W H A T DOES IT ALL MEAN? ROSS JOHNSON
California Department of Forestry, and Fire Protection, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, U. S. A. (Received:May 1992)
Abstract. Now that the concerns, issues, ideas and constraints have been discussed, how does all of this come together? There are three basic questions we should ask. •
Can we improve natural resource management through monitoring?
•
Will those that make the decisions listen?
•
Will they use the generated data in their decision?
I am going to relate to you what has happened in California over the last fifteen years. I believe it will point out that the answer to the three questions are a resounding yes, with some qualifications and some bumpy roads along the way.
1. Introduction: What Does it All Mean?
You see, most managers are looking for good data to help them make a decision. I would like to emphasis 'good' data; however, you will see as we relate the California story, it doesn't always end up having to be the best data to get action. If you haven't closed all the holes in the data collection, it doesn't satisfy everybody. At other times it may be the only data in town, but it can still have resounding effects on natural resource management. In California, logging on state and private timberland is regulated through the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973. The State Board of Forestry (BOF) adopts rules and regulations that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces. Each landowner must submit a timber harvesting plan (THP) prepared by a Registered Professional Forester. For non-emergency situations and when the ownership is larger than three acres, the plan must be reviewed and approved by CDF prior to beginning operations. The approval process takes from 35-45 days but can go longer on controversial plans. The review takes an interdisciplinary approach by involving the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Approximately 85 % of the plans have a preharvest inspection prior to approval. Each active timber operation is inspected an average of three times during its life span, which can extend to three years. Currently, we are in a hotbed of political controversy. As some of you may know, in the political arena there isn't time to deal with facts usually just perceptions and bias. I will concentrate mainly in our forest practice monitoring. We also have other forms of monitoring ongoing. Currently, we have the following types: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26:307-312, 1993. C) 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
308
ROSS JOHNSON
Our Forest and Range Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP) monitors forest and range resources and publishes an assessment report every five years (CDFFP, 1988). The next is due in 1993. There are two pilot projects that seek to produce joint ownership protocols. These projects are designed to bring the owners of watersheds together to mutually agree on problems and their solutions. The solutions include monitoring. The Legislature created the Timberland Task Force with an objective of gathering information on and mapping of wildlife habitat. This information will be used in the review of timber harvesting plans and other wildland projects. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) continually monitor the application of forest herbicides. Under California law the regulation of herbicide application is handled by the Food and Agriculture Department. There are many more examples of assessment and monitoring, but onto California's history of forest practice monitoring. I think you will find that it is filled with many strategic adjustments and program evaluations.
2. History (Martin, 1989) We started in 1977 with the implementation of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act, which had actually passed in 1972. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was pushing for stronger forest practice regulations. They admitted they had only made the most cursory studies, but they intended to go ahead with a task force to conduct a statewide program of review. Eventually the BOF took the initiative and formed the Best Management Practices (BMP) Advisory Committee with Dave Pesonon as its chair and representatives from industry, environmental interests and the state agencies. It became known as the BUMP Sac Committee. They involved the public by sending out questionnaires on forest practices; only 15% were answered. Public hearings were also held. After much discussion it was presented to the BOF as a draft. Timber industry attacked its findings as unsubstantiated by objective data. Environmentalists attacked it as being incomplete, especially for its lack of specific language for recommended BMPs. However, after editorial changes the BOF adopted the report in June 1980. In 1983 as a result of this BUMP Sac report and its somewhat crude methods of qualitative monitoring the BOF did adopt new revised rules and regulations for: - Watercourse and Lake Protection; - Logging Roads and Landings; - Harvesting Practices and Erosion Control; - Erosion Hazard Rating for Soil.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
309
The BOF then requested the SWRCB to certify the forest practice rules and review process as meeting B M P standards. The SWRCB responded with a letter asking why the BOF had overlooked so many of their concerns. The BOF responded with a letter on how these issues had been addressed. The SWRCB finally agreed to a 'conditional' certification based on a Management Agency Agreement (MAA) which would include a joint four-year monitoring and assessment program. People were beginning to realize there wasn't much data to base regulation changes on. The BOF, CDF and SWRCB staff immediately went to work on the Monitoring and Assessing Program (MAP). They ran into turf battles almost immediately. The timber industry wanted in as a condition to enter their lands. That was definitely needed as there was no authority for access otherwise. Then the environmentalists wanted in. DFG wanted in and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent observers. All were allowed to participate. As with design by committee, it was hard to get consensus; but eventually they did. But what sank MAP was the cost. Staff estimated a $4 million implementation cost. Being realists most knew the Legislature would never go for it. Something else had to be worked out. Eventually a new agreement was accepted that called for a one year qualitative assessment of the Forest Practice Program. Each party to the Agreement would have one member on the team. The team consisted of a member from CDF; DFG; SWRCB; and representing timber industry interests, the California Forest Protective Association. Basically, this study was designed to visit 100 timber harvesting plan (THP) sites that had a potential to effect water quality. A copy of the 208 team report (CDFFP, 1987) may be obtained from CDE In April 1987 the team published their findings based on this qualitative approach. The team found that the rules generally were adequate when properly applied. However, there could be better enforcement by CDE They recommended a number of rule changes, including some that required legislation. These included regulation of site preparation and maintenance of erosion control facilities beyond completion of timber operations. The Team also recommended changes in: - Waterbar spacing; - Temporary stream crossing; - Road planning, construction and maintenance; - Watercourse protection. Many recommendations were directed toward administration of the program, such as timber operator testing, better assignment and passing of responsibilities,
310
ROSSJOHNSON
improved THP content, more training and education, and stronger enforcement. And lastly, they recommended an on-going monitoring program for the rules relating to water quality. In 1988 the BOF, CDF and SWRCB signed an MAA. This agreement required the BOF to work towards improvement of forest practice regulations to ensure protection of water quality. The SWRCB then approved certification. However, EPA did not agree and is still withholding its approval of the rules as BMPs for non-point pollution control. That is our past history - remember our monitoring involved only the one year qualitative study by four team members, but it: •
changed forest practice rules
•
got legislative changes
•
caused CDF to begin an internal auditing program of our inspectors
•
led to a historic agreement between SWRCB, BOF and CDF. 3. W h a t we d i d n ' t get!
•
EPA stil hasn't certified the program as meeting BMPs.
•
Those that didn't like logging still don't like logging.
•
Several forestry initiatives were submitted to the voters. If they had passed they would have been very detrimental to forestry in California.
•
Now we have the political battle that is supposed to forestall any more initiatives.
•
The BOF is also playing the political game by passing emergency rules - some altering rules they had just passed the year before.
One must remember here that we still don't have good quantitative data to show that the forest resources are protected by our forest practices. Because of this, we are still living with perceptions. Could we have expected more? Probably not with our design. However, it did lead us to the conclusion that we needed to do a better job of monitoring. 4. W h e r e are we n o w ?
As I stated before, we had agreed to develop an on-going monitoring and assessment program. Maybe this time we can get more support from all sides and get an effective on-going program.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
311
We have formed an 18 member Interagency Monitoring Task Force composed of BOF, CDF, SWRCB, DFG, industry and members of the public. The Task Force selected William Kier Associates, specialists in natural resources planning and management, to assist in designing a complete monitoring program. Interested public have been involved in shaping the program. A publication "Stream Reach" was sent out to explain the purpose and to advertise seven public hearings held throughout California, which provided over 100 oral and written testimonies. Included in your handouts is Part 2 of the BEAC Report (BEAC, 1991), which is really the meat of the report. I just want to point out a few important items from the report. (1)
As has been stressed by many speakers here, you must know the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW of monitoring.
(2)
It is important to monitor both the implementation of practices and the effectiveness of the practices.
(3) It may not be important in all monitoring, but in our case, where there is so much mistrust in both the industry and CDF, the monitoring program needs to involve the public, tt must also be accountable. (4)
Monitoring doesn't have to be highly technical. We are looking at low to moderate level qualitative and quantitative monitoring that could include: •
habitat type surveys
•
measurement of stream pool parameters
•
shade canopy surveys
•
temperature measurements
•
inventories of large woody debris
I think what is crucial here is that you can design the best monitoring program and it would answer every question, but if it costs more than management is willing to pay you haven't gained anything. Presently we are starting with a $250 000 budget which we are certain of being able to maintain for a couple of years.
(5) Those affected, landowners and public, must feel confident in the results. Therefore, we are starting with a pilot project. This will give us time to readjust if necessary, build a legitimate program and build that needed confidence into the system. (6)
Finally, you need the feedback loop where everybody learns from the monitoring. It also helps to correct problems and keeps the public informed.
312
ROSS JOHNSON
I remain optimistic that we can benefit from good, effective monitoring. Now, if we can get the backing o f the environmentalists and the industry and keep the B O F and the Legislature from changing things every month or so, we might have a chance to prove our forest practices are doing a reasonable job of protecting the natural resources of the state.
References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP): 1988, California's Forest and Rangelands: Growing Conflict Over Changes: Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP). (July). Martin, Edward: 1989, 'A Tale of Two Certificates' The California Forest Practice Program 1976 through 1988. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP): 1987, Final Report of the Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board.
BEAC: 1991, Recommendations for Evaluating the Effectiveness of California Forest Practice Rules as Best Management Practices for the Protection of Water Quality. Prepared by the BMP Effectiveness Assessment Committee and William M. Kier Associates (December).
California Department of Forestry, and Fire Protection, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, U. S. A. (Received:May 1992)
Abstract. Now that the concerns, issues, ideas and constraints have been discussed, how does all of this come together? There are three basic questions we should ask. •
Can we improve natural resource management through monitoring?
•
Will those that make the decisions listen?
•
Will they use the generated data in their decision?
I am going to relate to you what has happened in California over the last fifteen years. I believe it will point out that the answer to the three questions are a resounding yes, with some qualifications and some bumpy roads along the way.
1. Introduction: What Does it All Mean?
You see, most managers are looking for good data to help them make a decision. I would like to emphasis 'good' data; however, you will see as we relate the California story, it doesn't always end up having to be the best data to get action. If you haven't closed all the holes in the data collection, it doesn't satisfy everybody. At other times it may be the only data in town, but it can still have resounding effects on natural resource management. In California, logging on state and private timberland is regulated through the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973. The State Board of Forestry (BOF) adopts rules and regulations that the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) enforces. Each landowner must submit a timber harvesting plan (THP) prepared by a Registered Professional Forester. For non-emergency situations and when the ownership is larger than three acres, the plan must be reviewed and approved by CDF prior to beginning operations. The approval process takes from 35-45 days but can go longer on controversial plans. The review takes an interdisciplinary approach by involving the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Approximately 85 % of the plans have a preharvest inspection prior to approval. Each active timber operation is inspected an average of three times during its life span, which can extend to three years. Currently, we are in a hotbed of political controversy. As some of you may know, in the political arena there isn't time to deal with facts usually just perceptions and bias. I will concentrate mainly in our forest practice monitoring. We also have other forms of monitoring ongoing. Currently, we have the following types: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 26:307-312, 1993. C) 1993 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
308
ROSS JOHNSON
Our Forest and Range Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP) monitors forest and range resources and publishes an assessment report every five years (CDFFP, 1988). The next is due in 1993. There are two pilot projects that seek to produce joint ownership protocols. These projects are designed to bring the owners of watersheds together to mutually agree on problems and their solutions. The solutions include monitoring. The Legislature created the Timberland Task Force with an objective of gathering information on and mapping of wildlife habitat. This information will be used in the review of timber harvesting plans and other wildland projects. The Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) continually monitor the application of forest herbicides. Under California law the regulation of herbicide application is handled by the Food and Agriculture Department. There are many more examples of assessment and monitoring, but onto California's history of forest practice monitoring. I think you will find that it is filled with many strategic adjustments and program evaluations.
2. History (Martin, 1989) We started in 1977 with the implementation of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act, which had actually passed in 1972. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) was pushing for stronger forest practice regulations. They admitted they had only made the most cursory studies, but they intended to go ahead with a task force to conduct a statewide program of review. Eventually the BOF took the initiative and formed the Best Management Practices (BMP) Advisory Committee with Dave Pesonon as its chair and representatives from industry, environmental interests and the state agencies. It became known as the BUMP Sac Committee. They involved the public by sending out questionnaires on forest practices; only 15% were answered. Public hearings were also held. After much discussion it was presented to the BOF as a draft. Timber industry attacked its findings as unsubstantiated by objective data. Environmentalists attacked it as being incomplete, especially for its lack of specific language for recommended BMPs. However, after editorial changes the BOF adopted the report in June 1980. In 1983 as a result of this BUMP Sac report and its somewhat crude methods of qualitative monitoring the BOF did adopt new revised rules and regulations for: - Watercourse and Lake Protection; - Logging Roads and Landings; - Harvesting Practices and Erosion Control; - Erosion Hazard Rating for Soil.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
309
The BOF then requested the SWRCB to certify the forest practice rules and review process as meeting B M P standards. The SWRCB responded with a letter asking why the BOF had overlooked so many of their concerns. The BOF responded with a letter on how these issues had been addressed. The SWRCB finally agreed to a 'conditional' certification based on a Management Agency Agreement (MAA) which would include a joint four-year monitoring and assessment program. People were beginning to realize there wasn't much data to base regulation changes on. The BOF, CDF and SWRCB staff immediately went to work on the Monitoring and Assessing Program (MAP). They ran into turf battles almost immediately. The timber industry wanted in as a condition to enter their lands. That was definitely needed as there was no authority for access otherwise. Then the environmentalists wanted in. DFG wanted in and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sent observers. All were allowed to participate. As with design by committee, it was hard to get consensus; but eventually they did. But what sank MAP was the cost. Staff estimated a $4 million implementation cost. Being realists most knew the Legislature would never go for it. Something else had to be worked out. Eventually a new agreement was accepted that called for a one year qualitative assessment of the Forest Practice Program. Each party to the Agreement would have one member on the team. The team consisted of a member from CDF; DFG; SWRCB; and representing timber industry interests, the California Forest Protective Association. Basically, this study was designed to visit 100 timber harvesting plan (THP) sites that had a potential to effect water quality. A copy of the 208 team report (CDFFP, 1987) may be obtained from CDE In April 1987 the team published their findings based on this qualitative approach. The team found that the rules generally were adequate when properly applied. However, there could be better enforcement by CDE They recommended a number of rule changes, including some that required legislation. These included regulation of site preparation and maintenance of erosion control facilities beyond completion of timber operations. The Team also recommended changes in: - Waterbar spacing; - Temporary stream crossing; - Road planning, construction and maintenance; - Watercourse protection. Many recommendations were directed toward administration of the program, such as timber operator testing, better assignment and passing of responsibilities,
310
ROSSJOHNSON
improved THP content, more training and education, and stronger enforcement. And lastly, they recommended an on-going monitoring program for the rules relating to water quality. In 1988 the BOF, CDF and SWRCB signed an MAA. This agreement required the BOF to work towards improvement of forest practice regulations to ensure protection of water quality. The SWRCB then approved certification. However, EPA did not agree and is still withholding its approval of the rules as BMPs for non-point pollution control. That is our past history - remember our monitoring involved only the one year qualitative study by four team members, but it: •
changed forest practice rules
•
got legislative changes
•
caused CDF to begin an internal auditing program of our inspectors
•
led to a historic agreement between SWRCB, BOF and CDF. 3. W h a t we d i d n ' t get!
•
EPA stil hasn't certified the program as meeting BMPs.
•
Those that didn't like logging still don't like logging.
•
Several forestry initiatives were submitted to the voters. If they had passed they would have been very detrimental to forestry in California.
•
Now we have the political battle that is supposed to forestall any more initiatives.
•
The BOF is also playing the political game by passing emergency rules - some altering rules they had just passed the year before.
One must remember here that we still don't have good quantitative data to show that the forest resources are protected by our forest practices. Because of this, we are still living with perceptions. Could we have expected more? Probably not with our design. However, it did lead us to the conclusion that we needed to do a better job of monitoring. 4. W h e r e are we n o w ?
As I stated before, we had agreed to develop an on-going monitoring and assessment program. Maybe this time we can get more support from all sides and get an effective on-going program.
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?
311
We have formed an 18 member Interagency Monitoring Task Force composed of BOF, CDF, SWRCB, DFG, industry and members of the public. The Task Force selected William Kier Associates, specialists in natural resources planning and management, to assist in designing a complete monitoring program. Interested public have been involved in shaping the program. A publication "Stream Reach" was sent out to explain the purpose and to advertise seven public hearings held throughout California, which provided over 100 oral and written testimonies. Included in your handouts is Part 2 of the BEAC Report (BEAC, 1991), which is really the meat of the report. I just want to point out a few important items from the report. (1)
As has been stressed by many speakers here, you must know the WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and HOW of monitoring.
(2)
It is important to monitor both the implementation of practices and the effectiveness of the practices.
(3) It may not be important in all monitoring, but in our case, where there is so much mistrust in both the industry and CDF, the monitoring program needs to involve the public, tt must also be accountable. (4)
Monitoring doesn't have to be highly technical. We are looking at low to moderate level qualitative and quantitative monitoring that could include: •
habitat type surveys
•
measurement of stream pool parameters
•
shade canopy surveys
•
temperature measurements
•
inventories of large woody debris
I think what is crucial here is that you can design the best monitoring program and it would answer every question, but if it costs more than management is willing to pay you haven't gained anything. Presently we are starting with a $250 000 budget which we are certain of being able to maintain for a couple of years.
(5) Those affected, landowners and public, must feel confident in the results. Therefore, we are starting with a pilot project. This will give us time to readjust if necessary, build a legitimate program and build that needed confidence into the system. (6)
Finally, you need the feedback loop where everybody learns from the monitoring. It also helps to correct problems and keeps the public informed.
312
ROSS JOHNSON
I remain optimistic that we can benefit from good, effective monitoring. Now, if we can get the backing o f the environmentalists and the industry and keep the B O F and the Legislature from changing things every month or so, we might have a chance to prove our forest practices are doing a reasonable job of protecting the natural resources of the state.
References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP): 1988, California's Forest and Rangelands: Growing Conflict Over Changes: Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP). (July). Martin, Edward: 1989, 'A Tale of Two Certificates' The California Forest Practice Program 1976 through 1988. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDFFP): 1987, Final Report of the Forest Practice Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board.
BEAC: 1991, Recommendations for Evaluating the Effectiveness of California Forest Practice Rules as Best Management Practices for the Protection of Water Quality. Prepared by the BMP Effectiveness Assessment Committee and William M. Kier Associates (December).
