2011 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
December 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 2011. 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 2010 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 weighing 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 target sites 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 2010
to create a list of units with adjacent RHCAs/SMZs. 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 on the Tahoe, Lassen and Plumas used
to haul timber or biomass from HFQLG treated units. A list of haul roads was determined by
receiving haul route information from Engineering and comparing against 2010 harvest units.
A random selection of units/haul roads was selected for E08/E09 BMP monitoring in 2011. Not
all roads selected had streams associated with them.
E10- Road Decommissioning
A list of roads decommissioned in 2010 was obtained from each ranger district. Evaluation
targets were randomly selected from each forest for E10 BMP monitoring in 2011.
F25- Prescribed Fire
All units burned in 2010 with broadcast fire or underburns were examined to determine if
streams were within 300 feet. Pile burning prescriptions were not included in the monitoring
pool. Targets were randomly selected from the Plumas and Lassen for F25 BMP monitoring in
2011. No prescribed burns occurred on the Tahoe.
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.
3
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. Due to late spring snowfall in 2011,
the three national forests conducted 71 site evaluations, which is considerably less than in
previous years.
Table 1. Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2011.
Lassen National Forest
Plumas National Forest
Evaluation
Total
ALRD
ELRD
HCRD
BKRD
FRRD
MHRD
Tahoe National
Forest
SVRD
T01Streamcourses
T02Skidtrails
T04Landings
E08- Road
Drainage
13
3
0
2
2
0
5
1
11
1
1
1
2
0
5
1
15
2
1
4
2
0
5
1
4
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
E09Stream
Crossings
4
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
E10- Road
Decommiss
ioning
12
0
0
2
2
0
5
3
F25Prescribed
Fire
Totals
12
1
1
0
1
3
6
0
71
7
3
9
11
3
32
6
ALRD: Almanor Ranger District; ELRD: Eagle Lake Ranger District; HCRD: Hat Creek Ranger District; BKRD: Beckworth Ranger District;
FRRD: Feather River Ranger District; MHRD: Mount Hough Ranger District: and SVRD: 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
(BMPs not implemented and objectives not met) and at risk. 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 2011.
4
Table 2. Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for the 2011
BMPEP.
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
13
11
15
4
4
13
11
15
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
75
12
12
0
0
0
100
100
12
11
0
1
0
100
92
71
69
0
2
0
100
97
Overall
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. 2011 was the second year in which 100% of the
BMP evaluation targets were implemented (Figure 1). The overall average between 2006 and
2011 was 95% for implementation and 95% for effectiveness. This represents an increase in the
five year average from 92% for implementation and 93% for effectiveness, based on the 20052010 average. Overall implementation and effectiveness in 2011 exceeded the 2006-2011
average (Table 3 and Figure 1).
In 2011, the forests achieved 100% implementation and effectiveness for stream course (T01),
skid trails (T02), landings (T04), road drainage (E08) and road decommissioning (E10) (Table 3
and Appendix A). One hundred percent of site evaluations for prescribed fire (F25) were rated
as implemented and 92% were rated effective (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 2010 to 2011, surpassing the target of 90%, as
demonstrated with site evaluations for road drainage, (100%) and road decommissioning
(100%). This is an important improvement as roads are generally the primary source of nonpoint source pollution in forested watersheds (West, 2002). However, stream crossings
decreased from 93% in 2010 to 75% in 2011. This decrease is due to a single stream crossing
that was rated as implemented but not effective. From 2008 through 2010, prescribed fire has
been rated as 100% implemented and 100% effective (Table 3 and appendix). This trend
decreased in 2011 due to a single site that was rated implemented but not effective.
5
Figure 1. Comparison of overall BMP implementation and effectiveness between 2006 and 2011.
Table 3. Comparison of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for 2010 and 2011.
Evaluation
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
#
Evaluations
19
29
28
25
10
27
2010
%
implemented
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
%
effective
100%
100%
100%
96%
90%
100%
#
Evaluations
13
11
15
4
4
12
2011
%
implemented
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
%
effective
100%
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
25
163
100%
100%
100%
99%
12
71
100%
100%
92%
97%
In comparison to the 2010 results, overall implementation held steady at 100% and overall
effectiveness was 97% (Table 3 and Figure 1). For the second year in a row, the targets of 100%
implementation and greater than 90% effectiveness were met. In 2010 targets for effectiveness
and implementation were met for all evaluations. In 2011 the effectiveness target was not met
for a single evaluation, road drainage.
Areas where improvement can be realized include the following:
E09: Minimizing erosion and sedimentation at road crossings
6
F25: Protection of water quality from prescribed burning activities
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 4). Of the 71 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a channel was
observed at only one site.
Table 4. Total number of evaluations and portion with evidence of sediment delivery to SMZs and stream
channels.
Evaluation
#
Evaluations
# with
deposition
in RHCA
# with
sediment in
channel
T01- Stream courses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
13
11
15
4
4
12
12
71
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Totals
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 2006. 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, road surface drainage and slope protection BMP
implementation were both 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, whether or not
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 and 2011, 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.
Recommendations:
Continue to maintain drainage ditches, outslope roads and install drainage dips to remove water
from the road surface. During the NEPA process, roads should be evaluated at a minimum by an
engineer and hydrologist for potential road drainage problems. NEPA documents should include
specific recommendations for road drainage and maintenance. Ensure 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.
8
E09- Stream Crossings
Implementation- All four of the stream crossings evaluated had proper BMP implementation.
This is an important improvement over 2010 and caps the trend toward increasing
implementation from 2007 through 2011 (See Appendix, Figure A5).
Effectiveness- One of the four stream crossing sites evaluated was rated as not effective because of
evidence of sediment entering an ephemeral channel. This led to a 75% effectiveness rating. A
temporary road adjacent to Road 27N10, was not removed. The temp road has gathered flow and
sediment and directed it to 27N10, causing the inside ditch to fill. More than 2 cubic yards of
sediment was estimated to be delivered to the stream as a result of this inadequate drainage ditch.
Additionally, some rilling of the road surface and fill slope was observed and the crossing culvert
is partially blocked, with some piping of flow beneath or around the culvert (erosion evident).
Recommendations:
Obliterate temporary roads and re-establish natural drainage patterns before closing sale units.
Where drainage on system roads is problematic, outslope roads and fill roadside ditches to avoid
soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams.
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- All sites were fully implemented in 2011, resulting in 100% implementation for
three of the past four years.
Effectiveness- All sites were rated effective, marking the first year that 100% of road
decommissionings were effective.
Recommendations:
During road decommissioning projects, continue to implement BMPs as prescribed.
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- All 12 of these evaluations rated as “pass” for BMP implementation, marking
the third consecutive year of 100% implementation for prescribed fire BMPs. Burn plan
prescriptions were found to reflect soil and water protection considerations. All sites evaluated
were found to be burned per prescription.
Effectiveness- Post-burn objectives were met or exceeded at 11 of the 12 sites evaluated. Red
Clover DFPZ on the Beckwourth District of the Plumas was the only unit with a “fail” rating for
effectiveness. At this site the extent of hydrophobic soils observed after the burn substantially
exceeded the project objective. Additionally, the extent of groundcover observed within the
9
SMZ was less than 90% of the project objective. However, there was no evidence of sediment
transport to the stream channel or within the SMZ.
Recommendations:
Continue to 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. 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. Because there is a potential presence of natural hydrophobicity in granitic and
volcanic soils and decreased infiltration rates in soils with a decomposed organic layer (Rice and
Grismer, 2011), BMP evaluations should include both pre-burn and post-burn evaluation of
infiltration rates.
Key Findings
Best Management practices (BMPs) are measures used with forest management activities to
protect water quality and soils. The Forest Service uses BMPs associated with stream course
protection, skid trails, landings, road drainage, stream crossings, prescribed fire, and road
decommissioning.
Best management practices were monitored using the Pacific Southwest Region protocols. This
approach requires activity sites to have undergone at least one winter prior to evaluation.
Therefore, all sites monitored were implemented in 2010 or earlier. The protocol involves a twostep process. The first step, implementation, determines whether 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 second step, effectiveness monitoring, involves
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. Results
from both implementation and effectiveness are summarized to yield a result of “implemented or
not implemented” and “effective or not effective”.
This year’s monitoring results reflect the continued success 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 71 evaluations conducted in
2011, all 71 BMPs were fully implemented and only 3 were not effective. For the three
ineffective sites, only one site showed evidence of sediment delivery to a stream. The average
effectiveness of 97% indicates that diligent implementation and monitoring of BMPs is an
10
effective method for preserving water quality. The prescription, application, and monitoring of
these practices should be continued across the HFQLG Pilot Project area.
Figure 4. Summary results of 2011 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 2011 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
removal of problematic roadside ditches.
Remove temporary roads from timber sales when the unit is closed.
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.
11
References
Rice, Erin C. and Mark E. Grismer. 2011. Dry-season soil water repellency affects Tahoe Basin
infiltration rates. California Agriculture, Volume 64, Number 3.
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.
12
Appendix
Figure A1. BMPEP results for stream courses (T01) between 2006 and 2011.
Figure A2. BMPEP results for skid trails (T02) between 2006 and 2011.
13
Appendix
Figure A3. BMPEP results for landings (T04) between 2006 and 2011.
Figure A4. BMPEP results for road drainage (E08) between 2006 and 2011.
14
Appendix
Figure A5. BMPEP results for stream crossings (E09) between 2006 and 2011.
Figure A6. BMPEP results for road decommissioning (E10) between 2006 and 2011.
15
Appendix
Figure A7. BMPEP results for prescribed fire (F25) between 2006 and 2011.
16