Survey of Rod Thin Monitoring, taken on 10/18/2007 by Rick_Barnes

(Survey: Thinning)

Survey Date: 
10/18/2007
Activity: 
Rod Thin Monitoring
Pre-Implementation Issues
Unit(s) surveyed: 
All: 126, 132, 133, 138, 140, 150, 158, 162, 164, 170, 172, 174, 182
Do silvicultural prescriptions support the Proposed Action as described in the EA? 

Yes

Are silviculture prescriptions likely to produce variable stand density both between and within units? 

Yes

Are silvicultural prescriptions accurately designated in the field? 

Yes, the skips, gaps and heavy thins are accurately designated in the field. The unit boundary tags had not been installed at the time of the field survey.

Are riparian no-cut buffers clearly designated in the field as outlined in the EA? 
No
Are minor species and the largest trees clearly designated to be retained? 

The prescription clearly designates retaining minor species and the largest trees, however, the Stewardship Contract was not available at the time of the survey. Follow-up will be needed to assure that the contract clearly specifies retention of the minor species and largest trees.

Are snags clearly designated to be retained? 

The prescription clearly designates retention, however, the Stewardship Contract had not been prepared at the time of the preparation of the monitoring report. Follow-up will be needed to assure that the contract clearly specifies retention of snags.

Are coarse wood debris features clearly designated to be retained? 
Yes
Do skips contain any of the following? 
Riparian areas
Trees w/ elements of wood decay
Large trees
Minor tree species
Insects or disease
CWD
Are skips and gaps clearly designated as described in the EA and silviculture prescription? 

Yes

If skips do not contain these features, are they observed elsewhere in the project area? 

None were observed.

Do gaps containany of the following? 
N/A
Are designated wildlife trees present? 
Yes
Does the project meet desired goals of variability as described in the EA? 
Yes
Additional recommendations/comments regarding pre-implementation issues? 

The unit boundary tags had not been installed at the time of the survey. There were numerous examples found where the preliminary lines were too close to creeks. This situation was found in Units 132, 140, 158B, 158C, 164C, and 170A. The unit boundaries will need to be adjusted when the final boundaries are established to assure appropriate protection of riparian areas. Also, there is a need to check to make sure the Stewardship Contract clearly protects CWD. The surveys took place from October 18-20, 2007

Post-Implementation Issues
How long ago did cutting and yarding occur? 
N/A