HFQLG Monitoring Plan
BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results (2007)
Introduction:
This report summarizes results of monitoring conducted to assess implementation and
effectiveness of Best Management Practices employed to reduce risks to water quality on
projects associated with HFLQG projects. The report includes data collected during 2007. Best
Management Practices were monitored using the Pacific Southwest Region protocols (BMPEP).
This approach requires activity sites to have undergone at least one winter prior to evaluation.
Therefore, all sites monitored were implemented in 2006 or earlier.
The protocol involves a two-step process. The first assesses implementation. A series of
questions is answered to determine if measures to reduce risk to water quality were considered
during project planning, design and layout, and if prescribed measures were implemented on the
ground. The assessment of implementation is largely qualitative. It involves review of project
documents and pertinent operational direction and guides, and comparison of planned (or
mandated) actions with results implemented on the ground.
The second step is an evaluation of practice effectiveness. This evaluation is conducted at the site
of the practice, and is based on field review of indicators of processes that affect water quality.
These focus primarily on erosion, and include criteria such as rilling, sediment deposition and
sediment transport. The effectiveness evaluation is objective.
Results from both implementation and effectiveness are summarized to yield a result of
“implemented or not implemented” and “effective or not effective”. These results are generated
by weighting the various evaluation criteria (those deemed most important receive higher
weights) and comparing the resulting composite score against a pre-determined value that
distinguishes scores as implemented or not implemented, and effective and not effective. In this
report, results for individual criteria are discussed in addition to the composite scores.
Sample Selection:
Sites were randomly selected. Levels of targeted activities (harvesting, decommissioning, and
burning) vary yearly on each of the districts and correspondingly the number of sites that can be
included fluctuates between districts. Therefore, in any given year it may not appear there is a
balanced sampling across the Pilot Project and this is acceptable. The entire Pilot Area is the
basis for the monitoring – not the individual districts.
For evaluation of streamside management (T01), skid trails (T02) and landings (T04), a pool of
HFQLG units with RHCAs (the acronyms RHCA (Riparian Habitat Conservation Area) and
SMZ (Streamside Management Zone) are used interchangeably) were identified, and served as
the sample population. This was done to ensure that all three evaluations were located in the
same place. Evaluations for roads (stream crossings, drainage and decommissioning) and
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
1
prescribed burn sites had separate pools developed. These separate pools of sites were randomly
sorted with a random number generator and the first 30 from each pool were selected.
BMPs for Streamside Management Zones (SMZ), skidding, landings, road drainage and stream
crossings evaluations were made in activity areas of the following projects: North Coble, Cabin,
Jonesville DFPZ, Fox Farm DFPZ, Blacks Ridge, Railroad DFPZ, Beak DFPZ, Claw DFPZ, Bits
DFPZ, Toe Service Contract, Pilot SBA, Deanes, and Guard, and Hungry project areas.
Prescribed burn evaluations were conducted in: Buck, Red Clover, Green Flat, Hungry, Last
Chance, Lower Slate, Strawberry Valley, Brush Cr., and Red Mtn. Arkansas, North Coble,
Pittville, Camino, Toro, Zingira Underburn, Grays, North Crater West, Lost Lake, and Battle
DFPZ project areas.
Road decommissioning evaluations were conducted in: Last Chance, Crystal Adams, Toro, Vaca
timber sale areas and the Cone Crater EA analysis area.
Evaluations:
BMP evaluations are usually conducted by resource specialists from each district. However, the
Lassen NF chose to have this managed by the watershed staff out of the Supervisors office.
Evaluations included assessments of practices associated with streamcourse protection
(evaluation T01), skid trails (T02), landings (T04), road drainage (E08) and stream crossings
(E09), prescribed fire (F25) and road decommissioning (E10). The number of evaluations and
their distribution among the HFQLG administrative units are presented in Table 1.
Evaluation
T01Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road
Drainage
E09- Stream
Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed
Fire
Totals
Almanor
Eagle
Lake
Hat
Creek
Beckwourth
Feather
River
Mt.
Hough
Sierraville
26
3
0
10
1
0
4
8
31
28
2
2
1
1
14
11
2
2
0
0
4
4
8
8
42
8
4
18
0
0
6
6
9
1
0
2
0
0
6
0
24
0
6
0
8
0
0
10
34
2
4
2
7
8
2
9
194
18
10
63
20
8
26
49
Total
Table 1- Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2007.
Results Summary:
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
2
Table 2 summarizes results from the BMPEP evaluations, based on the composite scores for
implementation and effectiveness. Results are reported in four categories: IE (BMPs
implemented and on-site objectives met), NIE (BMPs not implemented, but on site-objectives
met), INE (BMPs implemented but not effective in meeting on-site objectives) and NINE
(BMPs not implemented and objectives not met). Note: BMP evaluations employ direct
observations of on-site factors that pose risks to water quality.
Evaluation
#
Evaluations
IE
NIE
INE
NINE
%
implemented
%
effective
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
26
31
28
42
9
24
34
194
26
25
27
32
5
23
30
168
0
5
1
1
0
1
3
11
0
0
0
8
3
0
0
11
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
100
80
96
95
89
96
88
92
100
97
100
78.5
55.5
100
97
92
Table 2- Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type
Target goal is to achieve 90 percent or better in both implementation and effectiveness. On
average, these goals have been met. Areas where improvement can be realized include designing,
building, and maintaining roads to withstand significant precipitation events. Several road fills
evaluated this year had slope failures and rills which led to sediment deposition in drainage
channels. Other than the noted problems at road/stream crossings, the results of this year’s
monitoring efforts indicate that BMPs effectively reduced risk to water quality across the pilot
project area. These issues are also discussed in the summary of individual evaluations.
Effectiveness evaluations are based on objective review of activity areas that focus on indicators
of processes of concern. In most cases, they represent a risk of water quality degradation, rather
than actual degradation. In cases where effectiveness scores are low, observers are asked to
comment on potential impacts to water quality, in terms of degree, duration and extent. For sites
where effectiveness ratings were low, one third of the sites were in locations where a major
storm event in January 2006 affected the road and crossing. Field observers indicated that the
degree, duration, and extent to which water quality was affected would persist until the problems
at these sites are addressed. For the remaining six sites, small amounts of sediment were seen
where road surface maintenance had pushed that material into the channel at the crossings. These
impacts were noted to be short in duration, minor in extent and easily corrected.
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 3). Of the 194 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a RHCA was
found at 12 sites (6 percent), sediment to a channel was found at 11 sites (5.7 percent). At all but
two prescribed burn locations, the sediment-filtering function of the RHCA was not even
utilized. Locations where roads cross streams – where no protective buffer exists – constitute the
majority of sediment-to-channel occurrences.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
3
Evaluation
#
Evaluations
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
26
31
28
42
9
24
34
194
# with
deposition in
RHCA
0
0
0
10
0
0
2
12
# with
sediment
in channel
0
0
0
10
0
0
1
11
Table 3. Evaluations with evidence of sediment delivery to RHCAs and channels.
Results by Individual Evaluation
T01- Streamcourse protection.
Implementation- All sites had adequate implementation of SMZs
Effectiveness- All sites effectively mitigated the risk to water quality.
Recommendations:
Continue to designate SMZs as areas of no treatment or carefully managed treatment.
T02- Erosion Control on Skid Trails
Implementation- All but 3 sites had adequate implementation of erosion control on skid trails. On
these 3 sites, waterbars were either missing or inadequate.
Effectiveness- All but one site was effectively protected from erosion. There was no sediment to
channel evident at any of the sites evaluated.
Recommendations:
Administrators need to stay vigilant when checking quality of and location of erosion control
measures, such as water bars.
T04- Erosion Control on Landings
Implementation- BMPs were implemented on all but one site.
Effectiveness- No increased risks to water quality or increased erosion were noted at any of the
sites evaluated this year
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
4
Recommendations:
Continue to locate landings outside of RHCAs. Replace ground cover on landings (with slash,
mulch, etc.) when operations are complete in order to improve erosion control.
E08- Roads
Implementation- 40 out of 42 sites had BMPs implemented as prescribed.
Effectiveness- Six sites on the Lassen had evidence of sediment to channel. Road surface
maintenance pushed this material into the channels. Three of the six sites on the Plumas had
evidence of sediment to channel. The Plumas sites all suffered damage in the January 2006 storm
event.
Recommendations:
Road surface maintenance should be conducted as infrequently as possible at crossing locations.
The blade can simply be raised as the grader passes over a crossing. Recent research indicates
that surface blading at crossings is a primary cause of sediment deposition in channels. For sites
that have been damaged in storm events, repair measures should be implemented as soon as
possible.
E09- Stream Crossings
Implementation- 8 of 9 crossings had proper BMP implementation.
Effectiveness- 4 of the 9 sites evaluated had problems at stream crossings, with sediment to
channel evident.
Recommendations:
Stream crossings remain the primary source of increased risk to water quality on National Forest
System lands. As stated in the discussion of E08 above, the road surface at crossings should be
bladed infrequently. Also, crossings damaged by storm events should be repaired as soon as
possible. Otherwise they remain a chronic source of sediment.
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- BMPs were properly implemented 23 of 24 decommissioned roads.
Effectiveness- All sites were effectively protected from elevated risks to water quality.
Recommendations:
During road decommissioning projects, continue to implement BMPs as prescribed.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
5
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- 4 of 34 sites did not have proper implementation of BMPs. Burn plans were not
available for 2 of these sites. The other 2 sites burned hotter than prescribed.
Effectiveness- Of the 34 sites evaluated, only one had ineffective application of BMPs.
Recommendations:
Include measures to reduce risk to water quality and soil resources in all burn plans. Conduct
prescribed fires within appropriate burn windows and suspend operations when conditions are
not favorable to meet stated objectives.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
6
Key Findings
As indicated by this year’s monitoring results, Best Management Practices (BMPs) continue to
be an effective method for preventing impacts to water quality. The prescription, application, and
monitoring of these practices should be continued across the HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Table 4 summarizes results from the BMPEP evaluations, based on the composite scores for
implementation and effectiveness. Results are reported in four categories: IE (BMPs
implemented and on-site objectives met), NIE (BMPs not implemented, but on site-objectives
met), INE (BMPs implemented but not effective in meeting on-site objectives) and NINE
(BMPs not implemented and objectives not met). Note: BMP evaluations employ direct
observations of on-site factors that pose risks to water quality.
Evaluation
#
Evaluations
IE
NIE
INE
NINE
%
implemented
%
effective
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
26
31
28
42
9
24
34
194
26
25
27
32
5
23
30
168
0
5
1
1
0
1
3
11
0
0
0
8
3
0
0
11
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
4
100
80
96
95
89
96
88
92
100
97
100
78.5
55.5
100
97
92
Table 4- Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type
Target goal is to achieve 90 percent or better in both implementation and effectiveness. On
average, these goals have been met. Areas where improvement can be realized include designing,
building, and maintaining roads to withstand significant precipitation events. Several road fills
evaluated this year had slope failures and rills which led to sediment deposition in drainage
channels. Other than the noted problems at road/stream crossings, the results of this year’s
monitoring efforts indicate that BMPs effectively reduced risk to water quality across the pilot
project area. These issues are also discussed in the summary of individual evaluations.
Prepared by:
Scott Tangenberg
Watershed Program Manager
Lassen National Forest
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2007
7