2010 Best Management Practices Evaluation
Program Report
USDA Forest Service
HFQLG Pilot Project Area
Lassen National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and
Sierraville Ranger District of Tahoe National Forest
Sherry Mitchell-Bruker, Forest Hydrologist
LNF Ecosystem Management
January 2011
1
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 2010. 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 2009 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 or 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. The acronyms RHCA (Riparian Habitat
Conservation Area) and SMZ (Streamside Management Zone) are used interchangeably.
For evaluation of the following targets;
streamside management (T01)
skid trails (T02)
landings (T04)
a pool of HFQLG units with Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) was identified, and
served as the sample population. This needs to be done to ensure that all three evaluations are
located in the same place. All units with harvest activities and with adjacent streams were
included in the sample population.
2
Separate pools were developed for evaluation of stream crossings (E09), drainage (E08), road
decommissioning (E10), and prescribed burn sites (F25). These four separate pools of sites were
randomly sorted with a random number generator and the first 30 from each pool were selected.
Sample Selection by Individual Evaluation
T01- Streamcourse protection.
T02- Erosion Control on Skid Trails
T04- Erosion Control on Landings
The Tahoe, Plumas and Lassen NF stream layer was intersected with all units harvested in 2009
to create a list of units with adjacent RHCAs/SMZs. This list provided exactly 30 units in the
pool, so all were selected. There was no QLG associated harvest on the Plumas National Forest
in 2009, so all units were on either the Lassen or Tahoe National Forest. Units treated with
mastication, pruning or hand thinning methods were not included in the sample pool as these
treatments do not apply to T01/T02/T04 BMP evaluations. All units with harvest activities, such
as commercial thinning, special cut, group selection, individual tree selection, aspen restoration
and within a 300 foot buffer on perennial streams or 150 feet on intermittent and ephemeral
streams were included in the sample pool.
E08- Roads
E09- Stream Crossings
Included in the pool were all Forest Service System roads used to haul timber or biomass from
HFQLG treated units. The Tahoe, Plumas and Lassen NF roads layer was buffered 1.5 miles
around harvest units and intersected with stream layers in GIS to create a spatial file showing all
projected stream crossings. In an effort to eliminate units that had no road/stream crossing in the
vicinity of the haul route, this layer was buffered for 1.5 miles to create a list of units with stream
crossings on nearby haul routes. A list of haul roads was determined by receiving haul route
information from Engineering and comparing against 2009 harvest units. A random selection
of 30 units/haul roads was selected for E08/E09 BMP monitoring in 2010. Not all roads selected
had streams associated with them.
E10- Road Decommissioning
A list of roads decommissioned in 2009 was obtained from each ranger district. There were 29
decommissioned roads and all were selected for E10 BMP monitoring in 2010.
F25- Prescribed Fire
All units burned in 2009 with broadcast fire or underburns were examined to determine if
RHCAs were adjacent. Pile burning prescriptions were not included in the monitoring pool.
We used 300 foot buffer on streams. There were 40 units that had streams adjacent. We
randomly selected 30 of these units for F25 BMP monitoring in 2010.
3
Evaluations:
BMP evaluations on the Plumas NF and Tahoe National Forest were conducted by resource
specialists from each district. Evaluations on the Lassen NF were conducted by watershed staff
out of the Supervisors office.
Evaluations included assessments of practices associated with streamcourse protection (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. In 2010 the three national forests
conducted163 site evaluations.
Table 1. Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2010.
Lassen National Forest
Plumas National Forest
Tahoe National Forest
Almanor Eagle Lake Hat Creek Beckwourth Feather River Mt. Hough
Sierraville
Evaluation
T01Streamco
urses
T02Skidtrails
T04Landings
E08Road
Drainage
E09Stream
Crossings
E10Road
Decommi
ssioning
F25Prescribe
d Fire
Totals
Total
19
8
10
1
0
0
0
0
29
10
14
1
0
0
0
4
28
10
14
1
0
0
0
3
25
6
17
0
0
0
0
2
19
3
5
0
0
9
0
2
18
7
10
0
0
0
0
1
25
163
0
44
0
70
3
6
10
10
5
14
2
2
5
17
ARD: Almanor Ranger District; ELRD: Eagle Lake Ranger District; HCRD: Hat Creek Ranger District; BRD: Beckworth Ranger District;
FRRD: Feather River Ranger District; MHRD: Mount Hough Ranger District: and SRD: Sierraville Ranger District
Results Summary:
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
4
(BMPs not implemented and objectives not met). Note: BMP evaluations employ direct
observations of on-site factors that pose risks to water quality. The target goal is to achieve 90
percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation. Both goals were met or exceeded
in 2010.
Table 2. Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for the 2010
BMPEP.
#
Evaluation
Evaluations
T01- Streamcourses
19
T02- Skidtrails
29
T04- Landings
28
E08- Road Drainage
25
E09- Stream Crossings
10
E10- Road Decommissioning
27
F25- Prescribed Fire
25
Overall
163
IE
19
29
28
24
9
27
25
NIE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
INE
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
NINE
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
161
0
2
0
% implemented
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
% effective
100
100
100
96
90
100
100
99
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.
Since 2006, the forests have achieved the goal of 90% or greater effectiveness. The goal of
100% implementation has been harder to reach. 2010 was the first year in which 100% of the
BMP evaluation targets were implemented (Figure 1). Overall implementation and effectiveness
in 2010 exceeded the overall average between 2010 of 92% for implementation and 93% for
effectiveness (Table 3 and Figure 1).
In 2010, the forests achieved 100% effectiveness for stream course (T01), skid trails (T02),
landings (T04), road decommissioning (E10) and prescribed fire (F25) (Table 3 and Appendix
Figures A1-3, A6-7). One hundred percent of site evaluations for prescribed fire (F25) were
rated as effective and implemented (Table 3 and Appendix). For the fifth straight year, BMPs
for landings (T04) were rated as 100% effective (Table 3 and Appendix). Effectiveness for roads
improved from 2009 to 2010, surpassing the target of 90%, as demonstrated with site evaluations
for road drainage, (96%) and road decommissioning (100%). This is an important improvement
as roads are generally the primary source of non-point source pollution in forested watersheds
(West, 2002). However, stream crossings decreased slightly from 93% in 2009 to 90% in 2010.
This decrease is due to a single stream crossing that was rated as implemented but not effective.
Since 2008, prescribed fire has been rated as 100% implemented and 100% effective (Table 3
and appendix). This trend continued in 2010.
5
Figure 1. Comparison of overall BMP implementation and effectiveness between 2005 and 2010.
Table 3. Comparison of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for 2009 and 2010.
Evaluation
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
#
Evaluations
16
28
26
46
46
2009
%
implemented
94%
96%
92%
91%
93%
%
effective
100%
100%
100%
91%
93%
#
Evaluations
19
29
28
25
10
2010
%
implemented
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
%
effective
100%
100%
100%
96%
90%
21
18
95%
100%
100%
100%
27
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
201
91%
93%
163
100%
99%
In comparison to the 2009 results, overall implementation increased by 6 percentage points,
while overall effectiveness improved by 2 percentage points (Table 3 and Figure 1).
Improvements were realized with the implementation of BMPs for skid trails, road drainage and
stream crossings, stream courses, landings and road decommissioning. Prescribed fire remained
level at 100%. In 2010 effectiveness increased or remained the same as 2009 for all BMP
categories. In 2009 effectiveness targets were not met for road drainage, stream crossings, and
road decommissioning. These targets were exceeded in 2010.
Areas where improvement can be realized include the following:
6


E08 and E09: Maintaining proper drainage on roads.
E08: Correcting pre-existing road drainage problems.
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 4). Of the 163 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a channel
was observed at only one site, which is less than 1 % of the sites.
Table 4. Evaluations with evidence of sediment delivery to SMZs and stream channels.
# with
# with
#
deposition sediment
Evaluation
Evaluations in RHCA in channel
T01- Stream courses
19
0
0
T02- Skid trails
29
0
0
T04- Landings
28
0
0
E08- Road drainage
25
0
0
E09- Stream Crossings
10
0
1
E10- Road Decommissioning
27
0
0
F25- Prescribed Fire
25
0
0
Totals
163
0
1
7
Results by Individual Evaluation
T01- Stream course protection, T02-Erosion control, T04-landings
Implementation – BMPs were implemented at all sites evaluated.
Effectiveness- All sites were effectively protected from erosion.
Recommendations:
100% implementation and effectiveness for timber BMPs has occurred due to close coordination
between sale administrators, hydrologists and soil scientists. Figure 1 shows that BMP
implementation and effectiveness has been steadily improving since 2005. These results
demonstrate the success of the BMP evaluation program in providing sale administrators with
feedback regarding timber operations and the high level of commitment on the part of sale
administrators to ensure timber sales are operated in a manner that protects water quality. This
close coordination should continue, along with diligence in conducting BMP evaluations in order
to maintain this high level of success.
E08- Road surface, drainage and slope protection
Implementation- For the first time since 2006, road surface drainage and slope protection BMP
implementation was rated at 100% (See Appendix, Figure A4). This reflects close coordination
between engineering, sale administration and hydrology to ensure that road improvements called
for in the contract are implemented. This result may also reflect a difference in the way the
sample pool was collected. In the past, the BMP evaluation sites were selected from all the roads
that were within or adjacent to the timber harvest units, irregardless if the roads were used during
the harvest or haul associated with the QLG project. This past selection method was based on
GIS and did not refer directly to the road improvements specified in NEPA or in the timber sale
contract. In 2010, the evaluation sites were selected from the list of roads used for haul as
specified in the timber sale contract. This improvement in the selection method meant that
legacy road problems that were not associated with the QLG project would not be evaluated.
This change in how we selected the sample pool may be a factor in the reported improvement in
successful BMP implementation.
Effectiveness- 24 out of 25 sites were rated as effective, resulting in 96% effectiveness. Native
surface roads are susceptible to erosion in the forms of rills and gullies. Surface drainage
features provide for the interception and removal of water from the road surface (Napper, 2008).
On the Lassen, 2-4 inch deep rills had cut alongside road 34N48B funneling water approximately
50 meters down slope into the middle of the road and a few meters off of the road (Figure 2).
The eroded soil did not enter a SMZ or stream. This was considered not effective because
surface erosion occurred; however, because the sediment did not reach a stream, the overall
consequence is negligible.
Recommendations:
8
Drainage ditches, outsloping and drainage dips remove water from the road surface. For this low
maintenance level native surface road, addition of rolling dips above and below the rills is
recommended. During the NEPA process, roads should be evaluated at a minimum by an
engineer and hydrologist for the following problems:




Road-side ditches with too much relief, especially ones that directly discharge into
streams.
Road-side ditches that are erodible (lacking riprap).
Roads constructed within unstable areas.
Non-functioning ditches, dips, and culverts.
NEPA documents should include specific recommendations for road drainage and maintenance.
There appears to be a potential gap between the NEPA analysis and implementation of road
improvements. Addition of expensive road improvements to timber sales can drive the cost of
the sale beyond the level of economic feasibility. As a result, road improvements are not always
implemented with the sale and rely on limited watershed funds to be implemented.
Implementation of stewardship contracts, which allow for additional funding beyond the value of
the timber, can solve this problem. By ensuring that road improvements recommended in the
NEPA analysis are carried through along with the timber sale, and that appropriate funds are
identified to fund the contract, road drainage and maintenance needed to maintain water quality
will be more certain to be implemented.
9
Figure 2. Rills alongside LNF road 34N48B. The rill originates upslope from the hammer in the photo and
makes a 90 degree turn halfway between the bottom of the photo and the hammer.
10
E09- Stream Crossings
Implementation- All of the ten stream crossings evaluated had proper BMP implementation.
This is an important improvement over 2009 and caps the trend toward increasing
implementation from 2007 through 2010 (See Appendix, Figure A5).
Effectiveness- One of the ten sites evaluated were ineffective at stream crossings, with evidence
of sediment entering an ephemeral channel. This led to a 90% effectiveness rating. In this case,
a LNF road was carrying sediment from the road into the channel (Figure 4). This is probably
due to high precipitation events overloading the culvert, allowing water to travel over the road
and into the channel.
Recommendations:
Crossings that are normally dry may carry large amount of water during major flood events.
Culverts should be sized to anticipate infrequent but potentially damaging floods. Culvert outlets
should be armored above and below the culvert to prevent undercutting.
Figure 3. LNF road crossing with evidence of sedimentation in ephemeral channel.
11
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- All sites were fully implemented in 2010, resulting in 100% implementation for
three of the past four years.
Effectiveness- All sites were rated effective, marking the first year of 100% for road
decommissioning effectiveness.
Recommendations:
During road decommissioning projects, continue to implement BMPs as prescribed.
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- All of the 25 sites had proper implementation of BMPs, marking the third
consecutive year of 100% implementation for prescribed fire BMPs.
Effectiveness- All of the 25 sites were rated as effective, marking the third consecutive year of
100% effectiveness for prescribed fire BMPs.
Recommendations:
Continue to include measures to reduce risk to water quality and soil resources in all burn plans.
Continue to conduct prescribed fires within appropriate burn windows and suspend operations
when conditions are not favorable to meet stated objectives. Continue to designate SMZs as
areas of no treatment or carefully managed treatment. Continue to implement projects in areas
where there is a low risk of water quality impairment and areas with slopes and soils with low
erosion hazard ratings.
Key Findings
This year’s monitoring results mark the culmination of a team effort on the part of sale
administrators, engineers, soils scientists and hydrologists to meet or surpass the goal of 100%
BMP implementation and 90% BMP effectiveness. Through the BMP monitoring program, we
have identified problem areas and focused on improving results in those areas in order to protect
and preserve the water resources on our National Forests. Out of 163 evaluations, all 163 BMPs
were fully implemented and only 2 were not effective. For the two ineffective sites, only one
site showed evidence of sediment delivery to a stream and the stream was a small ephemeral
drainage. The average effectiveness of 99% indicates that diligent implementation and
monitoring of BMPs is an effective method for preserving water quality. The prescription,
application, and monitoring of these practices should be continued across the HFQLG Pilot
Project area.
12
Figure 4. Summary results of 2010 BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type.
The target goal is to achieve 90 percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation
(Figure 4). The target was exceeded for effectiveness and implementation. Areas where
improvement in effectiveness can be realized are focused on road drainage and crossings.
General recommendations are listed below:








Continue to strive to achieve 100% implementation
Continue to achieve at least 90% effectiveness for all BMPs.
Build upon 2010 success for BMPs associated with stream courses, skid trails, landings,
road decommissioning and prescribed fire.
Continue to designate Stream Management Zones (SMZs) for prescribed fire and all
timber sale activities.
Maintain proper drainage on all roads, which includes the maintenance of culverts and
ditches.
Stabilize erodible (unstable) areas, where roads are located.
Identify unstable areas and drainage problems associated with roads during the NEPA
process.
Increase watershed funding allocation to implement road improvements identified in
NEPA documents that are not economically feasible to include in the timber sale.
References
Napper, Caroline. 2008. Soil and Water Road-Condition Index-Field Guide. USDA Forest
13
Service, National Technology and Development Program, 0877 1806-SDTDC. 93p.
West, Ben. 2002. Water Quality in the South, In: Wear, David N.; Greis, John G., eds. 2002.
Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. Asheville, NC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 635 p.
14
Appendix
Figure A1. BMPEP results for stream courses (T01) between 2005 and 2010.
Figure A2. BMPEP results for skid trails (T02) between 2005 and 2010.
15
Appendix
Figure A3. BMPEP results for landings (T04) between 2005 and 2010.
Figure A4. BMPEP results for road drainage (E08) between 2005 and 2010.
16
Appendix
Figure A5. BMPEP results for stream crossings (E09) between 2005 and 2010.
Figure A6. BMPEP results for road decommissioning (E10) between 2005 and 2010.
17
Appendix
Figure A7. BMPEP results for prescribed fire (F25) between 2005 and 2010.
18