2008 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
Andrew Breibart, Acting Forest Hydrologist
LNF Ecosystem Conservation
January 2009
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 2008. 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 2007 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. 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:
2
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lassen National Forest: Cabin T.S.
Plumas National Forest- Grigsby MP Salvage, Bald Mountain, Meadow Valley
DFPZ&GS, and Mabie.
Tahoe National Forest: Claw, Beak, Toe S.C.,
Prescribed burn evaluations were conducted within the following project areas:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lassen National Forest: Blacks Ridge DFPZ, North Coble DFPZ, Pitville T.S., PALS
Eastside Forest Health Improvement Projects, and Signal DFPZ.
Plumas National Forest: Mabie, Red Clover, and S. Fork.
Tahoe National Forest: Vaca, Borda Under burn,
Road decommissioning evaluations were conducted within the following project areas:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lassen National Forest: Cabin T.S. and Cone Crater EA.
Plumas National Forest- Grigsby MP Salvage and Meadow Valley DFPZ&GS.
Tahoe National Forest: Camino.
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. In 2008, the
three national forests conducted 175 site evaluations, which exceed the average of 160 between
2003 and 2008 (Figure 1).
Table 1. Number of evaluations collected by administrative unit in 2008.
Evaluation
T01- Stream
courses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road
Drainage
E09- Stream
Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed
Fire
Total
Totals
Lassen National Forest
ARD
ELRD
HCRD
Plumas National Forest
BRD
FRRD
MHRD
Tahoe National Forest
SRD
22
26
30
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
5
3
4
5
0
2
2
9
9
9
8
7
8
28
0
0
11
7
0
5
5
20
0
0
2
6
0
4
8
26
0
10
5
1
0
8
2
23
0
4
10
3
3
0
3
175
0
16
38
29
7
44
41
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
3
Number of Evaluations
Total
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Average
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 1. Total number of BMPEP site evaluations collected throughout the HFQLF Pilot Project area
between 2003 and 2008. Results for 2004 were not available, as no report was written.
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). Note: BMP evaluations employ direct
observations of on-site factors that pose risks to water quality. Target goal is to achieve 90
percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation. On average, these goals have
been met.
Table 2. Summary results of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for the 2008
BMPEP
Evaluation
T01- Stream courses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Overall
#
Evaluations
22
26
30
28
20
IE
21
22
30
18
15
NIE
0
4
0
6
2
INE
1
0
0
2
2
NINE
0
0
0
2
1
%
implemented
100%
85%
100%
71%
85%
%
effective
95%
100%
100%
86%
85%
26
23
21
23
1
0
4
0
0
0
96%
100%
85%
100%
175
150
13
9
3
91%
93%
4
Other than the noted problems with roads and one skid trail, the results of this year’s monitoring
efforts indicate that BMPs effectively reduced risk to water quality across the pilot project area.
Specific problems are 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.
Since 2006, the forests have achieved a goal of 90% for effectiveness, but have not yet achieved
a goal of 100% for implementation between 2003 and 2008 (Figure 2). Overall implementation
and effectiveness in 2008 exceeded the overall average between 2003 and 2006 of 88% and 91%
respectively (Table 3 and Figure 2). While effectiveness reached the target of 90%,
implementation in 2008 was 9 percentage points below the target of 100%.
In 2008, the forests achieved 100% effectiveness for skid trails (T02), landings (T04), and
prescribed fire (F25) (Table 3 and Appendix). One hundred percent of site evaluations for
prescribed fire (F25) were rated as effective and implemented for the first time (Table 3 and
Appendix). For the third straight year, BMPs for landings (T04) were rated as 100% effective
(Table 3 and Appendix). Effectiveness for roads was below the target of 90%, as demonstrated
with site evaluations for road drainage, stream crossings, and road decommissioning. This
should come as no surprise as roads are the number one source of non-point source pollution in
forested watersheds (West, 2002). The primary pollutant is eroded sediment from unpaved
roads, fill slopes, and cut slopes. The target goal of 90% effectiveness has only been attained in
2003 and 2006 for both road drainage and stream crossings (Table 3 and Appendix).
BMPs for stream courses (T01), landings (T04), and prescribed fire (F25) were the only site
evaluations rated as 100% implemented in 2008 (Table 3 and appendix). This years’ evaluations
marks the second consecutive year that 100% implementation of BMPs for stream courses has
been met (Table 3 and Appendix). Shortcomings in achieving the goal of 100% of BMP
implementation for skid trails (T02); road drainage (E08), stream crossings (E09), and road
decommissioning continued in 2008 (Table 3 and appendix).
5
%
Implementation
Effectiveness
Average-Implementation
Average-Effectiveness
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 2. Comparison of overall BMP implementation and effectiveness between 2003 and 2005. Results
for 2004 were not available, as no report was written.
Table 3. Comparison of BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type for 2007 and 2008.
Evaluation
T01- Stream courses
T02- Skid trails
T04- Landings
E08- Road Drainage
E09- Stream Crossings
E10- Road
Decommissioning
F25- Prescribed Fire
Totals
#
Evaluations
22
26
30
28
20
2008
%
implemented
100%
85%
100%
71%
85%
%
effective
95%
100%
100%
86%
85%
#
Evaluations
26
31
28
42
9
2007
%
implemented
100%
81%
96%
95%
89%
%
effective
100%
97%
100%
79%
56%
26
23
96%
100%
85%
100%
24
34
96%
88%
100%
97%
175
91%
93%
194
92%
92%
In comparison to the 2007 results, overall implementation decreased by 1 percentage point, while
overall effectiveness improved by 1 percentage point (Table 3 and Figure 2). Improvements
were realized with the implementation of BMPs for skid trails. A decline in implementation of
BMPs occurred with road drainage and stream crossings. Effectiveness improved in skid trails;
road drainage, stream crossings, and prescribed fire. The greatest improvement in effectiveness
was 29 percentage points for stream crossings (Table 3 and appendix). Effectiveness declined
for stream courses and road decommissioning. The maximum decline in effectiveness was 15
percentage points for road decommissioning (Table 3 and Appendix).
Areas where improvement can be realized include the following:
6
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
E08: Stabilization of unstable slopes where roads are located
E08 and E09: Maintaining proper drainage on roads.
E08: Correcting pre-existing drainage problems with roads.
T02: Designing proper water control measures on skid trails.
T02: Locating skid trails away from stream channels.
E10: Installing better barriers on decommissioned roads.
A key effectiveness criterion relative to risks to water quality is evidence of sediment transport to
a channel (Table 4). Of the 175 evaluations that included this criterion, sediment to a SMZ was
found at 7 sites (4 percent) and sediment to a channel was observed at 6 sites (3 percent). For the
four sites, where sediment entered the SMZ, evaluations were rated as implemented and
effective. Furthermore, the SMZ (buffer) served its purpose by preventing fine-grained sediment
from reaching a stream channel. Buffers serve to trap sediment and maintain adequate shade to
ensure that water quality for temperature is maintained (Rashin et al., 2006; Keim and
Schoenholtz, 1998; and Rivenbark and Jackson, 2004). For the 6 sites where sediment reached a
channel, steep skid trails and whereby drainage became overwhelmed resulted in sediment
reaching channels for two sites. For the other 4 sites, which occurred on roads, there were no
SMZs to filter fine-grained sediment.
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
22
26
30
28
20
# with
deposition
in RHCA
1
1
5
# with
sediment
in
channel
1
1
2
2
26
23
175
7
6
7
Results by Individual Evaluation
T01- Stream course protection.
Implementation- All 22 sites had adequate implementation of SMZ protection.
Effectiveness- One site posed a risk to water quality within one of the Meadow Valley units.
Apparently, a skid trail was constructed with a grade between 45% and 50% and the water bars
on the trail became overwhelmed due to increased runoff from ruts. Sediment from the skid trail
reached an ephemeral stream.
Recommendations:
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;
and increase the frequency of water bars (Furniss, 1999).
T02- Erosion Control on Skid Trails
Implementation- All but 4 of the 26 sites had adequate implementation of erosion control on skid
trails. On two of these 4 sites, water bars were either missing or inadequate. In addition, one skid
trail paralleled an ephemeral stream channel.
Effectiveness- All but one site was effectively protected from erosion. The same unit mentioned
under T01 resulted in sediment entering an ephemeral stream channel,
Recommendations:
Administrators need to stay vigilant when checking the quality of and location of erosion control
measures, such as water bars. 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 each of the 30 sites.
Effectiveness- All sites were rated as effective, despite sediment from Meadow Valley unit 19A
reaching the SMZ, which filtered all fine-grained sediment, preventing sediment from reaching a
stream channel.
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- Twenty- out of twenty-eight sites had BMPs implemented as prescribed. On
the Lassen National Forest, problems resulted from two cross-drains (culverts) being blocked
with debris (Figure 3). It could not be determined whom was responsible for maintenance of
cross-drains, as evaluations occurred after the sale had been inspected. Plugging of culverts
occurred once on the Plumas in addition to three other problems. One berm remained after
grading; one road-side ditch was full of sediment; and there were two instances of day-lighting
groundwater from road-side ditch location. On the Tahoe National Forest, a culvert was not
properly aligned with the natural drainage.
Figure 3. Example of a cross-drain (culvert)
that needs to be clear of debris.
Effectiveness- Twenty-four out of twenty-eight sites were rated as effective. On the Plumas,
problems with water quality impairment primarily resulted from the road location in unstable
areas and with improper road drainage. Two inboard ditches, hydrologically connected to
crossings, had too much relief and consequently excessive road-borne sediment was delivered
into streams. In addition, eroded sediment from the ditches could have reached the streams.
Sediment from an unstable fill slope and through-cut reached two streams.
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:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
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.
9
E09- Stream Crossings
Figure 4. Example of road/ stream crossing.
Five foot culvert is on South Fork Bailey Creek
Within Cabin T.S.
Implementation- Seventeen of twenty crossings had proper BMP implementation.
Effectiveness- Three of the twenty sites evaluated had problems at stream crossings, with
sediment to channel evident. As previously mentioned with E08 on the Plumas, problems
occurred with long hydrologically connected road-side ditches at stream crossings.
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, 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.
E10- Road Decommissioning
Implementation- BMPs were properly implemented 25 of 26 decommissioned roads (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Example of proper implementation
of barriers for road decommissioning.
Effectiveness- Four sites were rated as not effective, but posed no risk to water quality. On the
Lassen National Forest, poor effectiveness resulted from unintended motorized use on
10
decommissioned roads. Motorized use did not compact the ripped sections, but additional
barriers may be needed.
Recommendations:
During road decommissioning projects, continue to implement BMPs as prescribed. On the
Lassen, improvement is needed in the design and location of barriers to exclude motorized use.
F25- Prescribed Fire
Implementation- All of the 23 sites had proper implementation of BMPs.
Effectiveness- All of the 23 sites were rated as effective.
Figure 6. Example of prescribed fire unit that
was rated as implemented and effective. Slope is
around 0% and there are no water courses in area.
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
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.
11
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
tr
-S
1
T0
s
se
ur
o
c
m
ea
Sk
20
T
il s
ra
idt
s
ng
di
n
La
40
T
8E0
R
d
oa
D
ge
na
i
ra
9E0
S
am
tre
C
s
ng
si
s
ro
R
01
E
d
oa
m
co
e
D
g
nin
is o
is
m
cr
es
r
P
5F2
d
ibe
Fi
re
O
ll
ra
ve
% implemented
% effective
Effectiveness Goal
Implementation Goal
Figure 7. Summary results of 2008 BMP implementation and effectiveness, by activity type. Target for
both implementation and effectiveness is 90%.
Target goal is to achieve 90 percent or better in effectiveness and 100% in implementation
(Figure 7). On average, these goals have been met. Areas where improvement can be realized
include location of skid trails; maintenance of roads and stream crossings; and better prescription
for road decommissioning projects. General recommendations are listed below:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Strive to achieve 100% implementation and at least 90% effectiveness for all BMPs.
Build upon 2008 success for BMPs associated with prescribed fire and landings.
Construct skid trails on soils with a low erosion hazard rating and on shallow slopes.
Install more frequent drainage on skid trails that must be located on steep slopes.
Continue to designate 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.
Ensure barriers for road decommissioning projects are suitable for the type of vehicles
likely to be used on decommissioned roads.
Follow-up site visits are highly recommended for the following areas as sediment reached a
channel:
ƒ
T01 and T02
12
ƒ
o Meadow Valley DFPZ skid trails (T01 and T02)
E08 and E09 (roads)
o Grigsby 24N02Y
o Mabie 22N12
o Mabie 21N02
13
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.
14
Appendix
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
T01
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
BMPEP results for stream courses (T01) between 2003 and 2008.
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
T02
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
BMPEP results for skid trails (T02) between 2003 and 2008.
15
2008
Appendix
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
T04
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
BMPEP results for landings (T04) between 2003 and 2008.
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
E08
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
BMPEP results for road drainage (E08) between 2003 and 2008.
16
2008
Appendix
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
E09
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
BMPEP results for stream crossings (E09) between 2003 and 2008.
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
E10
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
BMPEP results for road decommissioning (E10) between 2003 and 2008.
17
2008
Appendix
Implementation
Effectiveness
Implementation Goal
Effectiveness Goal
%
F25
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2003
2005
2006
2007
BMPEP results for prescribed fire (F25) between 2003 and 2008.
18
2008