Introduction Overview Role of Analysis Inventory & Monitoring Types of Monitoring Components of a Plan Setting Up a Plan Monitoring Methods What Worked? Glossary & References Contributors Links Forms & Tools

Monitoring Methods Complete draft (*.pdf) Levels of Intensity of Effectiveness Monitoring There are different intensity levels for conducting effectiveness monitoring. Many forests use a mixture based on the values at risk, project design, and availability of personnel and resources. Forests across the country were solicited to determine monitoring methods most often used. The following four practices were identified. Quantitative measurements with repeat evaluation on channel cross section, vegetative recovery transects, and evaluation of erosion rates on site. Use of Best Management Practices evaluation forms to assess implementation and treatment effectiveness. Photo comparisons of treatments to include key indicators of change in channel cross section and revegetation. Tracking tools to quantify amount of material removed, length of road decommissioned, and treatment type.

Quantitative Measurements - Effectiveness Monitoring Quantitative measurements refer to actual stream channel dimensions, erosion amount, and revegetation measurements taken in the field. Interdisciplinary teams may select these indicators to assess the effectiveness of the road decommissioning treatment. These measurements are direct measurements of the road decommissioning treatment. The interdisciplinary team and forest management may be implementing road decommissioning with the goal of improving juvenile steelhead habitat to restore runs of summer steelhead. However, the interdisciplinary team may select as indicators of that goal, direct measures of channel cross section, erosion, and revegetation. The concept being that if the road decommissioning treatment results in a stable stream channel, reduced erosion, and healthy revegetation; then conditions exist for an improved juvenile steelhead habitat. The interdisciplinary team must show the linkages between the watershed analysis findings, restoration goals and objectives, the monitoring question, and the selected indicator. For each forest, and possibly each treatment, the question can vary. Several forests are using actual stream measurements to evaluate treatment effectiveness. References and example monitoring plans for the Clearwater NF, Six Rivers NF, and Mt. Baker Snoqualamie NF are located at the end of this document. Common goals of this type of monitoring are to quantify the effectiveness of road decommissioning projects to reduce/eliminate sediment inputs. Additional goals include identifying which treatments' techniques are successful and identify limiting factors that contribute to less than fully successful decommissioning. Each forest is faced with limited resources to accomplish needed decommissioning work, so it is critical for forests to know if the treatments selected in a given location are appropriate to that site and effective. Forests' monitoring teams that are conducting this level of monitoring divide the decommissioning work into three areas: Road prism stabilization Stream channel excavations Revegetation and effective soil cover Road prism stabilization involves random transects across numerous segments of the treated prism. The questions are: is there adequate cover to reduce erosion? What is the type and composition of the soil cover? Did the treatment improve infiltration? On a fully decommissioned road the recontoured area from the toe of the fillslope to the top of the cut bank would be sampled. Transects can be line intercept transects or grid to measure bare soil, litter, vegetation, downed material, rilling, and compacted soil. (Refer to USGS Firemon, ECODATA, on-line links for existing protocols.) Monitoring of stream channel excavations can be done in several ways. First, baseline inventory data of the volume of material in the crossing is invaluable. Many times this information is available within the NEPA document or restoration contract. The monitoring questions at stream crossings include the amount of horizontal and lateral adjustment of the stream channel, and surface erosion or mass wasting. Measurements commonly conducted include longitudinal channel profile and cross sections. It is very useful to get an as-built longitudinal channel profile and cross section immediately after decommissioning and prior to storm events to serve as a benchmark. The design for the removal of the crossing should be based on reference stream channels characteristics. (Reference guidebook on stream channel measurements) (Rosgen 1996) Cross-section measurements can be expedited by using a simplified model of the excavated crossing. This is a common tool used by many forests in the inventory phase where the cross-section is modeled as parallelograms. The total area of the cross-section is calculated by subtracting the area of the two triangles on the sides from the parallelogram area. ( See Fill-volume spreadsheet, Greg Napper) Measurements for surface erosion and effective soil cover can be conducted by the same type of line intercept transect performed on the road prism. Mass wasting documentation would be evaluated the following years after implementation, or if an “event” occurred that may have triggered some instability. Data collected for mass wasting is an estimate of size (L x W x D) and amount of material moved. A determination of how much of the material stayed on the hillslope and how much entered the stream is required. Revegetation monitoring is designed to go beyond whether there is effective soil cover to prevent surface erosion, but rather looks at the species composition and community types present. There are numerous monitoring protocols available to determine the effectiveness of the treatment type on revegetation. The interdisciplinary team may want to look at the protocols that best capture the type of vegetation that the site is capable of producing. For example, a road decommissioning project in a meadow area may use the Greenline protocols (reference Al Winward’s document) because this method can track the vegetation response to the restored water table. In drier sites, the use of ECODATA, Firemon, or Releve’ protocols better capture the species composition and community types present. For forested areas, the use of Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) protocols may be most useful. Strengths of the Actual Measurements If actual measurement data is collected and tied to specific monitoring questions and succinct objective statements, the forest or district can clearly identify the effectiveness of the treatment. However, if the interdisciplinary team has general objectives and poorly defined monitoring questions, even with actual measurements, it will be difficult to determine the effectiveness of the treatment. For this reason, it is very important to match the monitoring technique with the overall monitoring strategy. Actual measurements can be very useful to help separate out and categorize the sample pool by independent variables. An independent variable would be: bedrock geology, soil type, hillslope position, hillslope gradient, size of excavation, time since implementation, and contract method. (Six Rivers NF) An interdisciplinary team with the actual measurement data can more easily manipulate the data so that independent variables are not confounding the results. Taking the actual measurements for erosion, stream channel adjustments, and vegetation can be done with a variety of proven and effective protocols. An interdisciplinary team can mix and match protocols based on available resources, timeframes, and personnel. Depending on the team’s actual monitoring questions, more emphasis may be given to stream-channel adjustments, than to erosion from the decommissioned road prism. Limitations of Actual Measurement Monitoring All monitoring protocols require training and spot checking to ensure measurements and documentation are accurate. The interdisciplinary team and management that select this monitoring needs to invest both time and training in its personnel. To collect good data requires confidence in the use of equipment and a thorough understanding of the assumptions and questions of the monitoring plan. Actual data collection does take more time than photo documentation, tracking, or BMP monitoring. Fewer sites can be visited by a crew conducting this type of monitoring. As with all monitoring, the method of analysis of the data needs to be designed as a component of the monitoring plan before any data is collected. For actual measurement monitoring, an access database may be necessary to expedite analysis of the data. Database development is not difficult but the interdisciplinary team must have the necessary skills or access to skills to ensure this step is taken prior to data collection. Otherwise it will be difficult for the team to meet report timeframes and data may end up in a binder and not being used for adaptive management. Best Management Practices Best Management Practices (BMPs) are a set of practices that the USDA Forest Service and water quality control boards (EPA) use to ensure the Clean Water Act standards are maintained. In the State of California, the USDA Forest Service has a memorandum of understanding with the State Water Quality Control Board identifying the USDA Forest Service will include BMPs in all projects. The implementation and effectiveness of the BMPs are monitored on both a random and selective basis by each forest for a variety of projects including road decommissioning. Each region across the nation implements a BMP program. The implementation and effectiveness monitoring report varies from region to region based on the memorandum of understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the regulatory agency. Most regions have BMP monitoring programs that use a set of criteria to identify if BMPs were implemented, and if they were effective. Random or selective field evaluations on BMP implementation and effectiveness can be conducted that address a standard set of protocol based on the BMP evaluation form. BMP monitoring for both implementation and effectiveness include the following: A sample pool is developed each year of all road decommissioning projects that include new projects and past projects. Review of NEPA documents, timber sale contracts, and restoration contracts to determine if water quality issues identified by the interdisciplinary team were incorporated into the project design, contract, and restoration plan. Field reviews are conducted to compare and contrast the planning documents identified objectives to the on-the-ground results. R-5 BMP effectiveness monitoring evaluates if contract requirements for road surface treatment, disposal areas, road prism reshaped and stabilized, ground cover and revegetation, and road closure method are evaluated in the field. Other regions identify in a narrative the work that was planned to be done and if it was implemented. Effectiveness monitoring for road decommissioning is evaluated based on set protocols for ground cover and revegetation, rilling, compaction, slope failure, and traffic control. Effectiveness evaluations of stream crossings use numeric indicators for channel adjustment that include downcutting and lateral channel adjustment. (Refer to attached R-5 BMP form and protocol link). Photographs of each site are attached to document site conditions at the time of field review. • Conclusion of the effectiveness of the treatment is either in the narrative format or determined by a database (R5) analysis of the indicators. Strengths of BMP Monitoring The BMP format is a timely and effective monitoring tool for several reasons. First, the retrospective review of what water quality considerations were included in the decommissioning plan provides the reviewer with information on what the planning team identified as the water quality values at risk. The office review also highlights missing information relative to water quality objectives and provides feedback to the interdisciplinary team and management. Secondly, the field review for implementation has the reviewer out at the site during or shortly after the work is completed. This can allow for midcourse corrections if the situation requires. Finally, a second field review within 2 years of the project implementation allows an assessment of stabilization and recovery to the area and the effectiveness of the treatment. Limitations of BMP Monitoring BMP monitoring does have some limitations that each district or forest needs to consider when designing a monitoring plan. In all monitoring ensure that protocols are well understood and consistently implemented. Well-qualified and trained personnel reduce subjectivity and error. The interdisciplinary team needs to ensure that personnel resources are trained and available to conduct the BMP evaluation. BMP monitoring is designed to occur within 2 years of implementation. Weather conditions during the 2 years may be mild and not “test” the treatment fully. The team could have erroneous conclusions of the effectiveness of a treatment if climatic factors and design storm are not considered. BMP monitoring can lump dissimilar sites and treatments together as one. The interdisciplinary team has to sort out treatment types, differences in geology, climatic regimes, and other variables when designing the monitoring plan. This can be done by sorting the sample pool by treatment, geology, and other key variables. Photo-Point Monitoring Photographs or digital photos are a common tool to detect change and trends of road decommissioning projects. Photo monitoring is a simple, cost effective, and reliable procedure that documents the properties of a site. Although lacking in statistical significance much can be learned and interpreted from photos. In addition photos can help augment other more intensive effectiveness monitoring. In photographing road decommissioning work it is important to capture the appropriate scale, timing, location, and representative photos points. If this is the selected monitoring tool, or one used in combination with other monitoring, there are some key points that should be included in the monitoring plan to improve photo point monitoring quality. Start with the measurable objectives the interdisciplinary team identified as a component of the monitoring plan. This will tell what and where to monitor. Include questions related to why, when, and how to monitor as a component of the monitoring plan. For road decommissioning effectiveness monitoring, key indicators are channel adjustment, soil cover, surface erosion, mass wasting, and revegetation of riparian areas. There may be additional indicators relative to the effectiveness of your treatment on animal and aquatic response that can be included. (Link reference to wildlife monitoring being conducted by Wildlands CPR) Photo-point monitoring is used for implementation, effectiveness, and trend monitoring, with some attributes being easier to photograph than others. Commonly used indicators include soil cover, streambank stability, vegetative composition, and revegetation of riparian areas. Table 4 provides information on the indicator to be monitored and the type of monitoring and frequency associated. Table 4. Photo-point monitoring uses in road decommissioning. Indicator Considerations Type and Time to Monitor Channel Adjustment – channel cross section This indicator is best to be measured directly and the use of photographs is in addition to the before and post treatment data. Photographs during or after an event helps us understand what conditions look like during an event which can help us in design. Post event photos can capture any change in channel adjustment as a result of the event. Effectiveness: Good quality photos can be used later in years that are not more intensively monitored and where change does not appear to be significant. Event: after storms that may “test” your design. In channel measurements right after an event may not be feasible. Soil Cover If the treatment required a soil cover (mulch or natural) to be applied photos can be used to quantify cover. Use close-up shots of a defined plot that may be 1 square foot in size. Implementation: taken during or immediately after project is completed. Soil Cover Photos can be taken each year to evaluate effectiveness of cover. Trend and Effectiveness: should be taken at the same time of year. Mass wasting It is hard to obtain before photos of this unless you have a specific area that you are concerned about. Otherwise most photos will be event driven or effectiveness monitoring. Event: Photos taken after an event help to link weather conditions with effect. Trend: On-going monitoring of stream bank conditions or identified unstable areas taken annually can provide information on recovery. Revegetation of Riparian Areas The treatment may prescribe a certain number or density of cuttings, transplanting of sod plugs, or native seeding. Implementation: During or right after to identify if the treatment was done correctly. Revegetation of Riparian Areas Good monitoring site selection is important since vegetation can increase dramatically. In some cases when vegetation is NOT the objective, it can obscure the indicator. Effectiveness: annually during and or at the close of growing season. Keys to reliable and repeatable photo monitoring: Take the photo from the same point and in the same direction each time the photo is repeated. Identify the location with tags or GPS readings to enable anyone to get back to the same site. Take a copy of the photo to the field for the correct settings. Don’t set up a photo monitoring and recordkeeping system so that only you can get back to the site. A lot of invaluable information has been lost by poorly documented and maintained photo records. Use a camera, which documents the date the photo is taken on the face of the photo. Utilize a white board or a photograph identification form with large letters to identify within the photo what the subject is and its location. Refer to USDA General Technical Report on Photo Point Monitoring Handbook for specifics on technique and documentation. Try to take the photos on or about the same time of year. Include a consistent tool for scale. Depending on what you are monitoring the scale will change, meter boards are often used for vegetation, and stream bank stability. Select the appropriate tool and maintain consistency. Maintain a photo notebook or use 3 by 5 cards to capture any additional information on the photo. This can be useful if other people are collecting the data. Many monitoring systems are now being designed that link Personal Desk Recorders (PDRs), Global Positioning Systems (GPS) and photographs together. This is a good way to ensure that all the data is together and both the data and the photo point can be relocated. Ensure the photo quality is adequate for its intended use. Not all digital cameras are created equal. Check the settings to be sure the highest quality setting is used. Tracking Methodologies The objective of tracking tools is to identify what was done, when it was done, and how much material was removed. The USDA Forest Service tracks annual road decommissioning miles using INFRA. Other groups including watershed conservancies track accomplishments with spreadsheets. Key information on spreadsheets includes the following: Date of activity Road number Road treatment Road length Number of road crossongs treated Road crossing volume removed This information may be tracked by watershed and is especially helpful when tracking accomplishments in mixed ownership watersheds. Some of this information can be obtained from inventory data on the condition of the road and the size of the road crossings. This type of data can be entered into a GIS and access database with links to photo documentation of each area. The interdisciplinary team will want to design tracking tools that meet their needs in addition to the upward reporting at the national level. Additional tracking tools that Forests can use and modify include INFRA and NRIS (once fully operational) to monitor changes to the transportation system and effectiveness of treatments. INFRA –The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 applied the principles of sound business management to the Federal government, requiring future funding to be tied to measurable needs and accomplishments. INFRA was developed as a tool to obtain complete, accurate and current information about national forest resources. INFRA database and application tools include GIS and integration with other national applications such as the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS), the Natural Resources Information System (NRIS), and the Automated Lands Program (ALP). The INFRA application supports the spatial and tabular components to provide a transportation atlas for roads and trails. This is consistent with current direction found in FSM 7711.1 Forest Road Atlas The forest road atlas is a key component of the forest transportation atlas and consistent with the road inventory includes all classified and unclassified roads on National Forest System lands. Unit transportation managers shall document changes in road management status. Such changes may include roads that are decommissioned, converted to other uses, added to the system, or transferred to other jurisdiction. Direction found addressing road decommissioning data storage is located within the Travel Routes National Data Dictionary on Roads, (Version 1.3 January, 2003) This document is continually upgraded and improved to provide both National direction and consistency in our record management. It does however provide individual forests and regions latitude to utilize optional fields to document road analysis, NEPA decisions involving road decommissioning, road decommissioning level of treatment, and to maintain a chronicle of events. There are two tools that can be utilized in the INFRA database. These include the Record of Events and the Linear Events categories. The Record of events provides the data structure to hold date related linear event information. That means data that is date related to changes that may occur on a road. This is a generic data structure that allows storage of items such as construction and decommissioning dates, or when there are route status changes. The change in the status of a road to decommission can be tracked as well as the initial analysis found in the RAP, NEPA document, and any inspection records that could include monitoring dates. Linear Events is another category where more specific information relative to the road can be summarized. The following is a list of the various areas within the Linear Events where decommissioning information can be tracked. The Levels of Treatments - describes a summary of the treatments completed on a decommissioned road or a road placed in storage. It describes the intensity of the work performed in relation to hydrologic, vegetative, and stability factors. Objective maintenance level - identifies the maintenance level to be assigned at a future date. Considering future road management objectives, traffic needs, budget constraints, and environmental concerns. Once a road has been determined to no longer be needed it should be assigned a “D” for its objective maintenance level. It may be used up until that date when it is decommissioned. Route Status - is the current physical state of being of the road segment. A road segment will receive the “D” status once a RAP, NEPA, and the decommissioning work has been completed. System - A network of travel ways serving a common need or purpose, managed by an entity with the authority to finance, build, operate and maintain the route. Once a road has been identified in RAPS as being not-needed, the route is referenced on the system and cross references with the objective maintenance level of decommission. Strengths of INFRA and NRIS New developments in the INFRA database make it easier to use and can accommodate additional data fields as illustrated above. Tracking and recording changes to the transportation system is imperative to the management of the national forests and allows the USDA Forest Service to share information both internally and externally. Limitations of INFRA and NRIS The current use of INFRA as a road decommissioning monitoring tool is limited for several reasons. First, the development of the database has not kept up with road decommissioning monitoring and many interdisciplinary teams have monitoring plans that address their goals and objectives. Secondly, the INFRA database is maintained by individuals who are not always involved in the interdisciplinary team that develops the road decommissioning monitoring. INFRA has improved and become a more accessible tool, yet INFRA is limited to tracking rather than analysis of road decommissioning effectiveness. NRIS is still being developed and populated so that it has the ability to track watershed improvements. Interdisciplinary teams should stay familiar with this database as it should provide valuable analysis tool in the next several years.