HFQLG Monitoring Plan
BMP Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results (2006)
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 2006. 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 2005 or earlier. In addition, an update to the
2005 monitoring is included as a supplement.
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
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
1
same place. Evaluations for roads (stream crossings, drainage and decommissioning) and
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: Battle DFPZ, Silver
DFPZ, Whip, Elk DFPZ, Logan DFPZ, Mckenzie Aspen Enhancement, Pittville DFPZ, Hungry
MP Salvage, Bosque Service Contract, Lahonton Timber Sale, Vaca Service Contract, Deanes,
and Southside DFPZ project areas.
Prescribed burns evaluations were conducted in: Spike Buck, Upper Slate DFPZ, Waters, Jura,
Antelope Border, Zingira Underburn, Betty Sue Rx Burn, and Warner DFPZ project areas.
Road decommissioning evaluations were conducted in: Last Chance Timber Sale area and the
Antelope Watershed Improvement 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
12
5
0
0
1
0
2
4
22
20
8
8
3
3
2
2
2
1
0
0
2
2
5
4
12
0
8
1
0
0
1
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
9
4
0
0
5
0
0
0
26
2
0
0
1
12
9
2
105
27
15
5
10
12
17
19
Total
Table 1- Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2006.
Results Summary:
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
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
12
22
20
12
4
9
26
105
9
21
19
11
4
8
23
95
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
5
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
92
95
95
100
100
89
88
93
83
100
100
92
100
89
96
95
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 increasing
SMZ width where slope, precipitation, and ground cover characteristics dictate. We can also
improve the design and post-treatment mitigations of road crossings that are removed during
road decommissioning. Finally, prescribed fire treatments need to account for erosive soils and
steep slopes. Otherwise, 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, most field observers indicated that the degree, duration,
and extent to which water quality was affected were also low.
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 3). Of the 105 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a RHCA was
found at 8 sites (8 percent), sediment to a channel was found at 4 sites (4 percent). At most sites,
the sediment-filtering function of the RHCA is preserved. In all but 2 cases, the RHCA
successfully prevented sediment from reaching the stream.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
3
Evaluation
#
Evaluations
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
12
22
20
12
4
9
26
105
# with
deposition in
RHCA
2
0
1
2
0
2
1
8
# with
sediment
in channel
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
4
Table 3. Evaluations with evidence of sediment delivery to RHCAs and channels.
Results by Individual Evaluation
T01- Streamcourse protection.
Implementation- Five of Five sites on the Lassen were successfully implemented. Two of three
Plumas units had BMPs implemented properly. Four of four sites were also implemented
correctly on the Sierraville RD.
One site on the Lassen did not have the SMZ indicated on the contract map, but it was flagged on
the ground. One site on the Plumas had the SMZ flagged much narrower than specified in the
EA, a departure from full implementation.
Effectiveness- Five of five sites were effective on the Lassen. Three of three Plumas units were
effectively protected. However, only two of four sites on the Sierraville RD were rated as
effective.
Designation of SMZs prevented effects to channels at all sites on the Lassen and the Plumas.
Despite implementation of 20-ft wide no-treatment-zones, two sites on the Sierraville RD
showed evidence of sediment to channel from skid trails and old roads located adjacent to and
within the SMZs.
Recommendations:
Increase the width of SMZs to account for erosion sources located near the channel. Continue to
designate SMZs as areas of no treatment or carefully managed treatment.
T02- Erosion Control on Skid Trails
Implementation- 13 of 13 sites were implemented on the Lassen. Three of four sites on the
Plumas were properly implemented. Five of five sites on the Sierraville RD were also properly
implemented.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
4
Erosion control was implemented on all Lassen sites except one. Slopes on this site were less
than 1% and erosion control measures were unnecessary. In one site on the Plumas a skid trail
was located in the RHCA, representing a departure from the prescription.
Effectiveness- 13 of 13 sites were rated as effective on the Lassen. Four of four sites on the
Plumas were rated as effective and five of five sites on the Sierraville RD were also effectively
reduced risks to water quality.
All sites were 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- 13 of 13 sites had BMPs properly implemented on the Lassen. Two of three
sites were implemented properly on the Plumas. All four out of four sites on Sierraville RD were
implemented properly.
BMPs were implemented on all sites on the Lassen. One minor departure from BMPs was noted
for Whip unit 152. The size of the landing was larger than usual. One Plumas evaluation
indicated the landing was located in the RHCA, contrary to BMPs.
Effectiveness- 13 of 13 sites were rated as effective on the Lassen. Three of three sites were also
rated as effective on the Plumas. Four of four sites on the Sierraville RD were rated as effective.
No increased risks to water quality or increased erosion were noted at any of the 13 Lassen sites
or 4 Sierraville RD sites. Some rilling was noted on the Plumas landing (Mabie DFPZ unit 36)
within the RHCA, but no sediment to channel was documented.
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- Nine of nine sites had BMPs properly implemented on the Lassen. One of one
site on the Plumas was properly implemented. Two of two sites on the Sierraville RD were also
properly implemented.
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
5
Effectiveness- Eight of nine sites were rated effective on the Lassen. One of one site on the
Plumas and two of two sites on the Sierraville RD were rated as effective.
One site on the Lassen had rills on the fillslope of the road with sediment to channel evident.
This was caused by inadequate erosion control on the skid trails and landing above the road, not
by a failure to implement road surface protection BMPs. One site on Sierraville RD indicated
erosion at the cross drain outlets, with sediment deposition to SMZ, but not to the channel.
Recommendations:
In operations conducted near channels, all potential erosion sources should be dealt with. Proper
surfacing and drainage of roadways are not sufficient when skid trails and landings adjacent to
the road do not have adequate erosion control measures.
E09- Stream Crossings
Implementation- One of one Lassen site was properly implemented. One of one site on the
Plumas also had BMPs properly implemented. On the Sierraville RD, two of two sites were
properly implemented.
Effectiveness- All sites on the Lassen (one of one), Plumas (one of one), and Sierraville RD (two
of two) effectively reduced risks to water quality.
Recommendations:
Stream crossings remain the primary source of increased risk to water quality on National Forest
System lands. Continued diligence in addressing this fact is recommended.
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- BMPs were properly implemented on three of the four Lassen sites. All five of
five sites on the Plumas had properly implemented BMPs.
One site on the Lassen did not have proper design or mitigation of a decommissioned stream
crossing. An insufficient amount of fill was removed at one crossing.
Effectiveness- Three of the four sites on the Lassen were rated as effective. Five of five sites on
the Plumas effectively reduced risks to water quality.
One site on Lassen did not have enough fill removed at a stream crossing. This site had
adjustment at stream crossing with sediment delivered to the channel. One site on Plumas had
minor adjustment as well, with sediment deposition in the SMZ.
Recommendations:
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
6
During design of road decommissioning projects, ensure that enough road fill at stream crossings
will be removed to minimize adjustment of the channel. During implementation, monitor results
so that corrective actions can be taken as work is being completed.
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- One of two Lassen sites had full implementation. Twenty of 22 sites on the
Plumas were implemented properly. Two of two sites on the Sierraville RD were also
implemented properly.
One of the Lassen sites did not have erosion control described in the Burn Plan. One site on the
Plumas (Upper Slate DFPZ 137) was located on steep slopes with highly erosive soils. Another
site on the Plumas (Upper Slate DFPZ 135) did not have its handlines rehabilitated.
Effectiveness- Both of the Lassen sites were rated as effective. 21 of 22 sites on the Plumas were
rated as effective and both sites on the Sierraville RD were rated as effective.
One site on Plumas (Upper Slate DFPZ 137) did not have adequate ground cover on highly
erosive soils following the burn. This led to the formation of rills on the site. There was no
transport of sediment to the channel, but soils were poorly protected at this site. One site on the
Sierraville RD showed evidence of sediment deposition in the SMZ, but not to the stream
channel.
Recommendations:
Include measures to reduce risk to water quality and soil resources in all burn plans. Ground
truth areas to be burned during planning and layout. Identify and apply appropriate protection
measures to streamside zones, including ephemeral channels.
Prepared by:
Scott Tangenberg
Watershed Program Manager
Lassen National Forest
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
7
Supplement to 2006 Report
Watershed Task Group Findings of 2005 BMP Re-evaluation
The 2005 report to congress recommended that a Watershed Task Group be formed to evaluate
BMP implementation, effectiveness and monitoring to review the results of past performance
and recommend corrective actions. The task group went back to the Regional BMPEP database,
extracted all of the pertinent BMPEP data, and did a summary analysis of the data. The task
group found that the 2005 report misrepresented the actual implemented versus effectiveness
data from the database. In fact, the data shows that BMP practices were implemented and were
effective approximately 90 percent of the time (The target goal for BMP implementation and
effectiveness is 90 percent). The watershed task group did not recommended extraordinary
corrective actions.
Table 1. Summarizes results from the 2005 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
8
11
12
16
15
26
22
110
7
10
10
14
13
21
20
95
1
0
0
0
0
4
2
7
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
3
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
5
88
91
92
88
93
85
91
89
100
91
83
88
87
96
100
93
HFQLG Best Management Practices Monitoring: Results 2006
8