Revised Statute (ORS) 527.610 to 527.770, 527.990 (1) and 527.992). With this statute, the Oregon legislature directed the Oregon 

Board of Forestry (Board), in consultation with the Oregon Environmental Quality Commission, to establish best management practices 

(BMPs) to protect Oregon's waters from pollution caused by forest operations (ORS 527.765). In accordance with those directives and 

the overarching scheme of the Clean Water Act, the Board promulgated administrative rules establishing (BMPs) and other rules to 

insure that, to the maximum extent practicable, nonpoint source discharges of pollutants resulting from forest operations on forestlands 

do not impair the achievement and maintenance of water quality. 

With respect to forest roads, the Board has adopted BMPs and rules to establish standards for locating, designing, constructing and 

maintaining efficient and beneficial forest roads that provide the maximum practical protection to maintain water quality (Oregon 

Administrative Rules (OAR) 629-625-0000 thru 629-625-0700). For example, the rules specify that drainage structures should be 

designed so that collected stormwater can be filtered before it enters any waterbodies (OAR 629-625-0330(4)). The rules also require 

that operators inspect and maintain road drainage systems before the rainy and runoff seasons (OAR 629-625-0600) and requires 

operators to cease operations during wet weather if there will be delivery sediment to waters of the state (OAR 629-625-0700). In 

addition to these rules, the Board has promulgated an enforcement strategy, requiring the State Forester to investigate and inspect forest 

operators for compliance with the rules, and authorizing the Forester to initiate enforcement actions (OAR 629 Div. 670). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0251-A1.001.001

Author Name: Keough Shawn

Organization: Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho)

Issue Category: 18

The Associated Logging Contractors of Idaho (ALC-Idaho) is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-223

Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The ALC-Idaho is a non-profit trade organization that was established in 1966 by and for logging and log trucking contractors in Idaho. 

We have close to 400 businesses that are regular members across the state and an additional 100 businesses that are associate members. 

Our member businesses are typically small family owned and operated companies. NPDES permits for discharges from forest roads

significantly impacts our business operations.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0252-A1.001.001

Author Name: Brandt Wayne

Organization: Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI)

Issue Category: 18

Minnesota Forest Industries (MFI) offers the following comments on the above Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Further, MFI expresses 

it support for the detailed letter submitted by the National Alliance of Forest Landowners. 

MFI is a trade association representing the state's primary forest products companies. Our members rely on timber harvested from public 

as a source of timber. MFI members are part of a forest products industry that generates $9 billion in economic activity that directly 

employee more than 30,000 individuals in the state. Based on employment the forest products industry in Minnesota is the 4th largest 

manufacturing industry in the state. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0253-A1.001.001

Author Name: Gustafson Earl

Organization: Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC)

Issue Category: 18

The Wisconsin Paper Council (WPC) submits the following comments in regard to the above referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (Proposed Rule) published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to a ruling by the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Brown 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011) (NEDC v. Brown). 

Introduction 

The WPC is the trade association of the pulp, paper and allied industry in Wisconsin. It is an incorporated, non-profit 501(c)(6) entity. 

Created in 1950, the association represents its members in governmental and public relations. The WPC is comprised of 19 companies 

which are manufacturers of pulp and paper products and approximately 75 companies which are suppliers of goods and services to the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-224

industry. Wisconsin is the nation's leading paper manufacturing state and among the leaders in the combined output of paper and 

paperboard products. The industry's basic raw material is wood fiber sourced from public and private forests. All WPC members 

utilizing pulpwood directly from forests are members of one or more independent, third party certification programs to assure that the 

forest environment, biotic and abiotic, is protected and, among other results, that the transportation infrastructure within forests, 

necessary for management, harvesting and reforestation, is consistent with the industry's ethos of environmental protection and 

sustainability.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0254-A1.001.001

Author Name: Lynch Robert

Organization: Irrigation & Electrical Districts Association of Arizona (IEDAA)

Issue Category: 18

We are responding to your request for comments on the above-referenced proposed change to your NPDES permit rule regarding 

silviculture because it raises an issue of national concern related to when a court should defer to an agency's interpretation of its own rule. 

As we understand the intent of this Federal Register notice, EPA is attempting to narrow its regulation to avoid further misinterpretation 

of the intent of its silviculture rule. The problem has come up by virtue of the holding in the Ninth Circuit decision in Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (2011) that stormwater runoff from two forest roads was a point source 

discharge of industrial stormwater for which an NPDES permit was required. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0255-A1.001.001

Author Name: Moon C.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-225

Comment ID 0256-A1.001.001

Author Name: Bain J.P.

Organization: 

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0257-A1.001.001

Author Name: Saloom Salem

Organization: Saloom Properties, LLC

Issue Category: 18

It is greatly appreciated to have the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 

F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0258-A1.001.001

Author Name: McNitt Kristina

Organization: Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

Issue Category: 18

The Oregon Forest Industries Council ("OFIC") is pleased to offer the following comments to the above-referenced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling 

in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011). 

OFIC is a trade association representing 60 Oregon forestland owners and forest product related manufacturers. Its members own more 

than 90% of Oregon's private large-owner forestland base. OFIC coordinates advocacy on behalf of its members to (i) maintain a 

positive, stable business operating environment for Oregon's forest products community and encourage long-term investments in healthy 

forests, (ii) ensure a reliable timber supply from Oregon's forestlands, and (iii) promote stewardship and sustainable management to 

maintain productivity and protect environmental values on Oregon's forestlands.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-226

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0258-A1.001.004

Author Name: McNitt Kristina

Organization: Oregon Forest Industries Council (OFIC)

Issue Category: 18

OFIC would also echo the comments submitted on the Proposed Rule by the National Alliance of Forest Owners, particularly those with 

regard to clarification that the Phase I regulations apply only to specific point sources, and not silvicultural nonpoint source activities, 

such as those listed at 40 CFR § 122.27(b), including timber harvesting and activities incidental thereto. <Refer to comment 0243 for 

responses to issues raised by this comment.>

Response 

Please refer to Response 15. Refer also to Response 6, Response 7, and the preamble to the final rule. 

Comment ID 0259-A1.001.001

Author Name: Crapser Bill

Organization: Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF)

Issue Category: 18

The Council of Western State Foresters (CWSF) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's (EPA's) notice of proposed rulemaking to revise stormwater regulations to clarify that a Clean Water Act National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. 77 FR No. 171 

53834-53838 (Sept. 4, 2012). The CWSF membership includes the directors of state forestry agencies in the seventeen western states 

and six Pacific Island Territories of the United States. The mission of the CWSF is to promote science-based forest management that 

serves the values of society and ensures the health and sustainability of western forests. We appreciate the opportunity to provide 

comment on the proposed rulemaking.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0260-A1.001.001

Author Name: Greig George

Organization: Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PA DA)

Issue Category: 18

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Pennsylvania Hardwoods Development Council offer the following comments to

the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2011).
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-227

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.001

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 18

The Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC) offers the following comments on the above Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

FFRC is a nonprofit organization representing over 650 members, including manufacturers of solid wood products, pulp, paper, and 

biomass energy, as well as loggers and wood transportation companies. Our members depend upon timber harvested from public lands 

as a source of timber and wood fiber supply. Our members purchase Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management timber in over 26 

States, and as such will be directly affected by any changes in how forest roads accessing that timber are regulated. Moreover, our 

member company employees live and work near federal forest lands and utilize forest roads for recreation and to secure firewood. 

FFRC filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioners in Decker v. NEDC and Georgia-Pacific-West v. NEDC based upon our belief that 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in its ruling that forest roads require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0261-A1.001.005

Author Name: Imbergamo Bill

Organization: Federal Forest Resource Coalition (FFRC)

Issue Category: 18

Should EPA decide to act without awaiting the Supreme Court's opinion, FFRC wishes to express its support for the detailed comment 

letter submitted by the National Association of Forestland Owners.

Again, please consider FFRC’s comments to incorporate the detailed comments of the National Association of Forestland Owners.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0262-A1.001.001

Author Name: Miller J.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-228

Organization: Vermont Law School

Issue Category: 18

I am writing in response to the notice published in the Federal Register proposing revisions to the regulation of stormwater discharge. 

The revision attempts to clarify existing regulatory language that proclaims roads such as those at issue in Northwest Environmental 

Defense Center v Brown, 640 F. 3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011), are exempt from National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permits. Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater 

Discharges From Logging Roads, 77 Fed. Reg. 53834, 53835 (proposed August 24, 2012) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 122).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0262-A1.001.003

Author Name: Miller J.

Organization: Vermont Law School

Issue Category: 18

Congress declared in the CWA that municipal and industrial stormwater discharges shall not require a permit if they were entirely 

composed of stormwater. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p) (2006). However, under 33 U.S.C. §1342(p)(2), there are five specific exceptions and 

detailed instances where an NPDES permit would be required. Id. Discharges associated with industrial activity are among the five listed 

categories. Id. Congress left EPA with tremendous discretion to further define the applicable activities. Brief for the USA as Amicus 

Curiae, p. 31, cert. granted Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 11-338, 2012 WL 2368685 (U.S. June 25, 2012). EPA proceeded to 

promulgate a rule to identify which discharges were applicable to state NPDES programs and those that were not. 40 C.F.R. 

§122.26(b)(14) (2006). Runoff must be directly related to manufacturing, processing, or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant 

to classify as a discharge from industrial activity. Id. The only definition of industrial activity that is not a stationary site or facility is 

"immediate access" roads. Id. 

An argument might be made that the roads in question are an immediate access road to the logging operations in the area. However, it is 

evident the only silvicultural stormwater sources that are subject to the EPA's stormwater regulations are the four defined in the 

silvicultural rule: rock crushing facilities, gravel washing facilities, log sorting facilities, and log storage facilities. 40 C.F.R. § 122.27 

(2006). It would be contrary to the clear intent of the EPA to say that these roads are immediate access roads and require a permit is. Brief 

for the USA as Amicus Curiae, p. 42, cert. granted Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 11-338, 2012 WL 2368685 (U.S. June 25, 2012). This 

revision will quiet any argument that these forest and logging roads are considered immediate access roads and require a NPDES permit. 

Additionally, it essentially makes the NEDC's question presented in the current litigation moot. The clarification explicitly states in 

footnote one that the point/nonpoint designation is of no consequence. Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations To 

Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads, 77 Fed. Reg. at 53835. The revision 

clearly states that these roads are not considered industrial activity and they are not required to obtain an NPDES permit because they are 

not one of the four defined silvicultural activities. Id at 53837. 

Although EPA retains the power to create such regulations, it does not go entirely unchecked. There are still boundaries provided by the 

Administrative Procedure Act that prohibits EPA from promulgating rules that might be "arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, 

or otherwise not in accordance with the law”. 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2006). However, if the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-229

law, Congress gives deference to the EPA’s

discretionary decisions. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. EPA, 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).

Stormwater offers numerous unique challenges to regulate due to the unpredictable characteristics of natural runoff from precipitation. 

The financial and physical constraints of these characteristics require special attention and expertise when determining the appropriate 

structure for regulation. The EPA possesses the knowledge and resources to best determine when NPDES permits are necessary, as well 

as instances they are not.

Response 

Please refer to Response 13, Response 15. Refer also to Response 8. 

Comment ID 0263-A1.001.001

Author Name: Schmidt David

Organization: Schmidt Family Forest LLC

Issue Category: 18

My family owns and manages 4 timberland properties totalling 560 acres in the coast range of NW Oregon and would like to submit the 

attached comments on the Notice of Proposed Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify That an NPDES Permit is Not Required 

for Stormwater Discharges From Logging Roads, 77 Fed. Reg. 53834.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments about EPA's response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown. 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0264-A1.001.001

Author Name: Magruder John

Organization: Magruder Family Tree Farm

Issue Category: 18

I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0265-A1.001.001
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-230

Author Name: Pierce Josiah 

Organization: The Pierce Place

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written comments in reference to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to the Ninth Circuit Court ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 

2011). 

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0266-A1.001.001

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 18

I respectfully submit the attached comments on the proposed revisions to stormwater regulations to clarify that an NPDES Permit is not 

required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. The attached comments are submitted on behalf of 12,000 Society of American 

Foresters (SAF) members from across the country. SAF encourages the EPA to continue to engage stakeholders in the process as the 

agency works to finalize the revisions to the stormwater regulations and our

members stand ready to assist the EPA by providing feedback, research, and technical assistance as the EPA moves forward in this rule

making process.

On behalf of the Society of American Foresters (SAF), the national scientific and educational organization representing over 12,000 

forestry professionals in the United States, please accept the following comments in response to the "Notice of Proposed Revisions to 

Stormwater Regulations to Clarify That an NPDES Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads," published 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at 77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (September 4, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0266.001.001

Author Name: Goergen Jr. Michael

Organization: Society of American Foresters (SAF)

Issue Category: 18

I respectfully submit the attached comments on the proposed revisions to stormwater regulations to clarify that an NPDES Permit is not 

required for stormwater discharges from logging roads. The attached comments are submitted on behalf of 12,000 Society of American 

Foresters (SAF) members from across the country. SAF encourages the EPA to continue to engage stakeholders in the process as the 

agency works to finalize the revisions to the stormwater regulations and our members stand ready to assist the EPA by providing 

feedback, research, and technical assistance as the EPA moves forward in this rule making process. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-231

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0267-A2.001.001

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul A. Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise its stormwater regulations 

to specify that a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is not required for stormwater discharges from 

logging roads. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Sierra Club, 

Environmental Protection Information Center, Rogue Riverkeeper, Clean Water Network, Friends of the Eel River, Friends of the Wild 

Swan, Wild Salmon Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Umpqua Watersheds, WildEarth Guardians, Oregon Wild, BARK, KS 

Wild, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Wildlands CPR, Waterkeeper Alliance, Colorado Mountain Club, 

William Lider of Lider Engineering, PLLC, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Oregon Coast Alliance, Gifford 

Pinchot Task Force, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Swan View Coalition, Quiet Use Coalition, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Puget 

Soundkeeper Alliance, Cascadia Wildlands, Wild Fish Conservancy, Klamath Riverkeeper, Humboldt Baykeeper, Spokane 

Riverkeeper, Big Blackfoot Riverkeeper, Russian Riverkeeper, Heartwood, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council, Columbia Riverkeeper, Olympic Forest Coalition, Pacific Rivers Council, Northwest Environmental Advocates, 

Washington Environmental Council, and Conservation Northwest ("the Conservation Groups") in response to the request for public 

comments published in the Federal Register. See 77 Fed. Reg. 30473 (May 23, 2012). Please include these comments in the 

administrative record for this matter. Please also inform the Washington Forest Law Center and the Conservation Groups in writing of 

any subsequent action you take related to the regulation of stormwater discharges from logging or other forest roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.001

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 18

Please accept the following comments from Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA) regarding EPA's proposed rule for 

revisions to Phase I storm water regulations, clarifying a NPDES permit is not required for forest roads. 

WCFA represents the 29 counties in Wisconsin with county forests established under state statutes §28.10 and 28.11. Collectively our 29 

counties manage nearly 2.4 million acres of forests, the largest public land base in our state. 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-232

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0268-A1.001.005

Author Name: Jane F. Severt Elroy Zemke

Organization: Wisconsin County Forests Association (WCFA)

Issue Category: 18

Even though language contained in the proposed rule affords a great deal of uncertainty, it does enable EPA to reinforce the policy of 

relying on state BMP's to address water quality for forestry roads. Sustainable forestry practices on Wisconsin forests allow us to 

maintain forest health and supply our $18 billion timber industry with necessary raw material.

Response 

Please refer to Response 5. Refer also to Response 15.

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.001

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to revise its stormwater regulation, 

40 C.F.R. § 122.26, to specify that stormwater discharges from pipes, ditches and channels along active, industrial logging roads will no 

longer require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Washington Forest Law Center and the Crag 

Law Center represent the Northwest Environmental Defense Center in matters related to NPDES permitting of stormwater discharges 

from industrial logging roads. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Sierra Club, 

American Rivers, Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Wildlands CPR, Waterkeeper Alliance, River Network, Wild Salmon Center, 

Environmental Protection Information Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, Friends of the Kalmiopsis, Public 

Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Oregon Coast Alliance, Kentucky Resources Council, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Swan 

View Coalition, Rogue Riverkeeper, Alliance for the Rockies, Heartwood, Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, Southeast Alaska 

Conservation Council, Northwest Environmental Advocates, Friends of the Wild Swan, Olympic Forest Coalition, and Amigos Bravos 

("the Conservation Groups") in response to the request for public comments published in the Federal Register on September 4, 2012. See 

77 Fed. Reg. 53834 (Sept. 4, 2012). 

In addition to this comment letter, by courier we are sending EPA a compact disc that contains journal articles, studies, reports and other 

information pertinent to EPA's proposal to amend the stormwater rule to exempt logging roads from NPDES permitting. We are also 

resubmitting the comments we submitted to EPA on June 22, 2012, in response to EPA's May 23, 2012 Federal Register notice. See 77 

Fed. Reg. 30473 (May 23, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-233

Comment ID 0269-A1.001.009

Author Name: Chris Winter Paul Kampmeier

Organization: Washington Forest Law Center and Crag Law Center (obo Northwest Environmental Defense Center et al.)

Issue Category: 18

Thank you for considering and responding to these comments and the comments we submitted to EPA on June 22, 2012. Please also

inform the Washington Forest Law Center, the Crag Law Center, and the Conservation Groups in writing of any subsequent action you 

take related to the regulation of stormwater discharges from industrial logging and other forest roads. In the meantime, please contact me 

if you have any questions about these comments or if you would like to discuss these issues further.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0270-A1.001.001

Author Name: Ostermayer G.

Organization: University of Montana

Issue Category: 18

Please consider these comments in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) "Notice of Proposed Revisions to 

Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from Logging Roads" (77 FR No. 

171, 53834-53838; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0195; September 4, 2012).

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0271-A1.001.001

Author Name: Edman George

Organization: Edman Company

Issue Category: 18

Edman Company is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule") 

published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 

1176 (9th Cir. 2011 ). 

Edman Company is a small log chipping business located in Tacoma, Washington. We purchase logs from entities that grow timber on a 

rotating crop basis in the Pacific Northwest.

Response 
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-234

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0272-A1.001.001

Author Name: Case Michael

Organization: The Westervelt Company

Issue Category: 18

The Westervelt Company is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

("Proposed Rule") published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NDEC v. 

Brown, 1063 F 3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2011). 

The Westervelt Company is a fourth generation family owned timber and forest products company with over 500,000 acres of 

timberland under management in the U.S. south. Our company motto is "Stewards of the Land" and we take those words to heart in 

everything we do.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0273-A1.001.001

Author Name: Snyder William

Organization: State of California Natural Resources Agency

Issue Category: 18

Thank you the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to Stormwater Regulations to clarify that a National Pollutant

Discharge elimination System (NPDES) Permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads.

Response 

Please refer to Response 1 and Response 15.

Comment ID 0274-A1.001.001

Author Name: Graham Owen

Organization: Alaska Forest Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 18

The Alaska Forest Association (AFA) is a trade association that represents the timber industry in Alaska. AFA members include loggers, 

towing and barging companies, road builders, manufacturing facilities, timberland owners and many businesses that provide essential 

services for our timber industry. Our mission is to advance the restoration, promotion and maintenance of a healthy, viable forest 

products industry which contributes to the economic and ecological health of Alaska's forests and communities.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-235

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0274-A1.001.004

Author Name: Graham Owen

Organization: Alaska Forest Association (AFA)

Issue Category: 18

AFA also agrees with the comments provided by the State of Alaska on June 22, 2012.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0275-A1.001.001

Author Name: Olszewski Robert

Organization: Plum Creek

Issue Category: 18

Plum Creek is pleased to offer the following comments to the above referenced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("Proposed Rule")

published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in response to the Ninth Circuit ruling in NEDC v. Brown, 1063 F.3d 

1176 (91 h Cir. 2011 ). 

Plum Creek is the nation's largest timberland owner with nearly seven million acres of ownership including all regions of the country 

with significant forestry operations. We grow and sell timber to a wide variety of forest product manufacturers. As a large timberland 

owner, we have an extensive system of forest roads on our properties that we utilize and maintain, and also sometimes have the need to 

construct new roads on our lands. These roads not only serve our forestry operations, but may also be used to provide access for hunters 

and a variety of other recreational users.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0276-A1.001.001

Author Name: Paul DeLong Ken Johnson

Organization: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)

Issue Category: 18

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is an integrated natural resources agency, with responsibilities including 

protecting water quality, managing forest lands, and enhancing wildlife habitat. In Wisconsin, administration of the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system has been delegated to the State, and the WDNR is the responsible agency, 

issuing Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits.
Chapter 2: Individual Comments and Responses

Response to Public Comments: Revisions to Stormwater Regulations to Clarify that an NPDES Permit is not Required for Stormwater Discharges from 

Logging Roads 2-236

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.

Comment ID 0277-A1.001.001

Author Name: O'Neill William

Organization: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR)

Issue Category: 18

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources' (MDNR) Forest Resources Division is responsible for forest management activities on 

state forest land.

Response 

Please refer to Response 15.