In April 1993, the Monitoring Study Group (MSG) submitted to the State Board of Forestry (BOF) a report entitled, "Assessing The Effectiveness of California's Forest Practice Rules in Protecting Water Quality: Recommendations for a Pilot Monitoring Project and a Longer Term Assessment Program" (MSG, 1993). MSG (1993) recommended establishment of a Long-Term Monitoring Program (LTMP) intended to do the following:
Ä Provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the Forest Practice Rules (Rules), as implemented, in protecting the most sensitive beneficial uses of water (i.e., cold-water fisheries and domestic water supplies) through implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and project monitoring.MSG (1993) also recommended that a Pilot Monitoring Program (PMP) be conducted prior to initiation of the LTMP to provide a practical, small-scale, short duration test of several critical aspects of the subsequent LTMP. Accordingly, MSG initiated the PMP. It was conducted primarily between June 1993 and December 1994 by staff of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), North Coast Region, the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG); and by Dr. Andrea Tuttle, a consultant. Other CDF contracts provided ancillary support for the effort.Ä Provide the results to BOF and the public in a timely manner to contribute effectively to BOF's program for reviewing and, where necessary, strengthening the Rules' performance as best management practices (BMPs).
The PMP's goals included the following:
1. To help ensure that the quality of LTMP monitoring data would be high enough to support LTMP objectives by developing and testing training programs, field reference materials, forms, and instructions, and quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) protocols.Because of its limited scope and duration, the PMP was not designed to test any of the following:2. To help ensure that LTMP results would be reproducible, repeatable, reliable, and consistent by developing a standardized "toolbox" of monitoring parameters and protocols whose utility had been tested and validated by the State agencies and a set of related QA/QC protocols.
3. To help ensure that related data management systems could meet LTMP objectives.
4. To help minimize midstream changes in the LTMP monitoring, QA/QC, and data management approaches that could preclude statistical comparisons between earlier and later LTMP data.
5. To give managers reliable information regarding the funding, time commitments, and resources needed to establish and maintain an LTMP.
6. To help determine the reasonableness of the proposed LTMP objectives and the feasibility of achieving them.
1. The status of or changes in watershed conditions or cumulative watershed effects.The following tasks were carried out during the PMP:2. The status of or changes in stream reach conditions or instream effects of a timber operation.
3. The degree of implementation or effectiveness of any Rule provision or of any part of the Process by which the Rules are administered.
4. Compliance with water quality requirements.
1. Monitoring parameters and protocols that appeared likely to be widely useful for implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and instream monitoring were selected for testing.The PMP had two major components: an instream component and a hillslope component that included implementation and effectiveness monitoring. The sites for PMP field work were restricted to closed, completed timber operations that had been conducted under the current set of watercourse and lake protection Rules and had been through at least one winter season since operations were completed. Most of the sites were in the watersheds of the Mokelumne River in the central Sierra Nevada and, in the Northern Coast Ranges, the Gualala River watershed and Noyo River/Ten Mile River area.2. Target watersheds and timber operations were selected based on their suitability for testing those parameters and protocols.
3. Training curricula and programs; related field reference materials, forms, and instructions; and QA/QC programs for three kinds of monitoring were developed, implemented, evaluated, and refined.
4. Trained personnel carried out the monitoring protocols and parameters at the selected timber operations.
5. Supervisors and managers carried out their QA/QC responsibilities as necessary.
6. The geology and relative slope stability of some watersheds was mapped to provide a context for the implementation and testing of the monitoring parameters and protocols.
7. Data management systems were developed for all three types of monitoring data; the instream component data management system was implemented, used to analyze the data, and evaluated.
8. An external scientific review of the PMP design and efforts was conducted.
Finding enough suitable sites was very difficult. About one third of the candidate timber operations were suitable for the hillslope component; less than one sixth were suitable for the instream component. CDF Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) information usually had to be supplemented with landowner information to accurately determine timber operation suitability for either component, and a field check was always needed to determine stream suitability for the instream component.
Very few candidate timber operations had stream reaches with the characteristics needed to meaningfully implement the sediment-related instream monitoring parameters. Even fewer had a reach that would have been suitable as a control stream reach. The set of suitable timber operations was too small to provide a meaningful test for either random selection (to reduce bias) or risk-based stratified random selection (to ensure adequate testing of monitoring procedures for Rule provisions applicable to critical sites).
The instream component implemented and tested three parameters related to sediment. The D50 parameter is the mean diameter of riffle gravels. It is the most objective of the sediment-related parameters; the results appear consistent by year, by stream reach, and with other parameters. The Riffle Armor Stability Index is more subjective and the results are not as consistent. Both are easy to use and fairly widely applicable. The V* parameter is an index of pool filling by annually mobile fine sediment. It is more difficult to use, the necessary stream conditions limit its applicability, and the results showed many inexplicable inconsistencies.
Macro-invertebrates were sampled, taxonomic classification was performed by the DFG bioassessment laboratory, and several bioassessment metrics and indices were applied. Of these, EPT Index (i.e., total number of taxa within the orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera), diversity index, and taxa richness appear to be the most likely to be useful in forest situations. Use of the biotic index (a measure or organic pollutants) and dominant taxa (which has high variability) is questionable. Macro-invertebrate sampling was conducted quickly and consistently using DFG's California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (the nearest thing to a standard procedure in the State). The technique appears to be promising.
Stream temperature was measured using HoboTM recording units, hand held electronic sensors, and hand held thermometers. Where single measurements are adequate or repeated site visits are acceptable, hand held max-min thermometers may be the most reliable and cost-effective instruments. Temperature was easily measured in most stream reaches. It can be used effectively if the monitoring objective is carefully defined and there is adequate recognition of variations in stream hydrology and life cycle needs of aquatic species.
The instream component established and implemented a rigorous QA/QC program to protect the integrity of its quantitative data. The program caught many, but not all, data errors and omissions before they caused significant costs, delays, and inefficiencies.
The instream component implemented a data management system, thereby providing a test of both the monitoring data and the system. The system appears effective and efficient in providing useful queries, analyses, and reports from the instream data. Both the instream and hillslope data bases should incorporate and be effectively linked through Global Positioning System (GPS) and Geographic Information System (GIS) technology.
The PMP hillslope component developed two different approaches for implementation and effectiveness monitoring, a semi-quantitative/categorical "random transect approach" (roughly modeled on the procedures used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service) and a more subjective "whole THP approach." Time and resources allowed only the first to be tested during the PMP.
Of the roughly 1300 Rule provisions related to water quality protection, only 154 can be categorically monitored in the field following a timber operation. The random transect approach provides a detailed evaluation of observed problems, quality of implementation, and degree of effectiveness (on the hillside, not in a watercourse or lake) for each of these 154 Rules. It appears that this approach can be effectively carried out by trained personnel who are familiar with the Rules and the Process. It also appears that the training program was effective in preparing CDF Forest Practice Inspectors to carry out the approach. The random transect approach samples only a small portion of each timber operation, and, on a given timber operation, it is likely to miss the relatively rare, but critical, areas that produce most of the sediment impacts on water quality.
The whole THP approach provides a way to evaluate these critical sites and to evaluate compliance with 92 Rule intent statements and/or performance standards that are too subjective to evaluate quantitatively.
The hillslope component data management system was not fully developed until July 1996. Currently, the database and the data collected during the PMP are being evaluated to determine the best statistical procedures for analyzing data collected during the LTMP.
Approaches for evaluating the effectiveness of non-standard practices and the Process were only started during the Pilot Program and further work is needed in both of these areas. Delivery of sediment through Class III watercourses would probably need to be evaluated by a research effort too rigorous to be carried out on a statewide scale.
The major PMP products include the following items:
Ä A final report prepared by Stephen Rae, DFG Project Manager, dated December 20, 1995, and entitled, "Board of Forestry Pilot Monitoring Program: Instream Component."The PMP showed that State agencies and landowners can work together effectively and successfully in conducting monitoring activities.Ä An instream monitoring training curriculum (which largely evolved into the curriculum for the initial Watershed Academy at Humboldt State University, August and September 1995).
Ä A functioning database established in DFG for storing, analyzing, and reporting PMP and LTMP instream monitoring data.
Ä A final report prepared by Dr. Andrea Tuttle, CDF consultant, dated March 1, 1995, entitled, "Board of Forestry Pilot Monitoring Program; Hillslope Component," and including a set of field forms and instructions for use.
Ä A database established by CDF for storing, analyzing, and reporting PMP and LTMP hillslope monitoring data.
Ä A final report prepared by Thomas Spittler, DMG Project Manager, dated 1995, and entitled, "Pilot Monitoring Program: Geologic Input for the Hillslope Component," including maps for three selected watersheds.
Ä A final report by Dr. Don Erman, Nancy Erman, and Ian Chan, CDF consultants, dated January 22, 1996 and entitled, "Pilot Monitoring Program: Review and Final Recommendations Prepared for the Monitoring Study Group."
Due to the difficulty in finding suitable spatial and/or temporal controls, it is highly unlikely that project monitoring can be meaningfully carried out using a quantitative approach at randomly selected timber operations scattered across the State.
The LTMP should be integrated and consistent with requirements emerging from currently ongoing governmental and legal activities. As those requirements become clear, MSG should reconsider the LTMP, its objectives and approaches, and recommend changes. The February 1995 BOF commitments should be aggressively pursued.
MSG's current recommendations for the LTMP include the following:
Ä The instream monitoring approaches and protocols being used in forested watersheds by the private sector and USFS should be periodically reviewed and evaluated.Ä At least one cooperative monitoring watershed where landowners and agencies will coordinate and integrate instream and hillslope monitoring and share data should be established on a pilot basis and establishment of other cooperative monitoring watersheds should be encouraged.
Ä Instream trend monitoring should be encouraged in cooperative monitoring watersheds to determine long-term changes in watershed/instream conditions.
Ä The capability of the DFG database to handle instream monitoring data should be verified.
Ä The PMP random transect procedure should be carried out by private RPFs (other than CDF foresters) at randomly selected timber operations with CDF providing training, reference materials, oversight, and QC auditing.
Ä CDF should further develop its hillslope monitoring data base and complete the ongoing study evaluating the utility and value of various statistical approaches (including nonparametric statistics) for analyzing hillslope monitoring data.
Ä The hillslope monitoring procedures developed but not yet tested during the PMP should be tested and refined.
