Common use of Trend Monitoring Clause in Contracts

Trend Monitoring. According to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and others (1991), trend monitoring implies a process where measurements are made at regular, well-spaced time intervals to determine a long-term trend in a particular parameter. This type of monitoring typically is not intended to evaluate specific management practices (as is the case with effectiveness monitoring). The results of trend monitoring, however, can corroborate the findings of effectiveness monitoring. Conversely, they can indicate changes at different time and spatial scales than those by which effectiveness monitoring indicates changes. Trend monitoring can also serve to indicate whether watersheds as a whole are on a long-term trajectory of recovery from both natural and management-related perturbations. • Aquatic macroinvertebrates are collected using methods in the California stream bioassessment procedures (CDFG, March 1996). This methodology involves sampling ▇▇▇▇▇▇ habitats using a kick net. Collected invertebrates are preserved in the field. In the laboratory, the samples are subsampled, and the first 300 invertebrates identified to family, and, where possible, to genus. The samples are being identified by ▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ Inc. Their results are used to calculate abundance (if less than 300), species richness (i.e., number of taxa), and the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ diversity indices. • Bulk sediment samples are being used to assess the percentages of fine sediments (less than 0.85mm and less than 4.7mm) as indicators of suitability for salmon spawning. PALCO is using the shovel sample technique as described in “Field Comparison of Three Devices Used to Sample Substrate in Small Streams,” by ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1991. Collected samples are processed by CDFG under contract to the company. • Pebble counts are being used to calculate the median and 84th percentile sediment size (e.g., D50 and D84). These sediment measures can be tracked over time to determine whether sediments in a watercourse are generally becoming coarser or finer, relative to both sediment loading rates and cumulative effects from management activities. Pebble counts are being collected using the method described in “Stream Reference Sites,” by ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 1994. • Measurements of water temperature over the summer are taken with continuous recording thermometers (Hobos or Stowaways). In addition, point measurements of temperature are taken during most other monitoring activities. Temperature data are used to calculate the maximum weekly average temperature (MWAT). • Canopy cover (percent) is being used to identify areas that may be subject to higher thermal loading (e.g., from sunlight) and to document regrowth of riparian areas harvested in the past. Measurements are taken using a spherical densiometer using methods in ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1996. • Streambed surveys are being conducted to determine how streambed elevation is changing over time. This, in turn, is related to both sediment and LWD loading to waters. The methods for these surveys were developed by ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (Humboldt State University) in cooperation with the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Timber Company. The method involves measuring the elevation of the channel thalweg using an engineers’ level and permanent benchmarks that can be used to compare results among survey periods. PALCO has also begun measuring channel cross sections using permanent benchmarks to track changes in channel width/shape over time. • As part of the stream bed surveys, PALCO is measuring the abundance (i.e., the percentage of channel length composed of pools), size, and depth of pools within each study reach. • LWD is being measured because of its value in creating fish habitat and to assess how much LWD recruits from riparian buffers along the stream. The diameter, length, and location of all LWD pieces in the thalweg mapping segments are being recorded yearly. Although not currently a part of PALCO’s trends monitoring program, PALCO intends to collect data on fish abundance, turbidity, and discharge in the future. For fish, PALCO will establish a number of survey reaches across the ownership. Where possible, these reaches will be selected to correspond to locations already being measured for the trends monitoring variables noted above. These survey reaches will be assessed twice yearly, during the summer (July to August), and again during the spawning season (the timing of which will vary from year to year). Summer surveys will be conducted using electrofishing, underwater observation, seining, angling, or other methods, as appropriate, although preference will be given to quantitative methods if they are feasible. Spawner surveys will primarily be conducted using visual observation techniques, although trapping, seining, or angling may be used to collect individual fish for measurement, identification, or radio tagging. Turbidity measurements were recommended in a review of PALCO’s monitoring program prepared for EPA by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ (▇▇▇▇▇ 1997). Although expensive compared to other sampling efforts used in PALCO’s monitoring program, ▇▇▇▇▇’▇ review suggested that turbidity could be an effective way to determine whether fine sediment inputs to waters are increasing or decreasing over time. The company proposes to establish pilot turbidity monitoring stations. Results from this pilot program will be used to determine how and where to expand the program. Historically, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) measured stream discharge at a series of stations on or adjacent to PALCO’s land (e.g., Freshwater Creek, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Creek). PALCO provided financial support for reestablishment of a gaging station on the Elk River and intends to continue operation of this gage. The company is also considering establishment of gaging stations on Freshwater Creek, ▇▇▇▇▇ Creek, and possibly in one or more of the smaller watersheds draining into the Eel River (e.g., Bear Creek). This monitoring effort would also be relatively expensive. PALCO and the agencies’ decision on where to undertake this program will be made in the future based on the results of the Elk River pilot study and watershed analyses conducted there and in other hydrologic units. PALCO recognizes that new data or scientific studies and the findings of watershed analysis will result in future identification of other variables that would be valuable to monitor. Therefore, at their discretion, PALCO and the agencies will add to the list of monitoring variables outlined here at a later date. ▇▇▇▇▇ (1997) discussed the distribution of monitoring sites on PALCO’s lands, and suggested installation of additional monitoring sites. PALCO agrees that some portions of its lands, for example, the Elk River drainage, have few monitoring sites relative to their land area. In part, this is a result of statistical chance, as many sites were chosen using randomization techniques. However, it is also true that the company made the decision to intensively survey the Freshwater and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ creek basins to more accurately assess the potential impacts of its forest practices. PALCO intends to continue this intensive approach to sampling in these basins, especially given concerns over the potential for cumulative effects. However, the company also anticipates adding new monitoring sites to fill any gaps in its coverage. Selection of specific sites will be included as part of the watershed analysis process the company will conduct on its lands. PALCO and the agencies will review the current 52 monitoring locations and activities. They will confirm that the original intent underlying the selection of locations and instream parameters to be measured is consistent with the monitoring needs of the Aquatics Conservation Plan and follow the guidelines for monitoring found in the HCP Handbook (1996). This review will address and respond to comments from the public and local watershed specialists regarding PALCO’s current trend monitoring effort. PALCO and the agencies will provide important details regarding monitoring objectives and hypotheses, sampling, and measurement methodologies, monitoring locations and distribution, frequency of sampling, and statistical analyses. These cannot be finalized and disclosed at this time, but must await the findings of watershed analysis, further quantitative and qualitative resource assessment and analysis (i.e., for the interim, for those hydrologic units where watershed analysis is not yet completed), or both. As stated in the HCP Handbook (1996), trend monitoring measures will be “as specific as possible and be commensurate with the project’s scope and the severity of its effects.” Further, PALCO and the agencies will develop target milestones for the life of the HCP for key instream parameters. These will necessarily be specific to each hydrologic unit, as their development must be informed and conditioned by prevailing physical conditions specific to each hydrologic unit. As a further assurance that PALCO’s trend monitoring program will follow the guidelines of the HCP Handbook (1996) and show clear trend information on the condition of waters in watersheds affected by implementation of the Aquatics Conservation Plan, PALCO and the agencies will establish a peer review panel comprised of scientists, resource professionals, and the public living in and near the hydrologic units to be monitored. The panel will review the initial trend monitoring strategies developed by PALCO and the agencies and will provide recommendations for improvements. The peer review panel will validate that appropriate questions are being asked and that the proposed monitoring strategies are practicable and will give answers and management directions. The ultimate form of the trend monitoring will be approved by the reviewing agencies through the watershed analysis process.