Att1_FS-BMP_Sampling_and_Monitoring_Instructions.pdf

Draft Veg A- Page 1

Sampling and Monitoring Protocols

Veg A

Ground-Based Skidding and Harvesting (Reference BMPs Veg-1, Veg-2, Veg-3, Veg-4, Veg-6, Veg-7, and Fac-6)

DRAFT v2.0 April 2014

INTRODUCTION

Monitoring implementation and effectiveness of BMPs applied to mechanical vegetation management activities is accomplished through the use of three evaluation forms. This evaluation form assesses BMPs employed to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources applied to ground-based skidding and harvesting. Other evaluation forms assess Cable or Aerial

Yarding Operations (Veg B), and Mechanical Site Treatments (Veg C) which includes traditional site preparation, timber stand improvements, removal of invasive/exotic plants, and other vegetative treatments, but excludes those that involve the use of chemicals or prescribed fires.

Chemical control of vegetation (e.g., herbiciding), and prescribed fires to treat vegetation or fuels are evaluated using Chemical and Fire BMP Protocols, respectively, and should not be evaluated using any of these vegetation management forms.

This form includes four sections: a header section, an implementation section, an effectiveness section, and a general comments section. The header section is used to describe general planning and site information. If a site is selected for evaluation, it should be evaluated for both implementation and effectiveness; that is, one site should not be evaluated for implementation, and another site for effectiveness. Many of the questions, particularly in the header and implementation sections, require some office pre-work before going to the field, so it is best to thoroughly review the appropriate BMP forms and documents associated with the activity you are evaluating (e.g., the decision document, other BMP guidance documents, such as the land management plan, state BMPs or National Core BMPs, the timber sale or other contract, timber sale inspection reports, Contract Daily Diaries (FS6300-20), etc.). Virtually all of the effectiveness questions must be answered on site.

Copies of pertinent sections of documents listed in the preceding paragraph describing BMPs and actions to control water pollution and waterbody changes should be taken to the field to assist with answering implementation and effectiveness questions at the site. These instructions

(Veg A) also should be printed in color and taken to the field. In addition, a camera should be taken to the site to photo-document implementation or effectiveness successes and problems, as prompted in the question instructions. Photographs can be documented in the National BMP database and referenced to the corresponding evaluation question.

Note that the term aquatic management zone or AMZ is used in the National BMP Program as an inclusive term to denote the longitudinal protection zone adjacent to any type of waterbody. Use of this single term avoids having to reference the many terms used by National Forests and

Grasslands to describe these zones. For the purposes of BMP monitoring, employ the AMZ width normally assigned by the land management plan to the type of waterbody present, unless that waterbody has been assigned a different width (e.g., it is given a greater level of protection).

Draft Veg A- Page 2

For some projects, some Units use other additional protection zones, such as equipment restriction zones that are even wider than AMZs. These should not be employed for AMZ widths during BMP monitoring.

POPULATION DEVELOPMENT AND SAMPLE SELECTION

The National BMP Monitoring Forms/Protocols can be used to monitor and analyze BMP implementation and effectiveness at several different scales, including national, regional, land management plan, and project-level purposes. Samples, either projects or sites, can be selected randomly or non-randomly depending on the monitoring objectives. Question 11 (parts a, b, and

c) in the monitoring form header is used to track the purpose and method of sample selection for each evaluation.

Obligations for National BMP Program monitoring will be communicated to each administrative unit when annual performance targets are assigned. Generally, evaluations conducted for the

National BMP Program are to be completed at randomly selected sites or projects and completed following all of the procedures described in the protocol instructions. This is important so that statistically-valid inferences about BMP implementation and effectiveness can be made at the national scale. Use of the National BMP Monitoring Protocols for National

Forest- and Grassland-scale monitoring is at the discretion of the administrative units. However, once the sample project or site is selected (randomly or non-randomly), all of the procedures described in these instructions for evaluating the site or project should be followed.

For purposes of the National BMP Program, the population for this evaluation consists of all ground-based harvest units for which service, project, or timber sale contracts were prepared.

From this population, develop a pool that consists of the smaller subset of ground-based harvest units that contain at least one AMZ or are immediately adjacent to at least one AMZ (i.e., the

AMZ was intentionally excluded from the treatment unit to protect riparian resources;

“immediately adjacent” means that the harvest unit and the AMZ have a shared boundary) (Fig.

1) and for which the effectiveness evaluation will meet the timing requirements described below in Timing of Monitoring. For waterbodies that have no designated AMZ (e.g., some Units do not designate AMZs for ephemeral waterbodies), use a 50-ft width as the surrogate for the AMZ, and hence for determining if there are harvest units within or immediately adjacent to the AMZ.

From this pool of ground-based harvest units, randomly select the number needed to meet the administrative unit’s obligation for Veg A evaluations for the National BMP Program.

TIMING OF MONITORING

Evaluation of ground-based harvesting should be timed to meet the objectives of implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Ideally, implementation evaluations should be undertaken soon after the harvesting in the unit is completed (and all BMPs applied) to simplify the review. Long delays between harvesting and the implementation evaluation may result in greater time or difficulty in finding information about planned actions and their implementation.

Draft Veg A- Page 3

Figure 1. Examples of harvest units eligible for evaluation. (a) The unit extends into the AMZ of the waterbody. (b) The unit was positioned adjacent to the AMZ during planning to avoid disturbance in the AMZ.

In most climates, the effectiveness evaluation should be done any time following the passage of a wet or winter season and no longer than 12 months after the completion of the harvesting (close-out in the unit). This allows those BMPs that need time to become fully functioning (e.g., revegetation) to do so, and allows all BMPs to be tested by precipitation and runoff. Monitoring also should be performed when the project areas are clear of snow so that contaminants can be observed and access to the site will not result in rutting or other damage.

Draft Veg A- Page 4

However, because rates of soil stabilization, revegetation, and other factors controlling erosion differ substantially by climate, the evaluation team should use professional judgment in determining whether that timing should be increased or decreased. Examples of exceptions to the general timing recommendation are:

In extremely dry regions where revegetation is slow, no more than two years should pass between treatment and the evaluation of effectiveness, even if no substantial precipitation event has occurred during those two years. If a substantial rain event occurs, effectiveness should be evaluated soon thereafter, even if the event occurs soon after the harvesting or treatment has been completed.

In warm, moist climates, such as throughout much of the Southeast, evaluations should be done soon after treatment has been completed and after a significant rain event (e.g., 2 inches in 24 hours) has occurred. Revegetation occurs quickly in these conditions. In these climates, evaluations should be performed no later than a single wet season following the treatment.

The team may prefer to perform the implementation and effectiveness evaluations the same day to minimize the number of days obligated for monitoring. This is acceptable, but the timing then should follow the requirements for effectiveness monitoring. Whether they are done the same day or different days, the implementation evaluation always should be completed before the effectiveness evaluation.

WHO SHOULD CONDUCT THE EVALUATIONS

Completing this BMP evaluation properly requires knowledge of Forest Service vegetation management policies and procedures, runoff and erosion processes and erosion control.

Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the evaluation be conducted by an interdisciplinary review team (IDT) of at least 2 or 3 specialists, including when possible, the individuals responsible for the planning and execution of any applied BMPs. Including personnel who worked on the selected vegetation management activity will aid in answering several questions.

Including line and staff officers, researchers with expertise in vegetation management, watershed, or fisheries, as well as representatives of state and other regulatory agencies is encouraged.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE FIELD OBSERVATIONS

The objective of this evaluation is to assess BMPs taken to protect water quality; therefore, observations of the project focus on samples of areas where ground disturbing activities occurred or where water or aquatic impacts are likely to occur. Consequently, in evaluations of ground-based harvesting, areas that will be reviewed are the AMZ and the adjacent waterbody, a landing, and a skid road/skid trail connected to that landing. The procedures to evaluate these areas are described below.

Draft Veg A- Page 5

For inclusion in the sample pool, the harvest unit was required to be associated with at least one

AMZ (the unit had to contain an AMZ or be adjacent to an AMZ). However, some harvest units may contain multiple AMZs, such as a unit that exists in the corner of two tributaries (Fig. 2), or units that extend across a stream where there would be an AMZ present on both sides of the stream. If more than one AMZ, or AMZ surrogate, is present within or is adjacent to a selected harvest unit, the team should select the AMZ that it considers to present the most risk to water quality or aquatic health from the activities in the harvest unit and if BMPs applied during and following harvesting activities are not successful. Risk can be influenced by slope steepness, the placement and intensity of on-the-ground treatments within or near the AMZs, geology and soil erodibility, the presence of sensitive aquatic species, and many other factors.

Figure 2. An example of a harvest unit extending into two AMZs. Other examples could have the unit being adjacent to two AMZs or being adjacent to one AMZ and extending into a second

AMZ. In these situations, one of the two AMZs would be selected for evaluation based on potential risk that the activities in the unit pose to water quality or aquatic health.

To evaluate the selected AMZ, establish two transects within it. One transect is the AMZ transect, which approximately bisects the AMZ longitudinally. The second transect is the waterbody transect, which runs along the edge of the waterbody and generally parallels the AMZ transect (Fig. 3). The AMZ transect and waterbody transect extend the entire length that the AMZ is present within or adjacent to the unit.

Next identify the landing employed for this unit during the harvesting operation that is closest to the selected AMZ. Only one landing will be evaluated. If multiple landings are equally close to the AMZ, randomly choose a landing from those equally-close landings for evaluation. If there are no landings that were used in this unit located within the same watershed as the selected

AMZ, choose the landing in an adjacent watershed (i.e., over a topographic divide) that was used to deck logs for the unit you are evaluating and that is closest to a down slope waterbody. In this situation, the closest waterbody will be a different one than the one associated with the AMZ transect and waterbody transect. However, there is no need to establish a second AMZ transect or waterbody transect along this other waterbody.

Draft Veg A- Page 6

Figure 3. Locations of AMZ and waterbody transects where (a) part of the unit is adjacent to the

AMZ; (b) the unit extends into the AMZ; and (c) the unit includes two AMZs. In the situation shown in (c), only one of the AMZs would be evaluated with one AMZ transect (♦―♦) and one waterbody transect (♦―♦), based on potential risk to water quality or aquatic health from treatments in the unit.

In some instances, the sides of roads are used as landings. If this is the case, consider each section of road where logs were piled as a separate landing for this review. As before, select the road-side landing that is closest to the AMZ reviewed. If the only landings that are available are road-side landings and none exists in the watershed containing the selected AMZ, choose the road-side landing used for the harvesting operation that is closest to a waterbody in another watershed. For the purposes of evaluation, the landing includes the landing surface and any

Draft Veg A- Page 7 fillslopes or cut slopes constructed to create the landing. To evaluate the landing, review the surface of the landing and walk around the perimeter of the landing.

Next identify all the skid trails, skid roads or other temporary roads used to transport logs to the landing, that directly connect to the landing. If a portion of a Forest Service system road was used as an extension of a skid road or skid trail for landings located along a permanent road, that length of system road can be considered and included as part of a skid road/trail for selecting the road and defining the length of road to evaluate (described in subsequent sentences). If only one skid trail, skid road, or other temporary road connects to the landing that will be the road/trail that is evaluated. If more than one trail/road connects to the landing select the one that extends closest to a down slope waterbody within the same watershed containing the landing. Review a maximum of 1000 ft of that skid road, skid trail, or temporary road. Terminate the evaluation where the temporary road/trail meets a permanent road, connects to another landing, or extends into another watershed (e.g., over a ridge). If the temporary road/trail has no forks in it and it ends in less than 1000 ft, evaluate it to its terminus. If the selected road has forks in it, randomly select forks to evaluate as you encounter them, up to a maximum length of 1000 ft, if possible, or until a permanent road, another landing, or another watershed is encountered.

What To Look For

The AMZ, landing, and connecting skid road/skid trail/temporary road are evaluated separately and in that order in form Veg A. To simplify monitoring, you should evaluate them in that order.

Walk along the AMZ transect and waterbody transect and look for evidence of erosion or sedimentation. Erosion and sediment transport may have developed in the AMZ or it may have developed outside the AMZ in the general harvest unit and moved into the AMZ. This may be visible from the AMZ transect or from the waterbody transect. Pay particular attention to natural drainage features, such as concave topography, or to areas of concentrated flow into the AMZ – these may be natural or upslope manmade features (e.g., drainage from a cross-drain culvert).

Note the types of erosion and depositional features you observe. Follow each erosion or depositional feature to its origin and terminus to determine its sources and causes as well its extent. Along the waterbody transect look for evidence of sediment transport into the waterbody, as well as damage to the waterbody banks or bed, or changes in waterbody morphology or bed substrate attributable to harvesting operations.

Examine the surface of the landing, as well as any cut slopes, fillslopes, or drainage features or structures created or installed during the construction of the landing (these are considered part of the landing during the evaluation). Look for evidence of erosion or sediment transport on the landing and moving off the landing. The latter should be evident when you review the perimeter of the landing. Pay particular attention to natural or manmade drainage features on the landing, as these are likely points of sediment movement from the landing during runoff events. Follow evidence of erosion or sediment transport to its origin and terminus to determine its sources, causes, and extent of movement.

Walk along the appropriate skid road/skid trail/temporary road length (as defined above) connected to the landing just evaluated. Look for evidence of erosion and sedimentation on and

Draft Veg A- Page 8 originating from the road prism. The road prism includes the road surface, cut slopes, fillslopes, crossing fills, drainage ditches if present, and outlets of road drainage features. Erosion or sediment transport may stay on the road surface or it may move off it and down slope. Pay particular attention to the types of erosion or depositional features present and follow each feature to its origin and terminus to determine its sources, causes, and extent of movement. You will be asked to evaluate the road/trail segment separately from any waterbody crossing and approaches that exist on it within the segment. The outer reaches of an approach are definable by road surface drainage features or grade changes on the road surface, such that water on an approach will drain toward the crossing. If the temporary road or trail was constructed without approaches, ignore the approaches where the questions and these instructions make references to the waterbody crossing and approaches. In this situation, consider only the waterbody crossing.

As you review the AMZ, landing and connecting road or trail, also look for evidence of chemical or fuel spills or leaks, as well as evidence of waste chemical or fuel containers left on the site following the harvesting operation. Note the locations of all of these (i.e., outside or within the

AMZ or in the waterbody) during the evaluation for erosion/sedimentation to avoid having to re-examine these areas for chemical contamination later. Information about the presence of chemical and fuel contaminants is asked in a single question covering all of the areas near the end of the effectiveness section of form Veg A.

INITIAL AND FOLLOW-UP EVALUATIONS

BMP monitoring can be done as initial reviews of implementation and effectiveness, or as follow-ups to implementation or effectiveness. Follow-up monitoring generally will be performed when deficiencies with initial implementation or effectiveness were observed, especially when they resulted in water quality problems or relatively high risks to water quality.

The type of monitoring being performed is the first answer you will provide in the header. Both initial and follow-up evaluations of ground-based harvesting should be performed using form

Veg A.

Regardless of whether monitoring is for initial evaluation or follow-up reviews, the header questions must always be answered – this means multiple header forms may be completed for a specific site or project. Completing the header portion of an evaluation form can be expedited if you have a copy of the most recent previous evaluation done for this project or site since many of the answers will remain the same. This also will ensure that the information required to link the evaluations is identical.

If the current evaluation is an initial implementation review only (i.e., initial effectiveness will be completed on a subsequent day), aside from the header, only the implementation section needs to be completed. Likewise, if the current evaluation is an initial effectiveness review only (i.e., implementation review was completed a previous day), in addition to the header, only the effectiveness section needs to be completed.

Unlike the initial evaluations that require completion of both the implementation and effectiveness sections of the form, follow-up evaluations do not require completion of both the

Draft Veg A- Page 9 implementation and effectiveness sections of the monitoring form. Instead, the focus of follow-up evaluations is where corrective actions or adaptive management actions were taken, meaning the header and only implementation or, more commonly, only effectiveness may be evaluated, though both sections (and header) can be completed if applicable. Follow-up evaluations of ground-based harvesting should be timed so that monitoring following corrective actions or adaptive management actions provides meaningful results.

Draft Veg A- Page 10

INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM ‘Veg A’

HEADER QUESTIONS

1. Type of review being performed.

Sites or projects selected for BMP review should be evaluated initially for both implementation and effectiveness. Implementation evaluation should always be done prior to effectiveness evaluation, even if they are done on the same day.

If this is an initial evaluation of this site or project, indicate whether the current review is for implementation, effectiveness, or both, by selecting the appropriate answer on the first line of question 1. Refer to Timing of Monitoring in the instructions for information on whether initial implementation and effectiveness monitoring are typically performed the same day for this activity.

Follow-up BMP evaluations typically are performed when implementation and/or effectiveness problems were reported during the initial evaluation, and corrections or adaptive management actions have been applied to the site. Note that if an initial evaluation found no deficiencies with implementation, and the only problems pertained to effectiveness, a follow-up implementation evaluation is NOT required. However, if problems or deficiencies were found for implementation alone or both implementation and effectiveness, and corrections or adaptive management actions have been applied, the follow-up evaluation should include both implementation and effectiveness, though they may be done at different times (again, implementation should always be done first).

2. If current review is for an initial evaluation of effectiveness only, what was the date of the implementation review for this site?

If the current review is an initial evaluation of effectiveness only, specify the month, day, and year of the initial implementation review. Make sure the date matches the date on the initial implementation evaluation form so that the implementation and effectiveness results can be linked. Skip this question if this evaluation is for anything except an initial effectiveness evaluation.

3. If current review is a follow-up evaluation, what was the date of the most recent evaluation?

If the current review is a follow-up evaluation, indicate the date of the most recent evaluation of this project. Note that the most recent evaluation may have been an initial evaluation or a follow-up implementation evaluation. Make sure the date matches the date on the most recent evaluation form so that the results can be linked. Skip this question if this evaluation is not a follow-up evaluation.

4. Date of current field evaluation.

This date should correspond to the date that the field evaluation is performed. Normally, some of the header information and perhaps even some of the implementation questions dealing with planning will be completed in the office, and this may occur a day or more before traveling to the

Draft Veg A- Page 11 field. In this situation, wait to answer this question until you are in the field to ensure the date correctly corresponds to the day of the field evaluation, and not simply to office pre-work.

5. If this is a follow-up evaluation, describe all of the corrective actions that were applied to protect or improve water quality since the initial evaluation.

If this is an initial evaluation of the site and not a follow-up evaluation, skip this question.

If your answer to question 1 was follow-up implementation, follow-up effectiveness, or follow-up implementation and effectiveness, briefly describe the corrective actions that were made to protect or improve water quality since the initial evaluation of implementation, effectiveness, or both. The needed corrective actions should have been summarized in the corrective actions questions in the implementation section (question 46) and the effectiveness section (question 82) of the initial evaluation, so review of these may be helpful as a starting point to find information to answer this question. However, it also will be necessary to contact the individuals on the Unit who were involved in applying the corrections or administering contracts or plans used to make the corrections. If this is a follow-up evaluation but no corrective actions were made, answer

“None” for this question. You will answer “None” for this question if only adaptive management changes were made, which you will describe in question 6.

6. If this is a follow-up evaluation, describe all of the adaptive management actions that were applied to protect or improve water quality since the initial evaluation.

If this is an initial evaluation of the site and not a follow-up evaluation, skip this question.

If your answer to question 1 was follow-up implementation, follow-up effectiveness, or follow-up implementation and effectiveness, briefly describe the adaptive management actions that were made to protect or improve water quality since the initial evaluation of implementation, effectiveness, or both. The needed adaptive management actions should have been summarized in the adaptive management actions questions in the implementation section (question 48) and the effectiveness section (question 84) of the initial evaluation, so review of these may be helpful as a starting point to find information to answer this question. However, it also will be necessary to contact the individuals on the Unit who were involved in applying the adaptive management actions. If this is a follow-up evaluation but no adaptive management actions were made, answer

“None” for this question; normally you will answer “None” if only corrective actions were applied, which you described in question 5.

7. Reviewers and Titles.

Provide the names and titles of all the people involved in today’s review. If individuals outside the Forest Service are participating in the review, also provide their affiliations.

8. Region number.

Provide the Region number.

9.a. Proclaimed Forest or Grassland number and name.

Provide the Proclaimed Forest or Grassland number and name (e.g., 21, Monongahela National

Forest).

Draft Veg A- Page 12

9.b. Administrative Forest or Grassland number and name.

Provide the Administrative Forest or Grassland number and name (e.g., 01, Apache-Sitgreaves

National Forest).

10. District number and name.

Provide the complete District number and name (e.g., 51, Almanor Ranger District) where the harvesting project is located.

11.a. Reason for monitoring.

Select the reason that this review is being performed. If this is a follow-up evaluation, select the reason given for the original evaluation. National BMP Targets refers to BMP monitoring targets assigned from the WO or RO for showing performance accountability for the National

BMP Program. Quality Assurance refers to replicated BMP monitoring performed on a site or project soon after an initial or follow-up monitoring effort on that same site. Quality Assurance monitoring employs different team members with the objective of comparing both sets of results as a check of the repeatability of results. If the specific reason for the monitoring is not provided, select “Other”, and specify the reason.

11.b. Was the project/site selected randomly from the pool developed using the National BMP

Monitoring Program instructions that correspond to this form?

This question pertains to the initial implementation and effectiveness evaluations for this project.

If you are performing an initial review of either implementation or implementation and effectiveness, indicate whether you followed the procedures described above in the Population

Development and Sample Selection section to compile the pool and selected the ground-based harvest unit randomly. If you had only one unit in the pool, you can consider it as a random sample for the purposes of answering this question. Similarly, if there were only a few harvest units in the pool and you evaluated all of them, you would also answer “Yes” to this question. If you are completing the initial effectiveness evaluation sometime after implementation was evaluated, provide the same answer for this question that was selected for the initial implementation evaluation. If you are performing a follow-up evaluation, provide the same answer to this question as you provided for the initial evaluation.

If you did not develop the pool using the procedures described above and select the harvest unit randomly (i.e., you answered “No” to this question), describe the techniques you used to select this harvest unit. The description of the techniques used will be helpful in determining how the results may be applied to other Agency monitoring or reporting requirements.

11.c. Will the project/site be evaluated using the procedures described in the National BMP

Monitoring Program instructions that correspond to this form?

Indicate if the team intends to follow all of the procedures described in these instructions to evaluate the ground-based harvesting unit. These procedures include using the defined techniques for selecting the harvesting unit to evaluate, selecting the AMZ, landing, and connecting skid road/skid trail/temporary road appropriately, and evaluating those areas appropriately, and evaluating the project within the proper time frame for the climate or conditions.

Draft Veg A- Page 13

If you will not be using the procedures provided in these instructions, describe the techniques you will be using. The description of the techniques will be helpful in determining how the results may be applied to other Agency monitoring or reporting requirements.

12. 6 th level HUC number and name for the subwatershed this harvest unit is in.

Provide the 6 th level hydrologic unit code (HUC) number and name for the subwatershed in which this harvest unit is located. The number is a twelve digit code. This information can be obtained from your Unit’s Hydrologist or your Unit’s GIS data layers.

13. Is any part of the harvest unit being evaluated located within a municipal supply watershed?

Indicate whether any part of the harvest unit is located within a municipal supply watershed (i.e., drinking water supply), including State- and EPA-designated source-water areas. Even if only part of the harvest unit is in a municipal supply watershed or designated source-water area, answer “Yes” to this question.

14.a,b,c; 15.a,b,c. Location.

Answer only question 14 OR 15; you do not need to answer both. Provide the location of the harvest unit being reviewed using UTM or latitude/longitude coordinates. For UTMs provide the zone and datum used and the corresponding easting and northing coordinates in meters.

Likewise, for latitude/longitude, provide the datum and the corresponding latitude and longitude in either degrees-minutes-seconds or decimal degrees. Obtain the coordinates at the approximate mid-point of the waterbody transect being evaluated. If you cannot make the measurement at the site (e.g., no GPS satellite signal available) or choose not to make it in the field, obtain coordinates for the aforementioned location from the GIS data layers.

If this is an effectiveness evaluation following an implementation evaluation completed a previous day, or if this is a follow-up evaluation, provide the UTM or latitude/longitude coordinates that match those given previously for this project. This will allow the initial implementation and effectiveness results to be linked, or the initial and follow-up evaluations to be linked.

16. Wet weather conditions during the field evaluation and the 24 hours before the evaluation.

The purpose of this question is to obtain information about recent wet weather conditions that may have an influence on your observations. Select all of the responses that pertain to the conditions during the field evaluation and during the 24 hours prior to the field evaluation.

Select the “Other” choice only for wet weather conditions, and specify what those conditions are

(i.e., do not state “sunny” or “no precipitation” for “Other”). If the site is so remote that the weather conditions for the last 24 hours are unknown and cannot be determined accurately from weather reports, select “Unknown”, but also select any pertinent wet weather conditions that occur during the review.

17. Name of timber sale or project.

Provide the name of the timber sale.

Draft Veg A- Page 14

18. Harvest or project unit number.

Provide the harvest unit number of the unit being reviewed. If no unit number is assigned, state

“No unit number”.

19. Describe the treatment prescription for the harvest unit.

This question is directed at prescriptions for the harvest unit. If there are specific prescriptions for the AMZ that differ from other parts of the harvest unit, do not provide the AMZ prescriptions here, but rather include them in your answer to question 20. Provide a short description of the treatments that were applied to this unit and list the types of equipment used.

20. Describe the treatment prescription within the AMZ associated with the harvest unit, or the treatment prescription for the area adjacent to the waterbody if the waterbody has no designated

AMZ.

Often AMZ prescriptions differ fully or in part from the prescription in the larger harvest unit, typically to provide more protection to water, aquatic, or riparian resources. Therefore, to answer this question, focus specifically on the treatment prescription in this AMZ. Provide a short description of the treatments that were applied to the AMZ and list the types of equipment allowed in the AMZ as well as equipment restrictions within the AMZ. If the waterbody has no designated AMZ width, but different treatment prescriptions were given to the area adjacent to the waterbody, provide the prescription as well as information about the types of equipment allowed or equipment restrictions. If no treatments were prescribed for the AMZ (i.e., there was no harvesting or other disturbance in the AMZ), state “No treatments prescribed within the

AMZ”. If the treatments prescribed for the AMZ are no different than for the rest of the harvest unit, state “AMZ treatment prescription is the same as for the harvest unit.”

21. Date treatments began.

Provide the date that operations began for this unit. In all cases, use the earliest treatment date, regardless of whether treatment began in the general harvest unit or in the AMZ associated with the unit (if treatments were applied to the AMZ). This information is available from the timber sale inspection reports and/or Contract Daily Diaries.

22. Date treatments ended.

Provide the date corresponding to termination of activities for this unit. This information is available from the timber sale inspection reports and/or Contract Daily Diaries.

23. AMZ design width associated with the harvest unit.

Provide the design (planned) width for the AMZ in the harvest unit; this is the AMZ that will be evaluated with the AMZ transect and waterbody transect. Note that the AMZ width may be broadly applied to this type of waterbody on your Unit, or it may be an AMZ width assigned specifically for this project or this waterbody. If a variable width AMZ is assigned to the waterbody, report the narrowest width of the range. If the waterbody has no designated AMZ width, specify “0 ft” for the width – do not enter the 50-ft surrogate width in situations where there is no designated AMZ width. Report the width in ft or m, and specify the unit.

Draft Veg A- Page 15

24. Name of waterbody adjacent to the waterbody transect.

Provide the name of the waterbody adjacent to the waterbody transect being evaluated. If the waterbody is unnamed, state “Unnamed waterbody”.

25. Type of waterbody adjacent to the waterbody transect.

Identify the type of waterbody that is adjacent to the waterbody transect (i.e., the waterbody applicable to the answer to question 24). If none of the descriptions provided are appropriate, select “Other”, and identify the type of waterbody present.

26. Date contract requirements for the landing being evaluated were accepted.

Provide the date that the contract requirements pertaining to the evaluated landing were fulfilled and accepted. This information is available from the timber sale inspection reports and Contract

Daily Diaries.

27. Is the landing located within an AMZ?

Indicate whether the landing is located within an AMZ. In most instances if the landing is within the same watershed as the evaluated waterbody transect, the waterbody you used to answer questions 24 and 25 will be the only waterbody you will need to consider, but there also may be other waterbodies nearby that have a wider AMZ width. Therefore, consider the AMZ width for all nearby waterbodies to answer this question. If there is only a single waterbody in the vicinity of the landing and it has no designated AMZ, but it is within 50 ft of the edge of the landing you are evaluating, select “Not applicable; waterbody has no designated AMZ”.

28. Size of landing.

Estimate the size of the landing being evaluated. Include the landing surface as well as any fillslopes or cut slopes created to construct the landing. If you are evaluating a road-side landing, report only the area used to deck the logs. Report the area in ac, ft , ha, or m

, and specify the unit.

29. Distance from the landing to the nearest waterbody that is located in the same watershed as the landing.

Measure the closest distance between the edge of the landing and the nearest down slope waterbody that is located within the same watershed as the landing. Depending on where the landing is located and nearby AMZ widths, the nearest waterbody may not be the same one associated with the AMZ and waterbody transects. Report the length in ft or m, and specify the unit.

30. Dominant slope between the landing and the nearest waterbody.

Measure the dominant slope on the ground between the edge of the landing and the waterbody you measured the distance to in question 29. The dominant grade will have the greatest influence on drainage and sediment movement on the hillside. Dominant grade refers to the single grade present for the longest distance on the hillside; it is not the average grade. Report the slope in percent.

Draft Veg A- Page 16

IMPLEMENTATION QUESTIONS

31. What was the primary planning document used to specify the BMPs to be implemented to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources for this project?

If NEPA analysis was performed, answer this question based on the type of NEPA analysis that was completed for this project, even if BMPs also came from other guidance documents. If no

NEPA analysis was performed, but BMP guidance from at least one other source (e.g., state

BMPs, National Core BMPs, the land management plan, etc.) was employed in the project, select answer choice “e”. If no source of BMP guidance was employed in the project, select answer choice “a”. Follow the appropriate “go to” statement based on your response.

32. Indicate if provisions to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources in the list below from the decision document or other BMP guidance documents were included in the project contract or plan.

The purpose of this question is to determine whether measures and techniques aimed at protecting water, aquatic, and riparian resources that were developed during planning were subsequently carried through to the project contract or plan. If there is a decision document for the timber harvest project, it may contain BMP provisions and/or it may formally tier to other applicable BMP guidance documents, such as state BMPs, National Core BMPs or the land management plan. Additional BMP guidance may have come from these other documents even if they were not specifically tiered to in the decision document. For projects in which no NEPA analysis was completed, BMP guidance would have been derived solely from these other types of documents. In any case, BMPs from all sources that are applicable to this project should be considered in answering this and subsequent questions about BMP implementation.

Review the decision document and other BMP guidance documents, as applicable, and identify the measures and techniques (i.e., provisions) that were specified for this project to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources. Consider all of the applicable provisions in the decision document and other BMP guidance documents that deal with protecting water, aquatic, and riparian resources for the entire service, project, or timber sale contract of which this harvest unit is a part – that is, do not limit the identification of provisions to those that are applicable to the harvest unit you will be evaluating.

Once the protection provisions from all applicable sources are identified, assign each of those specific protection provisions to the more general provision categories in the list provided. It may be useful to record the assignments of different measures and techniques on the list provided, or on a separate sheet if the list is long, in order to keep track of the information, as it will also be used in the next question. [If you use a separate sheet, retain it so it later can be scanned and electronically documented in the database.] If there are measures or techniques that could be assigned to more than one of the general listed provisions, do not spend a lot of time deciding which provision to place them in, but pick the one the team thinks the measure/technique fits into best. If protection measures from the decision document or other

BMP guidance documents exist that cannot be assigned to one of the listed provisions, assign them to the “Other” answer choice and provide a short description of those provisions.

After the assignments are made, review the project contract or plan to determine if all of the specific provisions from the decision document or other BMP guidance documents are included

Draft Veg A- Page 17 in the project contract or plan. If they are included in the contract or plan, select “Yes” for the listed provision. If all of the provisions from the decision document or other BMP guidance documents are not included in the contract or plan, select “No” for the listed provision. Select

“Not applicable” for any provision that has no specific measures in the decision document or other BMP guidance documents, even if measures applicable to that provision exist in the contract or plan – these additional provisions are captured in question 33.

33. Indicate if provisions to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources in the list below that were included in the project contract or plan were implemented fully.

The purpose of this question is to determine whether measures and techniques aimed at protecting water, aquatic, and riparian resources that were included in the project contract or plan and are applicable to the harvest unit you are evaluating were implemented fully. Thus, for this question, you will consider only the protection provisions in the contract or plan that are applicable to the specific unit you are evaluating. For some situations the list of protection provisions for the evaluated harvest unit will be identical to the entire project, whereas in other situations there will be fewer protection provisions to consider in the evaluated unit because it includes only a subset of attributes (physical features, planned treatments, etc.) applicable to the entire project.

The list of provisions for this question is identical to that for question 32, so if you answered question 32 (because BMP guidance existed in the decision document or other documents), start with the same assignments of provisions from the decision document or other documents that you used for that question. Because of standard contract or plan language, it is possible that there are actually some additional protection measures and techniques in the contract or plan that were not present in the decision document or other BMP guidance documents. Consequently, as the next step, you should review the contract or plan and identify all of those extra measures and techniques and similarly assign those to the provisions in the list. If those additional measures fit within provisions identified in the “Other” category in question 32.o, assign them to those provisions in this question (33.o). If they do not fit in any of the possible choices in the list, assign them to the “Other” answer choice (33.p) and provide a short description of those provisions.

If you did not answer question 32 (because BMP guidance was not available in the decision document or other documents), review the instructions to question 32 to understand how to assign measures and techniques (i.e., provisions) to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources to the provisions in the list in this question. Then review the contract or plan and assign all of the measures for the project from the contract or plan to the applicable provisions in the list in this question (33). If there are provisions that do not fit in any of the possible choices in the list, assign them to the “Other” answer choice (33.p) and provide a short description of those provisions.

Then as needed, winnow down the list of measures you assigned to provisions in this question

(33) to include only the protection provisions that are applicable to the harvest unit you will be evaluating. This step and the next will require the team to visit the field site and talk with the timber sale administrator to determine the attributes present in that area and the corresponding applicable protection provisions.

Draft Veg A- Page 18

Next, compare the list of required measures and techniques (that are applicable to the harvest unit you are evaluating) to what has been implemented in the field, and determine if all of the measures in each provision have been implemented fully (as designed or planned). If all of the measures and techniques in a provision have been implemented fully, select “Yes”. Conversely, if any of the measures or techniques in a provision has not been implemented fully, you would select “No” for that provision. If a provision has no measures assigned to it, select “Not applicable”. Use this same approach for “Other” provisions you assigned to answer choices 33.o and 33.p.

For any provision in the list for which you selected “No”, provide a brief description of how implementation is deficient.

34. Was the AMZ shown on the Sale Area Map?

Review the Sale Area Map to determine if the AMZ was delineated on the map. If the waterbody adjacent to the AMZ transect and waterbody transect does not have a designated

AMZ, but you are instead applying a surrogate AMZ width of 50 ft to the waterbody, select answer choice “a”. Otherwise, select the appropriate response for this question based on your findings from the Sale Area Map. Follow the appropriate “go to” statement based on your response.

35. Was the AMZ marked on the ground?

Determine if the AMZ boundary was delineated in any way in the field. This could have been done using paint, flagging, posters, or other means. If the AMZ boundary was not delineated in the field because it was not required in the contract or plan, select “Not applicable, contract or plan did not require the AMZ to be marked on the ground”. Select “No” only if AMZ delineation was required in the field but it was not done. Follow the appropriate “go to” statement based on your response.

36. Does the minimum field-measured AMZ width meet the Forest Service-defined AMZ width along the entire length of the AMZ transect?

Measure the distance between the edge of the waterbody and the outside (upslope) edge of the delineated AMZ (i.e., the AMZ width) at 10 relatively evenly-spaced positions along the length of the AMZ. Pacing may be used to determine the AMZ width. If the width for all of the 10 measurements meets or exceeds the required AMZ width you reported in question 23, select

“Yes” unless variable AMZ widths are employed for this AMZ. For variable width AMZs, compare each measured width to the specific width that would be required at each of the locations where the AMZ width was measured. For both variable and fixed width AMZs, if at least one of the 10 measurements is less than the required width, select “No”. Follow the appropriate “go to” statement based on your response.

37. What percentage of the AMZ width measurements did not meet the Forest Service- defined width requirement?

Base this answer on the total number of measurements that did not meet the minimum width requirements. For example, 1 measurement out of 10 = 10 percent of the length not in

Draft Veg A- Page 19 compliance; 2 measurements out of 10 = 20 percent of the length not in compliance; etc. Select the category that includes the percentage of measurements that do not meet the minimum.

38. What was the narrowest width that did not meet the AMZ width requirement?

From the 10 measurements made for question 36, provide the single narrowest AMZ width.

Report the length in ft or m, and specify the unit.

39. Where were ground-based harvesting areas identified and delineated?

Review the Sale Area Maps and/or project maps to determine if the boundaries for the harvest…