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 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: 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: 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 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: 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: 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: T01 and T02 12 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