2009 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 2010
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 2009. 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 2008 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
prescribed burn sites had separate pools developed. For road evaluations, these separate pools of
sites were randomly sorted with a random number generator and the first 30 from each pool were
selected.
2
All units burned in 2008 with broadcast fire were examined to determine if RHCAs were
adjacent. Pile burning prescriptions were not included in the monitoring pool. A stratified
sampling was completed. Only 12 units had streams adjacent, so all of these 12 units were
selected. An additional 18 units without adjacent RHCAs were randomly selected for a total of
30 units burned in 2008 for F25 BMP monitoring in 2009.
BMPs for Streamside Management Zones (SMZ), skidding, landings, road drainage and stream
crossings evaluations were made in activity areas of the following projects:
Lassen National Forest: South Station, Gordon, Cone/Crater, Deep Red, Big Jacks,
Black’s Ridge, Cabin, Eagle Lake Recreation Area
Plumas National Forest- Jenkins, M.Valley
Tahoe National Forest: Jumbuck
Prescribed burn evaluations were conducted within the following project areas:
Lassen National Forest: Pittville, Eastside Forest Health Improvement Projects, and
North Coble DFPZ.
Plumas National Forest: Empire, Massack, Ridge, Slapjack, Pike County.
Tahoe National Forest: Calpine, Borda Under burn.
Road decommissioning evaluations were conducted within the following project areas:
Lassen National Forest: Big Jacks, Blacks Ridge, Cabin, Cone Crater, Deep Red,
Gordon, South Station.
Plumas National Forest- Meadow Valley, Milk Ranch, French Creek OHV closure,
Hollywood OHV closure.
Tahoe National Forest: Davies Creek.
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
(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. In 2009 the
three national forests conducted 201 site evaluations, which exceed the average of 158 between
2005 and 2009 (Figure 1).
3
Table 1. Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2009.
Lassen National Forest Plumas National Forest Tahoe NF
Evaluation
Total ALRD HCRD ELRD BRD FRRD MHRD
SRD
T01 - Stream Courses
T02 - Skid Trails
T04- Landings
16
28
26
46
E08- Road Drainage
E09 - Stream Crossings
E10 - Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
46
21
18
201
0
0
0
1
3
3
0
5
5
5
9
9
0
0
0
1
1
1
9
10
8
0
0
36
36
3
3
5
5
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
85
0
3
19
2
0
35
3
3
6
15
2
24
1
4
32
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
Figure 1. Total number of BMPEP site evaluations collected throughout the HFQLG Pilot Project area
between 2005 and 2009.
Results Summary:
4
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. The target goal is to achieve 90
percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation. While the target was exceeded
for effectiveness, implementation fell short of the goal.
Table 2. Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for the 2009
BMPEP
Evaluation
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
#
Evaluations
16
28
26
46
46
21
18
IE
15
27
24
40
41
20
18
NIE
1
1
2
2
2
1
0
INE
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
NINE
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
%
implemented
94%
96%
92%
91%
93%
95%
100%
% effective
100%
100%
100%
91%
93%
100%
100%
Overall
201
185
9
4
3
94%
97%
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, but have not yet
achieved the goal of 100% for implementation (Figure 2). Overall implementation and
effectiveness in 2009 exceeded the overall average between 2005 and 2009 of 90% for
implementation and 91% for effectiveness (Table 3 and Figure 2). While effectiveness surpassed
the target of 90%, implementation in 2009 was 6 percentage points below the target of 100%.
In 2009, 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).
One hundred percent of site evaluations for prescribed fire (F25) were rated as effective and
implemented (Table 3 and Appendix). For the fourth straight year, BMPs for landings (T04)
were rated as 100% effective (Table 3 and Appendix). Effectiveness for roads improved from
2008 to 2009, surpassing the target of 90%, as demonstrated with site evaluations for road
drainage, (91%), stream crossings (93%), 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).
5
Prescribed fire was the only evaluation category rated as 100% implemented in 2009 (Table 3
and appendix). Shortcomings in achieving the goal of 100% of BMP implementation for the
remaining BMP categories were between 90 and 100% in 2009 (Table 3 and appendix).
Figure 2. Comparison of overall BMP implementation and effectiveness between 2005 and 2009.
Table 3. Comparison of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for 2008 and 2009.
22
26
30
28
20
2008
%
implemented
100%
85%
100%
71%
85%
%
effective
95%
100%
100%
86%
85%
#
# Evaluations
16
28
26
46
46
2009
%
implemented
94%
96%
92%
91%
93%
%
effective
100%
100%
100%
91%
93%
Evaluation
T01- Streamcourses
T02- Skidtrails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Evaluations
26
23
96%
100%
85%
100%
21
18
95%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
175
91%
93%
201
94%
97%
In comparison to the 2008 results, overall implementation increased by 3 percentage points,
while overall effectiveness improved by 4 percentage points (Table 3 and Figure 2).
6
Improvements were realized with the implementation of BMPs for skid trails, road drainage and
stream crossings. A decline in implementation of BMPs occurred with stream courses, landings
and road decommissioning. In 2008 effectiveness targets were not met for road drainage, stream
crossings, and road decommissioning. These targets were exceeded in 2009. In 2009
effectiveness increased or remained the same as 2008 for all BMP categories.
Areas where improvement can be realized include the following:
E08: Stabilization of unstable slopes where roads are located
E08 and E09: Maintaining proper drainage on roads.
E08: Correcting pre-existing road drainage problems.
T02: Proper delineation of ephemeral stream channel before project implementation
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 4). Of the 201 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a channel
was observed at three sites (1 percent) and sediment to a SMZ that did not enter the channel was
found at one site (< 1 percent). For the site where sediment entered the SMZ but did not enter
the channel, the evaluation was rated as implemented and effective.
Table 4. Evaluations with evidence of sediment delivery to SMZs
and stream channels.
Evaluation
T01- Stream courses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
#
Evaluations
16
28
26
46
46
# with
deposition
only to
RHCA
0
0
0
1
0
# with
sediment
to
channel
0
0
0
3
2
21
18
0
0
0
0
201
1
5
7
Results by Individual Evaluation
T01- Stream course protection.
Implementation - One failed implementation evaluation resulted during the 2009 Stream Side
Management on the Jumbuck Aspen Restoration Project (unit 33). This zone failed due to lack of
identifying a minor ephemeral channel in the low gradient area adjacent to the main channel.
This channel was operated through to treat the aspen stand. Adequate slash and ground cover
was provided to minimize sediment movement. BMP effectiveness for T01 at unit 33 was not
observed to be affected last season due to the presence of ground cover
Effectiveness- All sites were effectively protected from erosion, despite operations being
conducted in an ephemeral channel. The application of adequate slash and ground cover
provided effective protection from erosion.
Recommendations:
Hydrologists should identify and flag ephemeral channels. Continue to ensure adequate slash
and ground cover to minimize erosion. Continue to designate SMZs as areas of no treatment or
carefully managed treatment. Design skid trails on shallow slopes. If steep skid trails are
necessary, keep them for short distances less than 100 feet; locate them on soils with low erosion
hazard rating; locate them outside of SMZs (Furniss, 1999).
T02- Erosion Control on Skid Trails
Implementation- The Freeman Project (unit 52D) was the only failed evaluation for
implementation of T02. The failed rating was due to skid trail spacing (some less than 80 ft
apart) that was less than what was specified in the contract. This problem was not observed on
any of the other T02 evaluations done on the Freeman project. BMP effectiveness for T02 at
unit 52D was not observed to be affected by the implementation deficiency.
Effectiveness- All sites were effectively protected from erosion.
Recommendations:
Administrators need to stay vigilant when checking the location of skid trails. Skid trails should
not be located within SMZ or in areas where water quality can be impaired. The same
recommendations for T01 apply.
T04- Erosion Control on Landings
Implementation- BMPs were implemented at all sites that were evaluated.
Effectiveness- All evaluated sites were rated as effective.
Recommendations:
Continue to locate landings outside of SMZs. Replace ground cover on landings (with slash,
mulch, etc.) when operations are complete in order to improve erosion control.
8
E08- Roads
Implementation- 42 out of 46 sites had BMPs implemented as prescribed. On the Lassen
National Forest, problems resulted on the Black’s Ridge project from rilling of a roadside
drainage ditch that carried sediment down into both the inlet and outlet culvert basins of 35N10,
plugging the culvert. The drainage structure is not armored at the outlet, and debris from the
road and fill slope moved to cover the outlet basin. Flow is completely blocked through the
culvert, so no sediment enters the channel. On the Plumas one road failed for both
implementation and effectiveness, road 24N57 on the Freeman Project. The implementation
failure was because the contract called for 80 feet of the road length to be raised at a culvert to
mitigate diversion potential that exists. That work was not performed.
Effectiveness- 42 out of 46 sites were rated as effective. Armored low water crossings, where
appropriate, are preferred to culverts to reduce maintenance needs and culvert failures. On the
Lassen, a crossing was armored with rip rap at an ephemeral stream on the Black’s Ridge
project. However, on either side of the crossing the native road surface sloped inward which
allowed sediment from road surface erosion drainage ditches that entered the channel on both
sides of the crossing.
On the Deep Red project the inside ditch of road 31N17 carried runoff from the road and cut
slope into a perennial channel in a wetland. The fill slopes at the culvert also deposited some
sediment into the channel. The culvert was too small, and caused some channelization of the
South Fork Onion Creek wetland.
On the Plumas, the effectiveness failure on road 24N57 was due to past installation (not the
Freeman project) of a dip that drains too close to a stream channel. There is only 40 feet of
hillslope buffer between the dip outlet and the stream channel. As a result, sediment from the fill
slope was observed to be entering the channel.
Recommendations:
Culverts and drainage ditches need to be monitored and cleaned periodically to insure they are
free of debris and functioning correctly. 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.
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. An increase
in QLG watershed allocations would allow these improvements to be implemented
independently of the sale, thus increasing the likelihood of reaching the target of 100%
implementation.
9
E09- Stream Crossings
Implementation- Forty-four of forty-six crossings had proper BMP implementation.
Effectiveness- Two of the forty-six sites evaluated were ineffective at stream crossings, with
sediment to channel evident. A BMP on the Gordon Enhancement project was evaluated at a
crossing with one 3’ and one 4’ culvert for an ephemeral stream. Culverts for the crossing are
undercut, and an eddy forms at the outlet, eroding the base of the fill slope and causing a minor
slope failure. Sediment from the crossing enters the channel. On the Black’s Ridge project, a
crossing evaluation for a 24” culvert that crosses the south side of 35N10 at the T-intersection
with 35N38 revealed that the crossing draining the inside ditch of 35N10 was blocked from
debris from the road and fill slope. Debris covered the entire outlet basin, and no flow exits the
outlet. The outlet needs a deeper ditch with dense boulder armoring.
Recommendations:
It is critical to identify long uninterrupted road-side ditches near streams during the NEPA
process. Also, crossings should be constructed with appropriate erosion control such as graveled
surfaces and headwalls. Culvert outlets should be armored above and below the culvert to
prevent undercutting.
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- BMPs were properly implemented at 25 of 26 decommissioned roads. On the
Plumas, one site failed for implementation, due to a culvert stream crossing, which was left in
place (not removed). More investigation is needed to determine whether the culvert was left in
place mistakenly or whether a decision had been made to not fully decommission the road at this
time. BMP effectiveness was rated as adequate, as little erosion is currently evident. However,
with the road closed and no future maintenance planned for this culvert, it is most likely to plug
at some time in the future and significant erosion and sedimentation from the culvert road fill
would occur.
Effectiveness- All sites were rated effective.
Recommendations:
During road decommissioning projects, continue to implement BMPs as prescribed.
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- All of the 18sites had proper implementation of BMPs.
Effectiveness- All of the 18 sites were rated as effective.
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
10
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
As indicated by this year’s monitoring results, Best Management Practices (BMPs) continue to
be an effective method for protecting and preserving water on National Forests. The prescription,
application, and monitoring of these practices should be continued across the HFQLG Pilot
Project area.
Figure 7. Summary results of 2009 BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type.
The target goal is to achieve 90 percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation
(Figure 7). While the target was exceeded for effectiveness, implementation fell short of the
goal. Areas where improvement in effectiveness can be realized are focused on road drainage
and crossings. General recommendations are listed below:
Strive to achieve 100% implementation
Continue to achieve at least 90% effectiveness for all BMPs.
Build upon 2009 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.
11
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.
Investigate reasons for failure to implement and find solutions to avoid failures in the
future.
Increase watershed funding allocation to implement road improvements identified in
NEPA documents that are not economically feasible to include in the timber sale.
Follow-up site visits are highly recommended for the following areas where sediment reached a
channel:
E08 and E09 (roads)
o Black’s Ridge 34N40, 35N10
o Freeman 24N25, 24N57
o Gordon Aspen 34N03
o Deep Red 31N17
12
References
Furniss, Mike. 1999. The Six-D System for Effective Waterbars. USDA Forest Service Pacific
Southwest Region. Retrieved from website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/baer/six-d.html on
January 6, 2009.
Keim, Richard F. and Stephen H. Schoenholtz. 1998. Functions and effectiveness of
silvicultural streamside management zones in loessial bluff forests. Forest Ecology and
Management 118 (1999) 197-209
Rashin, Edward B., Casey J. Clishe, Andrew T. Loch, and Johanna M. Bell, 2006. Effectiveness
of Timber Harvest Practices for Controlling Sediment Related Water Quality Impacts.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 42(5):1307-1327.
Rivenbark, B. Lane and C. Rhett Jackson, 2004. Concentrated Flow Breakthroughs Moving
Through Silvicultural Streamside Management Zones: Southeastern Piedmont, USA. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 40(4):1043-1052.
USDA Forest Service. 2002. Investigating Water Quality in the Pacific Southwest Region: Best
Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP User’s Guide. Pacific Southwest
Region; Vallejo, CA.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in
California: Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region; Vallejo, CA.
West, Ben. 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.
13
Appendix
BMPEP results for stream courses (T01) between 2005 and 2009.
BMPEP results for skid trails (T02) between 2005 and 2009.
14
Appendix
BMPEP results for landings (T04) between 2005 and 2009.
BMPEP results for road drainage (E08) between 2005 and 2009.
15
Appendix
BMPEP results for stream crossings (E09) between 2005 and 2009.
BMPEP results for road decommissioning (E10) between 2005 and 2009.
16
Appendix
BMPEP results for prescribed fire (F25) between 2005 and 2009.
17