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

What Worked? Complete draft (*.pdf) In my research on this project I had the opportunity to talk to and meet with dozens of individuals from different organizations who were either involved in decommissioning roads or monitoring of road decommissioning. Each person shared a slightly different lesson with me about what they had learned when decommissioning roads. Some of these lessons are included below: Individual project reports that fully document the road decommissioning effort from start to finish. This type of work is being done at RNP by each geologist that is assigned a road decommissioning project. The amount of material that is actually removed is documented, the length of time required to do the project, actual project costs, and perhaps most importantly is additional considerations and information regarding how the project went. For example if they thought they would hit the channel bottom at a certain depth and did not, or hit a layer of decomposed logs that modified the project, this information was included. This worked well in that it gives a complete description of the project. California State Parks monitors the amount of time spent on each component of the decommissioning process. For example if the road decommissioning requires use of an excavator for placing slash on one mile of road that is recorded by activity. At the end of the project, they can identify the percentage of time and funds spent on removing fills, pulling culverts, excavating crossings, and placing mulch. This helps California State Parks track expenditures, compare contractors, and improve their estimate of necessary funds for future projects.

RNP conducted erosion and turbidity monitoring of treated stream crossings to evaluate the significance of erosion following road removal at excavated stream crossings. The turbidity monitoring required specific timeframes for collection of the sample and in some cases it was very difficult to collect all the turbidity samples within that limited window due to the location and access to the crossings. This is a good example of how an interdisciplinary team needs to scrutinize each monitoring protocol to ensure that it is do-able. Safety concerns must be considered with trying to access these sites during or immediately after a storm, or the chance that the monitoring protocol is set and only two storms over the winter occur. Would there be adequate data to analyze? Many individuals felt that they attained better results in the road decommissioning if they did the following: Conducted onsite preproject hikes with both the contractor and inspector to clarify expectations. Conducted postproject inspections with the contractor and inspector immediately after work completed. Conducted 1-year postproject reviews with contractors. This included both new contractors as well as contractors who had actually performed the work. This helped to clarify expectations for road decommissioning. Contractors and inspectors also benefited from the 1-year followup to see how recovery occurred. Several individuals had changed their monitoring strategy over time for the following reasons: Erosion pin monitoring on the road prism was generally removed from the monitoring strategy after 1 to 2 years because the change was undetectable. Surface erosion measurements on road prisms were also removed because of undetectable change. Access trails for monitoring were designed into the road decommissioning to allow for safety. Photo documentation is a very common monitoring tool since there are limited resources and personnel for monitoring. Photo-point monitoring is conducted on sites that are of highest priority. More intensive measures were used when interdisciplinary teams had questions of the effectiveness of the treatments. Invasive plant and noxious weed monitoring was added due to concerns with the spread of these plants. Monitoring questions started to change either due to regulatory agency input, or the findings from the monitoring answered the initial question. Conclusion Interdisciplinary teams have several ways to monitor road decommissioning effectiveness. Each team needs to consider the goals and objectives of monitoring which are built upon findings and assumptions stated in the WA and RA process. Monitoring can answer questions the interdisciplinary team has on the processes that are restored by road decommissioning. The remainder of this report contains links to Web sites that provide information on monitoring. In addition, monitoring forms and protocols are attached that can help a district or forest interdisciplinary team design a road decommissioning monitoring program for their area. Following the Web sites is information on references that are available online.