Section IV- Cumulative Impact Assessment Contents Page Introduction ...................................................................................................... 112 Past and Present Projects Discussion ......................................................................... 112 ~ Future Projects Discussion ................................................................................. 113 2009-2019 Past, Present, and 5-Year Foreseeable Future Assessment Tables and Maps. 120-129 Map - Elk Location Within the Gualala River Watershed ............................................ 121 Map - Elk Assessment Areas Map 121.1 Map - Flood Prone Area Map 121.2 Resource Areas (Background and Identified Resources Assessment Areas) ................. 130 Watershed Resources Assessment ....................................................................... 137 1. Beneficial Uses of Water ................................................................................ 137 2. Watershed Description ................................................................................. 137 3. Potential Specific Watershed Impacts .............................................................. 138 4. Watershed Effect General Discussion .............................................................. 140 Findings ................................................................................................... 142 Water Temperature Effects ............................................................................ 143 Findings ................................................................................................... 145 Organic Debris Effects ................................................................................... 145 Findings ................................................................................................... 146 Chemical Contamination Effects ..................................................................... 146 Findings ................................................................................................... 147 Peak Flow Effects ......................................................................................... 147 Findings .................................................................................................. 147 Fog Drip ...................................................................................................... 147 Findings ................................................................................................... 148 5. Watercourse Conditions Assessment (Stream Morphology) .................................. 148 6. Beneficial Efforts Specific to the Plan ............................................................... 150 Findings .................................................................................................. 151 Soil Productivity Assessment ............ .................................................................. 152 1. Organic Matter Loss ...................................................................................... 152 2. Surface Soil Loss .......................................................................................... 152 3. Soil Compaction ........................................................................................... 153 4. Growing Space Loss .................................................................................... 153 Findings ................................................................................................... 153 Biological Resources Assessment ....................................................................... 154 1.Aquatic Species ............................................................................................ 155 2.Reptiles ...................................................................................................... 162 3.Amphibians ................................................................................................ .. 162 4. Sensitive Bird Species ................................................................................... 165 5. Sensitive Mammal Species ............................................................................. 171 6. Biological Concerns and Significant Wildlife Features Assessment ......................... 174 Findings ................................................................................................... 177 7. Plants ........................................................................................................ 179 Biological Findings ..................................................................................... 222 Recreational Assessment & Findings ...... ............................................................ .. 222 Visual Assessment & Finding ............................................................................... 222 Traffic Assessment & Finding ............................................................................. 223 Noise Assessment & Finding .............................................................................. 224 Global Warming -Climate Change and Forest Practice ......................................... .. 225 Project Specific Greenhouse Gas Analysis - Calculations & Summary Sheets .............. 233 Wildfire Assessment & Finding 245.1 Cumulative Impact References & Sources of Information ....................................... 245.3 Elk THP Section IV SECTION IV STATE OF CALIFORNIA BOARD OF FORESTRY CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ASSESSMENT (1) Do the assessment area(s) of resources that may be affected by the proposed project contain any past, present, or reasonably foreseeable, probable, or future projects? YesJL No_ If the answer is yes, identify the project(s} and affected resource subject(s}. The text and pages that follow provide a summary of past, present and future projects. It shows acres logged by silvicultural system and yarding method, percent of the watershed covered and describes the location within the watershed. This THP lies in the 8792 acre Robinson Creek Planning Watershed (RCPW) (1113.810002) and the 4628 Doty Creek Planning Watershed (1113.810003)(DCPW). Total flood prone area (FPA), also referred to as the floodplain, in the Robinson Creek watershed assessment area (WAA) is 382 acres or 4.3%. Within the FPA the THP proposes to harvest 68 acres or 17.8% of the FPA. Total flood prone area in Doty Creek watershed assessment area (WAA) is 28 acres or 0.6%. No harvesting is planned within the FPA of the Doty Creek Watershed Assessment area as part of this THP. 1. Past and Present Projects- In the past 1 0 years timber operations have occurred on or were planned for the specified acreage within each of the following CAL WATER planning watersheds within the Watershed Assessment Area (WAA): Robinson Creek: 683 of 8792 acres, or 7.8% of the watershed is under plan or has been harvested. Acres operated on or planned in the floodplain of Robinson Creek: 157 of 382 acres or 41.1% of the FP A. Doty Creek: 394 of 4628 acres, or 8.5% of the watershed is under plan or has been harvested. Acres operated on or planned in the floodplain of Doty Creek: 24 of 28 acres or 86% of the FPA. Harvesting Within the Flood Prone Area (FPA) Since the inception of the Forest Practice Act in 1973 about 88% of the Elk flood prone area stands, within this ownership, have been harvested at least once. Harvest activity on adjacent flood prone areas that have been harvested several times in the last 50 years under the selection management system indicates that these stand areas can maintain a harvest reentry cycle of roughly 15 to 20 years. Timber harvesting in the late 1990s to 2000 became problematic for any timberland owner who had flood prone timber areas within their ownership. For various reasons State and Federal agencies were becoming increasingly concerned over perceived potential impacts to watercourses from operating under the Forest Practice Rules at the time; i.e., the regulatory agencies had concerns that the then-existing rules were not sufficiently protective of water resources with a primary focus on anadromous salmonid habitat, health and abundance. Hence, there was a 12-plus-year hiatus of harvesting the FPAs on the ownership until a more restrictive Forest Practice Rule proposal could be developed and approved by the Board of Forestry that had buy-in from all the regulatory Elk THP Section IV ---~ agencies; i.e., the Anadromous Salmonid Protection (ASP) Rule Package of 2009. The total timbered flood prone acreage within the GRT ownership encompasses approximately 2,000 acres of Site I timberlands. These floodplain areas have not been harvested since 1999/2000 as the previous owners had determined they would wait until implementation of the ASP Rules in 2010. Harvesting on the floodplains did not occur for 12 years or more until the approval and harvest of the Kestrel THP 1-11-087 SON (112 acres selection) in 2014-15 and the pending Dogwood THP 1-15-042 SON (290 acres selection & 52 acres no-cut) which was partially harvested in 2016 (these latter two plans being predominately located along the South Fork Gualala River); and the Plum THP 1-16-094 MEN (154 acres selection) located along the North Fork Gualala River where harvesting was initiated in 2017 and is to be completed in 2019. Because of the past decade and a half delay awaiting ASP Rule development, much of the floodplain areas within the GRT ownership are now at or are well past their normal selection harvest reentry schedule of 15-20 years. Thus, harvesting on GRT's FPAs is