6th Biennial Report

Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service

and

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

By Green Diamond Resource Company

in fulfillment of requirements pursuant to NMFS Permit No. 1613

and USFWS Permit No. TE156839-0

March 15, 2019

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

I. Introduction ................................................................................................ 1

II. AHCP Compliance ..................................................................................... 2

A. AHCP Implementation Plan ........................................................................ 2

B. Field Trials with Mechanized Equipment .................................................... 2

C. Commercial Thinning ................................................................................. 5

D. AHCP Minor Modifications ......................................................................... 6

1. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.3.5.9, 6.2.1.2.6 and 6.2.1.4.5 (Road Construction in RMZs) ............................................................... 7

2. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.4.5.2 and 6.2.4.7 (Limited Use of Existing Skid Trails on Slopes Greater than 45 percent) ......... 10

3. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.3.9.3 and 6.2.3.9.4 (Modifications to the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan: Schedule for RMAs and Mainline Roads) ........................................... 13

E. Forms for RPFs and Conservation Planning Staff to Document Pre-Harvest Conservation Measures for Each THP and Compliance with Those Measures Post-Harvest ................................................................. 16

F. Summary of THP Conservation Measures and Compliance with Those Measures While Operating Under the AHCP ........................................... 16

1. Notice of Filings .................................................................................. 16

2. Summary of Conservation Measures for Approved AHCP THPs ....... 17

3. Summary of Conservation Measures for Completed AHCP THPs ..... 17

III. Land Transactions and Plan Area Adjustments ....................................... 27

A. Notice of Transactions ............................................................................. 27

B. Land Transactions .................................................................................... 28

1. Plan Area Additions ............................................................................ 28

2. Plan Area Deletions ............................................................................ 28

3. Limitations on Plan Area Transactions ............................................... 28

4. Minor Modifications to the Plan Area .................................................. 29

C. Summary of Land Transactions and Plan Area Adjustments ................... 29

IV. AHCP Training Programs ......................................................................... 31

A. 2017 Training Programs ........................................................................... 31

B. 2018 Training Programs ........................................................................... 32

V. Road Management Measures .................................................................. 32

iii

A. Programmatic Road Permits .................................................................... 32

B. Road Assessment Process ...................................................................... 34

C. Road Implementation Plan ....................................................................... 35

D. Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan ................................................... 44

VI. Geology .................................................................................................... 46

A. CMZ/Floodplain Delineation ..................................................................... 46

B. SSS Delineation Plan (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.2) ...................................... 46

C. SSS Assessment (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.3) ............................................ 47

1. Current Status of the SSS Assessment .............................................. 47

D. Mass Wasting Assessment (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.4) ............................. 48

1. Purpose and Scope of the Assessment .............................................. 48

2. Current Status ..................................................................................... 48

VII. Budget ...................................................................................................... 49

VIII. Effectiveness Monitoring .......................................................................... 51

A. Rapid Response Monitoring ..................................................................... 52

1. Property-wide Water Temperature Monitoring .................................... 52

2. Tailed Frog Monitoring ........................................................................ 57

3. Southern Torrent Salamander Monitoring ........................................... 61

4. Road Treatment Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring .......... 65

B. Response Monitoring ............................................................................... 66

1. Class I Channel Monitoring ................................................................. 67

2. Class III Sediment Monitoring ............................................................. 72

C. Long-Term Trend Monitoring .................................................................... 73

1. Long-Term Habitat Assessment ......................................................... 74

2. LWD Monitoring .................................................................................. 81

3. Summer Juvenile Population Estimates.............................................. 90

4. Outmigrant Trapping ........................................................................... 98

5. Turbidity Threshold Sampling ........................................................... 108

D. Experimental Watersheds ...................................................................... 109

1. Riparian Canopy Modification Experiment ........................................ 111

2. Pilot Project: SF Ah Pah Creek ........................................................ 113

3. Tectah Creek Riparian Canopy Experiment ...................................... 125

E. Protocol Updates .................................................................................... 128

iv

IX. Adaptive Management Account ............................................................. 128

X. Changed Circumstances ........................................................................ 129

XI. Literature Cited ....................................................................................... 131

XII. Glossary ................................................................................................. 136

A. Abbreviations ......................................................................................... 136

B. Definitions .............................................................................................. 137

XIII. Appendices ............................................................................................ 151

A. Post-Harvest Forms of Completed THPs ............................................... A-1

B. Steep Streamside Slope (SSS) Assessment Field Data Sheet .............. B-1

C. Summary Table of Road Treatment Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results from 2017 and 2018 ................................................ C-1

LIST OF TABLES PAGE Table 1. Summary of areas (acres) for each harvest type for the 98 approved THPs. .................................................................................................................. 19

Table 2. Summary of areas (acres) for each harvest type for 62 completed THPs. .................................................................................................................. 19

Table 3. Summary of the riparian features and the average length of each feature in the 62 completed THPs with prescribed AHCP protection measures, during the reporting period. ................................................................................. 20

Table 4. Summary of proposed road work and the average length of proposed road work in the 61 completed THPs with road work, during the reporting period. ............................................................................................................................ 20

Table 5. Summary of geomorphic features observed within THPs during the reporting period. .................................................................................................. 21

Table 6. The distribution of geomorphic features by watercourse type. ............. 22

Table 7. Summary of SSS prescriptions associated by watercourse type. ........ 22

Table 8. Summary of AHCP exceptions. ............................................................ 23

Table 9. Summary of timber harvest plans with alternative geologic prescriptions. ...................................................................................................... 23

Table 10. Summary of harvest-related alternative geologic prescriptions and area of alternative geologic prescriptions applied per THP. ................................ 24

Table 11. Summary of hazard abatement activities. .......................................... 25

Table 12. Summary of land transactions and minor modifications that occurred between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. ........................................... 30

v

Table 13. Summary of 2017 training programs. ................................................. 31

Table 14. Summary of 2018 training programs. ................................................. 32

Table 15. Summary of the number of sites, volume of sediment savings and total costs of treating high and moderate priority sites, by operating area, from 2017 through 2018. ...................................................................................................... 36

Table 16. Summary of the number of sites, volume of sediment savings and total costs of treating high and moderate priority sites, from 2007 through 2018. ....... 37

Table 17. Actual, preliminary and estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index inflation rates published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis including actual and planned expenditures by year for treating high and moderate priority road sites. ................................................................................................ 45

Table 18. Planned budget for 2019. ................................................................... 50

Table 19. Anticipated budget for 2020. .............................................................. 50

Table 20. Summary of property-wide water temperature monitoring threshold exceedances documented from 2007-2018. ....................................................... 54

Table 21. Coastal Tailed Frog larval occupancy between 1997 and 2018 at GDRCo’s northern California annual monitoring sites (“+” = occupied by larval tailed frogs; “-” = not surveyed; sites that were not surveyed prior to 2009 had not yet been established, sites not surveyed after 2013 were on property that was sold). Paired sub-basin larval population monitoring was suspended upon the completion of the 2013 field season (analyses pending), no sites were sampled during the transitional 2014 season. In 2015 presence/absence surveys were initiated at our annual monitoring sites (n=18). ................................................... 60

Table 22. Summary of Southern Torrent Salamander monitoring from 1998-2018. ................................................................................................................... 64

Table 23. Summary of monitoring efforts completed for the road treatment implementation and effectiveness monitoring from 2010 through 2018. ............. 66

Table 24. Summary of Class I Channel Monitoring survey efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018. .......................................................................................................... 70

Table 25. Summary of pebble count quantile regression analysis. Data used was collected by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2014. ............ 71

Table 26. Summary of longitudinal profile data aggradation/scour analysis. Data used was collected by Green Diamond Resource Company from 2002-2013. ... 71

Table 27. Summary of Class III sediment basin monitoring efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 2002-2014. .......................................................................................................... 73

Table 28. Summary of the three habitat typing assessment efforts by HPA. ..... 75

Table 29. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Smith River HPA. .......................................................................................... 76

vi

Table 30. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Coastal Klamath HPA. .................................................................................. 77

Table 31. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Interior Klamath HPA. ................................................................................... 78

Table 32. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Coastal Lagoon HPA. ................................................................................... 78

Table 33. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Little River HPA. ............................................................................................ 79

Table 34. Third stream habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Mad River HPA and the North Fork Mad River HPA. .......................... 79

Table 35. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Humboldt Bay HPA. ...................................................................................... 80

Table 36. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Smith River HPA. ................................................................................. 83

Table 37. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Coastal Klamath HPA........................................................................... 84

Table 38. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Interior Klamath HPA............................................................................ 85

Table 39. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Coastal Lagoons HPA. ......................................................................... 86

Table 40. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Little River HPA. ................................................................................... 87

Table 41. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Mad River HPA. ................................................................................... 88

Table 42. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), North Fork Mad River HPA. .................................................................. 88

Table 43. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Humboldt Bay HPA. ............................................................................. 89

Table 44. Summary of the summer juvenile population estimate survey efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018................................................................................................... 92

Table 45. Summary of the outmigrant trapping efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018. ................................................................................................................... 99

Table 46. Summary of the turbidity threshold sampling efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company during the 2002-2018 water years. .................................................................................... 109

Table 47. Summary of average values calculated for average canopy closure and effective shade (ES) at hemispherical photo monitoring locations during the

vii

leaf-on (A) and leaf-off (B) periods by reach for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. ............................................................................................................... 122

Table 48. Summary of habitat units present and percent sampled by type, date and reach for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. ......................................... 123

Table 49. Summary of animals captured by sample period, reach, species and handling procedure for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. .......................... 124

Table 50. Summary of effectiveness monitoring protocol updates (Y = yes, N = no; protocol modified) since AHCP implementation. ......................................... 128

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Smith River area). ..................................................................................... 38

Figure 2. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Coastal Klamath area). ............................................................................. 39

Figure 3. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Interior Klamath area). .............................................................................. 40

Figure 4. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Maple Creek, Little River, Lower Mad River area). ................................... 41

Figure 5. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Mad River area). ....................................................................................... 42

Figure 6. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Humboldt Bay and Eel River area). .......................................................... 43

Figure 7. Deviation in minimum (A), mean (B) and maximum (C) air temperature from the 30-year normal for the month of August. Additionally, histogram (A) includes percent of monitoring sites (red bars with secondary y-axis) that experienced a threshold exceedance each year to show the association with this climatic metric. .................................................................................................... 56

Figure 8. Histograms of Smith River HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at SF Winchuck River (A), SF Rowdy/Savoy Creeks (B), and Wilson Creek (C) sampled by GDRCo from 1995-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted. ............................................................................................. 93

Figure 9. Histograms of Coastal Klamath HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Hunter Creek (A), Little Surpur Creek (B), Ah Pah Creek (C), and SF Ah Pah Creek (D) sampled by GDRCo from 1998-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted. .................................................................... 94

viii

Figure 10. Histograms of Little River HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Lower SF Little River (A) and Upper SF Little River (B) sampled by GDRCo from 1998-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted. .. 95

Figure 11. Histograms of Mad River and North Fork Mad River HPAs summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Sullivan Gulch (A) and Cañon Creek (B) sampled by GDRCo from 1995-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted. .................................................................................................... 96

Figure 12. Histograms of outmigrant coho smolt estimates with confidence intervals for Little River tributaries (solid bars) and Mainstem Little River (diagonal striped bars) sampled by GDRCo from 2000-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted at Mainstem Little River. ..................................................... 100

Figure 13. Summary of mean-annual trap efficiency during the 2017 (blue line) and 2018 (red line) outmigrant trapping seasons and overall average trap efficiencies at all sites for 1999-2018 (gray line) in Little River. ........................ 102

Figure 14. Apparent overwinter survival of juvenile coho salmon in Lower South Fork Little River (red dashed line), Upper South Fork Little River (green dashed line), and their annual average (gray line) from 1999-2018, Humboldt County, California. .......................................................................................................... 102

Figure 15. Coho outmigrant timing (vertical bars) and stream discharge (dashed lines) observed during 2017 (A) and 2018 (B) trapping seasons in Mainstem Little River (MSLR), Carson Creek (CC), Lower South Fork Little River (LSFLR), and Upper South Fork Little River (USFLR), Humboldt County, California. ............. 103

Figure 16. Summary of average lengths (A) and weights (B) (black lines) and ranges (dotted gray lines) for coho salmon smolts measured during outmigrant trapping from 2000-2018 in Little River, Humboldt County, California. ............. 104

Figure 17. Overview map of treatment area and study reaches associated with the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. ............................................................... 114

Figure 18. Chronological summary of key monitoring activities associated with the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. From 1995 through 2014, the water temperature monitoring was generally conducted from April to October. For locations of all monitoring sites see Figures 19-21. .......................................... 116

Figure 19. Map of hemispherical photography sites for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. ........................................................................................................ 117

Figure 20. Map of water temperature and annual water quality monitoring sites for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. .......................................................... 118

Figure 21. Location of forensic turbidity sampling sites and summary of results for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. .......................................................... 120

ix

Figure 22. Map of experimental thinning treatments in Upper Tectah Creek. .. 127

1

I. Introduction On June 12, 2007 the National Marine Fisheries Service and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service accepted Green Diamond Resource Company’s (GDRCo) Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (AHCP). On this date, NMFS issued GDRCo an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit authorizing incidental take coverage for listed and unlisted populations of three fish under its jurisdiction: Chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead. In addition, the USFWS issued Green Diamond an enhancement of survival permit for two unlisted fish and two unlisted amphibians under its jurisdiction: resident rainbow trout, coastal cutthroat trout, tailed frog, and southern torrent salamander. The incidental take permit (ITP) and the enhancement of survival permit (ESP) collectively are cited as “Permits”. NMFS and USFWS collectively are cited as “the Services.” The species identified above collectively are cited as the “Covered Species.” GDRCo began implementing the AHCP on July 1, 2007. The AHCP includes management measures for riparian zones, geologically sensitive areas, forest roads, and harvesting activities. The riparian management zones provide shade, nutrients and large woody debris recruitment potential for streams through tree retention. The slope stability measures provide protection for upslope areas to minimize management-related landslides and sediment delivery to streams. The road management plan consists of an accelerated road upgrading and decommissioning program to reduce road-related sediment delivery to streams. The harvest-related measures consist of seasonal and equipment restrictions for silvicultural and logging activities to minimize the level of ground disturbance. The AHCP also includes a monitoring program that was designed to evaluate the implementation and overall effectiveness of the plan and to fine-tune specific conservation measures as needed through adaptive management. The effectiveness monitoring will measure the success of the conservation measures in relation to specific biological goals. These biological goals are to maintain cool water temperatures for aquatic species covered by the AHCP, minimize management related sediment inputs to streams, provide for recruitment of large woody debris for stream habitat, maintain amphibian populations across the landscape, and monitor and adapt the plan as needed to optimize conservation measures to benefit the Covered Species. The following report documents the eighth and ninth full year of the AHCP implementation and includes details to comply with the AHCP and the Implementation Agreement (IA). Included are sections related to the application of conservation measures in timber harvest plans, compliance training programs for employees and contractors, road management implementation, and other information required for the biennial reports as specified in Section 8.0 of the Implementation Agreement.

2

The reporting period for this report is January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018.

II. AHCP Compliance

A. AHCP Implementation Plan

During the early stages of implementing the AHCP it was mutually agreed upon by GDRCo and the Services that an Implementation Plan should be prepared that would serve as a road map outlining how GDRCo will achieve the biological goals of the AHCP through implementing the Plan. GDRCo developed an AHCP Implementation Plan (IP) and submitted a revised version in April 2009 (Note the revised report was dated with the incorrect year, February 16, 2008, when it was actually February 16, 2009). NMFS, on September 29, 2009, and the USFWS, on October 13, 2009 provided letters to GDRCo acknowledging receipt of the IP and had no objections to the content of the document. The Services and GDRCo acknowledge that the IP serves as a foundational document that summarized recent activities to implement the AHCP to date, as well as planned approaches that GDRCo will use to ensure the AHCP is successfully implemented. It was also understood by all Parties that the IP provides guidance for the initial stages of implementing the AHCP and is intended to remain flexible and adaptive throughout the life of the AHCP, as future conditions warrant.

B. Field Trials with Mechanized Equipment

Under AHCP Section 6.2.4.1 GDRCo may conduct field trials with mechanized equipment for silvicultural operations provided that it has given assurances to the Services that the equipment will not cause compaction or soil displacement that is measurably greater than the equipment or methods previously used. 1. Field Trials with Cut-to-Length Harvester In 2016 GDRCo began assessing the use of state of the art cut-to-length equipment manufactured by Ponsse for ground based commercial thinning operations during the summer period. The ground based cut-to-length equipment used consisted of a feller-buncher harvester (Ponsse Bear model) with a H8 processor head. The feller-buncher has 8 low pressure rubber tires with independent suspension. The tires are interconnected in pairs with tracks that provide additional traction and further reduce overall ground pressure. The feller-buncher has an articulating processor head that cuts, delimbs, bunches and loads logs. As each harvested tree is processed, logging slash is laid out in front of the harvester to travel on to avoid bare mineral soil and to reduce ground compaction. Like a shovel logger, the feller-buncher operates on the terrain without the need for constructed skid trails because it has ample ground

3

clearance to clear cut stumps and other obstacles (see AHCP Section 6.2.4.7). During thinning operations the harvester only processes short logs which are loaded onto a forwarder (e.g. Ponsse ElephantKing model), so there is no dragging of logs which is typical during tractor and skidding operations. The ElephantKing forwarder has a similar frame, tire and suspension configuration as the feller-buncher except it is capable of loading and carrying processed logs. The forwarder follows the same access path as the feller-buncher which has created a slash packed trail. The AHCP currently provides provisions for feller-buncher operations during the summer and winter period however limits forwarding operations to the summer period only (see AHCP Section 6.2.4.7). On August 1, 2016 GDRCo submitted a letter to the Services describing the intent to conduct a field trial using state of the art cut-to-length forwarding equipment manufactured by Ponsse for ground based commercial thinning operations during the winter period. As described above GDRCo conducted preliminary evaluations of the equipment during the summer of 2016 to assess the viability of the forwarding operations and its potential for winter time use and determined the results were very favorable. GDRCo had multiple discussions and a field trip on August 18, 2016 to a summer based cut-to-length operation with the equipment proposed for use during the winter. On October 27, 2016 GDRCo submitted a revised letter to the Services that included additional measures proposed by the Services and a description and proposal for quantitatively evaluating the site impacts from the forwarding operations related to potential water quality effects, fire hazard and stand condition following operations. GDRCo also worked with Dr. Han, former professor at Humboldt State University, who had two graduate students that conducted studies to evaluate cost and productivity of the cut-to-length operations (Baek, 2018) as well as impacts on soils and residual trees (Hwang, 2018). On November 9, 2016 GDRCo received support from the Services on the proposed winter field trial with Ponsse forwarder. On December 13, 2016, GDRCo and the Services had a field visit to both an active and recently completed winter cut-to-length forwarding operation. On June 22, 2017 GDRCo and the Services had a field visit to the completed winter cut-to-length forwarding operations. We walked several access trails in several units to review the data collection process and summary results from GDRCo’s evaluation of the operations as well as the Dr. Han’s graduate student projects. In October 2017, GDRCo provided the Services a final summary report on the results of the 1st year field trial with the Ponsse forwarder. GDRCo’s field evaluation of the forwarder trails used during the winter period took place on May 9, May 24, and June 12, 2017. GDRCo inventoried the forwarder trails within each of the four thinning units that were operated with the Ponsse forwarder to evaluate potential site impacts from the 2016/2017 winter operations. The ground where the Ponsse forwarder operated had slopes less than or equal to15% on average. We surveyed approximately 3.9 miles of forwarder trails from the 98 acres that were winter forwarded. This represent

4

approximately a 31% sample of the forwarder trails that were utilized during the winter period. The mean forwarder trail width was 12.5 ft. The total area of forwarder trails was 18.9 acres and represented 19.4% of the area that was forwarded. We measured all areas of bare mineral soil created by the operations that was greater than 3 feet square in size along the sampled forwarder trails. We observed 65 locations with at least 9 ft2 (avg. = 19.8 ft2, max. = 54 ft2) of bare mineral soil created by the forwarding operations. We assessed each location with bare mineral soil to determine if there was a potential for sediment to deliver to a watercourse. We found that no location along the forwarding trails had the potential to deliver sediment to a watercourse. In fact the majority of the sites with bare mineral soil were located in isolated depressions in the trail and therefore had low risk of erosion. The total area of bare mineral soil measured along the forwarder trails was 1,288 ft2. Based on the area harvested with forwarders and the estimated area of access trails utilized by the operation, we estimate that there was only 7,461 ft2 of bare mineral soil created by the harvest operation (approximately 0.1% of the total area that was winter forwarded), with no observed potential for sediment delivery to a watercourse. Baek (2018) evaluated the impacts on soils and residual trees from cut-to-length operations and found that the soil bulk densities was greater in the forwarder tracks compared to the adjacent reference area. However the observed bulk densities were lower than other published studies even during the winter operations which suggests the slash material placed in the forwarder tracks was effective in minimizing soil compaction. It was also noted that there was a slight decrease in water infiltration rate in the forwarder tracks but it was not significantly different from the reference location. Baek (2018) concluded that the amount of slash placed on the forwarder trails during the operation minimized soil compaction. Hwang (2018) evaluated the cost and productivity of the cut-to-length operations and found that the winter operations resulted in relatively high thinning costs primarily due to increased soil protection requirements and fuel treatments. GDRCo believes that the winter forwarding operations are still a viable harvesting method despite the increased cost because of the added flexibility and longer operating window that the winter operations provide as well as the slash treatments minimize impacts to the soils and reduces the potential for sediment delivery. Due to the success of the winter forwarding operation in the 1st year field trial, GDRCo proposed and received concurrence from the Services on October 6, 2017 to conducted a 2nd year field trail that included operating forwarders on slopes up to 45% during the winter period. On August 23rd, October 2nd - 4th, October 17th and October 19th, 2018 GDRCo conducted inventories of the forwarder trails within each thinning unit that was operated with a Ponsse forwarder on slopes over 15%, to evaluate potential site impacts from the winter operations. The forwarding equipment also operated on slopes less than 15% however the evaluations conducted the year before found

5

very little ground disturbance and site impacts on these slacker slopes so the focus of the second-year field trail was to assess potential impacts of the operations on steeper slopes. Approximately 5.0 miles of forwarder trails were assessed from the 199 acres that were winter forwarded on slopes greater than 15%. We estimate that this represented approximately 37% of the forwarder trails that were utilized on slopes between 15 and 45% during the winter period. At random intervals the width of forwarder trails were measured to determine the mean trail width (mean = 12.0 ft. The total area encompassed by forwarder trails was 19.6 acres and represented 9.9% of the area that was forwarded on slopes between 15 and 45%. We measured all areas of bare mineral soil created by the operations that was greater than 9 ft2 in size along the sampled forwarder trails. There were a total of 130 locations identified with at least 9 ft2 of bare mineral soil. In the areas with bare mineral soil present, 41 sites had evidence of erosion on the surface of the trail however none of the sites had the potential to deliver sediment to a watercourse. Many of these sites were located in isolated depressions in the trail or there was sufficient organic material that captured surface erosion to avoid any potential for delivery to a watercourse. The total area of bare mineral soil measured along the forwarder trails was 5,977 ft2. Based on the area harvested with forwarders and the estimated area of access trails utilized by the operation we estimate that there was 16,025 ft2 of bare mineral soil created by the operation (approximately 0.18% of the total area that was winter forwarded on slopes over 15%). At random intervals, the slope of the access trails were measured to determine the mean trail slope (mean = 25.1%; range = 1.0 – 45%). The mean slope of the forwarding trails in the areas where there was evidence of erosion was 31.3% (range= 14 to 45%). These results suggest that winter forwarding with the cut-to-length low ground pressure equipment is a viable operation that does not construct or require the use of skid trails and can minimize bare mineral soil and minimize ground disturbance by placing and operating on slash generated by the activity. Based on the results of the 1st and 2nd year field trials GDRCo intends to submit a minor modification request to add winter forwarding with cut-to-length equipment to the AHCP in 2019. In the interim of submitting a minor modification request, GDRCo received concurrence from the Services on October 31, 2018 to conduct a 3rd year field trial for forwarding during the 2018/2019 winter period. In 2019, GDRCo will provide a report to the Services on the results of our evaluation of the 3rd year winter forwarder field trial.

C. Commercial Thinning

In 2010, GDRCo implemented a study to evaluate the economic viability and operational feasibility of conducting commercial thinning on certain properties within the Plan Area. GDRCo uses the Functional Approach to thinning that has been adapted to young-growth, even-aged stands of Redwood and Douglas-fir. With this method codominant trees are removed to create open spaces in the canopy. Small intermediate and understory trees may also be harvested if they

6

are of commercial size and economical to harvest. The crop trees retained exhibit the highest quality and fastest growth rates to take advantage of the crown openings. The overall objective is to accelerate diameter growth, increase heartwood production, and improve log quality. GDRCo’s Functional Approach to thinning is very similar to the Commercial Thinning Method in the State Forest Practice Rules. However due to a technicality in the state rules, GDRCo also files some harvest plans under an “Alternate Prescription” that meets the same objectives as the state method. GDRCo forestry staff carefully prepares THPs to ensure that this management technique incorporates mitigations that are consistent with the AHCP requirements. GDRCo has not experienced any issues with the current AHCP measures outlined in AHCP Section 6.2.4.3. We are not conducting any thinning operations in the riparian areas of the thinning THPs as per AHCP Sections 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.4. The riparian management zones are identified and mapped as no harvest areas in each THP. A selection harvest entry within these riparian areas will coincide with the even-aged harvest of the stand. Since 2010 GDRCo has increased the amount of commercial thinning each year. GDRCo plans to continue to conduct thinning operations on approximately 3000-4000 acres per year over the next 10 years. As a result of the thinning operations, we expect to see increased vigor and growth of the remaining stand.

D. AHCP Minor Modifications

Under Section 12.1 of the Implementation Agreement (IA), GDRCo, NMFS, or USFWS (referred to collectively as “Parties” or individually as “Party”) may propose minor modifications to the Plan, the Permits, or the IA by providing written notice to all the other Parties. A proposed minor modification becomes effective and the Plan deemed modified accordingly, immediately upon unanimous approval from all Parties. Any Party that objects to a proposed modification must provide written notice to the other two Parties. As per Section 12.1.1 of the IA, a receiving Party may object to a proposed minor modification based on reasonable belief that the modification would result in, 1) operations, burdens or obligations under the Plan that are significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the original Plan, 2) adverse effects on the environment that are new or significantly different from those analyzed in connection with the original Plan, or 3) additional take not analyzed in connection with the original Plan. There were 3 minor modifications proposed by GDRCo that the Services evaluated and approved under IA Section 12.1 during the reporting period for this Biennial Report. The modifications that were made to the AHCP are summarized below.

7

1. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.3.5.9, 6.2.1.2.6 and 6.2.1.4.5 (Road Construction in RMZs)

The intent of the AHCP is to avoid constructing roads in RMZs to minimize potential sediment delivery from roads to the aquatic system. The AHCP provides certain exceptions for constructing roads in RMZs such as for watercourse crossings and for spur roads that extend the road outside of the RMZ. Other situations have been encountered during the road construction design phase of THPs where additional impacts could be avoided if another exception is integrated into the AHCP. As a result, GDRCo proposed to modify the AHCP to provide another exception for constructing roads in RMZs which would add operational flexibility while also minimizing potential impacts to watercourses. The exception minimizes and avoids the number of watercourse crossings that would be built during road construction by 1) allowing a road to be constructed above the top of the watercourse so that only the outside edge of the road encroaches into the RMZ, and 2) allowing switchback roads to encroach into the latter margin of RMZs. In both examples, the RMZ encroachment avoids the installation of watercourse crossings and minimizes the amount of vegetation that would be removed from the RMZ compared to installing the watercourse crossing. During the design of the road, RPFs will evaluate alternatives and consider a suite of criteria to ensure the option selected is one that minimizes potential impacts to riparian areas and aquatic resources and that takes advantage of topographic breaks. The Services evaluated and approved the following modification to the AHCP. Note the text in italics are excerpts from the AHCP, underlined text is the language that was added and strikethrough text is language that was removed with this minor modification. 6.2.3.5.9 Road Construction within RMZs 1. Green Diamond will not construct new roads within RMZs with the exception of a) watercourse crossings, b) or spur roads off of existing roads within RMZs which would be designed to extend outside the RMZ, or c) an outside edge of a road that partially intrudes into the RMZ either along the top margin of the RMZ at the head of a watercourse or into the lateral margin of the RMZ to avoid crossing a watercourse (e.g. for the construction of a switch-back). 2. Green Diamond will not build new roads that parallel watercourses within RMZs.

3. The exception for a new road to partially intrude into the RMZ is only applicable when the following criteria are considered and conditions are met:

8

a) Alternatives to constructing the road within the RMZ (such as other road locations, steeper road grades, crossing a watercourse, vegetation removal within the RMZ) have been evaluated.

b) For lateral RMZ intrusions, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the management of road runoff, road grade, side slopes, unstable slopes, riparian vegetation removal (comparison of basal area), other road locations and minimization of new watercourse crossings.

c) For intrusions into RMZs at the head of a watercourse, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the same issues identified for lateral RMZ intrusions as well as obtain geologic review for evaluation of potential headwall swales, cut slope heights and fill slopes to confirm this exception has lower potential of sediment delivery and slope failure than installing a watercourse crossing.

d) The road intrusion will encroach no more than 50 feet into the RMZ, must retain a minimum 50 foot vegetated filter strip between the road and watercourse, and the total length of the intrusion will be limited to the total width of the RMZ.

e) Road intrusions within the RMZ may occur only if it will have the least amount of impact to the riparian area and aquatic resources compared to the alternatives.

f) Green Diamond will submit to the Services a discussion of each item above and provide an explanation, justification, and map of the proposed road construction intrusion in the RMZ as part of the informational copy of the THP notice of filing (see Section 6.2.7.2).

6.2.1.2.6 Equipment Exclusion Measures The Class I RMZ is an equipment exclusion zone (EEZ), except for a) existing roads and landings; b) construction of new spur roads to extend operations outside the RMZ; c) road watercourse crossings; d) skid trail watercourse crossings; and e) designated skid trail intrusions; and f) an outside edge of a road that partially intrudes into the RMZ either along the top margin of the RMZ at the head of a watercourse or into the lateral margin of the RMZ to avoid crossing a watercourse (e.g. for the construction of a switch-back). The exception for a new road to partially intrude into the RMZ is only applicable when the following criteria are considered and conditions are met: 1. Alternatives to constructing the road within the RMZ (such as other road

locations, steeper road grades, crossing a watercourse, vegetation removal within the RMZ) have been evaluated.

2. For lateral RMZ intrusions, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the management of road runoff, road grade, side slopes, unstable slopes, riparian vegetation removal (comparison of basal area), other road locations and minimization of new watercourse crossings.

9

3. For intrusions into RMZs at the head of a watercourse, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the same issues identified for lateral RMZ intrusions as well as obtain geologic review for evaluation of potential headwall swales, cut slope heights and fill slopes to confirm this exception has lower potential of sediment delivery and slope failure than installing a watercourse crossing.

4. The road intrusion will encroach no more than 50 feet into the RMZ, must retain a minimum 50 foot vegetated filter strip between the road and watercourse, and the total length of the RMZ intrusion will be limited to 300 feet.

5. Road intrusions within the RMZ may occur only if it will have the least amount of impact to the riparian area and aquatic resources compared to the alternatives.

6. Green Diamond will submit to the Services a discussion of each item above and provide an explanation, justification, and map of the proposed road construction intrusion in the RMZ as part of the informational copy of the THP notice of filing (see Section 6.2.7.2).

6.2.1.4.5 Equipment Exclusion Measures The Class II RMZ is an EEZ, except for a) existing roads and landings; b) construction of new spur roads to extend operations outside the RMZ; c) road watercourse crossings; d) skid trail watercourse crossings; and e) designated skid trail intrusions; and f) an outside edge of a road that partially intrudes into the RMZ either along the top margin of the RMZ at the head of a watercourse or into the lateral margin of the RMZ to avoid crossing a watercourse (e.g. for the construction of a switch-back). The exception for a new road to partially intrude into the RMZ is only applicable when the following criteria are considered and conditions are met: 1. Alternatives to constructing the road within the RMZ (such as other road

locations, steeper road grades, crossing a watercourse, vegetation removal within the RMZ) have been evaluated.

2. For lateral RMZ intrusions, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the management of road runoff, road grade, side slopes, unstable slopes, riparian vegetation removal (comparison of basal area), other road locations and minimization of new watercourse crossings.

3. For intrusions into RMZs at the head of a watercourse, RPFs must consider and provide a discussion for the same issues identified for lateral RMZ intrusions as well as obtain geologic review for evaluation of potential headwall swales, cut slope heights and fill slopes to confirm this exception has lower potential of sediment delivery and slope failure than installing a watercourse crossing.

4. The road intrusion will encroach no more than 50 feet into the RMZ, must retain a minimum 50 foot vegetated filter strip between the road and

10

watercourse, and the total length of the intrusion will be limited to the total width of the RMZ.

5. Road intrusions within the RMZ may occur only if it will have the least amount of impact to the riparian area and aquatic resources compared to the alternatives.

6. Green Diamond will submit to the Services a discussion of each item above and provide an explanation, justification, and map of the proposed road construction intrusion in the RMZ as part of the informational copy of the THP notice of filing (see Section 6.2.7.2).

2. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.4.5.2 and 6.2.4.7 (Limited Use of Existing Skid Trails on Slopes Greater than 45 percent)

When the AHCP was originally developed, GDRCo was conducting very little commercial thinning harvests. Since 2006, GDRCo has shifted our ground based tractor logging to shovel logging methods when conducting evenaged management practices under the AHCP. Beginning in 2010 GDRCo has been exploring the use of commercial thinning in different stand compositions and age classes to increase the growth rate of the remaining trees and to produce a higher quality log with greater amounts of heartwood when the stand is rotated. As GDRCo explored the use of thinning as an intermediate treatment there was a need to use ground based equipment other than shovel logging equipment for these operations. The use of shovel logging equipment is typically restricted to harvesting evenaged units because there is limited room for the machines to maneuver and swing felled trees in a unit with retained trees. GDRCo has reintroduced tractors, skidders and forwarders to conduct the thinning operations when an alternative to shovel logging equipment is necessary. AHCP Section 6.2.4.5.2 contains a slope gradient threshold that restricts ground based yarding systems on slopes greater than 45% unless there would be greater impacts by using cable yarding systems. There have been recent scenarios encountered during the layout of THPs involving thinning operations where small isolated stands on slopes greater than 45% occur that contain a network of stable skid trails. The AHCP did not contain an exception for allowing the use of these existing skid trails for thinning operations or for shovel logging operations on slopes over 45%. Without the modification the only alternative is to construct additional roads to access these isolated areas. In many cases these isolated areas can be accessed by a network of existing skid trails thereby eliminating the need for additional road construction and minimizing the overall amount of ground disturbance associated with the activity. As a result, GDRCo proposed to add an exception to the AHCP that would allow the use of existing skid trails on slopes over 45% when conducting thinning and shovel logging operations. The AHCP exception provides additional operational flexibility while also minimizing potential ground impacts.

11

The Services evaluated and approved the following modification to the AHCP. Note the text in italics are excerpts from the AHCP, underlined text is the language that was added and strikethrough text is language that was removed with this minor modification. 6.2.4.5 Tractor, Skidder, and Forwarder Operations 6.2.4.5.2 Use on Steep Slopes 1. Green Diamond will not use ground-based yarding systems that require

constructed skid trails on slopes over 45% unless greater soil or riparian zone disturbance would be expected from cable yarding due to unfavorable terrain that reduces skyline deflection and payload capability, or additional haul road construction would be required to accommodate the use of cable logging systems.

2. When conducting commercial thinning harvests, use of existing skid trails is

allowed on slopes over 45% when the following conditions are met: a. The existing skid trails are located on stable slopes as demonstrated by

lack of features that may indicate instability such as leaning, or pistol-butted trees, hummocky ground and as confirmed through geologic field review,

b. Existing skid trail use is limited to slopes less than or equal to 50% where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme,

c. Existing skid trail use is limited to slopes less than or equal to 65% where the erosion hazard rating is moderate or low,

d. The use of existing skid trails on slopes over 45% is limited to isolated areas less than or equal to 5 acres,

e. The existing skid trail has adequate drainage to prevent erosion such as rilling or gullying during or after use that may cause delivery to adjacent watercourses,

f. Skid trails used on slopes over 45% for operations will be mulched or slash packed upon completion of operations in amounts sufficient to provide at least two inches depth with minimum 90% coverage,

g. Use of skid trails by ground-based logging equipment will not result in (a) reduced traction by equipment as indicated by spinning or churning of wheels or tracks in excess of normal performance; (b) inadequate traction without blading wet soil, or (c) soil displacement in amounts that cause movement of waterborne sediments off of a skid trail surface,

h. Alternatives to using existing skid trails on slopes over 45% have been evaluated, and

i. Green Diamond will submit to the Services an explanation, justification, and map of the proposed use of skid trails on slopes over 45% associated with commercial thinning as part of the informational copy of the THP notice of filing (see Section 6.2.7.2).

12

6.2.4.7 Feller-Buncher and Shovel Logging Operations 1. Where appurtenant haul roads are not surfaced for all weather conditions or

do not have appropriate drainage facilities, or when the operation involves use of constructed skid trails for skidding and forwarding, Green Diamond will not carry out feller-buncher or shovel logging operations during the winter period.

2. Feller-buncher and shovel logging operations will cease during storm events

where logging operations, combined with significant rainfall, are likely to cause delivery of sediments into RMZs or EEZs along Class I, II or III watercourses.

3. Forwarding over constructed skid trails, when used in conjunction with the

feller-buncher or shovel operation, will be governed by 6.2.4.3. 4. When shovel logging, use of existing skid trails is allowed on slopes over 45%

when the following conditions are met: a. The existing skid trails are located on stable slopes as demonstrated by

lack of features that may indicate instability such as leaning, or pistol-butted trees, hummocky ground and as confirmed through geologic field review,

b. Existing skid trail use is limited to slopes less than or equal to 50% where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme,

c. Existing skid trail use is limited to slopes less than or equal to 65% where the erosion hazard rating is moderate or low,

d. The use of existing skid trails on slopes over 45% is limited to isolated areas less than or equal to 5 acres,

e. The existing skid trail has adequate drainage to prevent erosion such as rilling or gullying during or after use that may cause delivery to adjacent watercourses,

f. No blading of existing skid trails to allow for their use. g. Skid trails used on slopes over 45% for operations will be mulched or

slash packed upon completion of operations in amounts sufficient to provide at least two inches depth with minimum 90% coverage,

h. Use of skid trails by shovel logging equipment will not result in (a) reduced traction by equipment as indicated by spinning or churning of tracks in excess of normal performance; (b) inadequate traction without blading wet soil, or (c) soil displacement in amounts that cause movement of waterborne sediments off of a skid trail surface,

i. Alternatives to using existing skid trails on slopes over 45% have been evaluated, and

j. Green Diamond will submit to the Services an explanation, justification, and map of the proposed use of skid trails on slopes over 45% associated with shovel logging as part of the informational copy of the THP notice of filing (see Section 6.2.7.2).

13

3. Minor Modification to AHCP Sections 6.2.3.9.3 and 6.2.3.9.4 (Modifications to the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan: Schedule for RMAs and Mainline Roads)

Schedule for Routine Maintenance Areas (RMAs) On August 16, 2011, the Services approved a minor modification to the GDRCo AHCP to extend the initial maintenance schedule for Routine Maintenance Areas (RMAs) from a one-year period, plus a holdover year, to a two-year period, plus a holdover year. The change provided a seven-year period to rotate through the RMAs rather than a four-year period. As described in the first minor modification request, the principal reasons for the extension were the higher than the originally anticipated amount of road work that was encountered during the initial maintenance assessments coupled with the difficult economic times that the timber industry as well as the general economy was experiencing. The amount of work also exceeded contractor and company capacity. The modification that the Services approved did not diminish the overall annual spending commitment of $2.5MM (inflation adjusted in 2002 dollars each year and proportioned with Plan Area size). In the 2011 minor modification request, GDRCo intended to revert back to the original four-year rotating period after completing road assessments and needed repairs within the RMAs. The 2011 minor modification request and the Services’ approval letter both indicate that the change back to the original schedule would take effect in 2018; however, GDRCo began implementing the road work in 2011 which would place the final holdover year of RMA #3 and the first year of RMA #1 in 2017. GDRCo proposed to re-initiate treatment of road maintenance sites within RMA #1 beginning in 2017 and also to extend the seven-year period to rotate through the RMAs for the life of the AHCP rather than reverting back to the original four-year period. As with the original approved minor modification, there is no effect to the spending commitment associated with the acceleration of the road implementation plan. The extension of the original minor modification will not reduce the effectiveness of the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan of the AHCP. There are multiple safeguards built into the Plan that ensure this. First, the extreme risk of imminent failure decision tree that GDRCo developed in collaboration with the Services and other California State regulatory agencies for making a determination of whether or not a site qualifies for treatment utilizes a risk based approach to evaluate the likelihood of failure before the next assessment and includes a watch list category which requires annual inspections. Secondly, there are emergency inspections that GDRCo conducts when three inches of precipitation or more occurs in a 24-hour period (see AHCP Section 6.2.3.9.6). These inspections help identify potential problem sites that could arise given local weather conditions regardless of the scheduled RMA road assessments. Thirdly, the annual routine road inspections that Registered Professional Foresters and the Sediment Control Technicians conduct on all appurtenant roads to THPs during the prescribed maintenance

14

period also provides additional duplicity to the road inspections conducted in the RMAs. Schedule for Mainline Roads AHCP Section 6.2.3.9.3 requires the annual inspection of all mainline roads prior to September 15 to evaluate the effectiveness and condition of erosion control and drainage structures. Since the inception of the AHCP, GDRCo has been conducting these assessments and performing the maintenance work as needed. Over the last 9 years of annual mainline maintenance assessments, GDRCo has observed a steady decline in the number of mainline sites requiring treatment and in fact most of the sites in recent years were identified and tied with active or upcoming THPs. GDRCo believes there is excessive redundancy in the inspection of mainline roads that is a cost hindrance and does not provide meaningful environmental benefit. As such, GDRCo requested a minor modification to the AHCP to shift the annual inspection of mainline roads to a schedule consistent with the proposed extended RMA schedule. The proposal establishes a seven-year cycle in which all mainline roads are inspected and treated. There are three factors provide assurances that the modification to align mainline road assessments with the extended RMA schedule would not reduce the overall effectiveness of the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan of the AHCP. First, a large percentage of mainline roads are appurtenant to THPs in any given year and appurtenant roads to THPs receive annual inspections through the prescribed maintenance period of the THP. Secondly, there are emergency road inspections that GDRCo conducts when three inches of precipitation or more occurs in a 24-hour period (see AHCP Section 6.2.3.9.6). These inspections help identify potential problem sites that could arrive given local weather conditions regardless of the annual mainline road inspections or the scheduled RMA road assessments. Thirdly, mainline roads in general receive continuous traffic from operational and administrative activities by individuals that are trained and expected to make general observations about road and stream conditions and to report anything out of the ordinary to their supervisors. These general observations are effective in identifying problematic road sites without the need for formal annual mainline inspections. The Services evaluated and approved the following modification to the AHCP. Note the text in italics are excerpts from the AHCP and Implementation Plan, underlined text is the language that was added and strikethrough text is language that was removed with this minor modification.

15

6.2.3.9.3 Road Maintenance Schedules for Mainline and Appurtenant Roads 1. Prior to September 15th of each year, Green Diamond will inspect all mainline

roads for needed maintenance according to the Routine Maintenance Area schedule in AHCP Section 6.2.3.9.4.

2. Other roads that are appurtenant to THPs will be inspected at least through

the prescribed maintenance period for erosion controls specified in the THP. 3. The inspections of mainline and other roads will assess the effectiveness and

condition of all erosion control and drainage structures.

6.2.3.9.4 Road Maintenance Schedules for All Secondary Management

Roads or Roads Not Yet Decommissioned

1. Green Diamond will maintain all secondary management roads or roads yet

to be decommissioned that are accessible to maintenance crews.

2. The initial maintenance schedule (one time) will be completed in three 2-year

rotating periods (6-year rotating window) in accordance with the following:

Three 2-year

Periods Routine Maintenance Areas

1 Smith River HPA 1 Coastal Klamath HPA (on northern side of the Klamath

River) minus the Bear Creek RWU 2 Coastal Klamath HPA (on southern side of the Klamath

River) 2 Blue Creek HPA plus the Bear Creek RWU 3 Interior Klamath HPA 3 Redwood Creek HPA 2 Coastal Lagoons HPA 1 Little River HPA 1 Mad River HPA minus the Boulder Creek RWU 2 North Fork Mad River HPA 3 Humboldt Bay HPA plus the Boulder Creek RWU 3 Eel River HPA

The rotating maintenance schedule will be completed on a three-year rotating basis

in accordance with the following:

Rotating Annual

Schedule Routine Maintenance Areas

1 Smith River HPA

16

1 Coastal Klamath HPA (on northern side of the Klamath River) minus the Bear Creek RWU

2 Coastal Klamath HPA (on southern side of the Klamath River)

2 Blue Creek HPA plus the Bear Creek RWU 3 Interior Klamath HPA 3 Redwood Creek HPA 2 Coastal Lagoons HPA 1 Little River HPA 1 Mad River HPA minus the Boulder Creek RWU 2 North Fork Mad River HPA 3 Humboldt Bay HPA plus the Boulder Creek RWU 3 Eel River HPA

E. Forms for RPFs and Conservation Planning Staff to Document Pre-Harvest Conservation Measures for Each THP and Compliance with Those Measures Post-Harvest

RPFs, Operations personnel and other GDRCo Conservation Planning professionals utilize a combined form to identify, categorize, and document THP items that are managed and monitoring under the Northern Spotted Owl and Aquatic HCPs. The form is used to summarize the specific application of HCP measures for each THP to help track these measures and features on the landscape. The summarized information is used to monitor compliance with GDRCo’s NSO and Aquatic HCPs and is used to meet the reporting requirements of these Conservation Plans. A summary of the information collected on the Forms related to the implementation of the AHCP for approved THPs is provided in Section II.F.2 below. A summary of the information collected on the Forms related to the implementation of the AHCP for completed THPs is provided in Section II.F.3. It should be noted that the information collected for approved THPs is a “plan” and is subject to change for a variety of reasons or circumstances that might occur during the life of the THP. Some of these reasons/circumstances include but are not limited to; GIS errors, depletion corrections based on final harvest data, plan amendments, canceled plans, and resubmitted plans. Although the information associated with approved THPs may be subject to change during the life of the THP, it typically does not result in substantial variances in the average or total THP values.

F. Summary of THP Conservation Measures and Compliance with Those Measures While Operating Under the AHCP

1. Notice of Filings

As required in AHCP Section 6.2.7.2 and IA Section 4.1 (c), GDRCo has provided the Services with 67 new notification letters from January 1, 2017

17

through December 31, 2018, indicating that GDRCo has submitted a proposed THP within the AHCP Plan Area. The letter to the Services includes the Official Notice of Filing signifying the THP has been accepted by CalFire for filing, a copy of the THP map(s), a copy of the road work table that will be completed as part of the Annual Work Plan associated with the Master Agreement for Timber Operations (if applicable), and a description and justification of any allowable AHCP exceptions (if applicable).

2. Summary of Conservation Measures for Approved AHCP THPs

Overall totals/averages There were 98 THPs approved by CalFire within the Plan Area between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Table 1 is a general summary of acres approved for harvest by harvest type for the reporting period. The approved THPs consist of 20,581 total acres from 622 individual harvest units. The THPs range in size from 74 to 601 acres and average 219 acres. There are on average 6.4 harvest units per THP and the average unit size is 34 acres. As mentioned in the 3rd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2013), there has been a substantial increase in the number of acres associated with the “Alternative Prescription” silviculture. This was the result in a change in GDRCo’s harvesting philosophy which now includes a substantial amount of commercial thinning (see Section II.C for additional discussion of this activity). Due to a technicality in the state rules for commercial thinnings, GDRCo sometimes determines that the most appropriate silviculture designation for the commercial thinnings would be Alternative Prescription. As a result there is an increased amount of Alternative Prescription acres shown in Table 1 which, in previous reporting years, would have been represented in the “Other” harvest type. The number of acres of true Commercial Thinning (according to the state rules) for approved plans has also increased since that time; so those acres have been separated out from the “Other” category. This is not yet the case for completed plans and as a result they are not separated out for that summary. The total area listed in Table 1 does not equal the sum of the silviculture acres in the same table; there is a difference of 210 acres. The difference is attributable to rounding errors and a variance in the way road Right-of-Way acres can be reported as they are typically not included in the Total Acres of a harvest unit.

3. Summary of Conservation Measures for Completed AHCP THPs

Overall totals/averages Completed THPs for this report include AHCP THPs where all the felling, logging, loading, and hauling have been completed for all the units in the timber harvest plan. Road work associated with completed THPs may or may not be finished

18

and therefore will not necessarily match the completion of a THP according to CalFire’s definition. Compliance of the AHCP regarding completion of road work is based on the amount of work accomplished each year as measured in dollars spent on treating high and moderate priority sites and not at the THP scale (see Section V.C). Therefore the status of road work associated with individual THPs is not necessary in considering a THP as completed for purposes of this biennial report. There were a total of 62 THPs that met the criteria for completed THPs during the current reporting period. The completed THPs ranged from a total of 75 to 387 acres in size and included a total of 324 harvest units that ranged in size from 2 to 273 acres. The Post-harvest completion forms for individual THPs are provided in Appendix A. Table 2 provides a summary of the acres harvested by harvest type for the 62 completed THPs. The total area listed in Table 2 does not equal the sum of the silviculture acres in the same table; there is a difference of 100 acres. The difference is attributable to rounding errors and a variance in the way road Right-of-Way acres can be reported as they are typically not included in the Total Acres of a harvest unit. Riparian The average area of riparian features (aside from seeps, ponds, and wet areas) provided per THP was 9.0 acres. Table 3 summarizes the number of completed THPs that contained riparian features and the length of each feature in approved THPs with prescribed AHCP protection measures. There were a total of 24 wet areas, 96 seeps/springs and 14 ponds in 41 THPs that were provided with an average of 0.25 acres of protection. Roads All but one of the 62 completed THPs had proposed road work associated with them. As summarized in Table 4, the most common proposed road work associated with a THP was temporary road construction. As described in the AHCP, temporary road construction is designed for single-use in a THP and is decommissioned upon completion of operations. This practice minimizes the risk of sedimentation from unused roads and reduces the amount of future road maintenance liability. It is also important to note that if temporary road construction is proposed in a THP, it does not mean that the road was actually constructed. In many cases the RPF provides additional flexibility to operators by identifying areas where a temporary road can be built if it is needed for operations.

19

Table 1. Summary of areas (acres) for each harvest type for the 98 approved THPs.

Harvest Type

Total Area Clearcut Selection No

Harvest Alternative

Prescriptiona Right-of-way

Commercial Thin

Other

Total Area (acres) 21,323 10,686 2,811 2,197 2,560 172 2,631 474

Number of THPs 98 89 91 95 24 49 22 10

Number of THP Units 622 492 469 437 59 N/A 59 24

Average Area (acres) per Unit

34 22 6 5 43 N/A 45 NA

a The majority of the Alternative Prescription acres are associated with GDRCo’s commercial thinning operations as described in Section II.C. Table 2. Summary of areas (acres) for each harvest type for 62 completed THPs.

Harvest Type

Summary Statistics

Total Area Clearcut Selection No Harvest

Alternative Prescriptiona Right-of-way Other

Total Area (acres) 11,262 6,201 1,679 1,011 1,567 140 565

Number of THPs 62 59 57 59 18 37 13

Number of THP Units

324 280 253 211 31 N/A 25

Average Area per Harvest Unit (acres)

35 22 7 5 51 N/A N/A

a The majority of the Alternative Prescription acres are associated with GDRCo’s commercial thinning operations as described in Section II.C.

20

Table 3. Summary of the riparian features and the average length of each feature in the 62 completed THPs with prescribed AHCP protection measures, during the reporting period.

Table 4. Summary of proposed road work and the average length of proposed road work in the 61 completed THPs with road work, during the reporting period.

Road Work Type

Number of THPs with Proposed

Road Work

Average Length of Proposed Road

Work per THP (feet)

New Permanent Road Construction 2 1,223

New Seasonal Road Construction 40 4,567

Temporary Road Construction 55 4,293

Permanent Road Decommissioning 0 0

Temporary Road Decommissioning 13 2,973

Reconstruction 26 3,411

Riparian Features Number of THPs

with Riparian Features

Total Length of Riparian Features with AHCP Protection

(feet)

Class I 34 122,649

Class II-1 62 317,875

Class II-2 62 389,407

Forest Practice Rule Class II 5 171

Class III Modified Tier A 7 29,507

Class III Tier A 48 146,356

Class III Tier B 12 12,480

21

Geology Geomorphic features defined within the AHCP include; deep-seated landslides (DSL), headwall swales (HWS), riparian slope stability management zones (RSMZ), slope stability management zones (SMZ), shallow rapid landslides (SRL), channel migration zones (CMZ), and floodplains. Table 5 summarizes the geomorphic features GDRCo observed within the 62 completed THPs for the current reporting period. RSMZs were the most frequently observed feature, which is to be expected as they are associated with steep slopes adjacent to Class I and Class II watercourses. The distribution of geomorphic features and their association with the different types of watercourses is outlined in Table 6. The geomorphic features were most commonly associated Class II-2 watercourses. This is a logical observation as there was more linear length of Class II-2 watercourse in the approved THPs than any of the other watercourse types, which in turn equals more area of hill slopes adjacent to the Class II-2 watercourses that may intersect a geomorphic feature. It shall be noted that channel migration zones and floodplains are not included in this table as they are only associated with Class I watercourses. All SSSs have an RSMZ but they may or may not have an SMZ associated with them. There are fewer SMZs than RSMZs due to the fact that SSS prescriptions are based on slope and may terminate once a qualifying break-in-slope has been identified (AHCP Section 6.2.2.1). Therefore, a SSS buffer may not extend as far as the SMZ resulting in more RSMZs than SMZs. There were a total of 35 THPs with RSMZs and a total of 14 THPs with SMZs delineated in the 62 completed THPs during the reporting period. Table 7 provides a more detailed summary of GDRCo’s SSS prescriptions observed during the reporting period. Table 5. Summary of geomorphic features observed within THPs during the reporting period.

Geomorphic Features Number of THPs per

Feature Type

Area of Features that were Afforded Default

Protection (acres)

DSL 21 130

HWS 8 7

RSMZ (SSS) 35 275

SMZ (SSS) 14 20

SRL 36 118

CMZ 9 13

Floodplain 3 2

22

Table 6. The distribution of geomorphic features by watercourse type.

Geomorphic Feature

Watercourse Type DSL HWS RSMZ SMZ SRL

Class I 17% - 12% 10% 17%

Class II-1 30% 36% 37% 40% 26%

Class II-2 45% - 51% 50% 51%

Class III Modified Tier A - - - - 1%

Class III Tier A 6% 21% - - 3%

Class III Tier B 2% 43% - - 2%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table 7. Summary of SSS prescriptions associated by watercourse type.

Watercourse Type

Class I Class II-1 Class II-2

Total Area of SSS (combined RSMZ and SMZ) (acres)

54 61 111

Average Area of SSS per THP (acres) 4.1 2.6 4.3

Total Area of RSMZ (acres) 52 56 105

Average Area of RSMZ per THP (acres)

4.0 2.4 4.1

Total Area of SMZ (acres) 1.5 4.6 5.5

Average Area of SMZ per THP (acres) 0.4 0.7 1.4

Note: There were 35 THPs with RSMZs and 14 THPs with SMZs.

23

Exceptions There were a total of 123 exceptions that were applied to 13 approved THPs during the reporting period; of the 123 exceptions, 113 were associated with AHCP geologic areas (harvest and road related). Table 8 summarizes the number of AHCP exceptions and Table 9 summarizes the total area of alternative geologic prescriptions that were applied to geomorphic features. The majority of AHCP exceptions were associated with alternative geologic prescriptions on geologic areas of concern. The majority of those alternative geologic prescriptions were “no harvest” (Table 10). Clearcut areas accounted for less than 1% of the alternative geologic prescription areas and typically involve slides that do not deliver to a watercourse or road construction on or near a landslide that involves clearing of trees. Aside from no harvest, all of the other alternative geologic prescription types were recommended by a Professional Geologist based on site specific review. Table 8. Summary of AHCP exceptions.

AHCP Exception Type

Number of AHCP

Exceptions

Alternative Geologic Prescription

113

Class II Skid Intrusion 1

Class III Skid crossing 3

Partial Log Suspension in an RMZ

4

Use of landings within a RMZ 2

Table 9. Summary of timber harvest plans with alternative geologic prescriptions.

Geomorphic Feature

Total Area (acres) of Alternative Geologic Prescriptions by

Feature Type

DSL 62

HWS -

RSMZ (SSS) 64

SMZ (SSS) 2

SRL 13

24

Table 10. Summary of harvest-related alternative geologic prescriptions and area of alternative geologic prescriptions applied per THP.

Alternative Prescription Type

Area of Alternative Geologic Prescription (acres)

Numbers of THPs with Alternative Geologic

Prescription

No Harvest 77.5 7

75 ft² Basal Area Retention

9.5 2

100 ft² Basal Area Retention

17.9 2

125 ft² Basal Area Retention

9 1

150 ft² Basal Area Retention

25.5 2

Clearcut 1.3 2

Hazard Abatement Operations There are four types of hazard abatement activities utilized across the ownership. Biomass harvesting, burning of clearcut and landing piles, and broadcast burning. Biomass harvesting involves the removal of logging debris that typically is piled during active harvesting operations. The debris is removed from the harvesting area and is used as hog fuel rather than being burned on site. Clearcut pile burning is a form of hazard abatement where logging debris is accumulated into piles throughout the harvesting area during or after operations and burned on site during the winter period. Landing pile burning is also a form of hazard abatement where logging debris accumulates on designated landings rather than throughout the harvest unit; the landing piles are subsequently burned during the winter period. Broadcast burning involves a prescribed fire to burn over a designated area with well-defined boundaries to reduce the level of fuels and improve reforestation access. With the use of biomass harvesting, hazard abatement operations can be applied to harvest units over multiple reporting periods. Therefore we summarize these operations separately for all units, regardless of plan completion status, that have been treated within the biennial reporting period. The two types of hazard abatement activities applied to 46 harvest units during the current reporting period were burning of clearcut piles and burning of landing piles (Table 11). There were no biomass or broadcast burning activities utilized during the current reporting period.

25

Table 11. Summary of hazard abatement activities.

Type of Hazard Abatement Number of

Harvest Units

Total Area of Hazard Abatement Activities (Acres)

Average Area of Hazard Abatement Activities

per Harvest Unit (Acres)

Biomass Harvesting - - -

Burned Clearcut Piles 28 706 25

Burned Landing Piles 18 422 23

Broadcast Burned - - -

Violations and Other Observations There were ten violations associated with the 62 completed harvest plans during the current reporting period. A summary of each notice of violation is listed below. THP 1-16-084HUM (GDRCo 26-1601):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 1035.3 (d) LTO Responsibilities - Green Diamond Resource Company operated heavy equipment in an Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ) of a Class III watercourse.

o Mitigation - Disturbed soil within the designated EEZ shall be treated per Item 18 by no later than January 10, 2018. Additionally, the eastern approach to the crossing of the Class III watercourse is not hydrologically disconnected from the watercourse and has the potential to deliver sediment due to recent disturbance from heavy equipment operations. Due to topography in the area, a waterbar would be ineffective. The LTO shall treat the surface of the road for approximately 100 feet to the east of the crossing with straw or slash by no later than January 10, 2018.

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 916.4 (c)(3) Watercourse and Lake Protection - Green Diamond Resource Company operated heavy equipment in an Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ) of a Class III watercourse and deposited slash and woody debris into the watercourse channel. The debris was not removed prior to October 15.

o Mitigation - Debris deposited in the Class III watercourse channel shall be removed as soon as soil conditions allow.

THP 1-15-110HUM (GDRCo 27-1501):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 1035.3(d) Licensed Timber Operator Responsibilities – The contract LTO conducted timber operations inconsistent with plan specifications within the Equipment Limitation Zone of archaeological site “Fern Prairie 2.”

26

o Mitigation – None, no environmental impacts observed. THP 1-14-133HUM (GDRCo 42-1402):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 923.5(j) - GDRCo as LTO failed to adequately drain 2 landings by Oct 15th.

o Mitigation - Prior to July 31, 2018, the LTO shall adequately drain the landings.

THP 1-15-087HUM (GDRCo 44-1501):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 916.4(b)(2) Timber operations shall conform to marking, flagging of WLPZ – A timber faller felled approximately 0.5 acres of timber within a Class II WLPZ. Prior to cutting, the faller had been shown the WLPZ flagging and was aware of the location. The following day, starting a strip from the road, the faller became confused and started cutting on the wrong side of the flag line. After about 3 passes between the flag lines on either side of the watercourse, the faller realized he was inside the WLPZ, ceased operations, and reported the situation to Green Diamond staff. Green Diamond then notified CalFire of the incident.

o Mitigation: The LTO may harvest the cut trees, however no heavy equipment shall enter the WLPZ. Any disturbed soil within the WLPZ resulting from tree removal shall be treated per soil stabilization measures outlined in Item 18 of the THP.

THP1-15-076HUM (GDRCo 45-1502):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 1035.3(d) Maintenance and Monitoring of Logging Roads and Landings - The LTO failed to comply with the approved plan by failing to remove a watercourse crossing prior to Oct 15 of the year of use.

o Mitigation: Prior to October 15, 2017, the LTO shall remove the watercourse crossing at Road Point 8, as described in the plan. No environmental damage occurred.

THP1-16-123HUM (GDRCo 47-1607):

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 4581 - Necessity of timber harvesting plan. A contract faller harvested 1.5 acres of timber outside of THP.

o Mitigation – None. No environmental degradation occurred; the area felled is approximately 500 feet from the nearest watercourse and not within wildlife buffers, geologic zones, archeologically sensitive areas or special treatment areas.

THP 1-16-038DEL (GDRCo 93-1504)

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 1040: minor deviation - GDRCo did not immediately report the addition of SRE as an LTO to the THP.

27

o Mitigation - GDRCo shall notify the Director immediately of Licensed Timber Operator (LTO) Hopkins conducting work on the THP.

Violation per California practice rule 14 CCR 1035.3(d) - The LTO entered and cleared an area inside a Class II RMZ which was designated as an EEZ in the THP.

o Mitigation - The LTO shall slash pack the exposed area to 90% coverage and to the equivalent of 2”-4’’ depth of straw mulch.

III. Land Transactions and Plan Area Adjustments

The AHCP Implementation Agreement (IA) has two distinct requirements involving both the reporting of land transactions as well as the accounting of these transactions as they relate to Plan Area limitations described in the IA. The following is a description of GDRCo’s compliance with Sections 8.2, 11 and 12 of the IA regarding Land Transactions and Plan Area Adjustments and a summary of transactions reported to the Services as required in Section 8.1(c) of the IA.

A. Notice of Transactions

Section 8.2 of the IA requires GDRCo to notify the Services of any transfer of ownership of real property or harvesting rights subject to the AHCP at the time of the transfer of ownership (except where prior notification is required pursuant to IA Section 11 – which is discussed below). To comply with IA Section 8.2, GDRCo has a comprehensive pre-transaction “Notice Approval Record” which provides a routing and approval format for all real property transactions resulting in a change in the Plan Area. GDRCo has an internal policy that the employee responsible for negotiating a proposed transaction involving the acquisition or disposal of land or timber harvesting rights within the Plan Area also is responsible for addressing the effect of the transaction on the AHCP Plan Area and preparation of a pre-transaction notice letter to the Services. Prior to submission of the pre-transaction notification letter, approval is obtained from the Vice President of Green Diamond’s California Timberlands Division if the transaction will result in an addition or deletion of Plan Area acres. This notification and approval record provides assurances that the transaction is properly identified as a specific real property transaction and that the required information is documented and submitted to the Services as well as identified key GDRCo employees. This notification and approval record also ensures that changes to the Plan Area are recorded in GDRCo’s Forest Resources Information System (FRIS), which is used to track and report Plan Area changes. Each notification to the Services provides GDRCo’s best estimate of the acreage

28

involved in the transaction and the resulting change in the Plan Area. However, the Company relies on FRIS as the official record for calculating, tracking, and reporting Plan Area changes.

The following is a list of transactions that occurred during this reporting period:

a) Van Cleave b) Western Rivers Conservancy c) Vagel d) Fish Hatchery

The results of these transactions on the Plan Area and the 15% cumulative net expansion or contraction limit is provided in Section III.C below.

B. Land Transactions

1. Plan Area Additions

Section 11.2 of the IA, stipulates that pre-transaction notice letters will be sent to the Services for any acquisition within the Eligible Plan Area that will result in an addition to the Plan Area with a description of the proposed transaction and an assessment of how the transaction will affect the AHCP. GDRCo will provide any such notices to the Services, which will be approved and result in an automatic addition to the Plan Area unless the Services object within 60 days of notification or the addition would exceed the Plan Area adjustment limits described below. Each notification to the Services provides GDRCo’s best estimate of the acreage involved in the acquisition. However, the Company relies on FRIS as the official record for calculating, tracking, and reporting Plan Area changes.

2. Plan Area Deletions

Section 11.3 of the IA provides that any deletion from the Plan Area will be automatically accepted upon notice to the Services unless the deletion would exceed the Plan Area adjustment limits described below or GDRCo seeks special consideration for the Plan Area deletion so that it is not counted against the Plan Area adjustment limits.

3. Limitations on Plan Area Transactions

As described in Section 11 of the IA, the Plan Area may not expand or contract by more than 15% of the Initial Plan Area (406,962 acres) without an amendment to the AHCP or Permits. GDRCo may purchase and divest properties without amending the AHCP as long as the cumulative net acreage effect does not result in a Plan Area increase or decrease of more than 61,044 acres. There are exceptions and qualifiers related to this general limitation outlined in Section 11 of the IA. Section 11.3 of the IA requires a pre-transaction notice and

29

determination by the Services in instances where GDRCo will remove covered lands or timber harvesting rights from the Plan Area and GDRCo seeks confirmation that the deletion from the Plan Area will not be counted against the cumulative net acreage change in the Plan Area because the Services find that the new owner will manage the transferred property under enforceable conditions that will not compromise the effectiveness of the AHCP. In these instances, GDRCo will provide the Services with a pre-transaction notice that includes a justification for the exemption and GDRCo’s best estimate of the acreage involved in the transaction and the resulting change in the Plan Area. The Services will provide GDRCo with a response and GDRCo will ensure that the Plan Area adjustment is accurately recorded in FRIS as a change in the Plan Area that does or does not count against the limitation on the cumulative net increase or decrease in the Plan Area.

4. Minor Modifications to the Plan Area

Under IA Section 12.1, Minor Modifications to the Plan Area may occur due to ownership acreage corrections that are not associated with a real property transaction. An example of these minor adjustments are property line boundary changes that integrate real world coordinate information from recent land surveys into the GIS system and correcting the location of property lines accordingly. Another example would be a mapping error correction identified during routine GIS work. The Initial Plan Area (406,962 acres) will be used for the duration of the AHCP Period to calculate the 15% cumulative, net expansion or contraction limitations based on transactions, but Minor Modifications will not change the Initial Plan Area in that they are, by definition, minor and would not affect operations under the AHCP or the Covered Species. These minor acreage adjustments can fluctuate up or down during any one year and during the term of the AHCP, therefore GDRCo will identify and account for these specific adjustments using FRIS. This biennial report serves as the notification to the Services of these Minor Modifications to the Plan Area. A summary of the Minor Modifications to the Plan Area such as property line boundary changes and GIS corrections are provided in Table 12 below.

C. Summary of Land Transactions and Plan Area Adjustments

The current AHCP Plan Area consists of 357,725 acres (Table 12). As a result of Plan Area additions, deletions and minor modifications that occurred from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018 there was a decrease of 8,235 acres from the current Plan Area reported in the 5th Biennial Report. Since the approval date of the AHCP, there has been a decrease of 49,237 acres in the AHCP Plan Area, with a net contraction of 26,643 acres due to non-comparable transferee transactions. The remaining decrease in acreage is accounted for in land transactions with comparable transferees as well as minor modifications to the Plan Area.

30

Table 12. Summary of land transactions and minor modifications that occurred between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018.

(a) Notice of the Van Cleave transaction was provided to the Services in a letter dated October 18, 2018.

The transaction included the purchase of commercial timberland in fee resulting in the addition of 346.13 acres to the AHCP Plan Area.

(b) Notice of the Western Rivers Conservancy transaction was provided to the Services in a letter dated March 16, 2017. The transactions included the transfer of real property to Western Rivers Conservancy, an Oregon non-profit corporation, resulting in the deletion of 8577.38 acres from the AHCP Plan Area.

(c) Notice of the Vagel transaction was provided to the Services in a letter dated October 9, 2018. The transaction included the transfer of real property resulting in the deletion of 1.28 acres from the AHCP Plan Area.

(d) Notice of the Mad River Fish Hatchery transaction was provided to the Services in a letter dated October 9, 2018. The transaction included the transfer of real property to the State of California resulting in the deletion of 1.41 acres from the AHCP Plan Area

(e) Minor Modifications that result in increases in the Plan Area due to property surveys and GIS upgrades. (f) Minor Modifications that result in decreases in the Plan Area due to property surveys and GIS upgrades. (g) Reported acreage adjustments to the Initial Plan Area are rounded to the nearest whole acre. (h) The expansion or contraction limit relative to the Initial Plan Area (406,962 acres) without an amendment

to the Plan or Permits. There are exceptions and qualifiers related to this limitation outlined in Section 11 of the IA.

(i) Limited to 15% of Initial Plan Area.

Property Transactions

Does the

Transaction

Affect the

Plan Area?

Direction of

Plan Area

Change

( + / - / None)

GIS

Transaction

Area

(Acres)

Plan Area

Adjustment

(Acres)

Does the

Transaction

Affect the 15%

Limit?

Easements

None

Total

Plan Area Additions

Van Cleave (a) Yes (+) 346.13 346.13 Yes

Total 346.1 346.1

Plan Area Deletions

Western Rivers Conservancy (b) Yes (-) 8577.38 -8577.38 Yes

Vagel ( c) Yes (-) 1.28 -1.28 Yes

Fish Hatchery (d) Yes (-) 1.41 -1.41 Yes

Total 8580.1 -8580.1

Minor Modifications

Other increases (e) Yes (+) 0.00004 0.00004 No

Other decreases (f) Yes (-) -0.00283 -0.00283 No

Total -0.0028 -0.0028

Total -8233.9

Total (Acres)

406,962

357,726

61,044

-26,642

Initial Plan Area

Current Plan Area (as of 12/31/2018) (g)

15% of Initial Plan Area (h)

Net Expansion (+) / Contraction (-) Acreage

(as of 12/31/2018) (i)

31

IV. AHCP Training Programs As specified in AHCP Section 6.2.3.14, training is required for all company and contract equipment operators and supervisors involved with the Road Implementation Plan along with RPFs and forestry technicians involved with road design, layout and development of road treatment prescriptions. The training is offered annually as necessary for new employees or new contractors. Refresher training courses on the Road Management Plan are provided as needed to review concepts, introduce any new state-of-the-art techniques, and to present any new relevant regulatory information. As specified in AHCP Section 6.2.2.5, training will be administered by a qualified PG or CEG to all RPFs that write THPs to review issues related to the AHCP Slope Stability Measures. The purpose of the training is to help RPFs identify and more fully understand the slope stability measures as well as the possible implications of various timber management scenarios for landslides and other unstable areas. The training is offered annually to accommodate new contractors and new employees. Refresher training courses are provided as necessary to employees and contractors to present new relevant scientific or regulatory information.

A. 2017 Training Programs

On April 10th, the AHCP Roads Supervisor conducted a training at the annual contractors’ breakfast meeting to review the road cost tracking, water drafting and general road treatment procedures. On August 15th, the company Professional Geologist conducted training on worker safety when conducting road activities in areas proximal to rock types containing asbestos. Table 13 summarizes the AHCP related training programs held in 2017. Table 13. Summary of 2017 training programs.

Training Dates Groups

AHCP Orientation

and Geologic Training

AHCP Updates

and Geologic Training

General Road Management

Measures

Road Design

and Layout

Road Upgrading, Decommissioning, Maintenance, and

Construction Standards

Apr 10 Contract operators x

Aug 15 RPFs, operators x

32

B. 2018 Training Programs

On April 9th, the AHCP Roads Supervisor conducted a training at the annual contractors’ breakfast meeting to review the road cost tracking, water drafting and general road treatment procedures. On August 14th, the company Professional Geologist conducted training on the AHCP slope stability measures. Table 14 summarizes the AHCP related training programs held in 2018. Table 14. Summary of 2018 training programs.

Training Dates Groups

AHCP Orientation

and Geologic Training

AHCP Updates

and Geologic Training

General Road Management

Measures

Road Design

and Layout

Road Upgrading, Decommissioning, Maintenance, and

Construction Standards

April 9 Contract operators x

Aug 14 RPFs, forestry technicians x

V. Road Management Measures The principal purpose of the Road Management Measures (AHCP Section 6.2.3) is to eliminate major sources of sediment discharges into watercourses from roads. The objective of the Road Implementation Plan (AHCP Section 6.2.3.2) is to carry out a systematic road upgrade and decommissioning program using the Plan’s road assessment and prioritization system (AHCP Section 6.2.3.1) that will maximize sediment reduction and conservation benefits within the Plan Area for the Covered Species. To achieve additional conservation benefits from this effort, the Road Implementation Plan is accelerated during the first 15 years of the Plan; GDRCo is providing for an average of $2.5 million (inflation adjusted to 2002 dollars) each year of the acceleration period to carry out the upgrade and decommissioning program. The work to be done and the sediment savings to be achieved by the Road Implementation Plan are tied to the results of the Road Assessment Process. The main objective of the Road Maintenance Program (AHCP Section 6.2.3.9) is to ensure that the sediment saving conservation benefits of the road upgrading program are maintained throughout the life of the Plan after the roads are upgraded.

A. Programmatic Road Permits

On June 10, 2010, NCRWQCB adopted Road Management Waste Discharge Requirements (RMWDR: Order No. R1-2010-0044) and on June 15, 2010, CDFW issued a Master Agreement for Timber Operations (MATO: No. 1600-2010-0114-R1) that would allow GDRCo to conduct road activities related to the AHCP Road Implementation Plan and the Road Maintenance and Inspection Program. These agreements allow GDRCo to notify CDFW and NCRWQCB of all planned watercourse crossing activities on an annual basis through a report

33

(Annual Work Plan). There is an initial 60-day review period, with methods to revise and update the plan throughout the operating season. The acquisition of the programmatic permits also significantly changed the approach to assessing roads for THPs. Prior to acquiring the permits, roads were assessed and treated according to the “fully functional” concept per THP. This concept forced mitigation efforts and treatment on a wide spectrum of issues and sediment introduction risk levels including diversion potential, presence of erosion, blockages of inlets and outlets, lack of hydrological disconnection and pipe integrity, for example. Through discussions with NMFS, USFWS, CDFW, NCRWQCB and CalFire a streamlined approach to road assessment was developed, approved, and is implemented as part of the programmatic permits. The “Imminent Risk of Failure” concept, as it is referred to, uses six general elements of watercourse crossings within a decision tree to guide road assessment. The assessor follows this decision tree to conclude whether a crossing should be upgraded or decommissioned, monitored or deferred for mitigation. The primary reason for this new approach is to focus mitigation efforts on sites which have the highest potential risk for failure or significant sediment delivery in a property-wide approach rather than on a THP by THP basis, and also, to utilize and fully implement the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan set forth in AHCP Section 6.2.3.9. During 2010, the first year of implementing the “Imminent Risk of Failure” concept, issues arose during pre-harvest inspections. The primary issue was related to interpretation of the key during assessment of crossings. These interpretations varied from the determinations made by sediment control technicians responsible for completing road work orders in THPs and the agency representatives who inspect the THPs for consistency and regulatory compliance. As a result of these issues, an intent document was created which discussed each section of the key including a description of the issue, diagnosis of issues and what appropriate mitigation measures to apply. This intent document was circulated within GDRCo, CalFire, CDFW and NCRWQCB for input and suggested revisions. Once the document was finalized it was distributed to GDRCo staff and all field agency representatives to help establish a consistent evaluation and interpretation of road related mitigation measures. Since this distribution issues during pre-harvest inspections have been minimized. The intent document will be revised as needed to reflect new techniques and issues as they arise over time. The 2017 Annual Work Plan included road sites for 62 THPs, and 1 instream restoration grant project. The 2018 Annual Work Plan included road sites for 53 THPs, 1 instream restoration grant project and 1 site related to RMA #2.

34

B. Road Assessment Process

Road assessments are conducted using a standardized protocol which addresses site priority and volume of potential sediment delivery. Site priority is assigned based on volume of potential sediment delivery, treatment immediacy and overall cost-effectiveness of the proposed treatment. Volume of potential sediment delivery is calculated using a systematic approach of cross-sectional analysis of stream crossing fill prisms. The “Imminent Risk of Failure” concept has also allowed an even greater level of standardization as well as consistent treatment prescriptions in THPs and work required within the Routine Maintenance Areas and for mainline roads. In 2009, GDRCo successfully completed the consolidation of all previous road assessments into a single, useable database. Database reporting tools were added to the database which allows the AHCP Roads Supervisor to analyze and publish data to support other AHCP working groups, operational staff and various regulatory requirements. In 2011, a project was completed to increase the accuracy of the spatial database link through the process of correcting GIS points to LiDAR-corrected road and stream data as well as digitizing data from paper maps. Further refinements to the database were completed in 2014 to increase speed and incorporate new tools to allow for more accurate and time saving processes. No significant changes to the road data in TMIS are planned in the future. The fundamental processes of AHCP Section 6.2.3.1 are to have qualified personnel accurately identify road-related erosion sites and apply a prioritized treatment. The transition from RPFs conducting road assessments to the AHCP Roads department conducting the assessments was completed in early 2009. Presently, Sediment Control Technicians assess all THPs within the AHCP Plan Area to ensure consistency and compliance with all requirements in AHCP Section 6.2.3. In addition they attend PHIs and assist RPFs, as necessary, during the THP review process. Consolidating and coordinating the road assessment process through the AHCP Roads department has helped ensure consistency between THPs, efficient calculations of required statistics, accurate operational planning and compliance with AHCP standards. As mentioned above GDRCo obtained programmatic road permits from CDFW and the NCRWQCB to conducted road-related activities associated with the AHCP Road Management Plan. Assessment and road treatment work to date has occurred coincident with THP activities and within the Routine Maintenance Areas associated with the Routine Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan (AHCP Section 6.2.3.9). This effort has allowed GDRCo to implement the “Imminent Risk of Failure” concept described above and focuses resources on sites that have the highest potential risk for failure.

35

C. Road Implementation Plan

The Road Implementation Plan (AHCP Section 6.2.3.2) is the natural extension and completion of a process GDRCo started in 2001 to address sediment-related issues associated with roads on the Plan Area landscape. Beginning in 2000, State agencies involved with reviewing THPs began mandating substantial road improvements on appurtenant haul routes. These road upgrading activities mirror the type of upgrading requirements that were adopted and included within the AHCP and became one of the AHCP’s focal points. Under AHCP Section 6.2.3.2, GDRCo is required to provide for an average of $2.5 million (inflation adjusted in 2002 dollars) per year during the acceleration period to treat high and moderate priority road sites. As a result of the annual spending requirement, GDRCo developed a process to track the costs of treating individual high and moderate priority sites. This information is recorded by site and submitted to GDRCo administrative office staff. Each site is then cross-checked with treatment priority to determine if it qualifies as a high or moderate treatment site utilizing a database which has been continually refined since 2007. During the 2011 Annual Meeting the Services requested that GDRCo provide a summary of road work in the biennial reports that distinguishes between sites that were completed in conjunction with THP operations and those sites that were completed outside the THP process (e.g. non-THP maintenance activities and grant-related activities). Table 15 summarizes these data for 2017 and 2018. Table 16 summarizes the number, volume and associated costs of treating high and moderate priority sites, for each operating area, from 2007 through 2018. Maps are also included that show the locations of the high and moderate priority sites that were treated from 2007 through 2018 (Figures 1-6). AHCP Section 6.2.3.2 requires GDRCo to provide for an average of $2.5 million (inflation adjusted in 2002 dollars) per year during the acceleration period. GDRCo utilizes the GDP Price Index to adjust for inflation because it provides a broader measure of inflation that is not as consumer focused as the Consumer Price Index. In addition, there are multiple sources that provide multiple year forecasts of the GDP Price Index until the official values are published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reliable forecasts of the GDP Price Index are critical to ensure that GDRCo is on track to spend the appropriate average annual amount of money because the true inflation rates are not published until the following year. The actual expenditures that GDRCo provided for in 2007-2018 are presented in Table 17. As noted in Table 17 the actual inflation rate for 2018 will not be available until late March 2019, therefore the actual inflation adjusted dollars spent in 2018 will not be known until that time. The actual values will be reflected in the next biennial report due in 2021. Additionally, the inflation rates for the 2012-2016 operating years have changed since the last

36

Table 15. Summary of the number of sites, volume of sediment savings and total costs of treating high and moderate priority sites, by operating area, from 2017 through 2018.

Korbel THP(1)

Klamath THP(2)

Korbel Non-THP(3)

Klamath Non-THP(4)

Korbel GDRCo Grant Contribution(5)

Korbel Grant

Sources(6)

Klamath GDRCo Grant Contribution(7)

Klamath Grant

Sources(8) Total

Year 2017

High/Moderate Sites (#) 82 74 - 44 7 - 207

High/Moderate Volume (cu. yds.)

19,933 35,295 - 11,350 2,221 - 68,799

Amount GDRCo Provided For to Treat

High/Moderate Priority Sites

$738,437 $656,502 - $434,314 - $81,084 - - $1,910,337

Year 2018

High/Moderate Sites (#) 74 106 6 12 - - 198

High/Moderate Volume (cu. yds.)

13,429 20,511 1,088 1,790 - - 36,818

Amount GDRCo Provided For to Treat

High/Moderate Priority Sites

$552,457 $1,050,062 $109,683 $201,355 - - - - $1,913,557

Totals for 2017-2018

High/Moderate Sites (#) 156 180 6 56 7 - 405

High/Moderate Volume (cu. yds.)

33,362 55,806 1,088 13,140 2,221 - 105,617

Amount GDRCo Spent Treating High/Moderate

Priority Sites $1,290,894 $1,706,564 $109,683 $635,669 - $81,084 - - $3,823,894

1 THP related road sites within the Korbel operating area which is the geographical area south of the Bald Hills Road which intersects Highway 101 at Orick.

2 THP-related road sites within the Klamath operating area which is the geographical area north of Bald Hills Road which intersects Highway 101 at Orick.

3 Non-THP related road work for Routine Maintenance Area #3 and mainline roads within the Korbel operating area. No grant funding is associated with Non-THP work.

4 Non-THP related road work for Routine Maintenance Area #3 and mainline roads within the Klamath operating area. No grant funding is associated with Non-THP work.

5 Dollars GDRCo provided for as direct cost share (cash) to grant-related projects in the Korbel operating area.

6 Funding for grant-related road work within the Korbel operating area with sources from the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (CDFW).

7 Dollars GDRCo provided for as direct cost share (cash) to grant-related projects in the Klamath operating area.

8 Funding for grant-related road work within the Klamath operating area with sources from the Fisheries Restoration Grant Program (CDFW), the Yurok Tribe, USFWS or EPA.

37

Table 16. Summary of the number of sites, volume of sediment savings and total costs of treating high and moderate priority sites, from 2007 through 2018.

Korbel(1) Klamath(2) Total

2007-2016 Total

High/Moderate Sites (#) 1,678 930 2,608

High/ Moderate Volume (cu. yds.) 501,729 510,678 1,012,407

Amount GDRCo Provided For to Treat High/Moderate Priority Sites

$17,535,848 $12,785,831 $30,321,679

2017-2018 Total

High/Moderate Sites (#) 169 236 405

High/ Moderate Volume (cu. yds.) 36,671 68,946 105,617

Amount GDRCo Provided For to Treat High/Moderate Priority Sites

$1,481,661 $2,342,233 $3,823,894

Grand Total

High/Moderate Sites (#) 1,847 1,166 3,013

High/ Moderate Volume (cu. yds.) 538,400 579,624 1,118,0214

Amount GDRCo Provided For to Treat High/Moderate Priority Sites

$19,017,509 $15,128,065 $34,145,573

1 Korbel operating area is the geographical area south of the Bald Hills Road which intersects Highway 101 at Orick.

2 Klamath operating area is the geographical area north of Bald Hills Road which intersects Highway 101 at Orick.

38

Figure 1. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Smith River area).

39

Figure 2. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Coastal Klamath area).

40

Figure 3. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Interior Klamath area).

41

Figure 4. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Maple Creek, Little River, Lower Mad River area).

42

Figure 5. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Mad River area).

43

Figure 6. Location of High and Moderate priority road sites treated from 2007-2018 (Humboldt Bay and Eel River area).

44

biennial report. These changes were provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, and are updated annually as inflation data are revised. It is expected that similar changes will occur and be reflected in the next biennial report, and will be noted similarly. AHCP Section 6.2.3.2.1 #4 and IA Section 7.2 requires GDRCo to adjust the annual commitment proportionally with changes in the Plan Area in relation to the acreage of the Initial Plan Area. Table 12 summarizes all the land transactions and minor modifications which occurred in 2017 and 2018. The current Plan Area, as of December 31, 2018 is 357,726 acres which is 87.9% of the Initial Plan Area of 406,962 acres (see Section III.B). Based on these Plan Area adjustments, the $2,500,000 annual spending requirements (in 2002 dollars) were proportionally adjusted each year by the proportional changes in Plan Area beginning in 2012 (see Table 17). AHCP Section 6.2.3.2.2 required an assessment of future sediment yields at the end of the first five year period (Five-year Assessment of Future Sediment Yield). The intent of this assessment from the AHCP was to evaluate and potentially revise the preliminary estimated sediment savings of 6,440,000 cubic yards from treating high and moderate priority road sites. The results of this study were submitted to the Services on December 20, 2013 per AHCP Section 6.2.3.2.3. The letter submitted to the Services with the complete results was included in the 4th AHCP Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015). The results of this study indicated the refined estimate is 30.5% less than the original estimate which exceeded the maximum allowed reduction for the Acceleration Period; therefore, the Acceleration Period was reduced by 1.5 years (the maximum adjustment allowed) with a corresponding spending reduction of $3.75 million. The Acceleration Period has been revised to 13.5 years with $33.75 million (to be inflation adjusted in 2002 dollars for each year of the acceleration period) provided for by GDRCo over this period.

D. Road Maintenance and Inspection Plan

AHCP Section 6.2.3.9 specifies the road maintenance and inspection plan. The Services approved a minor modification of the schedule for the Routine Maintenance Areas (RMAs) as well as the schedule for mainline roads (See Section II.D.3.) Road inspections were conducted in accordance with the process outlined in AHCP Section 6.2.3.9.5 and the approved minor modifications. The rotating annual schedule of RMAs are defined in distinct sections covering the entire Plan Area. The maintenance assessment was separated into a two-tier approach. The AHCP Roads Department was responsible for surveying the non-appurtenant roads and the Operations department was responsible for surveying the roads appurtenant to THPs.

45

Table 17. Actual, preliminary and estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index inflation rates published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis including actual and planned expenditures by year for treating high and moderate priority road sites.

Base Preliminary (2)

Year2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

GDP Price Index(% change from preceeding period) 0.00% 2.69% 1.95% 0.76% 1.17% 2.09% 1.92% 1.76% 1.89% 1.07% 1.09% 1.90% 2.26% 2.03% 2.02%

Cumulative Inflation Rate (2002 Base)0.00% 14.11% 16.33% 17.21% 18.58% 21.06% 23.38% 25.54% 27.92% 29.29% 30.70% 33.18% 36.19% 38.96% 41.76%

Required Average Annual Spending in 2002 $ ($MM) $ 0 (3)(4) $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.36 (5) $2.30 (5) $2.30 (5) $2.25 (5) $2.25 (5) $2.20 (5) $2.20 (5) $2.20 (5) $2.20 (5)

Required Average Annual Spending After Adjusting

for Inflation Using 2002 as Base ($MM)$ 0 $2.91 (6) $2.93 $2.96 $3.03 $2.91 $2.89 $2.94 $2.91 $2.94 $2.93 $2.99 $3.05 $3.12

Actual and Budgeted Spending by year ($MM) $1.676 $4.073 $1.171 $2.179 $4.710 $3.966 $3.346 $3.468 $3.396 $2.336 $1.910 $1.914 $2.320 $2.100

(1)The Bureau of Economic Analysis has revised the "Actual" GDP Price Index values that w ere reported in the last Biennial Report (See page 1-7 in the follow ing methodology paper: http://w w w .bea.gov/national/pdf/NIPAch1-4.pdf).

(2)The Bureau of Economic Analysis usually releases the "Actual" GDP Price Index for the previous year at the end of the f irst quarter of the follow ing year. The reported values for 2018 are based on the preliminary estimates for GDP PI.

(3)Reflects the AHCP Minor Modif ication to the acceleration period to have funds be measured on a calendar year basis.

(4)Reflects the AHCP Minor Modif ication to the acceleration period to have funds provided for the 3-year ramp-up period begin on the effective date of the Plan through the end of the third calendar year.

(5)Reflects the revised annual spending requirement based in the proportional adjustment in the current Plan Area in relation to the Initial Plan Area, as per IA Section 7.2 and AHCP Section 6.2.3.2.1 #4.

(6)Beginning $2.5MM at 2002 base inflation.

ForecastedActual (1)

46

During the winters of 2017 and 2018 inspections of the appurtenant roads (including mainline and secondary roads) were conducted by the Operations department. These inspections were focused on identification and treatment of “active erosion sites” and others related to compliance with California Forest Practice rules and the AHCP. Any sites identified for treatment were scheduled and completed by the Operations department. During the summer of 2017 and the spring of 2018 Sediment Control Technicians surveyed mainline roads and appurtenant roads associated with THP development. Assessment of RMA #1 began in the spring of 2017 and was completed in late 2018. The area consists of Smith River, Coastal Klamath, Little River and Mad River HPAs. In addition, the Lower South Fork Little River and Terwer Creek Road Work Units (RWU) were assessed. All sites associated with RMA #1 and the RWUs are expected to be included in the 2019 Annual Work Plan and work is expected to be completed by October 2020.

VI. Geology The AHCP requires GDRCo to conduct several geologic assessments across the Plan Area. The following discussion summarizes these individual projects.

A. CMZ/Floodplain Delineation

As reported in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a), GDRCo revised the CMZ/Floodplain Delineation project through a minor modification submitted in March of 2011. Since that time GDRCo has completed the CMZ/Floodplain mapping concurrent with THP development throughout the life of the ITP and ESP Permits. A summary of CMZ’s and Floodplains delineated during the current reporting period is shown in Section II. F.

B. SSS Delineation Plan (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.2)

Steep Streamside Slope’s (SSS) are a default mass wasting prescription that are applied to steep slopes directly adjacent to Class I and Class II watercourses on GDRCo timberlands. These areas vary in size, depending on slope gradients, and are thought to require the retention of more timber than a Riparian Management Zone. The stated goal of the SSS prescription is to achieve a 70 percent reduction of landslide volumes delivering to watercourses in comparison to historical management related landslide volumes. The original AHCP contained initial default prescriptions that GDRCo applied to qualifying SSS. In December of 2014 GDRCo completed the SSS Delineation Study (see AHCP Section

47

6.2.3.5.2 that modified the initial SSS default prescriptions across the property. A copy of the final SSS Delineation Study was included in the 4th AHCP Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015).

C. SSS Assessment (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.3)

As described above, Steep Streamside Slopes are a mass wasting prescription that was developed specifically for GDRCo lands. The prescription was developed through a landslide study for GDRCo’s AHCP. The proposed goal of the SSS prescription is to achieve a 70 percent reduction in sediment associated with shallow landslide volumes delivering to watercourses in comparison with historical landslide volumes associated with historically clearcut slopes about the referenced areas of the AHCP. With the proposed SSS Assessment we will attempt to determine the effectiveness of the default SSS prescriptions across the property. A scientific review panel will be assembled to analyze the resulting data. The panel will consist of a 3 person team of independent experts in the field of timber management and slope stability. In July of 2014 we discussed modifications to the SSS Assessment with the Services which was described in detail in the 5th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2017).

1. Current Status of the SSS Assessment

In December of 2013 we began reviewing the SSS sample areas and one year later completed our preliminary review of all 58 SSS sample areas. As previously reported in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015), our initial review identified four landslides that were determined to be post-harvest landslides. These landslides were found in the Eel River, Humboldt Bay and Coastal Lagoon HPAs. Sediment delivery was estimated at a total of 87 cubic yards for the four landslides. Stream bank erosion was believed to be a significant factor for two of the slides. In 2017 the SSS sample areas were again surveyed following significant rainfall of the 2016/2017 winter period. One landslide was found in the Coastal Klamath HPA. The slide was found within a SSS zone that was not harvested. The crown of the slide was located 261 feet below the top of the SSS zone. Stream bank erosion was thought to be the most significant factor since there was no harvesting within the SSS zone and the stream was flowing along the bank where the landslide occurred. It was estimated that 58 yds³ of sediment was delivered as a result of the failure, 36 percent of the total volume of the landslide. A summary of the field data sheet is located in Appendix B. Historical sediment delivery rates were established as part of the preliminary Mass Wasting Assessment. We intend to utilize the historical landslide sediment delivery rates for comparison and evaluation of the SSS Assessment sample areas. These rates are discussed in detail in the Preliminary Mass Wasting

48

Assessment. The Preliminary Mass Wasting Assessment was included as Appendix B in the 5th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2017).

D. Mass Wasting Assessment (AHCP Section 6.2.5.3.4)

The goal of the Mass Wasting Assessment (MWA) is to examine the relationship between landslide processes and timber management practices. This study will be based on the collection of a thorough landslide and land use history data set. We intend to utilize, and build upon, the existing landslide and land use history data sets that are being compiled for the SSS projects. The field data from each of these projects will also be incorporated into the MWA and will also be built upon as needed. For this study we will use the aforementioned data to focus on the causal mechanisms of the various mass wasting processes we observe throughout the ownership and specifically their relationship to timber management practices. In addition we will examine other contributing factors such as climate, bedrock geology, and structural geology.

1. Purpose and Scope of the Assessment

The purpose of the MWA is to evaluate the influence of timber management practices on Mass Wasting for each of the 11 HPAs identified in GDRCo’s AHCP. The scope of work for the assessment is generally based on the standard methodology for mass wasting analysis as defined in The State of Washington’s Forest Practice Board (WSFPB) watershed analysis manual. As described above we will consider a variety of factors in this assessment followed by detailed review and therefore this study would likely fall under the criteria of a Level 2 analysis as discussed in the mass wasting section of WSFPB’s watershed analysis manual. This project will be completed within 20 years from the effective date of GDRCo’s AHCP (July 1, 2027).

2. Current Status

The preliminary results of the Mass Wasting Assessment were submitted to the Services and other state agencies in November of 2016. To date our data collection has focused largely on shallow landslides due to the nature of our data collection efforts being centered on the SSS Delineation and Assessment projects. Mass wasting associated with deep-seated failures will be addressed in the future and although Class III watercourses have not yet been specifically assessed for mass wasting; our preliminary data suggests that it is unlikely that there is a significant amount of mass wasting resultant sediment associated with Class III watercourses. None the less, these areas will be reviewed prior to completing the final Mass Wasting Assessment. Our preliminary data show sediment delivery and erosion rates related to shallow mass wasting have declined. Analysis of the available rainfall data appears to dismiss climatic

49

factors as significant driving influences in this decline. However, as we acquire more detailed landslide initiation data this relationship will continue to be monitored to address any positive correlations we may find. In conjunction with evolving forest practice rules, GDRCo has continued to reduce impacts related to management practices. Since 2000, GDRCo has made a significant effort to reduce sediment inputs and improve terrestrial and aquatic habitat by improving management practices on its own accord. These efforts include; adapting to less impactful logging (yarding) methods such as shovel yarding in early 2000 (GDRCo was the first company in northern California to do so), implementing our AHCP specific Riparian Management Zones in 2007 (which exceeded the level of protection of the Forest Practice Rules), implementing our own AHCP road management measures in 2007 that hydrologically disconnect roads from streams, and, as noted above, established steep streamside slope buffers designed to reduce streamside mass wasting. It is our judgment that the reduction in shallow landslides and related erosion and sediment delivery is the result of improvements to management practices with specific attention directed to mass wasting areas of concern. A copy of the “Preliminary Mass Wasting Assessment” was provided as Appendix B in the 5th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2017).

VII. Budget Implementation Agreement Section 8.1(b) requires GDRCo to submit a detailed budget for measures pursuant to the Operating Conservation Program that require out-of-pocket expenditure that will be implemented in each subsequent calendar year before the next biennial report is due. Table 18 summarizes the planned budget for implementing the road plan and monitoring requirements of the AHCP for 2019. Table 19 summarizes the anticipated budget for implementing the road plan and monitoring requirements of the AHCP for 2020. The 2019 planned budget formed the basis for projecting the anticipated 2020 budget and is therefore similar in many ways.

50

Table 18. Planned budget for 2019.

Item Amount

Payroll

Salaries $982,931

Benefits $237,771

Misc. Supplies (including fuel, monitoring equip, computer hardware/software, etc.)

$125,208

Equipment Maintenance $52,660

Professional Services (contract geology, contract statistical analysis, property-wide programmatic permits, contract legal, etc.)

$302,895

Other Misc. Costs $50,725

Road treatments on High and Moderate Priority Sites1, 2, 3 $2,320,000

Total $4,072,190

1 Estimated total dollars GDRCo will spend to treat high and moderate priority sites. 2 Estimate does not include any other road work costs. 3 Estimate does not include any dollars that may be obtained through grant programs.

Table 19. Anticipated budget for 2020.

Item Amount

Payroll

Salaries $1,012,419

Hourly $244,904

Misc. Supplies (including fuel, monitoring equip, computer hardware/software, etc.)

$128,964

Equipment Maintenance $54,240

Professional Services (contract geology, contract statistical analysis, contract legal, etc.)

$245,895

Other Misc. Costs $51,714

Road Treatments on High and Moderate Priority Sites1, 2, 3 $2,100,000

Total $3,838,136

1 Estimated total dollars GDRCo will spend to treat high and moderate priority sites. 2 Estimate does not include any other road work costs. 3 Estimate does not include any dollars that may be obtained through grant programs.

51

VIII. Effectiveness Monitoring Effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management are key components of Green Diamond Resource Company’s AHCP. The AHCP sets specific biological goals and objectives related to the abundance, distribution, and habitat of the Covered Species (AHCP Section 6.1) and it defines an Operating Conservation Program intended to achieve those goals and objectives (AHCP Section 6.2). The role of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program is to track the success of the Operating Conservation Program in meeting the AHCP’s biological goals and objectives, and to provide the feedback needed for adaptive management if those goals and objectives are not being met. The Effectiveness Monitoring Program is described in AHCP Sections 6.2.5 and 6.3.5, with detailed protocols included in AHCP Appendix D. The AHCP received final approvals and went into effect in 2007, but the description of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program in the AHCP dates largely back to 2001. This time lag was a result of the need to adopt a final draft document in 2001 for the substantial agency and public review process. Monitoring technology and protocols have continued to evolve since 2001, so that when the AHCP became effective in 2007, the description of some components of the monitoring program was already dated. Green Diamond submitted and the Services approved minor modifications to the Monitoring Program in the AHCP in 2011, with the goal of ensuring that the Effectiveness Monitoring Program remains effective, efficient and scientifically current. A summary of the minor modifications were provided in Section II.E of the 3rd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2013). Changes to the monitoring basins associated with the Experimental Watershed program are described in Section II.D. of this Biennial Report. The monitoring projects and programs fall into four categories: Rapid Response Monitoring, Response Monitoring, Long-term Trend Monitoring and Research, and Experimental Watersheds Program. The first three categories are based on the minimum time frame over which feedback for adaptive management is likely to occur. The time scales are a product of the specific variables or processes being measured as well as the available monitoring protocols currently used. The Rapid Response and Response Monitoring projects form the backbone of the adaptive management process. Each project has (or will establish) measurable thresholds which, when exceeded, initiate a series of steps for identifying appropriate management responses. To provide the ability to respond rapidly to early signs of potential problems while providing assurances that negative monitoring results will be adequately addressed, a two-stage “yellow light, red light” process is employed. The yellow light threshold serves as an early warning system to identify and rapidly address a potential problem. As such, the yellow light thresholds can typically be exceeded by a single negative monitoring result (i.e., summer water temperatures). The red light threshold is

52

usually triggered by multiple negative monitoring responses (a series of yellow light triggers) and indicates a more serious condition than the yellow light threshold. The intent is to provide a timely review of monitoring data to allow for corrective actions to occur, if necessary, prior to the next season.

A. Rapid Response Monitoring

The Rapid Response Monitoring projects and programs will provide the early warning signals necessary to ensure that the biological goals and objectives of the AHCP will be met. While trends which occur over longer time scales will also be monitored through these projects, they are distinguished from the response and trend monitoring projects by their potential to provide rapid feedback for adaptive management. The yellow light threshold for these projects can typically be triggered in less than one year, although the annual analysis of results will be necessary to identify the yellow light condition. The red light threshold will generally take two to three years to be triggered.

1. Property-wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Objectives and Thresholds Maintaining cool water temperature regimes consistent with the requirements of the Covered Species is a biological goal of the AHCP. To inform appropriate biological objectives and adaptive management thresholds for achieving this goal, an analysis was conducted of 400 stream temperature profiles collected in the Plan Area from 1994 to 2000. The results pointed to watershed area as a key factor in water temperatures, and were used to help set the following biological objectives:

1. Summer water temperatures in 4th order or smaller Class I and II watercourses with drainage areas less than approximately 10,000 acres will have a 7DMAVG below the upper 95% Prediction Interval (PI) described by the following regression equation: Water Temperature (oC) = 14.35141 + 0.03066461x square root of Watershed Area (acres)

2. No significant increases (>2 oC) in the 7DMAVG water temperature in Class I or II watercourses following timber harvest that are not attributable to annual climatic variation.

Yellow and red light thresholds for adaptive management were adopted based on these objectives.

The yellow light threshold in Class I and II watercourses with drainage areas generally less than 10,000 acres is:

53

a) A 7DMAVG water temperature above the upper 95% PI, as described by the regression equation: Water Temperature (oC) = 14.35141 + 0.03066461x square root of Watershed Area (acres); or

b) Any statistically significant increase in the 7DMAVG water temperature of a Class I or II watercourse where recent timber harvest has occurred, which cannot be attributed to annual climatic effects.

● The red light threshold in Class I and II watercourses with drainage areas generally less than 10,000 acres is: a) A 7DMAVG water temperature above the upper 95% PI plus one °C,

as described by the regression equation: Water Temperature (oC) =15.35141+ 0.03066461x square root of Watershed Area (acres);

b) An absolute water temperature of 17.4 °C (relevant for fish); or c) A 7DMAVG water temperature that triggers a yellow light for three

successive years. Project Status Monitoring of Class I (fish-bearing) and Class II (non-fish bearing) stream temperatures is operational and has been ongoing since 1994. More than 2,400 stream temperature profiles have been collected since 2000 from throughout the AHCP Plan Area. Over 140 temperature loggers are deployed annually. The objective of this project is accomplished by installing temperature dataloggers (Onset Computer Corp.) in Class I and II streams across the Plan Area. Dataloggers are deployed where the water is well-mixed; typically at the head of a shallow pool just below a riffle input. Dataloggers are usually deployed in May after the winter flows have subsided, and they are typically retrieved in October. This monitoring period ensures that the warmest period of the year is measured. Each datalogger is fixed in the stream and covered with cobble to assure that the sensor stays submerged and is not exposed to direct sunlight. Water temperature measurements are logged every 1.2 hours for the duration of the monitoring period. A database has been developed to store data, assess thresholds, and calculate summary statistics. Improvements were made to the accuracy of monitoring site locations (current and many historical sites). This improvement also allowed for upgrading the accuracy of the watershed areas calculated for each monitoring sites. Watershed area was calculated with a Flow Accumulation Model using the best available data from either GDRCo LiDAR digital elevation model (DEM, accuracy = ± 1 meter) or USGS 10-meter DEM. A reanalysis of the appropriate adaptive management thresholds was proposed to the Services in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. The intent of this request was to address the finding that current thresholds are regularly exceeded without causal links to management activities under AHCP/CCAA prescriptions. Reanalysis could potentially establish a better Prediction Interval and minimize the apparent false positives detected using the current thresholds.

54

After review and consideration, the Services recommended that the current thresholds be maintained at this time. Green Diamond acknowledges this decision and will maintain using the original thresholds established for this monitoring program. Reporting Requirements Sites that exceed a yellow or red light threshold are reported to the Services within 30 days after an analysis indicating that a threshold has been exceeded (AHCP Section 6.2.6.1.1). The temperature recorders are typically recovered from the field in October and the data are downloaded shortly after. Prior to analysis data are proofed for quality assurance. After completing the analysis the results are reported to the Services via email correspondence. Results A combined total of 320 stream temperature profiles were collected in 2017 and 2018 at Class I and II streams for the property-wide water temperature monitoring program. During this two year monitoring period thirty seven yellow light and nineteen red light thresholds were exceeded (Table 20). Compared to past monitoring efforts, the 2017 monitoring season experienced the most yellow light (35) and red light (16) exceedences in a given year. In contrast, the 2018 monitoring season experienced two yellow light and three red light exceedences, which was below the long term average (mean = 9.7) for both categories (Table 20). Only stream temperature sites from the Plan Area that have <10,000 acres of watershed upstream are evaluated for threshold exceedances and included in this summary. Table 20. Summary of property-wide water temperature monitoring threshold exceedances documented from 2007-2018.

Year # Sites Monitored Yellow light Red light Total %

2007 158 9 2 11 6.96

2008 168 3 0 3 1.79

2009 157 1 1 2 1.27

2010 141 0 0 0 0.00

2011 143 0 0 0 0.00

2012 162 0 0 0 0.00

2013 157 10 0 10 6.37

2014 155 6 0 6 3.87

2015 161 16 3 19 11.80

2016 155 4 5 9 5.81

2017 160 35 16 51 31.88

2018 160 2 3 5 3.13

Mean 156.4 7.2 2.5 9.7 6.07

Threshold Exceedences

55

Discussion Variation in summer weather conditions is the most probable explanation for the variation in exceedances documented since 2007. It appears that there is a correlation between minimum August air temperatures and the number of water temperature threshold exceedances (Figure 7). The relationship between air temperature and stream temperature is well established (Mohseni and Stefan 1999) and based on this relationship the results from 2017-2018 were not unexpected. It appears that the driver for the number of water temperature threshold exceedances is the deviation of the minimum air temperature from the 30-year normal at the water temperature sites (Figure 7A). Over the past 12 years the deviation of the August average minimum air temperature has been elevated. In general when there have been higher daily minimum air temperatures in August; air temperatures have not been cooling off at night. This translates to increased water temperatures because the water temperature, similarly, is not able to cool off at night allowing the water temperature to increase more the following day with the water starting at a warmer temperature to begin with. In 2017 the August average minimum air temperature was 4.7 °C above the 30-year normal for all monitoring sites (3.3 °C above the 11 year average) and correspondingly had 32% of the sites with water temperature exceedances. In 2018, August average minimum air temperature for all the temperature sites was 1.3 °C above the 30-year normal (3.4 °C cooler than 2017). As a result, we saw few sites with water temperature exceedances in 2018. Generally when the August average minimum air temperature is close to the 30-year normal there are few water temperature exceedances; and, when the August average minimum air temperature deviates above the 30-year normal, more temperature exceedances occur. The average percentage of sites exceeding the 95% PI over the last twelve years has generally been within the expected range. Given the 95% PI basis for the thresholds; by definition an average of 5% of sites should fall outside of the PI, with half above and half below. The probability distribution on which these water temperature monitoring thresholds were established ensures that some thresholds will be exceeded in most years. The average percentage of thresholds exceeded in 2017 were above the expected proportion and were likely caused by increased summer air temperatures. Despite the red and yellow light water temperature thresholds that were exceeded during the 2017 and 2018 monitoring periods, there was no evidence to trigger a review of the AHCP Covered Activities. The number of exceedances appear to be associated with regional weather conditions (e.g., air temperature). GDRCo believes that the results to date indicate that the Operating Conservation Program is achieving its goal of maintaining water temperatures that meet the needs of the Covered Species.

56

Figure 7. Deviation in minimum (A), mean (B) and maximum (C) air temperature from the 30-year normal for the month of August. Additionally, histogram (A) includes percent of monitoring sites (red bars with secondary y-axis) that experienced a threshold exceedance each year to show the association with this climatic metric.

A

B

C

57

2. Tailed Frog Monitoring

Project Status The annual monitoring program to assess timber harvest impacts on larval tailed frog populations (primary objective) was reviewed in 2014 and a summary of the history of research and monitoring in addition to the results from recent data analyses and a proposed future monitoring direction were compiled into a report which was included in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 1). After completing the 2013 sampling season, the original larval tailed frog monitoring objectives, and thresholds (see AHCP Appendix D.1.6.2.1.1 for details), as well as, the revised protocol submitted the Services in 2012 were discontinued. A formal analysis of data was conducted in 2014 by Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. (WEST Inc.) and the results justified discontinuing this project. Details on the data analysis for the project and results were provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 2). Based on the findings from this study, we have concluded that modifications to the original study design and established thresholds were warranted. The Services were briefed on the results during a meeting in 2014 and were also introduced to the direction of the proposed future monitoring for this project (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 3). The current monitoring protocol uses a light-touch visual encounter method to confirm larval tailed frog presence and is conducted during early spring in conjunction with the deployment of water temperature sensors. Occupancy specific sampling was initiated in 2015 and was conducted through 2018 (Table 21). No data were collected during 2014. In 2013 pilot surveys using environmental DNA (eDNA) were conducted to test the efficacy of using eDNA to survey for the occurrence of tailed frogs. This led to collaboration with a graduate student from Humboldt State University involving eDNA sampling in three sub-basins in which multiple water samples were collected every 100 m over approximately 2 km stream reaches, coupled with 100% rubble-rouse/visual encounter surveys for larval tailed frogs. The objectives of this study were to relate the occurrence and density of eDNA in water samples with the distribution and abundance of larval tailed frogs (Smith 2017). The monitoring of long term property-wide occupancy of tailed frog populations (secondary objective) has been reviewed and modifications to this monitoring project are proposed. The 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) provided a summary of the project history and results from a preliminary analysis completed in 2009 by WEST Inc. Additional analyses were conducted and the results were provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 2). Based on the findings from this study, we have concluded that modifications to the original study design and established triggers were warranted. The Services

58

were briefed on the results during a meeting in 2014 and were also introduced to the direction of the proposed future monitoring for this project (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 3). On April 27, 2018 GDRCo submitted a minor modification request with the proposed revisions to the long term property-wide occupancy survey protocol. We are awaiting feedback from the Services about the proposed tailed frog monitoring associated with this monitoring project. The next scheduled sampling for this project is 2019. A summary of the proposed property-wide occupancy survey protocol is below. Upon arrival at each stream, a 1L water sample will be taken to test for tailed frog eDNA presence. Biologists will then collect habitat data (e.g., wetted width, active channel width, water depth, stream gradient, substrate composition, substrate embeddedness, riparian tree composition), as well as search for larval tailed frogs using the same methodology employed during our annual monitoring efforts (see above). Each stream will be searched until larval presence is documented or until 200 m of stream is searched. If larval tailed frogs are not detected a second eDNA sample will be obtained at the top of the reach. If larval presence is documented in the stream segment, the first eDNA sample will not be run for tailed frog but will be run for chytrid fungus and collection of the second eDNA sample is not necessary. These changes are being proposed because the 2013 eDNA project was successful in detecting tailed frog presence and to minimize the impact of a population estimate based survey effort to the habitat. Results A summary of the paired watershed monitoring efforts for larval tailed frogs occupancy from 1997-2018 at each of the 10 paired sites can be seen below (Table 21). Tailed frogs were detected at all 18 sites in both 2017 and 2018. All other results associated with this monitoring project were provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 2). Results for the long-term tailed frog occupancy monitoring study across GDRCo’s ownership were provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 2). After the next round of surveys are complete, the results will be presented in the following Biennial Report. Discussion Previous studies on GDRCo property have indicated that many streams inhabited by tailed frogs had at least some evidence of habitat being negatively impacted by past unregulated timber harvest (Wallace and Diller 1998, Diller and Wallace 1999). This was particularly evident in lower gradient reaches where fines were likely to accumulate and substrates became embedded; however, most populations persisted, particularly in high gradient reaches and where the underlying geology was generally favorable (e.g., not young uplifted marine or

59

unconsolidated bedrock). We have learned from over 20 years of monitoring larval tailed frog populations that the distribution and abundance of populations have been at a minimum stable, but most likely increasing. This is likely due to improved protections allotted to aquatic habitats in more recent years through the AHCP. Other factors that may have ameliorated the negative effects of unregulated timber harvest on tailed frog populations include cool summer temperatures and coastal fog, as well as shorter larval periods (1-2 years) compared to higher elevation, inland populations (up to five years; Wallace and Diller 1998)

60

Table 21. Coastal Tailed Frog larval occupancy between 1997 and 2018 at GDRCo’s northern California annual monitoring sites (“+” = occupied by larval tailed frogs; “-” = not surveyed; sites that were not surveyed prior to 2009 had not yet been established, sites not surveyed after 2013 were on property that was sold). Paired sub-basin larval population monitoring was suspended upon the completion of the 2013 field season (analyses pending), no sites were sampled during the transitional 2014 season. In 2015 presence/absence surveys were initiated at our annual monitoring sites (n=18).

Site Name 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Black Dog 5300 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Black Dog 5400 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Mule + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Pollock + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Poverty - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Jiggs + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Hatchery - - - - - - - - + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Canyon + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Panther CR2960 - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Panther CR 2970 - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

NF Maple BL2000 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

NF Maple BL 2600 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Surpur West - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Surpur South - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Bear BC200 - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -

Bear BC270 - - - - - + + + + + + + + + + + + - - - - -

Rowdy R1700 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Rowdy R1000 - - + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +

Tectah T190 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + - + + + +

Tectah T100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - + + + - + + + +

Occupancy 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% - 100% 100% 100% 100%

Year

61

3. Southern Torrent Salamander Monitoring

Objectives There are two objectives to the torrent salamander monitoring program. The primary objective is to determine if timber harvest activities have a measurable impact on the persistence rate for treatment and control sub-populations, and document any apparent changes in the habitat conditions at each site. The monitoring approach for southern torrent salamanders is to employ a paired sub-basin design as described for tailed frogs. Sub-population extinction in treatment sites compared to control sites will be used as thresholds for assessing this objective. The secondary objective is to document long-term changes in torrent salamander populations across Green Diamond’s ownership. A landscape occupancy surveys previously completed (Diller and Wallace 1996 and GDRCo 2009) will be repeated at approximately 10-year intervals. Change in occupancy of torrent salamander sub-populations in Class II watercourses throughout the Plan Area will be assessed using the historical baseline of 80% occurrence. Project Status The primary monitoring program to assess current timber harvest impacts on southern torrent salamander populations is operational and ongoing. Minor modifications to the original AHCP protocol (AHCP Appendix D.1.6.1) were proposed to the Services in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. The intent of this request was to adjust to the challenges and issues experienced with past monitoring efforts. Details on the history of this monitoring project and past challenges were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a). After review and consideration, the Services concurred with the proposed modifications and requested the revised protocol be provided for review and approval. On July 24, 2012, the Services were provided with the revised protocol for this monitoring program. No revisions were requested by the Services and the revised protocol has been implemented for this monitoring program through 2018. Based on the past challenges with implementing this monitoring project, we anticipate that an analysis of these data will highlight the need for further modifications to the methodologies, study design, and associated threshold(s). The current monitoring protocol uses a light-touch visual encounter method to confirm larval torrent salamander presence and is conducted during early winter in conjunction with the retrieval of water temperature sensors. Occupancy specific sampling was initiated in 2015 and was conducted through 2018 (Table 21). The monitoring of long term changes in torrent salamander occupancy is operational and on-going. The 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) provided a summary of the project history and results from a preliminary analysis completed

62

in 2009 by WEST Inc. Additional analyses were conducted and the results were provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015, Appendix D, Part 2). Based on the findings from this study, we have concluded that modifications to the original study design and established triggers were warranted. The Services were briefed on the results during a meeting in 2014 and were also introduced to the direction of the proposed future monitoring for this project (GDRCo 2015a, Appendix D, Part 3). On April 27, 2018 GDRCo submitted a minor modification request with the proposed revisions to the torrent salamander occupancy protocol. We are awaiting feedback from the Services about the proposed torrent salamander monitoring project. The next scheduled sampling for this project is 2019. Results The original eight paired sub-basins (30 sites) have been monitored routinely for population persistence for 21 years (Table 22). Our monitoring results show that torrent salamanders have consistently persisted at all sites despite concerns of an apparent negative effect from the original sampling protocol. One site (Pollock A) showed a decline in species persistence at the sub-population level but this site was occupied by larval torrent salamanders in 2018. Preliminary findings for the long-term torrent salamander occupancy monitoring study across GDRCo’s ownership were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a). Additional analyses were conducted but a final report is not available at this time. Discussion With the variety of site characteristics and survey methods, it is difficult to assess the exact causes of the results observed; however, it appears that timber harvest under the AHCP has not had a significant negative impact on the percent of sites occupied by larval torrent salamanders, with an average annual occupancy rate of 84% (Table 22). Conversely, when looking at occupation of these monitoring sites by subadult or adult torrent salamanders, we see a 93% occupancy rate. It is notable that out of 529 total site visits between 1998 and 2018, only 83 visits (16%) had no larval torrent salamander detections. When there were no larval torrent salamander detections, 34% of the time (28 out of 83 visits) at least one larval Coastal Giant Salamander was detected, reinforcing the fact that these sites are perennial and can support larval salamanders that require more than one year to achieve metamorphosis. Additionally, 59% of the time (49 out of 83 visits) larval torrent salamanders are not detected, either a subadult or adult torrent salamander was detected, indicating that these salamanders are using these sites as habitat. There were only 19 occasions (4%) out of 529 site visits where no salamanders of any life stage were detected, with 7 of these occasions happening at the Pollock A site. The habitat quality at this site is marginal, with a high degree of embeddedness, which may partially account for the lack of

63

consistent salamander detections. Out of our 30 monitoring sites, 7 have had 100% larval torrent salamander detections every year they were sampled. A detailed analysis is needed to determine the likely drivers that are influencing the results observed. Unintended consequences from the more intensive sampling (decreased habitat quality and declines in captures) from 1998 to 2003, resulted in the switch to “light-touch” presence/absence surveys. From 2004 to 2009 some sites were either not sampled, or sampled every other year as an attempt to give the sites time to recover from the effects of the survey. We are considering this approach once again at some of our sites with lower larval torrent salamander detections.

64

Table 22. Summary of Southern Torrent Salamander monitoring from 1998-2018.

Site Name Site Type 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

BlackDog_5300_A T Y N*+ Y Y Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 18 95%

BlackDog_5300_B T Y Y N* N*+ N* Y - - - - N+ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N* Y Y 17 12 71%

BlackDog_5400_A C Y Y Y Y Y N - N*+ - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 17 89%

BlackDog_5400_B C Y Y Y Y Y N* - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 18 95%

Mule_A T Y Y Y Y Y N* N - N+ - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 15 83%

Mule_B T Y Y Y N* N* N N - N - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 13 72%

Pollock A T Y Y Y Y N N - N - N+ N+ Y N+ N N+ N N*+ N+ N N Y 19 6 32%

Pollock_B T Y Y Y N* Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 18 95%

Poverty_A C Y Y Y Y Y N* Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 17 94%

Poverty_B C Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 18 100%

Jiggs_A T Y N*+ N*+ Y N* N - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N* Y N* 16 10 63%

Jiggs_B T N*+ N* N* N* Y N* - - - - - N* N* N* N* N* N*+ Y N* Y N* 16 3 19%

Canyon_A C Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 19 100%

Canyon_B C Y Y Y Y N* Y - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 16 94%

Panther_CR2970A T Y Y Y Y N* Y Y - - - - Y Y Y Y Y N* N*+ N*+ Y Y 17 13 76%

Panther_CR2970B T Y Y Y Y N* Y N - N+ - Y - N*+ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 14 78%

Panther_ CR2960A C/H Y Y Y Y N+ N N - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 15 83%

Panther_ CR2960B C/H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 18 100%

NF_Maple_A T - Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 18 100%

NF_Maple_B C/H - N*+ N* Y Y Y - N*+ - N+ - N*+ Y Y Y N+ Y Y N+ Y Y 17 10 59%

NF_Maple_C C/H - Y Y N+ Y N - N - N+ - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 13 76%

NF_Maple_D T - Y Y Y Y N - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 16 94%

Surpur_B700 C - - Y Y N* Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 17 16 94%

Surpur_1042 T - - N* Y N* N* - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 13 81%

Surpur_A400_A C - - Y Y Y Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 16 100%

Surpur_A400_B T - - Y Y Y N+ - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y N*+ Y Y Y Y Y 16 14 88%

Rowdy_R1700_A C/H - Y Y Y Y Y Y - N* - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 17 94%

Rowdy_R1700_B C/H - Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y N* Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 17 94%

Rowdy_R1000_A T - Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 18 100%

Rowdy_R1000_B T - Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 18 100%

18 26 30 30 30 30 12 14 11 14 21 23 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

17 22 25 25 20 17 8 10 7 11 19 20 27 28 28 26 27 28 24 29 28

94% 85% 83% 83% 67% 57% 67% 71% 64% 79% 90% 87% 90% 93% 93% 87% 90% 93% 80% 97% 93%

100% 100% 100% 97% 90% 73% 67% 86% 73% 77% 90% 100% 97% 97% 97% 93% 100% 97% 93% 97% 100%

100%

% sites occupied by adult/juv.

100%

100%

93%

100%

100%

# of sites sampled

# of sites occupied by larvae

% sites occupied by larvae

82%

76%

94%

100%

100%

100%

83%

83%

100%

100%

100%

94%

100%

100%

100%

89%

83%

37%

100%

100%

% Years with any

RHVA life stage

Occupation

100%

94%

95%

100%

Number

of Years

Sampled

Number of Years

with Larval

Occupation

Year

Site Type: T = Treatment, C = Control, C/H = Control with some timber Harvest associated. * indicates juvenile or adult RHVA detected at site; + indicates larval Dicamptodon tenebrosus detected at site.

% Years with

Larval RHVA

Occupation

65

4. Road Treatment Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

Objective The objectives of this monitoring program are to ensure that site specific road treatment prescriptions were implemented as designed, monitor the effectiveness of road treatment prescriptions, and attempt to improve road management measures when deficiencies are identified. Project Status In accordance with the minor modification approved on June 15, 2011 the AHCP effectiveness monitoring programs for road-related surface erosion monitoring (AHCP Section 6.3.5.2.4) and road-related mass wasting monitoring (AHCP Section 6.3.5.4.1) were substituted with the monitoring program required under the MATO and RMWDR. Under the programmatic permits each completed activity must be inspected twice to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the completed treatment; once prior the winter period and once following a full winter. If the site has stabilized and there is no reasonable potential for significant sediment delivery then future monitoring will coincide with the Routine Maintenance Inspection program (AHCP Section 6.2.3.9). Results A combined total of 760 road sites were monitored in 2017 and 2018 as part of the road treatment implementation and effectiveness monitoring for road sites enrolled in the MATO. The results of the individual road site inspections for 2017 and 2018 are provided in Appendix C. All road sites were monitored by the AHCP road staff, RPF staff and contract supervisors. Thirteen sites (1.7%) required or will require follow-up monitoring, treatment or maintenance after post-winter assessments (Table 23). In addition to the required pre- and post- winter inspections, GDRCo personnel perform incidental inspections during the winter period. The process of road treatment monitoring involves staff entering results of inspections into the road database and reports are generated showing the site, THP number associated with the site, date of pre- and post- inspection, whether the site meets AHCP standards and any comments regarding the condition of the site. The number of pre-winter and post-winter inspections should be equal for any given year with the exception for sites that required follow-up treatments or maintenance should have additional inspections. Table 23 shows there are issues for years 2012-2017 with results not being entered, results being entered erroneously (data entered for a site which has not been treated or not required to be monitored), or a combination thereof. In order to correct this discrepancy, RPF staff and AHCP road staff were given additional field and database training

66

and updated field inspection forms in May 2015. In addition, changes to the road database were made to link site completion dates to inspection data to ensure when a site is complete staff can be notified to perform a pre-winter inspection. These changes did not have the intended effect of greater accuracy. In January 2016, the AHCP Roads group was moved into the Operations Department. The added exposure to contract administration and considering the continued issues with collecting effectiveness monitoring data the decision was made to focus only AHCP Road technician staff on data collection and data entry. Further refinements occurred in April 2017 to ensure road contractor invoices are received with specific information on completed road work to assist in scheduling site visits to collect data. Internal discussions related to this issue speculate that site visits are likely taking place according to protocols and any issues identified are being addressed; however, the data entry does not always occur which results in incomplete annual summaries as reflected in the present results. Table 23. Summary of monitoring efforts completed for the road treatment implementation and effectiveness monitoring from 2010 through 2018.

Assessment Type Year Assessments Completed Maintenance Issues

Recorded

Pre-Winter 2010 25 0

Post-Winter 2011 25 5

Pre-Winter 2011 244 1

Post-Winter 2012 244 2

Pre-Winter 2012 348 0

Post-Winter 2013 309 2

Pre-Winter 2013 234 0

Post-Winter 2014 259 0

Pre-Winter 2014 334 0

Post-Winter 2015 146 0

Pre-Winter 2015 186 0

Post-Winter 2016 188 11

Pre-Winter 2016 220 1

Post-Winter 2017 214 8

Pre-Winter 2017 262 3

Post-Winter 2018 262 1

Pre-Winter 2018 284 1

B. Response Monitoring

The Response Monitoring projects, like the Rapid Response projects described above, monitor the effectiveness of the conservation measures in achieving specific biological goals and objectives of the AHCP. These monitoring projects are distinguished from the Rapid Response projects by the greater lag time required for feedback to the adaptive management process. The Response Monitoring projects are focused on the effects of cumulative sediment inputs on

67

stream channels. Natural variability in stream channel dimensions, combined with the potential time lag between sediment inputs and changes in the response variables of these projects, make it difficult to determine appropriate thresholds for adaptive management at this time. When yellow and/or red light thresholds are determined, they are expected to require more than three years of results to be triggered in most cases.

1. Class I Channel Monitoring

Objectives The objective of the Class I Channel Monitoring project is to track trends in sediment inputs in fish-bearing streams as evidenced by changes in surface particle size distributions and metrics associated with the longitudinal channel profile including overall aggradation and degradation. This monitoring approach is based on the fundamental premise that selected depositional reaches within a watercourse act as a response surface for sediment that has been transported downstream from the hillside via the upper high gradient transport stream reaches. The long-term channel monitoring project is not designed to identify the potential sources or causes of changes in the sediment budget, only to document if they are occurring. These changes are currently monitored using thalweg longitudinal profiles and pebble counts. This channel monitoring technique is generally best suited for establishing long term trends due to the potential lag times between sediment inputs and the measured response in the monitoring reach. Class I channel monitoring is a complex study, and most likely a completely new analysis will need to be designed in order to develop thresholds. As described in AHCP Section 6.3.5.3.1, it is estimated that it will take approximately ten to fifteen years of initial trend monitoring before the appropriate thresholds can be developed and applied. Project Status This monitoring program is operational, ongoing, and data analysis is in progress. This monitoring effort began as a pilot study in 1993-1994, was implemented at the first site in 1995, and by 2008 the number of study sites increased to 12 streams. One additional site (North Fork Mad River) has been studied using the channel monitoring protocol and was included in past biennial reports but this site was not intended to be part of the AHCP Response monitoring and will no longer be associated with this project. The protocol implemented for this monitoring project has undergone modifications to the collection methods, parameters collected, and sampling schedule over the years. Minor modifications to the original Class I Channel Monitoring protocol (see AHCP Appendix D.2.2.2) were proposed to the Services

68

in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. A summary and justification for the requested modifications were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) and the 2011 modifications request, respectively. The intent of this request was to update the protocol to reflect the current monitoring efforts being implemented for this project. After review and consideration, the Services concurred with the proposed modifications and requested the revised protocol be provided for review and approval. In August 2011 the Services were provided with the revised protocol for this monitoring program. No revisions were requested by the Services and the revised protocol was implemented for this monitoring program through 2014. In late 2014, we initiated the process of analyzing data collected through the 2014 sampling season and in September 2016 a morphometric based evaluation of the data was presented at the 2016 Coast Redwood Science Symposium. Quantile regression was used to evaluate trends in size distributions of bed surface substrate measured at riffle crossovers. Trends in the longitudinal profiles of each site were also evaluated. We first normalized the longitudinal survey data by creating an average profile to spatially align each year’s survey data. This process controlled for annual changes in stream sinuosity which can affect the overall length and gradient of the surveyed channel. Efforts to combine long-profile data collected pre-2002 (i.e., collected with original methods) with post-2001 data were attempted but these different data proved to be incompatible and the identified issues could not be resolved. Some of the challenges with combining these data were described in the 3rd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2013). Based on this assessment, we concluded that the pre-2002 long-profile and cross-section data would not satisfy the study objectives and these data have been excluded from the analysis at this time. Results To date, twelve Class I Channel Monitoring sites have been established and routinely monitored for up to twenty-four years (Table 24). On average, sites have been sampled 19.5 times and the monitoring duration has spanned 21.3 years. Cañon Creek is the site with longest record (twenty-four years) of continuous monitoring. Analysis of the pebble count data through 2014 indicate a statistically significant positive trend in the coarsening of substrate particles across the entire size class distribution for 12 of the 13 stream reaches throughout the monitoring period (Table 25). Beach Creek was the one site that had a statistically significant decrease in a larger size class (e.g. Tau 0.84) but experienced coarsening in the smaller size classes (e.g. Tau 0.16 and Tau 0.50). In quantile regression, Tau’s represent individual specified quantiles. Tau 0.16 represents a diameter of particles where 16% of the sediment in the sample is smaller (this is also often represented as a D16). The quantile regression slopes shown in Table 25 are the annual rates of change in particle sizes at the specified Taus. For example in

69

Tectah Creek, the particle size at the 16th percentile is increasing over time by 1mm per year. Analysis of the longitudinal profile data through 2014 indicate that 5 sites had a statistically significant decrease in bed elevation, 2 sites had a statistically significant increase in bed elevation, and 6 sites had no statistically significant change in bed elevation over the study period (Table 26). Discussion Analysis of the pebble count data indicates that all of the reaches are exhibiting a reduction in fine sediment inputs. In fact, there was a trend in coarsening across the entire range of particle sizes for all sites except Beach Creek. Beach Creek did exhibit a reduction in substrate size however it occurred only in the larger particle size classes which we expect would not have a negative effect on fish spawning success. Examination of the longitudinal profile data indicate that at 85% of the study reaches the streambed is either stable or downcutting. Over the course of the study period there have been improvements in forest management practices including the application of measures designed to minimize fine and course sediment inputs such as enhanced riparian protections, geologic prescriptions and extensive road upgrading and decommissioning activities as part of GDRCo’s AHCP. The results of this study indicated that the implementation of these measures has been effective in reducing the amount of sediment delivered to watercourses as evidenced by the general overall trend in coarsening of the substrate and lowering or no change in the bed elevation. During analysis of the Class I Channel Monitoring data, as anticipated in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a), modifications to the revised protocol were initiated prior to the 2015 season and implemented through 2018. Collection of cross-section and roughness coefficient (Manning’s) data were discontinued. Both of these data were found to be inadequate to evaluate the parameters and meet the monitoring objectives of this study. GDRCo continues to monitor both substrate particle size and longitudinal profiles for the 12 long term monitoring reaches with plans to investigate and develop thresholds that will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Plan.

70

Table 24. Summary of Class I Channel Monitoring survey efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Cañon Creek 24 24 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hunter Creek #1 22 23 - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Salmon Creek 20 23 - Y Y Y - Y - Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Canyon Creek 20 23 - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SF Winchuck River 19 23 - Y Y - Y - Y - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hunter Creek #2 21 22 - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Tectah Creek 20 22 - - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Beach Creek 18 21 - - - Y Y - Y - Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Maple Creek 19 21 - - - Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ah Pah Creek 17 18 - - - - - - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SF Ah Pah Creek 17 18 - - - - - - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little River 17 17 - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Number of sites - 1 5 7 7 7 5 9 10 12 5 9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

Years Original Protocol1 Implemented

Superscript definitions: 1 = Data collected according to the original protocol described in the AHCP, Section D.2.2. 2 = Data collected according to the revised survey protocol provided to the services in August 2011.

"-" = Survey not conducted (i.e., no data available)

Site Name# Years Monitored

Monitoring

Duration

Years Revised Protocol2 Implemented

71

Table 25. Summary of pebble count quantile regression analysis. Data used was collected by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2014.

Table 26. Summary of longitudinal profile data aggradation/scour analysis. Data used was collected by Green Diamond Resource Company from 2002-2013.

Site Name Tau 0.16 Tau 0.50 Tau 0.84 Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI Lower 95% CI Upper 95% CI

Cañon Creek 1.571 1.909 2.118 1.50 1.67 1.80 2.00 1.89 2.26

Hunter Creek #1 1.111 1.167 0.800 1.00 1.18 1.00 1.29 0.57 1.07

Salmon Creek 1.286 1.500 1.600 1.20 1.40 1.36 1.63 1.40 1.80

Canyon Creek 0.900 1.438 2.000 0.81 1.00 1.30 1.56 1.75 2.20

SF Winchuck River 1.143 1.200 0.727 1.07 1.22 1.11 1.33 0.54 0.92

Hunter Creek #2 1.600 1.900 2.125 1.50 1.71 1.76 2.00 1.91 2.38

Tectah Creek 1.000 1.250 1.091 0.91 1.14 1.13 1.42 0.90 1.33

Beach Creek 0.375 0.154 -0.333 0.25 0.53 0.00 0.33 -0.50 -0.08

Maple Creek 0.933 1.400 1.538 0.90 1.00 1.33 1.50 1.38 1.67

Ah Pah Creek 0.818 1.200 1.000 0.67 1.00 1.10 1.36 0.80 1.31

SF Ah Pah Creek 1.636 2.125 3.273 1.50 1.80 2.00 2.33 3.00 3.63

Little River 1.333 1.667 2.000 1.13 1.60 1.44 2.00 1.71 2.67

Tau 0.84Tau 0.16 Tau 0.50Quantile Regression Slope1

Superscript definition: 1 = In quantile regression Tau’s represent individual specified quantiles. A Tau 0.16 represents a diameter of particles where 16% of the sediment in the

sample is smaller (this is also often represented as a D16). The quantile regression slopes shown here are the annual rates of change in particle sizes at the specified Taus. For

example in Tectah Creek, the particle size at the 16th percentile is increasing over time by 1mm per year.

Site Name Slope (m/yr) Significant? p-value (m)

Cañon Creek -0.0171 Yes 0.0003 -0.232

Hunter Creek #1 -0.0043 No 0.6250 -0.146

Salmon Creek 0.0057 No 0.1016 0.016

Canyon Creek -0.0379 Yes 0.0006 -0.413

SF Winchuck River 0.0017 No 0.8137 0.126

Hunter Creek #2 -0.009 No 0.2170 -0.157

Tectah Creek 0.0002 No 0.9697 -0.119

Beach Creek 0.0039 Yes 0.0479 0.040

Maple Creek -0.013 Yes 0.0014 -0.121

Ah Pah Creek -0.0119 Yes 0.0060 -0.161

SF Ah Pah Creek -0.0096 Yes 0.0000 -0.104

Little River 0.0038 Yes 0.0456 0.079

Overall channel

elevation change

from 2002 to 2013

72

2. Class III Sediment Monitoring

Objective The objective of the Class III sediment monitoring is to quantify the amount of sediment delivered from Class III channels following timber harvest. This monitoring project is designed to test the null hypothesis that sediment delivery does not significantly change in Class III channels following timber harvest operations along Class III channels. To satisfy this objective, sediment basins were the methodology used to quantify sediment delivery and test the hypothesis using a BACI study design. Project Status The protocol implemented for this monitoring project has undergone modifications to the collection methods and parameters collected over the years. Three of the methodologies originally proposed in the AHCP (e.g., channel morphology, sediment tray, and turbidity monitoring) were discontinued because they were ineffective at quantifying sediment delivery. A brief summary of these changes and current status is provided below. Minor modifications to the original Class III sediment monitoring protocol (see AHCP Appendix D.2.3) were proposed to the Services in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. A summary and justification for the requested modifications were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) and the 2011 modifications request, respectively. The intent of this request was to update the protocol to reflect the current monitoring efforts being implemented for this project and improve the study design for this monitoring program. After review and consideration, the Services concurred with the proposed modifications and requested the revised sampling design be developed with the Services prior to future sampling. On July 24, 2012, the Services were provided with the revised protocol for this monitoring program and updated on the project status. No revisions were requested by the Services and the revised protocol was implemented through the 2014 sampling season. In May 2017, GDRCo provided the Services with a minor modification proposal to suspend the Class III sediment monitoring project based on the review of the data and the associated challenges with implementing the monitoring project. On February 13, 2018, GDRCo met with the Services to review and discuss the proposal. A revised minor modification request for this project will be submitted to the Services in 2019.

73

Results To date, 13 Class III sediment monitoring sites have been established and monitored for up to 8 years (Table 27). Issues were experienced in 2013 and 2014 with the newest paired sites and unlike we expected, no new additional sites were established. The challenges we experienced included difficulties identifying suitable paired sites, coordinating the timing of harvest, ensuring that planned treatments were implemented during harvest, and preventing damage to sediment basins during harvest operations. The challenges we’ve experienced to date have identified the need to discontinue monitoring at the newest pared sites, as well as, modify the study design or suspend this monitoring project entirely. We have had discussions with the Services about the future objective, threshold/trigger, and protocol associated with this monitoring project. All monitoring associated with this project has been suspended. GDRCo completed an assessment of the data collected for the Class III sediment monitoring project and will present the information in a revised minor modification request to the Services in 2019. Table 27. Summary of Class III sediment basin monitoring efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 2002-2014.

C. Long-Term Trend Monitoring

The Long-term Trend Monitoring projects are those monitoring projects for which no thresholds for adaptive management are set. For some projects, this reflects the multitude of factors which affect the response variables, in others, the long time-scales required to distinguish the ‘noise’ from the underlying relationships. Research projects designed to reveal relationships between habitat conditions and long-term persistence of the Covered Species are also included in this section. Each of these projects has the potential to provide feedback for adaptive management, but in some circumstances, decades may be required before that can occur.

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Little River Tier A Treatment 1 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - - -

Little River Tier A Treatment 2 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - - -

Little River Tier B Treatment 1 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - - -

Little River Tier B Treatment 2 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y* Y Y - - - - -

Little River Tier A Control 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - - -

Little River Tier B Control 8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - - -

Ryan Creek Ryan Creek 7 - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Ah Pah Ah Pah Treatment 4 - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y

Ah Pah Ah Pah Control 4 - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y

Maple Creek Big Lagoon Treatment 2 - - - - - - - - - - Y Y* -

Maple Creek Big Lagoon Control 2 - - - - - - - - - - Y Y -

Redwood Creek CR 2900 Treatment 3 - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y

Redwood Creek CR 2900 Control 3 - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y

Number of sites 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 2 6 6 4"-" = monitoring was not conducted (i.e., no data available); "*" sedimentation basin was monitored but failed structurally

Site Name

Years Protocol Implemented# Years

MonitoredWatershed

74

1. Long-Term Habitat Assessment

Objectives The objective of the long-term habitat assessment monitoring project is to document long term trends in fish habitat quality and quantity through channel and habitat typing assessments as described under the AHCP. The trends observed through this long-term and comprehensive assessment will be valuable for comparison with the results of the other, more specific monitoring projects to ensure that the individual biological objectives described elsewhere (i.e., channel morphologies, water temperature, etc.) are accurately capturing the larger picture of overall aquatic stream health and function. The Class I streams in this study are scheduled to be assessed every ten years. It takes approximately three years to complete each round of assessment. Since this is a long-term trend monitoring project there are no associated thresholds. As enough data are acquired, it will be possible to conduct a trend analysis associated with other monitoring projects discussed in the AHCP. Project Status This study was initiated by GDRCo in 1994 under the protocol defined in AHCP Section D.3.6. During the first assessment, surveys were conducted on 58 streams within the GDRCo ownership by various organizations, both public and private. The objective of the first round was to obtain an assessment of habitat quality and quantity in streams on a broad landscape from nine of the HPA’s. The second assessment, initiated in 2005, was conducted solely by GDRCo on 53 streams. The third assessment was initiated by GDRCo in 2015 and surveys were conducted on 51 streams (Table 28). Two creeks located within the Coastal Klamath HPA that were surveyed in the first and second assessments, Bear Creek and WF Blue Creek, were not sampled during the third assessment. Both of these watersheds were sold as part of a land transaction with the Yurok Tribe and are no longer owned by GDRCo. All data from the three survey efforts have been formatted and imported into a custom relational database. The data are now going through final auditing for quality control and quality assurance.

75

Table 28. Summary of the three habitat typing assessment efforts by HPA.

Methods During the first round of surveys, channel and habitat typing assessments were conducted using the CDF&G methods described by Flosi and Reynolds (1994) and during the second and third assessments under the revised CDF&G methods described by Flosi et al (2002). The primary changes involved the addition of classifications in some measurement categories, and the upgrade from the DOS-based Habitat 8 program to a Microsoft Access based Stream Habitat program, used for summarization and reporting of results. Refer to Flosi and Reynolds (1994) and Flosi et al (2002) for a complete description of methodologies. GDRCo personnel attended the CDF&G sponsored training module for the proper application of the field methods before each field season. These methods are designed to perform channel and habitat typing assessments in a comprehensive and repeatable fashion. The channel and habitat assessments are conducted to provide information about the health of these streams, especially with respect to salmonid habitat. The following channel and habitat variables are collected:

Percent canopy cover Percent LWD as structural shelter Habitat types as a percent of length Pool-tail embeddedness Maximum Residual Pool depths

HPANo.

streamsMiles

No.

streamsMiles

No.

streamsMiles

Smith River 4 23.0 7 24.9 7 25.6

Coastal Klamath 22 87.8 17 69.6 16 65.5

Blue Creek 4 21.6 1 4.5 0 0.0

Interior Klamath 11 30.2 3 20.5 3 17.7

Redwood Creek 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Coastal Lagoons 0 0.0 7 28.3 8 30.4

Little River 4 18.0 8 23.6 7 25.6

Mad River 3 11.3 3 7.1 3 7.0

NF Mad River 2 18.0 5 21.1 5 20.7

Humboldt Bay 4 14.1 2 13.5 2 13.7

Eel River 4 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0

TOTALS 58 229.9 53 213.2 51 206.2

1st Assessment

1991-1998

2nd Assessment

2005-2008

3nd Assessment

2015-2018

76

Results A summary of the channel and habitat parameters from the third assessment effort, organized by HPA, are presented in Tables 29-35. With the third round of habitat assessments complete, GDRCo is now working on auditing, summarizing and analyzing all three survey efforts to make comparisons on the habitat quality of streams monitored. A full analysis is needed in order to determine any trends in habitat quality and quantity over time and any potential association with management. GDRCo will provide the results to the Services when the analysis is complete. Table 29. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Smith River HPA.

Stream

SF

Winchuck

SF

Winchuck

Trib 1

SF

Winchuck

Trib 2

Dominie Wilson Rowdy SF Rowdy

Year Assessed 2015 2015 2015 2016 2015 2016 2017

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 31,203 3,127 2,170 14,857 37,504 35,645 10,425

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 85 82 72 88 65 78 79

% deciduous 93 98 100 92 83 94 89

% conifer 7 2 0 8 17 6 11

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 23.0 9.2 5.0 23.9 40.8 10.8 18.5

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 24.2 10.0 30.0 26.1 3.1 19.7 12.7

Flat-water 30.3 54.5 49.0 43.3 19.4 31.4 52.4

Pools 35.1 27.6 20.2 30.6 16.5 48.9 34.9

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 10.4 7.9 0.8 0.0 61.0 0.0 0.0

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 1.9 50.0 30.8 6.2 13.9 23.2 50.0

26-50% 37.3 22.2 23.1 50.0 52.5 69.6 27.9

51-75% 39.9 0.0 0.0 36.9 26.7 1.4 7.4

76-100% 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 2.9

Not Suitable for Spawning† 14.6 27.8 46.1 6.1 6.9 5.8 11.8

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 1.9 38.9 23.1 13.3 1.0 2.9 26.5

1'-2' deep 38.6 55.6 69.2 66.7 32.7 34.8 47.0

2'-3' deep 40.5 5.5 7.7 16.3 41.6 26.8 14.7

3'-4' deep 15.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 17.8 15.2 10.3

>4' deep 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 20.3 1.5† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

77

Table 30. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Coastal Klamath HPA.

Stream

Hunter EF Hunter Mynot HoppawNF

HoppawTerwer McGarvey

WF

McGarveyTarup Omagar Ah Pah

SF Ah

Pah

NF Ah

PahSurpur

Little

SurpurTectah

Year Assessed 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2017 2016 2016 2016 2018 2018 2016

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 31,503 10,094 8,682 19,134 4,262 71,310 28,269 12,213 25,271 15,001 19,792 6,685 17,369 17,468 13,231 45,647

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 82 87 90 87 86 73 88 86 90 91 91 91 95 88 89 83

% deciduous 89 85 95 86 68 89 94 95 91 82 86 73 86 80 84 86

% conifer 11 15 5 14 32 11 6 5 9 18 14 27 14 20 16 14

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 25.7 43.9 30.1 40.8 37.4 16.1 39.9 49.4 36.2 43.5 34.3 36.8 26.3 27.8 39.4 12.3

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 11.8 19.5 9.1 21.4 27.7 7.7 8.7 7.6 19.6 10.5 18.8 8.3 19.7 18.8 14.5 10.3

Flat-water 19.8 23.9 28.1 39.0 37.6 30.3 27.6 23.8 28.2 46.6 31.0 56.0 36.1 51.6 49.0 39.4

Pools 23.6 15.4 23.8 31.1 34.7 41.0 63.5 68.4 52.1 30.0 25.9 30.2 36.0 29.6 36.5 44.1

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 44.8 41.2 39.0 8.5 0.0 21.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 12.9 24.3 5.5 8.2 0.0 0.0 6.2

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 36.1 13.5 58.9 40.8 40.8 33.0 54.0 76.2 48.6 67.4 26.7 12.5 8.8 24.3 14.9 27.5

26-50% 45.4 35.1 32.1 39.1 44.4 23.0 31.2 16.1 38.6 22.9 48.3 40.0 23.0 19.6 46.8 28.7

51-75% 13.9 51.4 7.2 15.1 14.8 7.5 7.2 0.0 11.0 6.9 19.8 47.5 26.6 30.9 31.9 18.7

76-100% 0.9 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 26.6 15.9 4.3 4.8

Not Suitable for Spawning† 3.7 0.0 1.8 2.2 0.0 34.0 7.6 7.7 0.8 2.8 1.8 0.0 15.0 9.3 2.1 20.3

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence .

<1' deep 4.6 2.6 17.9 13.8 32.7 8.1 18.4 26.3 18.1 26.9 8.2 10.0 3.5 19.3 32.6 4.3

1'-2' deep 30.3 65.8 53.6 55.8 56.4 30.6 40.5 44.3 40.6 49.7 53.7 67.5 36.3 53.5 51.1 37.4

2'-3' deep 36.7 31.6 25.0 24.9 10.9 27.5 25.7 21.5 30.7 21.4 29.8 20.0 39.9 21.9 15.2 26.4

3'-4' deep 19.2 0.0 3.5 4.4 0.0 16.0 10.6 6.7 9.6 2.0 5.8 2.5 16.8 4.4 1.1 17.7

>4' deep 9.2 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 17.8 4.8 1.2 1.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 3.5 0.9 0.0 14.2† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

78

Table 31. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Interior Klamath HPA.

Table 32. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Coastal Lagoon HPA.

Stream Johnson Roach Tully

Year Assessed 2018 2018 2018

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 11,805 38,725 42,752

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 89 72 74

% deciduous 97 82 93

% conifer 3 18 7

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 21.9 3.2 8.8

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 14.1 12.2 16.4

Flat-water 52.4 36.0 46.9

Pools 22.0 49.1 30.8

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 11.5 2.7 5.9

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 24.0 25.7 27.4

26-50% 38.0 25.2 29.3

51-75% 21.1 13.7 10.8

76-100% 4.2 8.0 10.8

Not Suitable for Spawning† 12.7 27.4 21.7

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 23.3 2.8 12.3

1'-2' deep 60.3 25.6 38.2

2'-3' deep 12.3 34.7 29.7

3'-4' deep 4.1 21.6 8.0

>4' deep 0.0 15.3 11.8† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

StreamMaple NF Maple Pitcher M-Line

M-Line

TribClear Diamond Beach

Year Assessed 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 91,392 17,015 5,703 19,570 5,562 6,597 1,125 13,626

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 74 88 94 81 52 89 94 94

% deciduous 86 87 99 42 44 58 40 88

% conifer 14 13 1 58 56 42 60 12

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 28.1 9.1 15.5 48.5 49.4 35.6 18.8 41.6

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 3.6 7.1 1.4 6.2 7.6 16.2 0.0 17.2

Flat-water 50.2 39.1 37.0 27.7 28.5 59.7 68.4 9.9

Pools 46.2 52.9 61.6 62.5 59.9 23.9 17.6 72.5

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 0.0

Dry Channel 0.0 0.9 0.0 3.6 4.0 0.2 0.0 0.4

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 31.8 19.6 27.7 28.3 17.9 5.0 75.0 95.4

26-50% 27.5 30.4 19.1 28.3 30.5 35.0 25.0 2.3

51-75% 16.7 22.8 36.2 14.3 26.3 32.5 0.0 0.0

76-100% 6.5 0.0 4.2 4.2 0.0 27.5 0.0 0.0

Not Suitable for Spawning† 17.5 27.2 12.8 24.9 25.3 0.0 0.0 2.3

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 1.4 3.3 2.1 15.9 11.5 7.5 0.0 5.3

1'-2' deep 19.8 16.3 55.3 53.6 54.8 65.0 75.0 35.9

2'-3' deep 32.7 32.6 34.0 23.4 26.0 25.0 25.0 32.1

3'-4' deep 21.0 22.8 4.3 5.4 7.7 2.5 0.0 20.6

>4' deep 25.1 25.0 4.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

79

Table 33. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Little River HPA.

Table 34. Third stream habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Mad River HPA and the North Fork Mad River HPA.

StreamUSFLR LSFLR RR LR Carson Heightman

Year Assessed 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 9,774 15,568 7,371 79,609 14,273 3,326 4,969

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 88 79 93 77 70 75 79

% deciduous 56 50 78 74 87 45 58

% conifer 44 50 22 26 13 55 42

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 35.4 38.5 33.7 19.8 24.8 31.1 21.5

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 30.2 6.2 17.6 15.0 1.0 6.6 6.5

Flat-water 43.7 59.5 54.4 41.1 36.6 50.5 62.3

Pools 26.1 34.3 27.7 43.9 62.2 41.9 31.2

Marsh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 22.2 6.7 18.6 25.4 69.6 13.6 16.7

26-50% 38.9 41.9 39.5 33.4 16.0 22.7 43.3

51-75% 38.9 33.8 25.6 27.4 4.8 45.5 26.7

76-100% 0.0 5.4 0.0 2.0 3.2 4.6 10.0

Not Suitable for Spawning† 0.0 12.2 16.3 11.8 6.4 13.6 3.3

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 2.7 2.6 0.0 3.4 2.4 0.0 16.1

1'-2' deep 18.9 15.8 60.9 33.9 46.4 56.5 58.1

2'-3' deep 51.4 43.4 32.6 29.9 36.0 34.8 19.4

3'-4' deep 16.2 18.4 4.3 17.0 13.6 8.7 6.4

>4' deep 10.8 19.8 2.2 15.8 1.6 0.0 0.0† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

Carson

Trib

Stream

Year Assessed 2015 2016 2015 2016 2016 2016 2015 2015

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 23,476 9,835 3,876 84,050 11,442 4,633 3,214 5,952

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 59 95 90 83 90 83 71 85

% deciduous 78 44 81 70 89 94 100 86

% conifer 22 56 19 30 11 6 0 14

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 14.9 35.4 14.4 18.3 22.4 14.1 19.8 23.3

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 18.0 2.2 15.2 10.5 36.9 44.7 41.6 47.3

Flat-water 54.4 72.0 71.3 32.6 32.7 35.2 24.0 46.7

Pools 27.6 14.4 13.5 56.9 30.4 20.1 30.1 5.3

Marsh 0.0 11.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0

Culvert 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 22.5 2.0 12.6 24.2 37.3 15.4 37.9 44.0

26-50% 23.8 0.0 43.7 35.4 34.3 0.0 48.3 12.0

51-75% 21.2 0.0 43.7 25.6 19.4 3.8 13.8 4.0

76-100% 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 7.5 80.8 0.0 0.0

Not Suitable for Spawning† 32.5 98.0 0.0 8.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 40.0

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 1.3 25.0 18.7 8.7 4.4 10.7 20.7 73.1

1'-2' deep 13.9 56.2 62.5 30.4 53.6 78.6 51.7 26.9

2'-3' deep 32.9 10.4 12.5 29.2 30.4 10.7 20.7 0.0

3'-4' deep 29.1 4.2 6.3 14.1 8.7 0.0 6.9 0.0

>4' deep 22.8 4.2 0.0 17.6 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

NF Mad Sullivan WatekSF Long

Prairie

Long

Prairie

Mad River HPA North Fork Mad River HPA

Canon Mather Dry

80

Table 35. Third habitat assessment summaries for the streams surveyed within the Humboldt Bay HPA.

Stream Salmon Ryan

Year Assessed 2018 2018

Total Length of Main Channel Assessed (ft) 35,560 36,833

Mean % Closed Canopy Density 86 87

% deciduous 70 61

% conifer 30 39

% LWD as Structural Shelter in All Pools 31.9 27.0

Habitat Types as % of Total Length

Riffles 18.7 1.1

Flat-water 33.1 37.5

Pools 48.2 61.1

Marsh 0.0 0.0

Dry Channel 0.0 0.3

Culvert 0.0 0.0

Pool Tailout Embeddedness as % Occurrence

0-25% 41.7 29.7

26-50% 28.9 10.9

51-75% 21.0 2.5

76-100% 3.1 0.0

Not Suitable for Spawning† 5.3 56.9

Maximum Residual Pool Depths as % Occurrence

<1' deep 3.5 8.2

1'-2' deep 34.3 39.7

2'-3' deep 40.0 34.1

3'-4' deep 10.0 12.6

>4' deep 12.2 5.4† Not suitable for spawning may include sand, bedrock, LWD or other conditions

81

2. LWD Monitoring

Objectives The objectives of the large woody debris (LWD) monitoring project are to document long-term trends in the abundance, size class, species and function of in-channel LWD under the AHCP. The development of potential LWD in riparian areas throughout the Plan Area is relatively predictable. Collectively, the conservation measures are expected to increase potential LWD over the life of the AHCP. However, the recruitment of potential LWD into the stream (i.e., in-channel LWD) is less predictable because it results from highly stochastic processes which occur over long time scales. For this reason, the LWD Monitoring does not lend itself to develop measurable thresholds for adaptive management. This monitoring project will document whether the expected increase of LWD to the riparian areas will result in an increase to in-channel LWD. This study is integrated into the long-term habitat assessment study and is designed for the same Class I streams to be assessed every ten years. As such, it takes approximately five years to complete each round of assessment. As enough data are acquired, it may be possible to conduct a trend analysis associated with other monitoring projects discussed in the AHCP. Project Status The LWD monitoring program is operational and ongoing. Surveys are initiated on a ten year interval. The first round of monitoring surveys began in 1995 under the protocol defined by Flosi and Reynolds (1994). The second round of monitoring, conducted from 2005-2009, implemented a modified sampling protocol described in the AHCP (AHCP Appendix D.3.7.2). Details on the differences between the parameters collected and sampling designs were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a). The third round of LWD monitoring, similar to the second round, began in 2015 and was completed in 2018. A functional data management system is established for this monitoring program but enhancements are needed. Applications have been developed to collect field data electronically on field computers in accordance with the revised sampling protocol. Data migration is complete for the second and third rounds of monitoring, and has been audited for quality control and quality assurances. Data collected during the initial round of monitoring needs to be imported into the existing database followed by auditing for data accuracy and integrity. Due to the differences in the data collected between sampling periods, database enhancements are required to complete this process.

82

Methods The current procedures of conducting LWD inventories include a method where pieces are counted, measured, and classified within a given reach (20% surveys) or for the entire anadromous stream length (100% surveys). Regardless of sample design, all LWD ≥0.5 feet in diameter and ≥ 6 feet in length within the sample reach are inventoried. This provides a comprehensive and repeatable measure of abundance, volume, distribution, origin, species and functionality for all in-channel LWD. Live trees and LWD within the "recruitment zone," were not included in the surveys. Results During the third round of assessments, LWD inventories were conducted by GDRCo in all but two of the same streams that were surveyed for Long Term Habitat Assessments (Diamond Creek and Heightman Creek). Tables 36-43 display the piece count and volume by size class per 100 feet. The smallest size class presented in these tables is larger than the smallest size class measured during LWD inventories; therefore, these tables do not represent the total LWD inventory for each creek. The maximum diameter of each LWD piece is used to determine its size class. The mean of the two diameter measurements is used for volume calculations. With the third round of LWD monitoring complete, GDRCo is now working on auditing, summarizing and analyzing all three survey efforts to make comparisons on the abundance, size class, species and function of in-channel LWD. A full analysis is needed in order to determine any trends volume and abundance of LWD and any association with management. GDRCo will provide the results to the Services when the analysis is complete.

83

Table 36. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Smith River HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 1.5 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.7

Volume (ft³) 65.9 71.7 46.0 21.5 26.4 24.3 59.6 12.0 327.4

Piece 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1

Volume (ft³) 40.4 102.5 35.6 14.7 0.0 31.1 6.2 0.0 230.4

Piece 1.7 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.1

Volume (ft³) 72.5 72.1 28.8 216.4 0.0 190.2 0.0 486.7 1,066.6

Piece 1.8 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 4.4

Volume (ft³) 87.1 116.2 111.3 133.0 56.7 108.2 205.9 360.3 1,178.5

Piece 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0

Volume (ft³) 28.9 72.3 35.3 25.3 27.8 48.2 77.8 0.0 315.5

Piece 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 5.4

Volume (ft³) 84.7 94.8 182.7 187.9 157.3 303.6 257.5 406.9 1,675.5

Piece 1.8 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 4.4

Volume (ft³) 75.3 119.3 92.0 24.3 96.5 62.2 499.0 339.1 1,307.7

2,170

2015 20 37,504 7,000

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

SF Winchuck West Tributary of

Main Tributary

2015 100 31,203 31,203

2015 100 3,127 3,127

10,425

2016 20 35,645 7,000

2016 20 14,857 3,200

a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

SF Winchuck River

SF Winchuck Main Tributary

Wilson Creek

Rowdy Creek

Dominie Creek

SF Rowdy Creek 2017 100 10,425

2015 100 2,170

84

Table 37. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Coastal Klamath HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 1.3 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.3

Volume (ft³) 72.0 76.5 94.7 77.8 95.2 51.8 277.6 160.1 905.6

Piece 2.0 1.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 4.7

Volume (ft³) 98.8 118.2 106.7 89.5 99.1 110.1 372.8 401.3 1,396.5

Piece 1.9 0.7 1.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 5.2

Volume (ft³) 102.3 98.9 255.6 188.3 93.0 195.1 128.5 244.7 1,306.3

Piece 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 2.9

Volume (ft³) 46.0 77.9 52.3 134.4 59.1 154.3 250.1 568.4 1,342.3

Piece 2.5 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 5.7

Volume (ft³) 112.3 119.4 137.3 131.4 70.7 194.8 336.1 477.7 1,579.7

Piece 2.6 0.7 1.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 6.2

Volume (ft³) 115.5 78.0 135.4 64.1 137.8 120.3 1,300.2 276.4 2,227.7

Piece 2.4 0.9 1.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 6.5

Volume (ft³) 112.2 125.3 150.6 162.6 169.2 127.5 547.7 660.8 2,055.9

Piece 4.8 1.4 1.5 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 9.9

Volume (ft³) 225.6 160.9 218.8 139.1 201.2 382.3 505.6 1,568.4 3,402.0

Piece 2.8 0.6 1.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 7.4

Volume (ft³) 145.4 74.9 230.8 200.9 241.1 371.5 350.7 2,760.7 4,375.9

Piece 6.6 1.9 3.0 0.4 0.8 0.5 1.0 0.8 14.9

Volume (ft³) 290.4 312.8 405.7 171.4 170.5 381.0 1,117.7 2,332.9 5,182.4

Piece 2.4 0.9 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 6.8

Volume (ft³) 110.6 117.2 274.4 117.2 229.7 76.2 419.8 1,336.9 2,681.9

Piece 3.9 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 8.5

Volume (ft³) 175.3 145.1 174.1 103.9 220.8 69.1 523.0 276.1 1,687.4

Piece 2.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 6.0

Volume (ft³) 133.4 116.4 97.9 198.0 96.2 233.5 427.7 1,365.1 2,668.3

Piece 3.2 0.8 1.9 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.4 8.6

Volume (ft³) 154.9 97.8 323.2 116.2 359.7 442.5 1,298.4 1,836.7 4,629.4

Piece 1.8 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.2 5.4

Volume (ft³) 84.1 41.3 174.7 137.8 119.0 78.7 716.7 93.8 1,446.1

Piece 2.0 0.6 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.2 5.7

Volume (ft³) 107.6 69.7 223.5 78.0 133.9 28.8 1,171.2 179.9 1,992.6a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Ah Pah Creek

Hunter Creek 2016 100 31,503 31,503

9,683

SF Ah Pah Creek 2016 100 6,685 6,685

2016 100 19,792

Tectah Creek 2016 100 45,561 45,647

EF Hunter Creek 2016 20 10,094 2,000

North Fork AH PAH Creek 2016 20 17,369 3,800

Hoppow Creek 2017 20 19,134 3,800

Terwer Creek 2017 20 71,462 13,400

Little Surpur Creek

Surpur Creek

2017 20 28,269

2017 20 15,008

McGarvey Creek

Mynot Creek

NF Hoppow Creek

Omagaar Creek

Tarup Creek

WF McGarvey Creek

5,600

2017 20 8,682 2,000

2017 20 4,262 800

2,600

2017 20 25,271 5,400

2017 20 12,213 2,600

2018 20 17,468 3,400

2018 20 13,174 2,600

85

Table 38. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Interior Klamath HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 1.8 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 4.3

Volume (ft³) 81.2 34.5 124.3 142.6 108.0 21.7 193.5 408.1 1,113.9

Piece 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.9

Volume (ft³) 18.2 37.5 11.1 36.9 18.8 51.9 54.3 0.0 228.7

Piece 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 2.7

Volume (ft³) 50.5 64.8 56.1 42.3 33.9 78.7 337.7 261.9 926.0

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

2018 20 11,805 2,200

2018 20 42,752

2018 20 38,594

a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

Johnson Creek

Roach Creek

Tully Creek 7,400

7,000

86

Table 39. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Coastal Lagoons HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4

Volume (ft³) 32.8 112.6 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174.5 326.3

Piece 6.8 1.2 2.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 12.8

Volume (ft³) 321.2 168.1 360.5 215.8 319.8 256.4 305.8 497.0 2,444.6

Piece 2.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 5.4

Volume (ft³) 124.5 96.2 130.6 245.1 137.8 0.0 225.8 0.0 960.0

Piece 6.1 1.3 3.4 0.7 1.6 0.3 0.8 0.4 14.4

Volume (ft³) 328.2 198.1 555.3 303.1 468.2 293.5 689.2 864.3 3,699.9

Piece 7.8 1.2 2.9 0.3 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.5 15.0

Volume (ft³) 429.2 212.8 474.5 102.3 495.1 518.9 249.3 1,463.7 3,945.7

Piece 2.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 5.0

Volume (ft³) 101.1 125.1 96.0 138.7 96.3 122.8 191.4 550.2 1,421.5

Piece 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.8

Volume (ft³) 56.2 64.4 70.4 81.9 64.7 79.6 77.0 697.3 1,191.6a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

NF Maple Creek 2015 20 17,015 3,400

M-Line Tributary 2015 20 5,562 1,000

Maple Creek 2015 20 91,426 18,000

Clear Creek 2015 20 6,597 1,400

M-Line Creek 2015 20 19,570 4,000

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Pitcher Creek 2015 20 5,703 1,400

Beach Creek 2015 100 13,626 13,626

87

Table 40. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Little River HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 2.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 5.1

Volume (ft³) 135.7 62.5 98.8 106.5 63.0 113.2 196.4 764.8 1,541.0

Piece 2.5 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 6.5

Volume (ft³) 99.6 41.4 186.0 68.0 210.6 174.5 1,079.7 229.7 2,089.4

Piece 4.3 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 8.2

Volume (ft³) 206.0 132.5 196.8 177.1 108.4 185.3 381.4 557.2 1,944.6

Piece 2.4 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 6.2

Volume (ft³) 129.6 111.0 192.6 181.4 163.7 164.0 486.6 834.3 2,263.3

Piece 3.8 0.8 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 7.5

Volume (ft³) 177.2 93.4 158.1 226.1 186.2 58.5 318.7 366.2 1,584.3

Piece 1.6 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.8

Volume (ft³) 84.4 122.2 95.8 97.5 48.1 107.6 197.2 141.2 893.9Little River 2015 20 79,609 15,000

a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

Upper South Fork Little River 2015 100 9,774 9,774

Railroad Creek 2015 20 7,371 1,600

Lower South Fork Little River 2015 100 15,568 15,568

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Carson Creek 2015 100 14,273 14,273

Carson Tributary 2015 100 3,326 3,326

88

Table 41. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Mad River HPA.

Table 42. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), North Fork Mad River HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.9

Volume (ft³) 18.3 83.9 28.7 36.2 0.0 0.0 463.8 0.0 630.9

Piece 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.0

Volume (ft³) 30.7 86.5 19.2 89.2 33.6 75.7 213.1 113.0 661.0

Piece 1.7 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 3.5

Volume (ft³) 90.6 55.1 111.0 35.9 146.3 109.5 104.7 177.4 830.3a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

Canon Creek 2015 100 23,476 23,476

Mather Creek 2016 20 9,835 2,000

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Dry Creek 2015 20 3,876 800

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.2

Volume (ft³) 35.5 30.5 17.2 38.2 48.3 59.0 0.0 0.0 228.5

Piece 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.7

Volume (ft³) 39.0 49.9 47.7 66.5 23.5 111.0 266.8 228.5 832.8

Piece 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.4

Volume (ft³) 41.3 61.9 56.8 142.4 35.6 151.9 112.7 305.2 907.9

Piece 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.2

Volume (ft³) 46.4 188.6 70.5 216.3 16.1 0.0 145.7 0.0 683.6

Piece 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.2

Volume (ft³) 51.5 38.5 54.6 44.2 48.3 113.9 0.0 188.5 539.5SF Long Prairie Creek 2016 20 4,633 1,200

a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

North Fork Mad River 2016 20 84,102 15,600

Long Prarie Creek 2016 20 11,442 2,400

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Watek (Mill) Creek 2015 20 5,952 1,200

Sullivan Gulch 2015 100 3,214 3,214

89

Table 43. Summary of LWD inventory (averages per 100 feet by piece count and volume), Humboldt Bay HPA.

Stream YearTarget

Percent

Stream

Length

(feet)

Surveyed

Length

(feet)

Metric

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

1' - 1.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

2' - 2.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

≤20'

3' - 3.9'

dia.ª;

>20'

≥4'

dia.ª;

≤20'

≥4'dia.ª

; >20'

All Size

Classes

Piece 2.8 0.6 1.3 0.3 0.7 0.2 1.0 0.4 7.4

Volume (ft³) 145.5 67.0 183.8 114.3 191.5 176.1 1,402.0 1,140.7 3,420.9

Piece 2.5 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.2 6.7

Volume (ft³) 115.4 32.5 185.7 87.8 209.3 113.3 981.4 307.4 2,032.7a = maximum diameter of LWD piece

Ryan Creek 2018 20 36,833 7,200

Size Classes of Inchannel LWD

Salmon Creek 2018 20 35,560 7,000

90

3. Summer Juvenile Population Estimates

Objectives The objectives of the summer population estimates are to estimate summer populations of young-of-the-year (YOY) coho salmon, and age 1+ and older (parr) steelhead and cutthroat trout, and to track trends in these populations over time. In the Little River HPA, the population estimate information may be combined with outmigrant trapping data in an attempt to understand the mortality associated with specific life-history stages (particularly over-winter survival). This study is a long-term trend monitoring project, and has no associated thresholds. As enough data are acquired, it will be possible to conduct a trend analysis associated with other monitoring projects discussed in the AHCP. Project Status This monitoring program is operational and ongoing. The number of creeks sampled has changed over time from three in 1995 to a high of fifteen through 2014. In 2015, the number of creeks monitored was reduced by four; bringing the total to eleven creeks monitored through 2018. Justification for the discontinuation of sites was provided in the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a). The original field protocol implemented was a slight modification of the protocol described in the AHCP (AHCP Appendix D.3.8) and has undergone additional modifications to the sampling design and habitat classification over the years. There have also been modifications to the estimators used to calculate annual salmonid population estimates. An update to the original Summer Juvenile Population Estimate Monitoring protocol was proposed to the Services in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. Details and justifications for the requested modifications were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) and the 2011 modifications request, respectively. The intent of this request was to update the protocol to reflect the current monitoring efforts being implemented for this project. After review and consideration, the Services concurred with the proposed update to the monitoring protocol. On July 24, 2012, the Services were provided with the revised protocol for this monitoring program. No revisions were requested by the Services and the revised protocol has been implemented since. A functional data management system is established and operational for this project. All historical data has been incorporated into this database and these data have been audited for quality assurance/quality control. Juvenile salmonid population estimates are generated annually using custom reporting functions and the results are reported to NMFS and CDFW in accordance with permit requirements.

91

Results To date, eleven summer juvenile population estimate monitoring sites are established and have been routinely monitored (Table 44). An additional nine sites were briefly monitored but discontinued due to their unsuitability for the study objectives. Additional details on justification for discontinuing these sites were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) and 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a). On average, the current monitoring sites have been sampled 18.5 times and the monitoring duration has spanned 18.6 years. Wilson Creek and South Fork Winchuck River are the sites with the longest continuous monitoring efforts; both have been monitored for the last 24 years. Bar graphs were used to summarize the full history of juvenile coho population estimates calculated for the 11 creeks routinely sampled from 1995-2018 (Figures 8-11). Sites were grouped according to HPA. Data for Railroad, EF Hunter, Heightman, Tarup, Moon and North Fork Ah Pah Creeks were excluded due to limited data and discontinuation of these sites. Only population estimates calculated for coho salmon are presented here. Additional findings resulting from these monitoring efforts, including juvenile population estimates calculated for steelhead trout and cutthroat trout, are available in other documents. These data can be obtained from the more detailed annual reports provided to NMFS (e.g., GDRCo 2019a).

92

Table 44. Summary of the summer juvenile population estimate survey efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018.

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

SF Winchuck River 24 24 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wilson Creek 24 24 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cañon Creek 23 24 Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hunter Creek 21 21 - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lower SF Little River 21 21 - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Railroad Creek 17 17 - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Upper SF Little River 21 21 - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sullivan Gulch 20 20 - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SF Rowdy/Savoy Creeks 18 18 - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

EF Hunter Creek 12 12 - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Heightman Creek 9 10 - - - - - - - - - - Y - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Ah Pah Creek 12 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

SF Ah Pah Creek 12 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little Surpur Creek 8 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Tarup Creek 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y - - - -

Moon Creek 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y - - - - - - - - -

NF Ah Pah Creek 2 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y - - - - - - - - - -

Lower Beach Creek 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - - - - - - -

Lower Maple Creek 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - - - - - - -

Upper Maple Creek 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - Y - - - - - - - - - - - -

Number of sites - - 3 3 3 6 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 13 15 15 14 13 14 15 15 15 11 11 11 11

"-" = survey not conducted (i.e., no data available).

Monitoring

Duration

# Years

MonitoredSite Name

Monitoring Year

93

Figure 8. Histograms of Smith River HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at SF Winchuck River (A), SF Rowdy/Savoy Creeks (B), and Wilson Creek (C) sampled by GDRCo from 1995-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted.

A

B

C

94

Figure 9. Histograms of Coastal Klamath HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Hunter Creek (A), Little Surpur Creek (B), Ah Pah Creek (C), and SF Ah Pah Creek (D) sampled by GDRCo from 1998-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted.

AA

B

C D

95

Figure 10. Histograms of Little River HPA summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Lower SF Little River (A) and Upper SF Little River (B) sampled by GDRCo from 1998-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted.

A

B

96

Figure 11. Histograms of Mad River and North Fork Mad River HPAs summer juvenile coho population estimates with confidence intervals for deep pools (diagonal striped bars) and shallow units (solid bars) at Sullivan Gulch (A) and Cañon Creek (B) sampled by GDRCo from 1995-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted.

A

B

97

Discussion There is no clear trend in the summer juvenile population estimates for coho among all sites monitored in 2017 and 2018; however, some general patterns were noted for cohorts within the specific regional HPA’s. During the fall of 2017, in the Smith River HPA, coho were absent for the second straight year at GDRCo’s most northern sites (South Fork Winchuck River and South Fork Rowdy/Savoy Creeks). Considering historically this cohort was responsible for producing our highest (2002 and 2005) and most consistent numbers, it is unknown why these sites are not currently producing large numbers of juveniles. Wilson Creek, the most southern watershed in the Smith River HPA, showed an increase from the last time (2014) the cohort was estimated. This cohort is the strongest of the three cohorts and although the 2017 estimates are an improvement from 2014 they are below the long term average for the site. Population estimates calculated in the Coastal Klamath HPA continued to be low among sites monitored for 2017. For both Hunter and Ah Pah Creeks, the 2017 cohort estimates increased from the last time they were monitored (2014), but are below the long term average for both sites. Population estimates for the Mad River and North Fork Mad River HPAs were generally lower compared to past years. Cañon Creek estimates for 2017 were slightly below the long term averages. Although the 2017 cohort decreased from the last time it was monitored (2014), this cohort seems to be the most stable exhibiting a more natural cyclic pattern. At both sites in Little River during 2017, coho juveniles increased from 2014 but were below long term averages for this cohort. In the Smith River HPA, 159 coho were estimated in SF Winchuck for the 2018 survey. For this cohort, only two coho juveniles have been observed over the previous 4 times (2006, 2009, 2012 and 2015) that estimates for this cohort were made. Although the 2018 estimate for coho wasn’t especially high, it’s encouraging in a watershed where coho estimates have been low in recent years. For the fourth straight year coho were not detected at SF Rowdy/Savoy creeks. Considering that only a few coho have been observed at this site over the last 10 years, it seems unlikely that this system will be capable of producing a significant number of coho juveniles in the near term. Wilson Creek, showed an increase from the last time (2015) this cohort was estimated. This cohort is the weakest of the three cohorts and although this year’s estimates are an improvement from 2015, estimates for this cohort continue to be relatively low. Population estimates calculated in the Coastal Klamath HPA were variable among sites monitored for 2018. Hunter Creek estimates have continued to decrease and it will be interesting to see if the extensive habitat restoration efforts that have been implemented over the last few years in the watershed will help this population in the near future. The Ah Pah Creek coho estimates increased in 2018 compared to 2015, but are below the long term average for the site. SF Ah Pah Creek experienced its highest estimate since this cohort was first surveyed in 2009. Population estimates for coho in the Mad River and North Fork Mad River HPAs both increased compared to 2015 estimates. The 2018 coho estimate for Cañon Creek was the largest since this cohort was first estimated in

98

2000. The Little River HPA continues to be our largest producer of coho juveniles on GDRCo ownership. At both sites in Little River, cohort estimates for coho juveniles increased from 2015. The 2018 estimates at LSFLR were above the long term average while estimates at USFLR were slightly below the long term average for this cohort. The 2018 coho estimates across the property generally increased but varied relative to the last time this cohort was estimated in 2015. Additional monitoring is needed to determine if the patterns discussed above are actual and perpetual since, where evident, our monitoring efforts have at best captured only one full oscillation of the population. The cause(s) to the observed coho juvenile population dynamics is unclear but they are presumably a result of multiple factors, including climate, ocean conditions, predator-prey dynamics, spawning and rearing habitat availability, and anthropogenic disturbances, acting synergistically. A detailed analysis is planned and will explain which of these factors are associated with the observed changes and confirm the existence of a pattern in summer juvenile coho salmon population estimates.

4. Outmigrant Trapping

Objectives The objectives of the outmigrant trapping project are to monitor the abundance, size, and timing of out-migrating salmonid smolts and look for long-term trends in any or all of these variables. This information may be used to estimate overwinter survival of juvenile coho cohorts by comparing outmigrant abundance to the previous summer population estimates. Project Status The outmigrant trapping monitoring program is operational and ongoing. The number of creeks monitored has changed over time. In 1999, three tributaries were selected in Little River followed by a fourth in 2000. In 2004, one additional site was selected in Ryan Creek. In 2015, two sites were discontinued; the site in Ryan Creek and Railroad Creek, one of the tributary sites in Little River. In 2015, one additional site was selected on Mainstem Little River, bringing the total to four sites monitored in Little River since 2015. The original field protocol implemented for this monitoring program is described in the AHCP (AHCP Appendix D.3.9) and has undergone minor changes with the addition of the site on Mainstem Little River and the discontinuation of the Ryan Creek and Railroad Creek sites. An update to the original outmigrant trapping protocol was proposed to the Services in the March 2011 request for Minor Modifications. Details and justifications for the requested modifications were provided in the 2nd Biennial Report (GDRCo 2011a) and the 2011 modifications request, respectively. The intent of this request was to update the protocol to reflect the current monitoring efforts being implemented for this project. After review and

99

consideration, the Services concurred with the proposed update to the monitoring protocol. On July 24, 2012, the Services were provided with the revised protocol for this monitoring program. No revisions were requested by the Services and the revised protocol was implemented for this monitoring program through 2018. As described above, there were changes to the sites monitored for this project as well as a few changes to procedures related to scientific collecting permit limitations. A database was developed which stores and summarizes data for estimates and reports. All historical data have been incorporated into this database and smolt estimates are generated annually for the sites, the results of which are reported to NMFS and CDFW in accordance with permit requirements. This study is a long-term trend monitoring project, and does not have associated thresholds. As enough data are acquired, it will be possible to conduct a trend analysis associated with other monitoring projects discussed in the AHCP. Results Currently, four outmigrant trapping sites are established and annually monitored (Table 45). Among these sites, the Mainstem Little River site has been monitored for the shortest period. Table 45. Summary of the outmigrant trapping efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company from 1995-2018.

Population Estimates The smolt population estimates for coho salmon in Little River (i.e., Mainstem Little River, Carson Creek, Lower South Fork Little River, and Upper South Fork Little River) were summarized to look for potential trends (Figure 12). Smolt estimates were generated using Darroch Analysis with Rank Reduction (DARR) software v2.01 for analysis of stratified mark-recapture data (Bjorkstedt, 2005). In the Little River watershed there appears to be differences in the strengths of the three cohorts of coho smolts. The moderate and weak strength cohorts were monitored in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Over the last 19 years, the overall coho smolt production from monitored tributaries in Little River has been relatively stable within each cohort. There has been extensive harvesting in this watershed over this same time period which has not resulted in an apparent decline of coho populations.

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Upper SF Little River Little River 20 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YLower SF Little River Little River 20 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YRailroad Creek Little River 16 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -Carson Creek Little River 19 - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YMainstem Little River Little River 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y YRyan Creek Ryan Creek 11 - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -Number of sites - 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4

WatershedSite Name# Years Monitored

"-" = survey not conducted (i.e., no data available).

100

Figure 12. Histograms of outmigrant coho smolt estimates with confidence intervals for Little River tributaries (solid bars) and Mainstem Little River (diagonal striped bars) sampled by GDRCo from 2000-2018. Colors indicate three distinct cohorts of coho and an asterisk (*) indicates year(s) when sampling was not conducted at Mainstem Little River. Only smolt estimates calculated for coho salmon are presented in this report. Additional findings resulting from these monitoring efforts, including smolt estimates calculated for steelhead trout and cutthroat trout, are available in other documents. These data can be obtained from the more detailed annual reports provided to NMFS (e.g., GDRCo 2019b). Trap Efficiency A summary of mean annual trapping efficiency was compiled for all sites in Little River and compared to values calculated from the 2017 and 2018 outmigrant trapping data (Figure 13). Average mean trap efficiency (i.e., capture probability) for the 2017 and 2018 trapping seasons were 65% (range = 38-85%) and 61% (range = 22-81%), respectively. Compared to past years, average trap efficiency in 2017 and 2018 was within the range previously documented (56-85%). In both 2017 and 2018, trap efficiencies were lowest during the beginning of the season then increased and peaked in the middle of the season and finally decreased slightly and stabilized during the end of the season.

101

Overwinter Survival Apparent overwinter survival was calculated for Lower South Fork Little River and Upper South Fork Little River which have both summer population estimates and outmigrant smolt estimates available (Figure 14). In 2017, Lower South Fork Little River and Upper South Fork Little River had an apparent overwinter survival of 14% and 19%, respectively. In 2018, Lower South Fork Little River and Upper South Fork Little River had an apparent overwinter survival of 34% and 29%, respectively. Average mean overwinter survival is 24% for Lower South Fork Little River and 22% for Upper South Fork Little River. Overwinter survival cannot be calculated for Carson Creek because instream conditions (i.e., tannic water and complex pool habitat) prohibit implementing the summer juvenile population estimate protocol. Migration Timing Frequency histograms were created using daily smolt captures (i.e., not estimates) to summarize the timing of coho smolt emigration and plotted with river discharge at the monitored sites in Little River during 2017 (Figure 15A) and 2018 (Figure 15B). During both 2017 and 2018 outmigrant traps were likely installed before the peak of the coho smolt migration, although due to a wet springs during both years, trap installation was delayed. For 2017, LSFLR and CC both appear to have peaked during the second week in May (e.g. highest counts on May 11th, which was less than one week after the trap was operational). LSFLR also experienced a secondary smaller peak on May 24th. USFLR had the highest counts on May 11, but excluding this day, smolts outmigrated steadily throughout the month of May. MSLR experienced three peaks, one in mid-May, one in late May and one in early June. Similarly to 2017, the 2018 outmigrant traps were likely installed before the peak of the coho smolt migration. The CC trap experienced its highest smolt count (n=37) on April 27th, which was the first day that the trap was fished. Excluding this day, the CC trap peaked during the first week of May (highest counts on May 4th). LSFLR experienced two peaks, one in the first week in May and one in the second week in May. USFLR had the highest counts on May 10, but excluding this day, smolts outmigrated steadily throughout the first three weeks of May. MSLR coho smolt migration peaked on May 7th. Size In Little River, a total of 4,141 and 4,060 fish were measured and weighed during the 2017 and 2018 outmigrant trapping seasons, respectively. Summaries of average lengths (Figure 16A) and weights (Figure 16B) for coho smolts were compiled with those data from past monitoring efforts to assess trends over time. Average length and weight measurements have remained stable between years and between sites. Based on field observations, the majority of fish handled appeared in good health and condition.

102

Figure 13. Summary of mean-annual trap efficiency during the 2017 (blue line) and 2018 (red line) outmigrant trapping seasons and overall average trap efficiencies at all sites for 1999-2018 (gray line) in Little River.

Figure 14. Apparent overwinter survival of juvenile coho salmon in Lower South Fork Little River (red dashed line), Upper South Fork Little River (green dashed line), and their annual average (gray line) from 1999-2018, Humboldt County, California.

103

Figure 15. Coho outmigrant timing (vertical bars) and stream discharge (dashed lines) observed during 2017 (A) and 2018 (B) trapping seasons in Mainstem Little River (MSLR), Carson Creek (CC), Lower South Fork Little River (LSFLR), and Upper South Fork Little River (USFLR), Humboldt County, California.

A

B

104

Figure 16. Summary of average lengths (A) and weights (B) (black lines) and ranges (dotted gray lines) for coho salmon smolts measured during outmigrant trapping from 2000-2018 in Little River, Humboldt County, California.

A

B

105

Discussion Population Estimates Based on the three year life history of coho salmon (Murphy and Meehan, 1991), the 2017 and 2018 smolt estimates for coho in Little River were the seventh time these cohorts were measured; allowing for limited assessment of population trends. The 2017 outmigrating coho smolts documented in the Little River tributaries suggests that this moderate strength cohort decreased in 2017 compared to the last time (2014) it was monitored. However, elevated spring flows delayed trap installation into the first week of May, which was 45 days later than our mean trap initiation date of March 21. This was the latest trap initiation date over the course of the 19 years we have been outmigrant trapping in Little River and is likely the reason behind the apparent decrease observed at the tributaries. Migration phenology in the tributaries for 2017 suggests that our monitoring period missed a proportion of the outmigrating smolts (Figure 15) and it is possible that a significant number of coho smolts moved into the mainstem prior to trap installation. If the 2015 and 2016 tributary estimates were truncated to the 2017 trapping period, the estimates would decrease by 49-89%. This suggests that we may have missed half or more of the population in 2017. Therefore, the 2017 tributary estimates should be considered cautiously, as they likely underrepresent the actual smolt production from the tributaries observed that year. 2017 was the third year of outmigrant trapping in the mainstem of Little River. The 2017 coho estimates increased significantly from 2016. With only three years of trapping data at the mainstem, more years of data are needed to make conclusions on cohort strength or population trends. The 2017 mainstem estimates support the possibility that a significant number of smolts may have emigrated out of the tributaries prior to trap installation and that this cohort may still be producing a consistent number of coho smolts. The 2018 outmigrating coho smolts documented in the Little River tributaries suggests that this variable strength cohort increased at LSFLR and USFLR and slightly decreased at CC, compared to the last time (2015) they were monitored. This particular cohort was likely the most adversely affected by the drought years of 2014 and 2015. In northern coastal California, the rainfall total for the 2014 water year was 50% of normal (i.e., based on 30 year average) and less than 20% of the total amount of rain occurred before February (NOAA 2014). For coho, it is unclear to what degree the effect the late trap initiation in 2018 had on the tributary smolt estimates. For the second straight year elevated spring flows delayed tributary trap installation. 2018 was the second latest trap initiation date over the course of 20 years of tributary trapping and the tributary traps were installed nearly four weeks after the mainstem RST. Migration phenology in the tributaries for 2018 suggests that our monitoring period missed a proportion of the outmigrating smolts (Figure 15). Peaks in migration have been documented in the tributaries during previous seasons during early to mid-April (GDRCo 2016). Carson Creek experienced its

106

highest count of coho smolts (n=37) on the first day of trapping and it’s possible that a significant number, in this particular tributary, migrated to the mainstem prior to trap installation. The tributaries captured an average of 70% (CC = 90%, LSFLR = 55% and USFLR = 65%) of the total smolts for the entire season during the first two weeks of trapping. At MSLR, which in years past has experienced delayed migration timing compared to the tributaries (GDRCo 2015b and GDRCo 2016), 14% of the total coho smolts for the season were captured prior to the tributary trap installation. It seems that the 2018 coho smolt estimates from the tributary sites were more affected by the late initiation than MSLR. 2018 was the fourth year of outmigrant trapping on the mainstem of Little River which allowed us to observe coho smolt cohort strength at this site. Considering that the first time this cohort was estimated was during the atypically dry water year of 2015, the 2018 estimates suggest that this cohort produced an increase in quantity of coho smolts. The 2018 mainstem coho smolt estimate (5,056) is a significant increase from the 2015 mainstem estimate (2,557). The mainstem estimate incorporates coho smolts from the tributaries and should be interpreted as a basin estimate for Little River. The 2018 migration phenology at MSLR was similar to past years where peaks in migration were observed during the second week in May (GDRCo 2015b and GDRCo 2016). Outmigrant trapping was also conducted in 2018 at Freshwater Creek (Humboldt County, California). At this location 99.5% of the coho were captured after the initiation of MSLR on 3/30/2018 (C. Anderson, pers. comm. 2018). Both of these sites are located in the lower section of these watersheds. Given this finding and assuming similar phenology in coho smolt emigration between sites, the 2018 trapping efforts at MSLR appears appropriately timed to accurately estimate coho smolts. This cohort of coho smolts increased in 2018 relative to 2015. Overall, the observed dynamics of smolt production in Little River is presumably a result of multiple factors, including climate, ocean conditions, predator-prey dynamics, spawning and rearing habitat availability, and anthropogenic disturbances, acting synergistically. A detailed analysis is needed to understand what factor(s) are attributing to the observed dynamics in coho smolt estimates documented in Little River. Outmigrant trapping in mainstem Little River is planned to continue for at least two more consecutive years, which will allow for assessing current populations trends between coho smolt cohorts and assessment of within cohort trends will require additional monitoring. Trap Efficiency In 2017 high flows during the trapping periods at Little River likely had minimal influence on smolt captures. In contrast to 2017, the beginning of the 2018 trapping season at MSLR was affected by high flows. The potential negative influence of high flows has been a concern expressed for prior monitoring efforts (GDRCo 2011b and GDRCo 2014). High flows can negatively influence outmigrant estimates because smolts may continue emigrating and evade capture by swimming over the

107

V-notch weir or around the RST. Furthermore, during extreme high flow events, the traps are typically removed to prevent equipment damage or loss, and during these inoperable times fish can’t be captured. In 2017, there was one storm event during the trapping season that resulted in 1 inoperable trapping day at MSLR on 6/8/2017. The tributary sites were operational throughout the entire 2017 trapping season. In 2018, there were two storm events during the first week of trapping that resulted in 11 inoperable trapping days at MSLR between 4/6/2018 and 4/16/2018. Some coho and steelhead smolts at the mainstem were likely missed during this time. The tributary sites, which were installed 27 days after the mainstem trap, were operational throughout the entire 2018 trapping season. Overwinter Survival The results for apparent overwinter survival of coho should be interpreted cautiously. The apparent overwinter survival estimates are based on the assumption of no immigration or emigration of juveniles between the time of the summer estimate survey and the installation of the outmigrant traps the subsequent spring. Increasing evidence indicates that up to 29% of coho smolts in a northern coastal California stream will move downstream in fall and winter (Rebenack et al. 2015). This finding suggests that the closed population assumption is violated and should be considered when interpreting coho overwinter survival results. The proportion of fish emigrating from the sites monitored in Little River is unknown, and is likely influenced by factors including population density, winter flows (e.g., frequency and intensity), temperature, food availability, and the amount of suitable winter rearing habitat. Therefore, a detailed analysis is needed to understand what factor(s) likely influence coho overwinter survival in Little River so that these data can be interpreted correctly. Migration Timing The migration timings observed in Little River during 2017 and 2018 were similar compared to the observations from past years where peak migration of coho smolts occurred around mid-May. Factors that tend to affect the timing of migration include the size of the fish, flow conditions, water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, day length, and availability of food (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). These factors presumably contributed to the outmigrant phenology observed in 2017 and 2018 at Little River. Size The lengths and weights documented for salmonids in Little River during the 2017 and 2018 outmigrant trapping seasons were similar to those reported in years past. The lack of any obvious change in fish size and condition suggests that there have been no significant changes to the available rearing habitat in these watersheds. Salmonid growth increases at varying rates depending on the abundance of aquatic insects and plant life during critical rearing periods (Murphy and Meehan 1991). Size

108

can also be influenced by density related competition (Imre et al. 2005). The seemingly consistent average length and weight among salmonids captured at the trap sites suggests that these factors are relatively constant in both watersheds among years.

5. Turbidity Threshold Sampling

Objective The objective of the turbidity threshold monitoring stations (TTS) is to collect continuous stage and turbidity data, and water samples (to measure suspended sediment concentrations, SSC) throughout each water year (i.e. October 1 through July 1). These data can be used to help detect trends that might indicate changes in the levels of erosion at the watershed scale upstream of each station and to calculate suspended sediment loads by establishing a relationship between SSC and turbidity for a sampling period of interest. These data can also be integrated into existing monitoring projects as hydrologic explanatory variables, including watershed scale assessment of the effectiveness of road upgrading and decommissioning. Project Status This monitoring program is operational and ongoing but has been separated from the road-related surface erosion monitoring program (AHCP Section 6.3.5.2.4). This modification is in accordance with the minor modification to the Effectiveness Monitoring Program approved on June 15, 2011. This project will be retained as a long-term monitoring project under the Effectiveness Monitoring Program and annual monitoring at established sites was implemented through 2018. The TTS monitoring effort began in 2002 at three sites in Little River and the number of sites has expanded over time. Reasons for initiating and suspending sites can be found in Section IX.C.5 of the 4th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2015a). Results Throughout the 2017 and 2018 water years, twelve turbidity threshold sampling (TTS) monitoring sites have been established and monitored (Table 46). On average, the current monitoring sites have been operated for 8.5 water years and the maximum monitoring duration has spanned 17 years. The three sites in Little River have the longest continuous monitoring efforts. The sites with the shortest monitoring duration are located in the Klamath River watershed.

109

Table 46. Summary of the turbidity threshold sampling efforts (Y = yes, protocol implemented) conducted by Green Diamond Resource Company during the 2002-2018 water years.

Discussion A data management system (Aquarius 3.10) was acquired in 2016 for this monitoring program. The major advantages of this database are that it combines field and lab data into one database, allows for a continuous plotting and analysis of multiple water years, and provides more user-friendly rating development tools. All past field and lab data have been incorporated into this database and quality assurance/quality control assurances are complete. An updated version of the Aquarius software (v. 2019.1) is being released by the vendor that will provide additional data management tools and analysis capabilities. Data migration in the upgraded software is planned for 2019. Several different applications are used to collect field data electronically on field computers and database import routines are operational. This study is a long-term trend monitoring project, and does not have associated thresholds. As enough data are acquired, it will be possible to conduct trend analyses associated with other monitoring projects discussed in the AHCP.

D. Experimental Watersheds

While the majority of the AHCP’s monitoring projects will be conducted throughout the Plan Area, experimental watersheds judged to be representative of the different geologic and physiographic provinces across the Plan Area have been specifically designated where additional monitoring and research on the interactions between forestry management and riparian and aquatic ecosystems will be conducted. Those watersheds are the Little River (Little River HPA), South Fork Winchuck River (Smith River HPA), and Upper Tectah Creek, Little Surpur Creek, and Ah Pah Creek (Coastal Klamath HPA). As stipulated in AHCP Section 6.2.5.4, the program will entail:

Stream Name 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Little River Lower South Fork Creek LSF 17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little River Upper South Fork Creek USF 17 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little River Railroad Creek RR 13 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Little River Carson Creek CC 16 - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Humboldt Bay Ryan Creek RC-1 12 - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Maple Creek North Fork Maple Creek NFM 15 - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Maple Creek Mainstem Maple Creek MSM 15 - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Humboldt Bay McCloud Creek MC-2 12 - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ah Pah Creek Mainstem Ah Pah Creek MSAP 11 - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ah Pah Creek North Fork Ah Pah Creek NFAP 7 - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - - -

Ah Pah Creek South Fork Ah Pah Creek SFAP 11 - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Winchuck River South Fork Winchuck River SFW 11 - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Redwood Creek Panther Creek PAN 3 - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y - - - -

Klamath River Tarup Creek TAR 2 - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y - - - -

Klamath River Little Surpur Creek LSUR 6 - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y Y Y

Klamath River East Fork Tectah Creek EFT 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y

Klamath River West Fork Tectah Creek WFT 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y Y Y Y

Number of sites 3 5 7 7 7 8 12 12 12 12 13 15 15 12 12 12 12

Site Name

# Years

MonitoredWatershed

Years Protocol Implemented

"-" = monitoring was not conducted (i.e., no data available).

110

Effectiveness monitoring projects and programs that due to their complexity and expense of implementation can only be applied in limited regions (these include turbidity monitoring, Class III sediment monitoring, and road-related mass wasting monitoring;

Studies related to harvested and non-harvested areas, allowing for more effective evaluation of conservation measures and increased understanding of the effects of forest management on the habitats and populations of the Covered Species.

Studies of conservation and management measures, allowing for a refinement of measures and an assessment of the relative benefits of different measures under the AHCP; and

Development and implementation of new or refined monitoring and research protocols.

Below is a summary of the studies or pilot studies, past and present, which have been carried out in an Experimental Watershed. SF Winchuck River Watershed

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Class II BACI Water Temperature Monitoring

Class I Channel Monitoring

Long Term Habitat Assessment Monitoring

LWD Monitoring

Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Estimates

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring Ah Pah Creek Watershed

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Class I Channel Monitoring

Long Term Habitat Assessment Monitoring

LWD Monitoring

Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Estimates

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring

Riparian Canopy Modification Experiment Upper Tectah Creek Watershed (watershed added per Minor Modification; GDRCo 2017)

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring

Riparian Canopy Modification Experiment

111

Little Surpur Creek Watershed (watershed added per Minor Modification; GDRCo 2017)

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Long Term Habitat Assessment Monitoring

LWD Monitoring

Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Estimates

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring Little River Watershed

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Class II BACI Water Temperature Monitoring

Tailed Frog Life History Monitoring

Class I Channel Monitoring

Class III Channel Monitoring

Long Term Habitat Assessment Monitoring

LWD Monitoring

Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Estimates

Outmigrant Trapping

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring

BACI Class II RH Cross Section Monitoring Ryan Creek Watershed (monitoring suspended (*) per Minor Modification; GDRCo 2017)

Property Wide Water Temperature Monitoring

Class III Channel Monitoring

Outmigrant Trapping *

Long Term Habitat Assessment Monitoring

LWD Monitoring

Turbidity Threshold Sampling (TTS) monitoring *

The development and implementation of new research and monitoring protocols will provide an opportunity for GDRCo to refine existing conservation measure to make them more effective and efficient. This will include state-of-the-art existing study designs along with original research approaches that will require the input from academic, agency, and private scientists.

1. Riparian Canopy Modification Experiment

GDRCo has been in the process of developing a watershed level experiment since shortly after the approval of our AHCP in 2007 in conjunction with numerous collaborators including Humboldt State University, Oregon State University, USGS, U.S. Forest Service and others. The conceptual framework for the experiment is focused on the response of stream systems to modifications of the riparian canopy that would increase the amount of solar radiation reaching the stream. The fundamental premise is that increases in sunlight will increase primary productivity in

112

the stream ecosystem. A field experiment was designed and implemented to test effects of modifications to the riparian canopy on primary productivity as measured by fish and amphibian abundance and growth while at the same time minimizing negative impacts to aquatic life or water quality.

The potential that riparian canopy modifications may increase stream productivity is based on prior studies suggesting that light limitation of primary production often overrides nutrient limitation in small, forested streams (e.g., Lowe et al. 1986; Rand et al. 1992; Hill et al. 2001). This may be particularly common in the Pacific Northwest, where both coniferous vegetation and an increasing dominance of alder (Alnus spp.; Hu et al. 2001) can provide heavy riparian shade. In coastal settings in northern California, summer fog also reduces light reaching streams. Where light limits algal production, the ability of stream systems to respond to nutrient enrichment such as adding salmon carcasses may be affected and transfer pathways to salmonids may be restricted. Autotrophic pathways are particularly important in sustaining salmonid growth during spring and summer (Bilby and Bisson 1992) and are at the basis of the finding that logged streams often support higher salmonid production than their forested counterparts (e.g., Murphy and Hall 1981; Wilzbach et al. 1986).

The potential benefit of additional sunlight to resident salmonids has already been demonstrated by Wilzbach et al. (2005) in north coastal California. They conducted an experiment in which 100-m stream reaches were treated with complete removal of deciduous canopy to increase solar radiation. Half of these reaches were also treated with additions of salmon carcasses to increase nutrient levels. There was no measurable effect from the carcass additions on the initial and a follow-up study (Harvey and Wilzbach 2010), but removal of the riparian canopy had a strong positive impact on salmonid biomass, density, and growth. However, the implications from this study are limited to the stream reach scale, and what is lacking is additional experimentation to determine if similar results can be achieved at the stream or watershed scale.

The potential benefits of increased sunlight on a stream are not limited to fish species. Increases in primary productivity that indirectly benefits salmonid species through increases in the aquatic invertebrate fauna should also indirectly benefit many stream associated headwater amphibians. In addition, tailed frogs can be directly impacted since the larvae are benthic grazers that feed on unicellular algal periphyton. In two small coastal streams in British Columbia, Mallory and Richardson (2005) documented an increase in larval tailed frog growth with experimental increases in light, but no affect from nutrient additions.

Active management of second-growth stands to accelerate the acquisition of mid to late-seral characteristics using silvicultural treatments has also recently emerged as a top priority in forest parks and reserves in northern coastal California (Porter et al. 2007; Keyes et al. 2010; O’Hara et al. 2010). For example, Redwood National Park recently completed an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact to thin 1,125 acres in the Middle Fork Little Lost Man Creek watershed (RNP

113

2014a and RNP 2014b). In contrast, little attention has been given to achieving similar management goals on private managed timberlands. Compared to late-seral stand condition, second-growth riparian stands typically have a much higher stem density with a shift to a greater proportion of red alder (Alnus rubra) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and fewer redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) (Keyes and Teraoka 2014). In addition to potentially increasing productivity in the aquatic environment, there are similar opportunities to restore and enhance tree species composition and size in the near stream riparian environment.

Although there is increasing evidence supporting the need for a watershed level experiment, the complexity of initiating a long term study of this spatial extent with the potential for negative impacts raises many legitimate concerns that need to be overcome with small incremental steps. As a result, before attempting to launch a watershed level experiment, we initiated a pilot study (see Section VIII.D.2 below) with the fundamental goal of determining the feasibility of expanding the study to a larger scale watershed level experiment.

2. Pilot Project: SF Ah Pah Creek

Objectives A pilot study was initiated on a single stream reach with several objectives. We evaluated the feasibility of marking and removing riparian trees as part of a timber harvest operation to achieve an approximate 50% overstory canopy cover post-harvest. We also monitored the treated reach to determine if there was any evidence of bank erosion or measured increases in turbidity/suspended sediments or any biologically significant increases in water temperature in the treatment or downstream reaches relative to the water entering the upstream portion of the treatment reach. Although the primary objectives were related to the physical variables, prior to conducting the treatment (i.e., felling of riparian canopy trees), we also captured and marked juvenile cutthroat and steelhead trout and coastal giant salamanders to test field methodologies and to provide an opportunity to record movements and growth. The data collected on the physical variables with potential for negative impacts were evaluated from this pilot treatment to ensure that treatment of additional stream reaches was warranted and unlikely to produce negative biological impacts. Project Status The pilot study is located on GDRCo’s ownership in the South Fork (SF) Ah Pah Creek sub-basin that drains into the Lower Klamath River Basin. The single riparian treatment was conducted on an approved Timber Harvesting Plan (GDRCo # 56-1302; CalFire # 1-13-106HUM, Unit B) in SF Ah Pah Creek (Figure 17). The riparian management zone (RMZ) along the west side of the mainstem SF Ah Pah Creek in Unit B was marked by a forester to achieve approximately 50% overstory canopy after the trees were felled and yarded out of the RMZ. Trees marked for harvest

114

Figure 17. Overview map of treatment area and study reaches associated with the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

115

included alder, maple, bay, tanoak, hazelnut, and cascara. The marked trees with commercial value were yarded out of the RMZ, wherever feasible. Felling of the harvest unit was completed on March 31, 2015 and yarding was completed by April 3, 2016. The stream reach immediately upstream of the treated RMZ served as a control for all the physical variables recorded in and immediately downstream of the treated reach. A 100-m reach immediately above and below the treated reach served as biological control areas for recording movement and growth response of marked juvenile cutthroat and steelhead trout and coastal giant salamanders (Figure 17). Habitat mapping and animal sampling occurred in August 2014 and February 2015 to assess pre-treatment fish growth rates during what was believed to be a low growth rate period (Late fall / Early winter) (Figure 18). Post-treatment data collection occurred bimonthly from May 2015 until February 2018. Biological monitoring associated with the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek is complete. The last habitat mapping and animal sampling events occurred in February of 2018 (Figure 18). Hemispherical photographs were taken in September 2014 (during leaf-on conditions) and January 2015 (during leaf-off conditions) to assess pre-treatment canopy closure and solar radiation in the control and treatment reaches (Figure 18 and Figure 19). Post-treatment, from fall of 2015 to spring of 2018, there were six rounds (3 leaf-on and 3 leaf-off) of hemispherical photographs taken. Photographs are processed and analyzed using Hemi-View 2.1 software (Dynamax Inc., 1999). Two of GDRCo’s summer water temperature sites, one upstream (Ah_Pah_SF_(Yurok)) and one downstream (Ah_Pah_SF_(rock_pit)) of the treatment reach, have been monitored for 13 years and 10 years respectively. (Figure 20). In 2014, as part of a graduate student project from HSU (Wick 2016), 12 additional summer water temperature sites (Ah_Pah_SF_4 through Ah_Pah_SF_15) were deployed to get a finer detailed assessment of water temperature conditions prior to treatment within the project area (Figure 20). All 14 of these sites were also monitored from 2015 through 2018 to assess water temperature conditions post-treatment. Water quality characteristics (stage, discharge, turbidity and suspended sediment concentration) have been monitored from water year 2008-2015 (October – September; WY) downstream of the treatment reach at “SFAP” site (Figure 20) as part of GDRCo’s annual monitoring. This same monitoring was also conducted in WY 2016 and 2017 to assess any differences post-treatment. The site was moved upstream approximately 340 feet due to changes in the channel configuration that compromised the quality of data collection at the previous site. WY 2017 was monitored at the “SFAP2” site (Figure 20). Additionally, starting in WY 2017, “forensic turbidity sampling” was conducted following any three inch cumulative rain event that occurred in a 24-hour period to determine if any post-treatment effect

116

Figure 18. Chronological summary of key monitoring activities associated with the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek. From 1995 through 2014, the water temperature monitoring was generally conducted from April to October. For locations of all monitoring sites see Figures 19-21.

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

S S

1 1 1 1 1 1

Water Temperature at "Ah_Pah_SF_(rock_pit)" Water Temperature at "Ah_Pah_SF_(Yurok)" Water Quality Monitoring at "SFAP" Water Quality Monitoring at "SFAP2"

Water Temerature Monitoring at 12 additional sites Habitat Mapping and Animal Sampling Leaf-on Hemispherical Photography Leaf-off Hemispherical Photography

Forensic Turbidity Sampling (labelled with number of sampling events)

J F M A M J J A

2018

O N DJ

2014

J F M A M J

2017

O N DN J F A

Trea

tmen

t

J A S O N DJ F M A MJ J A S OJ F M A M

2015 2016

J A S O N D M A M J JD

117

Figure 19. Map of hemispherical photography sites for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

118

Figure 20. Map of water temperature and annual water quality monitoring sites for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

119

could be detected at the site scale. For each forensic turbidity sampling, water samples were collected manually from 9 sites (Figure 21) whenever the three inch rainfall threshold was met. Results and Discussion A detailed analysis is in progress and will be presented to the Services in 2019. Below, are some preliminary results and observations from our analysis to date. In March 2015 trees that were marked for harvest (~ 50% basal area) within the RMZ were successfully felled and cable-logged with minimal ground disturbance or damage to the retained trees. There was minor bank disturbance in two locations during logging, which were treated (i.e., straw mulched) immediately post-harvest to minimize any potential for sediment delivery. A total of eight hemispherical photography sampling events were conducted to quantify the change in canopy cover over the stream; four during leaf-on (one pre-treatment, three post-treatment; Table 47A) and four during leaf-off (one pre-treatment, three post-treatment; Table 47B). Prior to treatment, the leaf-on versus leaf-off average canopy closure (ACC) decreased by 12.9% (Table 47), which represents the natural variation between leaf-on and leaf-off periods prior to any potential treatment effect. There was no difference in ACC from pre-treatment to the last post-treatment sampling within the downstream control reach for leaf-on, while, ACC decreased by a total of 1.5% during leaf-off (Table 47). From pre-treatment to the last post-treatment sampling, within the treatment reach, ACC decreased by a total of 1.9% and 5.2% during leaf-on and leaf-off, respectively (Table 47). From pre-treatment to the last post-treatment sampling, ACC decreased by a total of 1.7% during leaf-on and decreased by a total of 1.9% during leaf-off within the upstream control reach (Table 47). As expected, changes in ACC within both the upstream and downstream control reaches were negligible. Within the treatment reach we observed small post-treatment reductions in ACC despite the targeted 50% canopy cover retention within the riparian area from harvest. The 50% canopy retention was met according to the methodology used for FPR compliance which uses a site tube. The site tube methodology uses a vertical projection of canopy whereas the hemispherical photography uses a fisheye lens which accounts for topographic shading as well as canopy shading provided by the other side of the stream. This result highlights the fact that the change in canopy within the riparian area can be substantially different from the change in canopy perceived at the centerline of the stream. Water quality monitoring has been conducted annually since 2008. A detailed analysis of the detailed water quality characteristics for monitoring at SFAP and SFAP2 is still in progress.

120

Figure 21. Location of forensic turbidity sampling sites and summary of results for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

121

The forensic turbidity sampling, which occurred in WY 2017, did not show a biologically meaningful difference in turbidity from Site 1 to Site 9 (Figure 21. Location of forensic turbidity sampling sites and summary of results for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.). It was difficult to conduct the forensic turbidity sampling at the peak of storm events due to 1) a lag time in actual rainfall and the official observation being available, and 2) most of the peaks happened at night. Additionally, no bank failures associated with the treatment were observed during habitat assessments conducted every other month within the treatment zone, post-treatment; despite obvious stream-bed sediment transport noted following peak flow events. From a forensic turbidity perspective, the lack of difference in turbidity suggests that the timber harvesting operations that occurred in the riparian area did not contribute to a notable increase in the suspended sediment entering the stream. Stream habitat composition was summarized by date into downstream control, treatment and upstream control reaches (Table 48). A total of 833 total units were mapped into riffles (372), pools (287), runs (73) and others (101) during the 19 habitat mapping survey events. A total of 711 (85.3%) of these 833 units were then surveyed during animal sampling. Sampling rates for the individual units in descending order were runs (90.4%), pools (89.5%), riffles (87.9%) and others (60.4%). On average, 44 units were mapped per sampling period (range = 36-52). The reason that not all habitat units were sampled is based on multiple factors, such as avoiding redds or areas where adult salmonids could be hidden, other habitat units that are too complex to effectively capture animals, habitat that was unlikely to hold animals and habitat that was not able to be safely sampled due to high winter flow. During the November 12, 2015 sampling period, heavy rainfall occurred while animal sampling was being conducted requiring a complete resampling of both habitat and animal sampling. The resampling effort occurred 9 days later on November 21, 2015. The same start point was used throughout the entire study. The originally established endpoint was used during the first 12 sampling periods. In an effort to increase the number of captures and recaptures in the upstream control reach, an additional 260 feet of stream was added to the upstream control reach during the habitat mapping effort in January 2017 and this new endpoint was used during the remaining habitat and animal surveys. This additional length added two or three habitat units depending on the sampling occasion. There were a total of 14107 animal captures (8596 fish and 5511 amphibians), including multiple recaptures of the same animal, during the 18 animal sampling efforts (Table 49). A total of 3777 individuals (1074 salmonids and 2703 coastal giant salamanders) were marked. There were 1115 non-target animals incidentally captured during the experiment. These species included coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei), brown trout (Salmo trutta), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), sculpin (Cottus sp.), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and yellow-legged frog (Rana Boylii). Total captures were highest in the treatment (9020), followed by the downstream control (2907), and upstream control (2180).

122

Growth and movement data for fish and amphibians, as well as, water temperature are currently being analyzed. A final report is in progress and will be presented to the Services in 2019. Table 47. Summary of average values calculated for average canopy closure and effective shade (ES) at hemispherical photo monitoring locations during the leaf-on (A) and leaf-off (B) periods by reach for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

123

Table 48. Summary of habitat units present and percent sampled by type, date and reach for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

Date Reach1 Count

#

Sampled

%

Sampled Count

#

Sampled

%

Sampled Count

#

Sampled

%

Sampled Count

#

Sampled

%

Sampled Count

#

Sampled

%

Sampled

DSC 15 12 80.0 7 4 57.1 6 6 100.0 2 2 100 0 0 N/A

TRT 28 16 57.1 12 5 41.7 13 11 84.6 1 0 0 2 0 0.0

USC 7 5 71.4 2 2 100.0 4 3 75.0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 13 100.0 5 5 100.0 7 7 100.0 1 1 100 0 0 N/A

TRT 28 23 82.1 14 9 64.3 8 8 100.0 5 5 100 1 1 100.0

USC 9 7 77.8 5 4 80.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 13 100.0 6 6 100.0 5 5 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 2 100.0

TRT 24 21 87.5 11 8 72.7 5 5 100.0 5 5 100 3 3 100.0

USC 11 8 72.7 5 4 80.0 3 2 66.7 2 2 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 11 84.6 6 6 100.0 4 2 50.0 1 1 100 2 2 100.0

TRT 26 23 88.5 12 9 75.0 8 8 100.0 3 3 100 3 3 100.0

USC 9 7 77.8 4 3 75.0 2 2 100.0 2 2 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 13 100.0 5 5 100.0 5 5 100.0 1 1 100 2 2 100.0

TRT 22 21 95.5 8 8 100.0 9 9 100.0 1 1 100 4 3 75.0

USC 4 3 75.0 2 2 100.0 0 0 N/A 0 0 N/A 2 1 50.0

DSC 15 14 93.3 5 5 100.0 6 5 83.3 2 2 100 2 2 100.0

TRT 26 11 42.3 11 11 100.0 8 0 0.0 4 0 0 3 0 0.0

USC 8 5 62.5 4 4 100.0 3 0 0.0 0 0 N/A 1 1 100.0

DSC 15 15 100.0 7 7 100.0 6 6 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 2 100.0

TRT 26 25 96.2 11 11 100.0 8 8 100.0 4 4 100 3 2 66.7

USC 10 9 90.0 5 5 100.0 3 3 100.0 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 14 11 78.6 7 6 85.7 3 2 66.7 2 2 100 2 1 50.0

TRT 30 26 86.7 14 12 85.7 9 8 88.9 4 4 100 3 2 66.7

USC 7 4 57.1 3 2 66.7 3 2 66.7 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 14 13 92.9 6 5 83.3 5 5 100.0 0 0 N/A 3 3 100.0

TRT 29 23 79.3 13 11 84.6 13 10 76.9 0 0 N/A 3 2 66.7

USC 6 4 66.7 2 2 100.0 3 2 66.7 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 13 100.0 6 6 100.0 4 4 100.0 1 1 100 2 2 100.0

TRT 29 28 96.6 13 13 100.0 11 11 100.0 3 3 100 2 1 50.0

USC 10 9 90.0 4 4 100.0 4 4 100.0 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 12 10 83.3 6 5 83.3 2 2 100.0 2 2 100 2 1 50.0

TRT 25 24 96.0 11 11 100.0 8 8 100.0 3 3 100 3 2 66.7

USC 4 3 75.0 1 1 100.0 1 1 100.0 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 12 10 83.3 6 5 83.3 3 3 100.0 1 1 100 2 1 50.0

TRT 23 20 87.0 10 8 80.0 6 6 100.0 4 4 100 3 2 66.7

USC 3 2 66.7 1 1 100.0 0 0 N/A 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 11 5 45.5 5 3 60.0 4 2 50.0 0 0 N/A 2 0 0.0

TRT 19 15 78.9 9 8 88.9 7 7 100.0 1 0 0 2 0 0.0

USC 6 4 66.7 2 2 100.0 3 2 66.7 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 11 11 100.0 5 5 100.0 4 4 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 2 100.0

TRT 21 21 100.0 10 10 100.0 9 9 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 2 100.0

USC 4 4 100.0 1 1 100.0 2 2 100.0 0 0 N/A 1 1 100.0

DSC 13 12 92.3 6 6 100.0 5 5 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 1 50.0

TRT 24 20 83.3 12 9 75.0 8 8 100.0 2 2 100 2 1 50.0

USC 6 5 83.3 2 2 100.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100 1 0 0.0

DSC 13 12 92.3 5 5 100.0 4 4 100.0 2 2 100 2 1 50.0

TRT 22 17 77.3 11 9 81.8 7 6 85.7 2 1 50 2 1 50.0

USC 6 3 50.0 2 1 50.0 3 2 66.7 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 12 11 91.7 5 5 100.0 5 5 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 1 50.0

TRT 22 20 90.9 11 10 90.9 8 8 100.0 1 1 100 2 1 50.0

USC 6 5 83.3 2 2 100.0 3 3 100.0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0.0

DSC 6 6 100.0 2 2 100.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100 1 1 100.0

TRT 20 20 100.0 10 10 100.0 8 8 100.0 1 1 100 1 1 100.0

USC 9 9 100.0 5 5 100.0 2 2 100.0 0 0 N/A 2 2 100.0

DSC 10 10 100.0 5 5 100.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100 2 2 100.0

TRT 20 20 100.0 10 10 100.0 7 7 100.0 1 1 100 2 2 100.0

USC 6 6 100.0 2 2 100.0 2 2 100.0 1 1 100 1 1 100.0

6/9/2017

7/25/2017

9/22/2017

11/27/2018

2/2/2018

9/20/2016

8/18/2014

Total Units Riffle Units

4/3/2017

Pool Units Run Units

1Reach: DSC = Downstream Control, TRT=Treatment, USC=Upstream Control. 2Other Units = habitat units that are difficult to sample (i.e. deep, complex woody debris, undercut). These units were occasionally sampled to increase

captures.

Other Units2

1/27/2017

2/18/2015

5/5/2015

7/9/2015

9/11/2015

11/12/2015

11/21/2015

2/1/2016

3/25/2016

6/3/2016

8/1/2016

124

Table 49. Summary of animals captured by sample period, reach, species and handling procedure for the Pilot Project in SF Ah Pah Creek.

Other Species2

Reach1 Marked Recaptures Tally Total Marked Recaptures Tally Total Marked Recaptures Tally Total Marked Recaptures Tally Total Tally

DSC 39 0 0 39 6 0 0 6 19 0 34 53 29 0 1 30 6

1 TRT 72 0 1 73 13 0 1 14 23 0 185 208 132 0 0 132 4

USC 15 0 0 15 2 0 0 2 3 0 56 59 39 0 0 39 0

DSC 13 13 0 26 10 2 0 12 10 0 8 18 48 0 4 52 56

2 TRT 24 18 1 43 22 5 0 27 19 1 22 42 62 1 25 88 31

USC 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 17 12 1 4 17 3

DSC 10 12 1 23 1 1 0 2 0 0 14 14 69 7 4 80 25

3 TRT 34 10 3 47 7 4 1 12 5 0 50 55 216 11 8 235 26

USC 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 3 0 29 32 70 4 10 84 3

DSC 8 21 0 29 1 1 0 2 0 0 55 55 0 13 94 107 34

4 TRT 24 31 1 56 3 5 0 8 0 0 255 255 0 32 284 316 42

USC 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 74 0 6 43 49 8

DSC 2 21 0 23 1 2 0 3 1 0 60 61 0 18 119 137 42

5 TRT 3 44 0 47 1 9 0 10 1 0 300 301 0 14 161 175 43

USC 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 31 32 0 4 17 21 1

DSC 2 10 4 16 1 1 0 2 22 0 36 58 0 5 59 64 38

6 TRT 7 18 0 25 1 3 1 5 43 0 50 93 1 6 182 189 8

USC 3 1 0 4 2 0 0 2 2 1 22 25 0 0 23 23 1

DSC 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 1 22 23 0

7 TRT 4 4 2 10 2 0 1 3 0 0 5 5 0 3 79 82 1

USC 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 7 7 1

DSC 5 1 0 6 1 0 3 4 2 0 1 3 0 2 20 22 6

8 TRT 18 5 0 23 2 1 0 3 9 0 3 12 0 6 57 63 13

USC 3 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 8 0 0 22 22 1

DSC 9 5 0 14 0 0 0 0 2 0 76 78 149 8 1 158 70

9 TRT 29 16 1 46 0 0 0 0 14 0 304 318 239 8 17 264 149

USC 3 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 60 61 34 1 1 36 30

DSC 7 11 0 18 0 0 0 0 6 1 109 116 61 18 34 113 42

10 TRT 28 39 6 73 0 1 0 1 42 5 719 766 179 17 93 289 136

USC 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 66 73 51 1 23 75 4

DSC 3 19 0 22 0 0 0 0 2 5 83 90 60 28 1 89 26

11 TRT 4 53 0 57 0 1 0 1 28 17 505 550 183 30 11 224 105

USC 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 11 15 28 4 0 32 7

DSC 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 2 2 0 5 7 11 6 0 17 4

12 TRT 8 3 0 11 10 0 2 12 8 1 19 28 56 13 7 76 11

USC 10 1 0 11 11 0 1 12 3 0 6 9 25 0 7 32 0

DSC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 4 0 30 1

13 TRT 4 7 0 11 3 1 0 4 10 0 6 16 81 8 17 106 19

USC 3 2 0 5 2 0 0 2 9 1 0 10 49 8 50 107 1

DSC 14 3 0 17 7 0 0 7 1 0 26 27 51 6 2 59 2

14 TRT 31 10 0 41 8 1 0 9 7 1 241 249 129 20 6 155 28

USC 19 4 1 24 0 0 0 0 1 0 149 150 75 7 3 85 9

DSC 11 14 0 25 4 5 0 9 7 0 105 112 60 7 4 71 6

15 TRT 14 30 3 47 7 7 1 15 21 3 379 403 130 30 144 304 8

USC 0 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 100 101 50 12 71 133 7

DSC 5 23 1 29 5 5 2 12 5 1 181 187 51 16 33 100 4

16 TRT 11 43 1 55 2 16 0 18 25 18 788 831 111 31 121 263 2

USC 2 14 1 17 0 0 0 0 2 1 273 276 52 6 55 113 3

DSC 0 4 0 4 2 3 0 5 5 0 11 16 20 7 0 27 1

17 TRT 1 9 0 10 5 1 5 11 8 3 46 57 57 7 0 64 5

USC 2 5 0 7 11 0 0 11 4 1 9 14 7 2 0 9 0

DSC 0 6 20 26 0 1 2 3 0 1 28 29 0 4 31 35 12

18 TRT 0 18 10 28 0 4 7 11 0 4 147 151 0 23 104 127 30

USC 0 6 12 18 0 1 4 5 0 1 53 54 0 2 23 25 0

DSC 128 167 26 321 41 21 7 69 86 10 832 928 635 150 429 1214 375

ALL ALL TRT 316 358 29 703 86 59 19 164 263 53 4024 4340 1576 260 1316 3152 661

USC 73 55 15 143 29 1 5 35 52 18 944 1014 492 58 359 909 79

ALL ALL ALL 517 580 70 1167 156 81 31 268 401 81 5800 6282 2703 468 2104 5275 1115

2Other Species: Coastal tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) , brown trout (Salmo Trutta) , Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha ), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch ),

sculpin (Cottus asper ), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus ), and yellow-legged frog (Rana Boylii ).

9/25-

9/28/2017

11/29-

12/1/2017

2/5-

2/7/2018

Date

Range

9/21-

9/26/2016

1/30-

2/1/2017

4/3-

4/5/2017

6/12-

6/15/2017

7/26-

7/28/2018

1Reach: DSC=Downstream Control, TRT=Treatment, DSC=Downstream Control.

Sample

Period

Cutthroat Trout Steelhead Trout Unidentified Trout Coastal Giant Salamander

8/20-

8/22/2014

2/23-

3/3/2015

5/6-

5/20/2015

7/13-

7/22/2015

9/14-

9/15/2015

11/16-

11/23/2015

2/2-

2/5/2016

3/28-

4/5/2016

6/6-

6/13/2016

8/2-

8/4/2016

125

3. Tectah Creek Riparian Canopy Experiment

The watershed level riparian canopy experiment is located on GDRCo’s ownership in Tectah Creek, tributary to the Lower Klamath River Basin. The riparian treatment areas were incorporated into a Timber Harvesting Plan (GDRCo # 56-1601; CalFire # 1-16-091HUM) in Upper Tectah Creek (Figure 22). The target overstory canopy retention level post-harvest within the treatment reaches was 50%. Based on information learned from the pilot project in SF Ah Pah Creek, canopy was removed along both sides of the stream in each treatment reach to ensure adequate solar radiation reached the stream to observe a treatment response. Trees marked for harvest included alder, maple, tanoak, madrone, Douglas-fir, redwood, and hemlock. The marked trees with commercial value were yarded out of the RMZs, wherever feasible. Stream reaches immediately upstream of the experimental RMZs serves as the control for each harvest unit and the stream reach immediately downstream of the treated RMZs serves as the downstream response for each harvest unit (Figure 22). Monitoring associated with this experiment was conducted in conjunction with a research project by David Roon (PhD candidate from Oregon State University), whose dissertation research also included studying the riparian thinning restoration that was conducted along Middle Fork Lost Man Creek in Redwood Nation Park. Objectives The objectives of the study are to 1) determine how changes in canopy cover and light associated with riparian thinning will affect thermal regimes within the stream network, 2) determine how stream food web structure shifts to changing riparian canopy conditions associated with the experimental thinning treatments, 3) determine if thermal or trophic pathways are responsible for driving potential changes in growth, production, and bioenergetics for cutthroat trout, and 4) evaluate cumulative watershed effects associated with riparian thinning for aquatic ecosystems using a food web system dynamics model. David Roon’s research proposal was provided in Appendix D of the 5th Biennial Report (GDRCo 2017). Project Status Pre-treatment data collection for the project began in 2015 and 2016. Felling and yarding activities of the harvest units were completed during 2017. Post-harvest data collection began during late summer 2017 and was completed during the fall of 2018.

126

Results Data are currently being processed and analyzed. David Roon has recently presented preliminary data on the project at a variety of meetings and symposiums:

Thermal responses to riparian thinning in redwood headwater streams at multiple spatial scales

- Headwater Stream Symposium; Corvallis, OR; 1/15/2019.

Riparian shade, light, and stream temperature responses to riparian thinning in redwood headwater streams - Project status update meeting with the Services and GDRCo; Korbel, CA;

7/27/2018. - Salmonid Restoration Federation Conference; Fortuna, CA 4/14/2018. - Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society meeting; Eugene, OR;

3/14/2018.

Aquatic responses to riparian thinning in redwood headwater streams - Invited talk to Washington County Fly Fishers Association; Beaverton, OR;

11/07/2018. - Invited talk for Redwood National Park Natural Resource Winter Lecture

Series; Orick, CA; 1/18/2018. Dave Roon’s dissertation on the Tectah Creek riparian experiment is expected to be completed in 2020.

127

Figure 22. Map of experimental thinning treatments in Upper Tectah Creek.

128

E. Protocol Updates

As allowed under the AHCP Program Flexibility (AHCP Section 6.3.5.1.1), monitoring techniques and related technology are expected to change significantly through the life of this Plan. Some monitoring approaches may be retired or replaced by more efficient and/or accurate techniques to address the same issue, and entirely new approaches may be implemented to address currently unforeseen issues. Since implementation of the Plan, minor modifications to some of the effectiveness monitoring protocols have occurred. To help track the protocol changes that have occurred to date and in the future, a summary was compiled (Table 50) and will be updated biennially. Table 50. Summary of effectiveness monitoring protocol updates (Y = yes, N = no; protocol modified) since AHCP implementation.

IX. Adaptive Management Account The AHCP was designed to be adapted over time as GDRCo learns new information through triggering of a yellow or red light condition determined through on-going monitoring, slope stability monitoring, or through the outcome of a designed experiment in one or more of the Experimental Watersheds. As described in AHCP Section 6.2.6, adaptive management changes will be subject to the availability of the Adaptive Management Reserve Account (AMRA) and limited to changes in RMZs, SMZs and specific road management plan prescriptions. The opening balance of the AMRA was set to 1,550 Fully Stocked Acres. There were no debits or credits made to the AMRA balance as of December 31, 2018. Any debits and credits will be tracked on an on-going basis and the account will be summarized and updated in each biennial report.

2007 2008 2009 2010 20111 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Rapid Response Monitoring Headwaters Monitoring - Tailed Frog N N N N Y N N N N N N N

Headwaters Monitoring - Torrent Salamander N N N N Y N N N N N N N

Response Monitoring Class I Channel Monitoring N N N N Y N N N Y N N N

Class III Sediment Monitoring N N N N Y N N N N N N N

Long-term Trend Monitoring/Research Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Estimates N N N N Y N N N N N N N

Out-migrant Trapping N N N N Y N N N N N N N

10 Year Tailed Frog Occupancy Survey N N N N N N N N N N N N2

10 Year Torrent Salamander Occupancy Survey N N N N N N N N N N N N2

1Updated protocols provided as appendices in the third biennia l report.

Monitoring Project Type Project Type

Years Protocol Updated

2A minor modification to change the property wide amphibian headwaters surveys from abundance to occupancy surveys was submitted to the services on Apri l 27, 2018 and is

pending approval . Additional ly, ta i led frog occupancy surveys wi l l incorporate environmental DNA (eDNA) sampl ing as a component of the survey.

129

X. Changed Circumstances The AHCP Conservation Program was designed within the context of the forestland ecosystems in the Plan Area. These ecosystems are dynamic rather than static; they are regularly impacted by various natural physical processes that shape and reshape the habitat for the affected species that occupy those areas. The aquatic species for whose conservation the AHCP was crafted evolved in close association with this ever-changing mosaic of natural physical elements. The natural physical processes that affect the biodiversity and landscape ecology are usually of moderate intensity and relatively confined in geographic extent and magnitude of impact. Nonetheless, natural physical processes have on occasion been of catastrophic intensity, particularly from the standpoint of impact to individual plants and animals. That these natural physical processes can significantly alter aquatic and riparian habitat has been a substantive consideration in the development of this Plan, and the Plan is designed to minimize and mitigate management-related disturbances and create conditions that enable natural disturbances to create productive habitat. GDRCo recognizes that the temporal and spatial configurations of future natural disturbances (and their specific related effects on the aquatic species covered under the Plan) are inherently unpredictable. The fact that certain types of natural disturbances will occur at some time during the term of this Plan and at some location in the Plan Area is, however, reasonably foreseeable. The operating conservation program was designed, in large part, to be responsive to historical disturbance patterns. The prescriptions were intended to develop a landscape capable of delivering valuable functions in response to such natural disturbances. Therefore, the occurrence of most natural disturbances will not create conditions that should require the implementation of revised prescriptions. Certain reasonably foreseeable disturbances, however, may be of such magnitude, occur with such frequency or impact particular portions of the Plan Area as to require the application of supplemental prescriptions for the protection of the Covered Species. These supplemental prescriptions are provided in AHCP Section 6.2.9. There were five types of changes identified in the AHCP as potential “changed circumstances” as defined in applicable federal regulations and policies:

1. Fire covering more than 1,000 acres within the Plan Area or more than 500 acres within a single watershed within the Plan Area, but covering 10,000 acres or less;

2. Complete blow-down of more than 150 feet of previously standing timber within an RMZ, measured along the length of the stream; but less than 900 feet of trees within an RMZ, due to a windstorm;

130

3. Loss of 51% or more of the pre-harvest total tree basal area within any SSS, headwall swale, or Tier B Class III watercourses as a result of Sudden Oak Death (SOD) or stand treatment to control SOD;

4. Landslides that deliver more than 20,000 cubic yards and less than 100,000 cubic yards of sediment to a channel; and

5. Listing of a species that is not a Covered Species but is affected by the Covered Activities.

GDRCo did not discover nor was GDRCo made aware of any type of conditions that constitute Changed Circumstances as defined above during this reporting period.

131

XI. Literature Cited Anderson, C. 2018. Personal communication. FRGP grantee: Humboldt Bay

coho monitoring program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Arcata CA.

Baek, Kigwang. 2018. Productivity and Cost of a Cut-to-length Commercial

Thinning Operation in a Northern California Redwood Forest (master’s thesis). Humboldt State University.

Bilby, R.E. and Bisson, P.A. 1992. Allochthonous versus autochthonous organic

matter contributions to the trophic support of fish populations in clear-cut and old-growth forested streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 540-551.

Bjorkstedt, E. P. 2005. DARR v2.01 updated software for estimating abundance

from stratified mark-recapture data. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-368. 13 p.

Diller, L. V. and R. L. Wallace. 1996. Distribution and habitat of Rhyacotriton

variegatus on managed, young growth forests in north coastal California. Journal of Herpetology 30(2):184-191.

Diller, L. V. and R. L. Wallace. 1999. Distribution and habitat of Ascaphus truei in

streams on managed, young growth forests in north coastal California. Journal of Herpetology 33(1): 71-79.

Dynamax Inc. 1999. HemiView software package version 2.1. Houston, TX:

Delta-T Devices Ltd. Flosi, G. and F.L. Reynolds. 1994. California salmonid stream habitat restoration

manual. Second Edition. IFD, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. Flosi, G., S. Downie, M. Bird, R. Coey, and B. Collins. 2002. California salmonid

stream habitat restoration manual. 3rd ed. IFS, CDFG, Sacramento, CA. Gale, D., Personal communication. United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

Arcata Field Office, Arcata, CA. Green Diamond Resource Company. 2009. 1st Biennial Report Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Korbel, CA. 103 p. plus appendices.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2011a. 2nd Biennial Report Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Korbel, CA. 96 p. plus appendices.

132

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2011b. Juvenile Outmigrant Trapping Program Little River 2010. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 - Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 23 p.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2013. 3rd Biennial Report Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Korbel, CA. 127 p. plus appendices.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2014. Juvenile Outmigrant Trapping Program Little River 2010. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 - Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 25 p.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2015a. 4th Biennial Report Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Korbel, CA. 125 p. plus appendices.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2015b. Juvenile Outmigrant Trapping Program Little River 2016. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 - Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 28 p.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2016. Juvenile Outmigrant Trapping

Program Little River 2016. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 - Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 28 p.

Green Diamond Resource Company. 2017. 5th Biennial Report Submitted to

National Marine Fisheries Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Korbel, CA. 127 p. plus appendices.

Green Diamond Resource Company 2019a. Summer Juvenile Salmonid Population Sampling Program 2016. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 – Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 22 p.

Green Diamond Resource Company 2019b. Juvenile Outmigrant Trapping

Program Little River 2016. Annual Report to National Marine Fisheries Service for Permit 1060 – Mod 1, Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, CA. 30 p.

Harvey, B. C. and M. A. Wilzbach. 2010. Carcass addition does not enhance

juvenile salmonid biomass, growth, or retention in six northwestern California streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:1445–1451.

133

Hwang, Kyungrok. 2018. Impacts on Soils and Residual Trees from Cut-to-

length Thinning Operations in California’s Redwood Forests (master’s thesis). Humboldt State University.

Hill, W.R., Mulholland, P.J., and Marzolf, E.R. 2001. Stream ecosystem

responses to forest leaf emergence in spring. Ecology 82: 2306-2319. Hu, F., Finney, B.P., and Brubaker, L.B. 2001. Effects of Holocene Alnus

expansion on aquatic productivity, nitrogen cycling, and soil development in southwestern Alaska. Ecosystems 4: 358-368.

Imre, I., J. W .A. Grant, and R.A. Cunjak. 2005. Density-dependent growth of

young-of-the-year Atlantic salmon Salmon salar in Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick. Journal of Animal Ecology. Volume 74: 508-516.

Keyes, C.R.; Perry, T.E.; Plummer, J.F. 2010. Variable-Density Thinning for

Parks and Reserves: An Experimental Case Study at Humboldt Redwoods State Park, California. In Proceedings of the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop; Proceedings RMRS-P-61; USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2010; pp. 227–237.

Keyes, C. R. and E. K. Teraoka. 2014. Structure and Composition of Old-Growth

and Unmanaged Second-Growth Riparian Forests at Redwood National Park, USA. Forests 2014, 5, 256-268; doi:10.3390/f5020256.

Lowe, R.L., Golladay, S.W., and Webster, J.R. 1986. Periphyton response to

nutrient manipulation in streams draining clearcut and forested watersheds. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 5: 221-229.

Mallory, M. A. and J. S. Richardson. 2005. Complex interactions of light, nutrients

and consumer density in a stream periphyton–grazer (tailed frog tadpoles) system. Journal of Animal Ecology. 74: 1020–1028.

Mohseni, O. and H.G. Stefan 1999. Stream temperature/air temperature

relationship: a physical interaction. Journal of Hydrology, 218, 128-141.

Murphy, M. L., and J. D. Hall. 1981. Varied effects of clear-cut logging on predators and their habitat in small streams of the Cascade Mountains, Oregon. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38: 137-145.

Murphy, M. L. and W. R. Meehan 1991. “Chapter 2: Stream Ecosystems” in

Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management On Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. Ed. W. R. Meehan. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 19, pp.17-46

134

NOAA, 2014. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National

Weather Service, California Nevada River Forecast Center, Sacramento, California. “Monthly Precipitation Summary Water Year 2014”. http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/monthly_precip_2014.php. 29 December 2014.

O’Hara, K.L.; Nesmith, J.C.B.; Leonard, L.; Porter, D.J. 2010. Restoration of old

forest features in coast redwood forests using early-stage variable density thinning. Restoration Ecology 18(S1): 125-135.

Porter, D., V. Gizinski, R. Hartley, and S.H. Kramer. 2007. Restoring complexity

to industrially managed timberlands: The Mill Creek interim management recommendations and early restoration thinning treatments. P.283–294 in Proc. of the Redwood Science Symposium: What does the future hold? US For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-194.

Rand, P.S., Hall, C.A.S., McDowell, W.H., Ringler, N.H., and Kennen, J.G. 1992.

Factors limiting primary productivity in Lake Ontario tributaries receiving salmon migrations. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 49: 2377-2385.

Rebenack, J.J., S. Ricker, C. Anderson, M. Wallace and D.M. Ward. 2015.

Early Emigration of Juvenile Coho Salmon: Implications for Population Monitoring, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 144:1, 163-172, DOI:10.1080/00028487.2014.982258

Ricker, S., Personal communication. California Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Northern California, North Coast Region, Arcata, California. RNP (Redwood National Park). 2014a. National Park Service, US Department of

the Interior. Redwood National Park Middle Fork Lost Man Creek Second-Growth Forest Restoration Environmental Assessment. May 2014.

RNP (Redwood National Park). 2014b. National Park Service, US Department

of the Interior. Finding of No Significant Impact: Middle Fork Lost Man Creek Second-Growth Forest Restoration Environmental Assessment. December 2014.

Shapovalov, L., and A.C. Taft.1954. The life histories of the steelhead rainbow

trout (Salmo gairdneri) and silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) with special reference to Waddell Creek, California, and recommendations regarding their management. Calif. Dep. Fish Game Fish. Bull. 98: 375.

Smith, Lauren, 2017. Seasonal comparison of environmental DNA and traditional

sampling techniques for detecting coastal tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) in Northern California. Theses and projects. 42 p.

135

Townsend, C. 1989. Population cycles in freshwater fish. Journal of Fish Biology.

35, sA: 125-131. Wallace, R. L., Diller, L. V., 1998. Length of the larval cycle of Ascaphus truei in

coastal streams of the Redwood Region, northern California. Journal of Herpetology 32 (3), 404-409.

Wick, A.R. 2016. Adaptive Management of a Riparian Zone in the Lower

Klamath River Basin, Northern California: The Effects of Riparian Harvest on Canopy Closure, Water Temperatures and Baseflow. M.Sc. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 102 p.

Wilzbach, M. A., B. C. Harvey, J. L. White and R. J. Nakamoto. 2005. Effects of

riparian canopy opening and salmon carcass addition on the abundance and growth of resident salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62: 58–67.

Wilzbach, M.A., K.W. Cummins, and J.D. Hall. 1986. Influence of habitat

manipulations on interactions between cutthroat trout and invertebrate drift. Ecology 67:898-911

136

XII. Glossary

A. Abbreviations

ACC Average Canopy Cover AHCP Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan AMRA Adaptive Management Reserve Account BACI Before-After-Control-Impact CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEG Certified Engineering Geologist CI Confidence Interval CMZ Channel Migration Zone DARR Darroch Analysis with Rank Reduction DEM Digital Elevation Model DBH diameter at breast height DOQQ Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quads DSC Downstream Control DSL Deep-Seated Landslide EC Effective Shade EEZ Equipment Exclusion Zone ESA Endangered Species Act ESP Enhancement of Survival Permit FPRs Forest Practice Rules FRIS Forest Resources Information System GDP Gross Domestic Product GDRCo Green Diamond Resource Company GHG Green House Gases GIS Geographic Information System HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HPA Hydrographic Planning Area HRA Habitat Retention Area HWS Headwall Swale IA Implementation Agreement IFM Intensive Forest Management ITP Incidental Take Permit LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging LSFLR Lower South Fork Little River LTO Licensed Timber Operator LWD Large Woody Debris MATO Master Agreement for Timber Operations MWA Mass Wasting Assessment MWPZ Mass Wasting Prescription Zones NAIP National Agriculture Imagery Program NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

137

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NSO Northern Spotted Owl PI Prediction Interval PIT Passive Integrated Transponder PG Professional Geologist RMA Routine Maintenance Area RMWDR Road Management Waste Discharge Requirements RMZ Riparian Management Zone RPF Registered Professional Forester RRC Railroad Creek RSMZ Riparian Slope Stability Management Zone RST Rotary Screw Trap RWU Road Work Unit SMZ Slope Stability Management Zone SOD Sudden Oak Death SRL Shallow Rapid Landslide SSC Suspended Sediment Concentration SSS Steep Streamside Slope SSSMU Steep Streamside Slope Morphologic Unit THP Timber Harvesting Plan TMIS Timberlands Management Information Systems TRT Treatment TTS Turbidity Threshold Sampling USC Upstream Control USFLR Upper South Fork Little River USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WEST Inc. Western EcoSystems Technology Inc. WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements WSFPB State of Washington’s Forest Practice Board YOY Young of the year 7DMAVG highest 7-day moving mean of water temperature 7DMMX highest 7-day moving mean of the maximum daily temperature

B. Definitions

Adaptive Management: As defined by the Services for purposes of their HCP program, a method for examining alternative strategies for meeting measurable biological goals and objectives, and then, if necessary, adjusting future conservation management actions according to what is learned (65 Federal Register 106, 36245). Aerial logging: Movement of logs to a landing by use of helicopters, or balloons, often used where roads cannot be constructed to provide access to a harvesting unit.

138

Age class: One of the intervals into which the age range of trees is divided for classification or use in management. Aggradation: Deposition in one place of material eroded from another. Aggradation raises the elevation of streambeds, floodplains, and the bottoms of other water bodies. Alternative Geologic Prescription: Any prescription applied to a mass wasting prescription zone that deviates from the default prescriptions defined in GDRCo’s AHCP. Alternative Prescription: Excerpt from the 2013 Forest Practice Act; “(a) An alternative prescription shall be included in a THP when, in the judgment of the RPF, an alternative regeneration method or intermediate treatment offers a more effective or more feasible way of achieving the objectives of Section 913 [933, 953] than any of the standard silvicultural methods provided in this Article.” Approved Plan: All AHCP THPs with an approval date that falls within the reporting period. These THPs are queried and provide data for the THP summary tables in the AHCP Biennial Report. Bankfull channel width: Channel width between the tops of the most pronounced bank on either side of a stream reach where water would just begin to flow out onto the floodplain. Basal area: The cross sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground). Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI): An experimental approach that utilizes a paired design with treatment and control sites. Data are collected from both experimental sites before and after the treatment and an analysis is done to determine if the relationship of the response variable(s) between the treatment and control sites differs following the treatment. Biomass harvesting: A hazard abatement process that involves the removal of logging debris that typically is piled during active harvesting operations. The debris is removed from the harvesting area and is used as hog fuel rather than being burned on site. Break-in-slope: See Qualifying Slope Break. Broadcast burn: A prescribed fire allowed to burn throughout a site preparation area to prepare it for regeneration. It does not include burning of organic matter which is piled during mechanical site preparation or for hazard reduction.”

139

Buffer: A vegetation strip or management zone of varying size, shape, and character maintained along a stream, lake, road, or different vegetation zone to minimize the impacts of actions on sensitive resources. Cable yarding (logging): Taking logs from the stump area to a landing using an overhead system of winch-driven cables to which logs are attached with chokers. California Forest Practice Rules (CFPRs): Rules promulgated by the California Board of Forestry and administered by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection governing the conduct of commercial timber operations on state and private land in California. Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA): An agreement between a non-federal property owner and the Service(s), in which the property owner commits to implement conservation measures for a proposed or candidate species or a species likely to become a candidate or proposed in the near future. The property owner also receives assurances from the Service(s) that additional conservation measures will not be required and additional land, water, or resource use restrictions will not be imposed should the currently unlisted species become listed in the future (64 Federal Register 116, 32727). The agreement accompanying with an enhancement of survival permit issued under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. Changed Circumstances: Changes in circumstances affecting a species or geographic area covered by a conservation plan that can reasonably be anticipated by plan developers and the Services and that can be planned for (e.g. the listing of a new species, or a fire or other natural catastrophic event in areas prone to such events.). 50 CFR §§ 17.3, 222.102. Changes that will constitute Changed Circumstances, and the responses to those circumstances, are described in Plan Section 6.2. Changed Circumstances are not Unforeseen Circumstances. Channel: Natural or artificial waterway of perceptible extent that periodically or continuously contains moving water. Channel Migration Zones (CMZs): Current boundaries of bankfull channel along the portion of the floodplain that is likely to become part of the active channel in the next 50 years. The area of the channel defined by a boundary that generally corresponds to the modern floodplain, but may also include terraces that are subject to significant bank erosion. Class I watercourses: All current or historical fish-bearing watercourses and/or domestic water supplies that are on site and/or within 100 feet downstream of the intake.

140

Class II watercourses: As used in the Plan, watercourses containing no fish, but support or provides habitat for aquatic vertebrates. Seeps and springs that support or provide habitat for aquatic vertebrates are also considered Class II watercourses with respect to the conservation measures. Class II-1 watercourse: A subset of Class II watercourses, as illustrated in Figure 6-2 of the AHCP. Class II-2 watercourse: A subset of Class II watercourses, as illustrated in Figure 6-2 of the AHCP. Class III watercourses: Small seasonal channels which do not support aquatic species, but have the potential to transport sediment to Class I or II watercourses. Clearcutting: Even-aged regeneration method where all the merchantable trees in the stand are removed in one harvest. Regeneration is accomplished by natural or artificial means. Cobble: Substrate particles 64-256 mm in diameter. Often subclassified as small (64-128 mm) and large (128-256 mm). Colluvial hollow: A low tract of land surrounded by steep slopes and continually filled with colluvial material, may be “U” or “V” shaped, is a source for debris flow initiation, typically found above or near the head of a watercourse and generally does not flow water annually. Commercial harvest: Removal of merchantable trees from a stand. Commercial thinning: Any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal to the value of the direct costs of harvesting and to achieve optimum diameter growth and increase the eventual product value of the remaining trees. Completed THPs: Completed THPs for the biennial report include AHCP THPs where all units have been depleted (i.e. the felling, logging, loading, & hauling have been completed) for all the units in the timber harvest plan during the reporting period. Note: Only the last unit to be depleted needs to fall within the reporting period. Covered Activities: Certain activities carried out by Green Diamond in the Plan Area that may result in incidental take of Covered Species and all those activities necessary to carry out the commitments reflected in the Plan’s Operating Conservation Program and IA. Covered Species: The species identified in Table 1-4 of the AHCP, which the Plan addresses in a manner sufficient to meet all of the criteria for issuing an

141

incidental take permit under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) and all of the criteria for issuing an enhancement of survival permit under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A), as applicable. Culvert: Buried pipe structure that allows streamflow or road drainage to pass under a road. Debris slide: A landslide of mixed particle size, predominantly dry unconsolidated material. May move fast or slow. Deep-seated landslide: Landslides that have a basal slip plane that is relatively deep and commonly extends into bedrock. These are typically vegetated with trees and/or grass and typically move incrementally. Degradation (streambed): Erosional removal of materials from one place to another. Degradation lowers the elevation of streambeds and floodplains. Diameter at breast height (DBH): The diameter of a tree 4.5 feet above the ground on the uphill side of the tree. Dissolved oxygen: Oxygen found in solution with water in streams and lakes. Solubility is generally measured in mg/l and varies with temperature, salinity, and atmospheric pressure. Drainage: An area (basin) mostly bounded by ridges or other similar topographic features, encompassing part, most, or all of a watershed. Drainage area: Total land area draining to any point in a stream, as measured on a map, aerial photo, or other horizontal, two-dimensional projection. Effective date: The date(s) upon which the ITP and ESP are issued by the Services. Enhancement of Survival Permit (ESP): A permit issued by the Service(s) pursuant to ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) for any act that enhances the propagation or survival of a listed species that would otherwise be prohibited by ESA Section 9. The permit that authorizes incidental take of species covered by a CCAA. Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ): An area where use of heavy equipment is not allowed. Even-aged stand: A stand of trees composed of a single age class in which the range of tree ages is usually +/- 20 percent of rotation.

142

Even-aged harvest: The application of a combination of actions that results in the creation of even-aged stands. Clearcut, shelterwood, or seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands. Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, operational, and technological factors, and considering what is allowable under the law. Felling (timber): Physically cutting a tree from its stump including cutting of the felled tree into predetermined log lengths. Fine sediment: Sediment with particle size of 2 mm and less, including sand, silt, and clay. Floodplain: The area adjacent to the stream constructed by the river in the present climate and inundated during periods of high flow. Forest management: The practical application of biological, physical, quantitative, managerial, economic, social, and policy principles to the regeneration, management, utilization, and conservation of forests to meet specified goals and objectives while maintaining the productivity of the forest. Geomorphic features: Mass wasting features defined within the AHCP that include; deep-seated landslides (DSL), headwall swales (HWS), riparian slope stability management zones (RSMZ), slope stability management zones (SMZ), and shallow rapid landslides (SRL). Gradient: Average change in vertical elevation per unit of horizontal distance. Green Diamond’s ownership: Commercial timberlands that Green Diamond owns in fee and lands owned by others subject to Green Diamond harvesting rights. Ground-based yarding (logging): Movement of logs to a landing by use of tractors, either tracked or rubber tired (rubber tired skidders) or shovels (hydraulic boom log loaders). Habitat: The place, natural or otherwise, (including climate, food, cover, and water) where an animal, plant, or population naturally or normally lives and develops. Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). As defined in the Services’ HCP Handbook, a planning document that is a mandatory component of an application for an incidental take permit under ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B); also known as a conservation plan. The document that, among other things, identifies the operating conservation program that will be implemented to minimize, mitigate,

143

and monitor the effects of incidental take on the species covered by a Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit. Harvesting: All activities necessary to cut, remove, and transport timber products from the Plan Area. Harvesting Rights: The rights to conduct timber operations on lands owned in fee by another. Short-term harvesting rights generally expire upon the conclusion of timber operations, upon a date certain, or a combination of the two. Perpetual harvesting rights pertain to existing and subsequent crops of timber and continue without expiration. Hazard Abatement: The process in which the woody debris that remains after harvesting a stand of timber is removed in order to reduce fire hazard. Headwall swales: Areas of narrow, steep, convergent topography (swales or hollows) located at the heads of Class III watercourses that have been sculpted over geologic time by repeated debris slide and debris flow events. HPA Group: HPAs that have been grouped together based on their geologic and geomorphic characteristics for purposes applying slope stability measures. Hydrographic Planning Area (HPA): The hydrographic areas and hydrologic units mapped in the AHCP/CCAA which encompass the Eligible Plan Area and surrounding lands in common watersheds. Hydrological disconnection: Isolation of the road network such that drainage will not directly enter into watercourses. Implementation Agreement (IA): An agreement between the Service(s) and the incidental take permittee(s) that identifies the obligations of the parties, identifies remedies if parties fail to meet their obligations, provides assurances to the Service(s) that the conservation plan will be implemented, and provides assurances to the permittee(s) that implementation of the plan satisfies ESA requirements for the species and activities covered by the plan and permit. Incidental take: The taking of a federally listed species, if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out otherwise lawful activities. Incidental Take Permit (ITP): A permit issued by the Services pursuant to ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizing incidental take of federally listed species named on the permit. Initial Plan Area: Green Diamond's ownership within the 11 HPAs as of the effective date of the Permits, as depicted in Figure 1-1 of the AHCP.

144

Inner Gorge: A geomorphic feature formed by coalescing scars originating by coalescing scars originating from landsliding and erosional processes caused by historically active stream erosion. The feature is identified as that area beginning immediately adjacent to the stream channel below extending up slope to the first break in the slope. Inner gorge is a subset of Steep Streamside Slopes. Landings: The areas where harvested trees are gathered (through skidding or yarding) for subsequent transport out of the forest. Large woody debris (LWD): Larger pieces of wood in stream channels or on the ground, including logs, root wads, and large chunks of wood that provide important biological and physical functions. Mainline roads: Roads that support significant amounts of traffic annually from major tracts of timber or provide the main access into a tract for non-harvest management activities. Mainstem: Principal stem of channel of a drainage system. Management roads: Roads that are needed to either support long term management activities in the Plan Area or provide access to timber that will be harvested within the next 20 years. Manning’s roughness coefficient: A variable that represents the resistance of the bed of a stream channel to the flow of water in it. Mass soil movement (mass wasting): All geologic processes in which masses of earth materials move downslope by gravitational forces. Includes, but is not limited to, landslides, rock falls, and debris avalanches. It does not, however, include surface erosion by running water. It may be caused by natural erosional processes, or by natural disturbances (e.g., earthquakes or fire events) or human disturbances (e.g., mining or road construction). Mass Wasting Prescription Zones (MWPZs): Steep streamside slopes, deep-seated landslides, and headwall swales where slope stability measures will be applied. Merchantable: Trees or stands having the size, quality, and condition suitable for marketing under a give economic condition, even if not immediately accessible for logging. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS): A division of the U.S. Department of Commerce that is responsible for the stewardship of the nation’s marine resources, the protection and recovery of listed marine species, and the authorization of incidental take of listed marine species.

145

Operating Conservation Program: As defined in 50 CFR §§ 17.3, 222.102, those conservation management activities which are expressly agreed upon and described in a conservation plan or its implementing agreement, if any, and which are to be undertaken for the affected species when implementing an approved conservation plan, including measures to respond to changed circumstances. In this Plan and the IA, the conservation management activities and specific measures (including provisions for changed circumstances, funding, monitoring, reporting, adaptive management, and dispute resolution) as set forth in Section 6.2. Orthorectified: The process where the effects of image perspective (tilt) and relief (terrain) effects have been removed for the purpose of creating a planimetrically correct image with a constant scale. Outmigrant: A juvenile salmonid fish that is moving downstream toward the ocean during which a physiological adaptation termed smoltification occurs thus allowing the young fish to survive in a saline environment. Overstory: That portion of the trees, in a forest of more than one story, forming the upper or uppermost canopy layer. Parr: Young salmonid, in the stage between alevin and smolt, that has developed distinctive dark “parr marks” on its sides and is actively feeding in fresh water. Permanent road decommissioning: Decommissioning of a road that will not be needed for future management activities. Permit or Permits: The incidental take permit (ITP) issued by NMFS to Green Diamond pursuant to ESA Section 10(a)(1)(B) or the enhancement of survival permit (ESP) issued by USFWS to Green Diamond pursuant to ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) (“ESP”), or both the ITP and the ESP. Permeability: The rate of water flow through streambed substrate (e.g., gravels). Physiographic provinces: Geographical areas that are delineated according to common physical characteristics relating to their geology, and geomorphology. Plan: The Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances prepared by Green Diamond, dated October 2006. Plan Area: All commercial timberland acreage within eleven Hydrographic Planning Areas (HPAs) on the west slopes of the Klamath Mountains and the Coast Range of California where Green Diamond owns fee lands and Harvesting Rights (Green Diamond's ownership), during the period of such ownership within the term of the Permits, subject to the limitations described in AHCP Section

146

1.3.2.3 and in the IA, and up to 100 miles of roads on lands where Green Diamond owns and exercises Road Access Rights within its approved Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) areas in the Eligible Plan Area during the term of the Plan and Permits. This is the geographic area where incidental take will be authorized, the Covered Activities will occur, and the Operating Conservation Program will be implemented. Except where stated otherwise in the Plan, references to lands, commercial timberlands, and Green Diamond’s ownership in the context of the Plan Area include lands owned in fee and lands subject to harvesting rights. Pond: A body of water smaller than a lake, sometimes artificially formed. Pools: Pools are impoundments of flowing water in streams which are formed by structures such as bedrock, boulders, or woody debris in or adjacent to the stream channel. Velocity conditions within pools generally result in the deposition of finer sediment types. Population: A collection of individuals that share a common gene pool. Prescribed burning: Introduction of fire under controlled conditions to remove unwanted brush, logging slash, and/or woody debris or specified forest elements. Professional Geologist (PG): A person who holds a valid California license as a professional geologist pursuant to California's Department of Consumer Affairs Geologist and Geophysicist Act. Qualifying slope break: A decline in slope gradient (below the specified minimum slope gradient for the given HPA) and of sufficient distance that it may be reasonably expected to impede sediment delivery to watercourses from shallow landslides originating above the slope break. Red light threshold: A threshold triggered by multiple negative monitoring responses (a series of yellow light triggers) indicating a more serious condition than the yellow light threshold. Regeneration: The renewal of tree cover by natural or artificial means. Also the young tree crop (seedlings and saplings). Registered Professional Forester (RPF): A person who holds a valid license as a professional forester pursuant to Article 3, Section 2, Division 1 of the California Public Resources Code (as in effect on the date of issuance of the Permits). Riffle: A stream segment characterized by swiftly flowing water with surface agitation and have bars of deposited sediments. Riffles typically occur in areas of increased channel gradient where hydraulic conditions sort transported sediments (gravel, cobble, and boulders).

147

Riparian: That portion of the watershed or shoreline influenced by surface or subsurface waters, including stream or lake margins, marshes, drainage courses, springs, and seeps. Riparian areas usually have visible vegetative or physical characteristics reflecting the influence of water. Riversides and lake borders are typical riparian areas. Riparian Management Zone (RMZ): A riparian buffer zone on each side of Class I or Class II watercourses that receive special treatment to provide temperature control, nutrient inputs, channel stability, sediment control, and LWD recruitment. Riparian Slope Stability Management Zone (RSMZ): A RMZ below an SMZ or where streamside slopes exceed the minimum Steep Streamside Slope gradients. This is the SSS inner zone. Salmonids: The taxonomic group of fishes belonging to the family Salmonidae including salmon, trout, char and graylings. Secondary roads: Roads that support periodic traffic into portions of tracts with the level of use dependent upon location of harvest units. Sediment: Fragments of rock, soil, and organic material transported and deposited by wind, water, or other natural phenomena. Sedimentation: Deposition of material suspended in water or air, usually when the velocity of the transporting medium drops below the level at which the material can be supported. Seep: An area of minor ground water outflow onto the land surface or into a stream channel; flows that are too small to be a spring. Selection harvest: The removal or trees, individually or in small groups, from the forest. Services: NMFS and USFWS. Shallow-rapid landslide (SRL): Rapid landslide event that is confined to the overlying mantle of colluvium and weathered bedrock (in some instances competent bedrock) that commonly leave a bare unvegetated scar after failure. These landslides may include debris slides, debris flows, channel bank failures, and rock falls. Silviculture: The specific methods by which a forest stand or area is harvested and regenerated over time to achieve the desired management objectives.

148

Size class: The categorization of trees into one of the following four DBH classes: seedling (< 1" ), sapling (1" to 4.9"), pole (5" to 11.9"), sawtimber (12" and larger), Skid trail: An access cut through the woods for skidding logs with ground-based equipment. It is not a high enough standard for use by highway vehicles, such as a log truck, and is therefore not a road. Slash: Woody residue left on the ground after trees are felled, or accumulated there as a result of a storm, fire, or silvicultural treatment. Slope break: See Qualifying Slope Break. Slope Stability Management Zone (SMZ): The outer zone of an SSS zone. Smolt: Juvenile salmonid that is undergoing physiological changes to cope with a marine environment. Species: As defined in ESA Section 3(15), “the term ‘species’ included any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” Also, a population of individuals that are more or less alike and that are able to breed and produce fertile offspring under natural conditions. Spring: An area of ground water outflow onto the land surface or into a stream channel; flows are greater than a seep. Stand: A group of trees that possesses sufficient uniformity in composition, structure, age, spatial arrangement, or condition to distinguish it from adjacent groups. Steep Streamside Slopes (SSS): Steep slopes located immediately adjacent to a stream channel; defined by: 1) a minimum slope gradient leading to a Class I or Class II watercourse, 2) a maximum distance from a Class I or Class II watercourse, and 3) a reasonable ability for slope failures to deliver sediment to a watercourse. SSS zone: The area in which default prescriptions for SSS will be applied; consists of an inner zone (the RSMZ) and outer zone (the SMZ). Stream: A natural watercourse with a well-defined channel with distinguishable bed and bank showing evidence of having contained flowing water indicated by deposit of rock, sand, gravel, or soil. Substrate: Mineral or organic material that forms the bed of a stream.

149

Summer period: The period from May 15th through October 15th. Submitted THPs: Total number of AHCP THPs that have been received by CalFire and new letters of notification have been sent to the services during the reporting period. No summary data for these THPs. Surface erosion: Movement of soil particles down or across a slope, as a result of gravity and a moving medium such as rain or wind. The transport of sediment depends on the steepness of the slope, the texture and cohesion of the soil particles, the activity of rainsplash, sheetwash, gullying, and dry ravel processes, and the presence of vegetation. Suspended sediment: Sediment suspended in a fluid by the upward components of turbulent currents or by colloidal suspension. That part of a stream’s total sediment load carried in the water column. Sustained yield: The yield of commercial wood that an area can produce continuously at a given intensity of management consistent with required environmental protection and which is professionally planned to achieve over time a balance between growth and removal. Take: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 USCA § 1532(19); 50 CFR § 222.102. “Harm” means an act that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife, which act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including for USFWS species breeding, feeding or sheltering and for NMFS species breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering. 50 CFR §§ 17.3, 222.102. Tannic water: Water having a high level of dissolved organic compounds from leaf material which give it a dark brown color and reduce water clarity. Temporary road construction: A road that is built and used only during a timber operation. These roads have a surface adequate for seasonal logging use and have drainage structures, if any, adequate to carry the anticipated flow of water during the period of use. Upon completion of use, all drainage structures are removed. Temporary road decommissioning: Decommissioning a road that may be used again in the future for management activities but typically not for at least 20 years. Thalweg: The deepest point of a stream along any channel cross section.

150

Thinning: A treatment made to reduce stand density of trees primarily to improve growth, enhance forest health, or recover potential mortality. Timber harvesting: All activities necessary to cut, remove, and transport timber products from an area. Timber Harvesting Plan (THP): A plan describing a proposed timber harvesting operation pursuant to 14 CCR section 4582 (as in effect on the date of issuance of the Permits). Turbidity: An indicator of the amount of sediment that is suspended in water. It has been used as an expression of the optical properties of a water sample that causes light rays to be scattered and absorbed, rather than transmitted through the sample. Watercourse: Any well-defined channel with distinguishable bed and bank showing evidence of having contained flowing water indicated by deposit of rock, sand, gravel, or soil. Watercourse also includes manmade watercourses. Watercourse transition line: That line closest to the watercourse where perennial vegetation is permanently established. Water drafting: Direct removal of water from a watercourse or pond into a water truck or for storage in reservoirs or tanks for use in dust abatement or fire suppression. Watershed: The catchment area of land draining into a river, river system, or body of water; the drainage basin contributing water, organic matter, dissolved nutrients, and sediments to a stream or lake. Winter period: The period from October 16th through May 14th. Yarding: (Alternatively: skidding). The movement of forest products from the stump to the landing. Young of the year (YOY): A juvenile fish that is less than one year old. Yellow light threshold: An early warning indicator identifying and rapidly addressing a potential problem. This threshold typically can be exceeded by a single negative monitoring result.

151

XIII. Appendices

A. Post-Harvest Forms of Completed THPs

B. Steep Streamside Slope (SSS) Assessment Field Data Sheet

C. Summary Table of Road Treatment Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results from 2017 and 2018

Appendix A

Post-Harvest Forms of Completed THPs

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-129HDrakeford, J.

071501GDRCO No:071501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 213203 37.98 28.49 8.26 1.23

B 213316 273.02 61.04

C 212716 30.11 24.56 2.10 3.45

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-1

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-129HDrakeford, J.

071501GDRCO No:071501

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A HWS 3A 0.66

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.44

A SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.10

A SRL 3A 1.36

A SRL II-1 0.49

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F 0.98

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.68

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.87

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.66

B SRL II-1 0.50

B SRL II-2 0.14

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.14

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

A Class III skid crossing Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description X1, X2, X3, X4 and X5 are existing skid trail (shovel crossings over Class III watercourses. X1, X2, and X5 are sediment discharge sites that will be used for operations and corrected after completion. X3 and X4 are not sediment discharge site but will be used for operational purposes.

B Class III skid crossing Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description X6,X7,X8 and X9 are Class III watercourse tractor crossings. X6 and X8 are sediment discharge sites that will be used for operations and corrected after completion. X7 and X9 are not sediment discharge site but will be used for operational purposes.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-2

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-046HMohrmann, Z.

141403GDRCO No:141403

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 301005 19.06 11.28 2.31 4.27

B 301011 25.01 22.42 2.59

C 300323 35.22 30.41 4.81

D 300203 24.23 22.12 2.11

E 301126 25.46 23.05 2.41

F 300207 35.38 28.40 6.98

G 301125 37.82 25.45 7.29 5.08

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-3

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-046HMohrmann, Z.

141403GDRCO No:141403

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) 1F 0.59

A RSMZ(SSS) 1F 1.47

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.82

A SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.25

A SRL II-1 0.56

F SRL II-2 0.10

F SRL II-2 0.10

F SRL II-2 0.10

G DSL II-2 0.93

G SRL II-2 3.08

G SRL II-2 0.10

G SRL MOD3A 0.78

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-4

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-041HCrocker, K.

171301GDRCO No:171301

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 432103 42.86 28.56 11.10 3.21

B 432218 18.56 15.83 2.74

C 432703 42.65 28.10 10.58 3.98

D 432825 41.44 23.46 17.98

E 432812 37.21 23.52 3.59 10.10

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Ponds Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-5

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-041HCrocker, K.

171301GDRCO No:171301

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A DSL 3A 0.60

A DSL II-2 -

A SRL II-2 -

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.52

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.76

C SRL II-2 4.00

E DSL II-2 10.00

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.35

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-6

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-001HCrocker, K.

191401GDRCO No:191401

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 410201 44.10 7.00

B 410101 74.36 18.99

C 410505 50.92 24.90 1.10 6.98

D 410506 136.31 1.98

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B SRL 1F 0.16

B SRL 1F 0.15

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-7

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-035HVanderhorst, B.

221601GDRCO No:221601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 522906 31.05 25.77 5.28

B 522903 59.19 28.89 27.19 3.10

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.53

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.91

B DSL 3A 0.23

B SRL II-1 0.10

B SRL II-2 0.10

B SRL II-2 0.10

B SRL II-2 0.10

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-8

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-035HVanderhorst, B.

221601GDRCO No:221601

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B DSL Alt Geology 1F 9.66 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Cable selection will be conducted on body of slide.

B DSL Alt Geology 1F 12.30 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Cable selection will be conducted on body of slide.

B SRL Alt Geology 1F 0.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Cable selection will be conducted on body of slide.

B SRL Alt Geology 1F 0.20 0.20 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Cut-bank road failure resting on inside edge of road.

B SRL Alt Geology II-1 0.10 0.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Cut-bank skid road failure resting on road prism.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-9

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-13-043 HKegerreis,J

261203GDRCO No:261203

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 633203 23.25 12.89 10.36

B 530532 27.20 22.64 3.29 1.27

C 530403 20.90 12.12 8.80

D 530505 22.93 18.58 3.85 0.49

E 530519 37.95 26.64 9.40 1.91

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B SRL 3A -

B SRL II-1 -

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-10

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-060HKegerreis,J

261401GDRCO No:261401

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 633317 33.78 21.57 12.21

B 633319 28.40 22.55 5.85

C 633206 36.48 21.80 9.51 5.18

D 633211 2.18 2.18

E 633324 8.41 7.42 0.99

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Ponds Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B DSL II-2 2.00

C DSL II-2 3.79

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-11

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-060HKegerreis,J

261401GDRCO No:261401

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-12

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-084HKegerreis,J

261601GDRCO No:261601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 623621 41.58 29.76 11.82

B 623622 37.90 32.63 3.54 1.73

C 633023 29.71 24.00 5.71

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-13

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-13-058HSmith, S.

271201GDRCO No:271201

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 633321 43.66 29.29 14.37

B 633413 42.58 29.24 13.33

C 530303 23.19 19.92 3.28

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-14

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-110HSmith, S.

271501GDRCO No:271501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 632119 24.48 22.59 1.88

B 632123 133.69 5.43

C 632214 35.86 30.58 5.28

D 632223 49.18 47.80 0.37

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-15

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-130HSmith, S.

341701GDRCO No:341701

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 712805 25.38 18.39 6.99

B 713310 38.74 28.12 10.62

C 713314 37.75 29.52 8.23

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.62

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.47

B SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.32

B SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.32

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-16

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-112HKegerreis,J

381501GDRCO No:381501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 723115 48.38 38.40 9.98

B 620606 19.34 14.45 4.88

C 723122 22.69 14.68 8.01

D 620518 10.50 6.29 4.21

E 723226 27.65 23.95 3.72

F 723208 14.97 12.67 2.30

G 611124 31.10 8.46

H 611121 11.09 9.49 1.60

I 610205 9.15 4.23 4.16 0.76

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

CMZ Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-17

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-112HKegerreis,J

381501GDRCO No:381501

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

I CMZ 1F 0.76

I CMZ 1F 0.51

I FLOOD 1F 0.95

I FLOOD 1F 1.24

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-18

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-086HGomez,T

421401GDRCO No:421401

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 721519 31.43 26.31 5.12

B 721520 36.81 29.12 7.69

C 721525 38.76 26.68 12.08

D 722205 37.77 30.42 7.35

E 722322 34.88 21.43 13.45

F 722316 37.46 31.63 5.83

G 722616 43.74 28.89 14.04 0.81

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

G DSL 3A 1.07

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.59

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.85

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.50

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-19

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-086HGomez,T

421401GDRCO No:421401

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-20

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-133HVanderhorst, B.

421402GDRCO No:421402

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 720209 27.21 23.76 3.45

B 720234 49.37 1.22

C 720211 31.08 27.53 2.94 0.62

D 721025 33.89 19.52 0.86 13.50

E 721424 47.89 21.94 22.95 3.00

F 721418 41.26 26.37 14.89

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-21

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-133HVanderhorst, B.

421402GDRCO No:421402

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.98

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.38

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.64

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.85

D SRL 1F 0.60

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.00

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 3.37

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 4.20

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 3.05

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.24

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.17

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.18

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.77

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 3.02

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.35

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.23

E SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.34

E SRL II-2 0.94

E SRL II-2 0.62

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.27

F RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.28

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-22

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-133HVanderhorst, B.

421402GDRCO No:421402

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 2.27 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.87 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.88 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.31 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.51 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

E RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 1.44 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-23

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-139HCamper, L.

431402GDRCO No:431402

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 710108 20.85 19.36 1.50

B 823213 14.55 9.56 4.99

C 720716 13.53 11.65 1.88

D 721718 24.15 19.57 1.48 3.10

E 720411 23.18 1.02

F 823409 39.93 31.21 3.08 5.64

G 821714 29.08 27.57 1.51

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-24

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-139HCamper, L.

431402GDRCO No:431402

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

D SRL II-1 0.65

D SRL II-1 -

D SRL II-1 -

F RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.49

F RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.41

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.11

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.34

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.22

F SRL II-2 0.43

F SRL II-2 0.30

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.63 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.14 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.28 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.32 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-25

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.37 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.63 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

F RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.20 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

F RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.85 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

F RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 2.65 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

F SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.04 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

F SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.54 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

B par log suspension RMZ Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Within Unit B, an area has been identified where partial log suspension through the Class II RMZ is proposed.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-26

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16ex-347HSmith, S.

431602GDRCO No:431602

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 710509 27.83 3.10

B 710416 37.01 3.27

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-27

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-11-130HUMVanderhorst, B.

441102GDRCO No:441102

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 721405 21.80 17.86 3.94

B 722321 22.17 1.77

C 722319 29.42 16.58 6.32 6.52

D 722317 23.00 0.51 4.03

E 722408 9.12 9.12

F 722433 20.34 15.61 4.73

G 722524 37.41 1.26 4.35

H 722431 36.50 1.30 1.67

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.06

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.97

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-28

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-11-130HUMVanderhorst, B.

441102GDRCO No:441102

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-29

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-087HCamper, L.

441501GDRCO No:441501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 733117 16.64 9.68 6.96

B 733116 34.51 24.44 6.59 3.48

C 723603 24.52 21.35 3.17

D 733112 29.57 18.62 7.97 2.98

E 722517 21.55 18.77 0.55 2.22

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

No

Seeps/Springs Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

Unit Feature Issue Affected Acres Affected Reason Not Met

II-2: Class II 2nd Order OTHER 1.50 In Unit E, timber faller cut on wrong side of RMZ flagging removing approximately 1.5 acre of trees in RMZ. Calfire was notified and a violation was issued.

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.72

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.32

B SRL II-2 0.70

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-30

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-087HCamper, L.

441501GDRCO No:441501

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide UA1.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.23 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.62 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.70 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description There has been a reduction in the AHCP default landslide buffer due to a significant break in slope.

D DSL Alt Geology II-1 7.11 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslide D1 are within Class II RMZs near the margins and an MWPZ has been placed about 5-30 feet above the headscarp up to a low gradient slope break and about 25 feet from the lateral margin.

E RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.42 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B Class II skid intrusion No

Reason Not Met? skid trail was not used in RMZ, therefore no mitigations were required

Description Use of 125 feet of existing skid trail within a Class II RMZ. In Unit B labeled "In-Lieu on Unit B Detail THP map.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-31

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-076HMohrmann, Z.

451502GDRCO No:451502

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 821512 41.54 21.59 18.44 1.50

B 822209 48.07 22.85 19.09 6.21

C 821509 20.96 14.38 6.53 0.05

D 822131 21.81 13.43 5.36

E 822135 6.43 3.96 2.47

F 822134 14.91 13.81 1.10

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.05

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.72

A SRL II-1 0.50

A SRL II-1 0.20

A SRL II-1 0.07

A SRL II-1 0.10

A SRL II-1 0.10

A SRL II-1 0.10

A SRL II-2 0.10

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-32

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

Retent. Req. Met?

A SRL II-2 0.10 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.72 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.73 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.56 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.86 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.25 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.68 Yes

A SRL II-2 0.77 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F 0.30 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F - Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F 1.87 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F 2.25 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.46 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.54 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.45 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.83 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.56 Yes

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.54 Yes

B SRL 1F 0.10 Yes

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 4.07 Yes

C SRL II-2 0.05 Yes

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.98 Yes

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-33

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-076HMohrmann, Z.

451502GDRCO No:451502

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B SRL Alt Geology 1F 0.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 0.19 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 6.02 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D DSL Alt Geology II-1 1.71 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslides LS 1 and 2 have been placed into a geologic STZ that incorporates a fiftyfoot buffer upslope of all historic offset associated with these slides

D DSL Alt Geology II-1 1.58 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Selection harvesting on a deep-seated landslide

A Use of landings within an RMZ

Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description In-Lieu #1: A narrow strip of clearcut area is located between two Class II WLPZ's in Unit A. In order to place a cable yarding corridor between the two LPZ's, and not remove overstory canopy from the protection zones, the yarder may be set up partially within the WLPZ on the existing rocked CR 2900 road. Decking and loading of logs will occur inside the WLPZ on the existing road. Loading will occur on the outbound side of the yarder which is within the WLPZ.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-34

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-104HCamper, L.

451503GDRCO No:451503

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 812216 19.89 17.21 1.04 1.64

B 811609 22.38 14.07 3.50 4.81

C 812103 16.67 12.82 0.37 3.48

D 811714 49.51 30.43 1.75 17.34

E 811613 39.15 30.10 4.10 4.97

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-35

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B CMZ 1F 0.13

B CMZ 1F 0.21

B CMZ 1F 0.30

B CMZ 1F 0.21

B FLOOD 1F 0.13

B FLOOD 1F 0.09

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.32

B SMZ(SSS) 1F 0.11

B SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.09

C CMZ 1F 0.08

C CMZ 1F 0.15

C HWS 3A 0.44

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.85

E HWS 3B 0.49

E HWS 3B 0.44

E HWS 3B 0.60

E HWS 3B 0.39

E HWS 3B 0.17

E SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.54

E SRL 3B 0.01

E SRL 3B 0.01

E SRL 3B 0.01

E SRL II-2 0.01

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1

Reason Not Met:

E SMZ(SSS) II-1

Reason Not Met:

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-36

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

A SRL Alt Geology II-1 0.28 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide UA 1.

A RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

A RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.21 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

A RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.81 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

A SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.06 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

A SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 0.65 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.58 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 1.74 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.25 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

32/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-37

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.92 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.04 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

B SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.07 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

B SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.17 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

C RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 0.78 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

C RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

C RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.31 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

C RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.21 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

C SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.29 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 5.21 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

42/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-38

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 1.66 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.25 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.74 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

D SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.21 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

D SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.27 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

E SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.01 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide UA 6.

E SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.01 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide UA 7.

E SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.01 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide UA 8.

E RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 1.32 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

E RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 3.48 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

52/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-39

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

E SMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.54 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the SMZ.

A par log suspension RMZ Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Within Unit A, an area has been identified where partial log suspension through the Class II RMZ is proposed.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

62/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-40

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-039HSmith, S.

451601GDRCO No:451601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 801322 58.09 5.61

B 812912 64.63 10.19

C 812116 54.82 12.50

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-41

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-106HVanderhorst, B.

471404GDRCO No:471404

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 903613 36.43 24.07 12.41

B 810610 39.80 26.68 4.46 8.66

C 810604 45.87 34.68 6.82 4.37

D 810903 51.43 33.84 16.78 0.81

E 811022 27.28 12.88 12.10 2.30

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-42

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-106HVanderhorst, B.

471404GDRCO No:471404

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.06

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.30

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.85

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.91

B SRL II-1 -

B SRL II-2 -

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.12

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 3.04

E RSMZ(SSS) 1F 0.57

E RSMZ(SSS) 1F 2.04

E SMZ(SSS) 1F 0.30

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-43

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-088HEast, R.

471405GDRCO No:471405

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 911609 32.35 23.28 9.08

B 912308 31.50 27.59 3.91

C 912318 32.48 26.23 6.25

D 913611 20.63 14.98 5.65

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.07

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.85

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.66

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.61

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-44

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-088HEast, R.

471405GDRCO No:471405

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

A DSL Alt Geology II-1 3.25 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslides LS1, LS2, LS3, and LS4 have been placed within a geologic Special Treatment Zone, as shown in Figure 2; this area will be limited to the selection silviculture. The geologic STZ shall retain a minimum of 120 square feet of basal area per acre, in addition the STZ will also serves as an equipment exclusion zone (EEZ).

A DSL Alt Geology II-1 5.82 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslides LS1, LS2, LS3, and LS4 have been placed within a geologic Special Treatment Zone, as shown in Figure 2; this area will be limited to the selection silviculture. The geologic STZ shall retain a minimum of 120 square feet of basal area per acre, in addition the STZ will also serves as an equipment exclusion zone (EEZ).

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-45

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-144HVanderhorst, B.

471409GDRCO No:471409

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1013323 59.40 18.83 22.96 17.61

B 910521 147.11 7.43 45.59

C 910903 32.38 9.05 1.00 22.32

D 911706 37.19 32.95 4.24

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-46

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-144HVanderhorst, B.

471409GDRCO No:471409

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A DSL II-1 0.15

B DSL II-2 0.90

B SRL 1F 0.07

B SRL 1F 0.09

B SRL 1F 0.10

B SRL II-1 0.01

B SRL II-1 0.08

B SRL II-1 0.14

B SRL II-2 0.45

B SRL II-2 0.44

B SRL II-2 0.22

B SRL II-2 0.56

B SRL II-2 0.22

B SRL II-2 0.29

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-47

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-144HVanderhorst, B.

471409GDRCO No:471409

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 1.21 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 3.38 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.96 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

B RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 1.55 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-48

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-055HEast, R.

471411GDRCO No:471411

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 811905 23.47 20.95 1.71 0.81

B 811818 31.70 26.21 5.48

C 801320 43.35 26.34 17.00

D 801110 24.74 14.02 5.22 1.15

E 801119 25.31 19.73 5.58

F 800120 16.33 8.97 7.36

G 800215 39.04 24.22 14.82

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C DSL 1F 0.10

C RSMZ(SSS) 1F 4.71

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.29

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-49

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-055HEast, R.

471411GDRCO No:471411

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-50

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-079HDrakeford, J.

471501GDRCO No:471501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 911611 32.28 27.08 3.54 1.65

B 910919 37.98 22.65 15.33

C 912203 42.70 5.32 22.36

D 912310 31.20 26.09 4.61 0.49

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-51

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-079HDrakeford, J.

471501GDRCO No:471501

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B SRL II-2 -

C DSL II-1 0.28

C DSL II-2 5.40

C DSL II-2 0.10

C DSL II-2 0.32

C DSL II-2 1.24

C SRL II-2 0.10

C SRL II-2 0.10

D DSL II-1 -

D SRL II-2 -

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

D DSL II-1

Reason Not Met:

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-52

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-079HDrakeford, J.

471501GDRCO No:471501

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

B DSL Alt Geology II-1 0.48 0.22 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslide B1 is about a half-acre in size, of which about one-fourth of an acre lies within a Class II RMZ. A MWPZ has been placed about 40 feet above the steep slope above the slide scarp and RMZ.

C DSL Alt Geology II-2 7.38 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslide C1 and Landslide C3 have been placed into a MWPZ that has an elevated level of conifer retention

C DSL Alt Geology II-1 1.66 U

Reason Not Met?

Description Landslides D2 & D3 have been placed into a MWPZ.

C par log suspension RMZ Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Partial Suspension of logs through the RMZ is anticipated in THP Unit C. It is anticipated that partial suspension through the RMZ may occur as a result of yarding through the WLPZ/RMZ to access a small isolated clearcut area that is surrounded by WLPZ/RMZ. Full suspension will occur over the watercourse channel. Due to the complex topography exhibited in this unit it is inevitable partial suspension may occur within portions of the WLPZ/RMZ. A designated cable corridor are proposed through the WLPZ/RMZ in Unit C where partial suspension is likely to occur

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-53

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-053HGomez,T

471502GDRCO No:471502

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 800113 27.68 21.76 5.92

B 810913 36.05 28.30 7.75

C 811615 46.07 35.31 10.76

D 811620 24.09 17.10 6.99

E 811512 34.43 31.07 0.60 2.76

F 811519 23.36 12.29 11.08

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-54

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-053HGomez,T

471502GDRCO No:471502

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) 1F 4.93

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.23

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.76

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.60

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.51

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.39

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.32

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.88

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.64

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.61

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.27

D RSMZ(SSS) 1F 2.18

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.58

F SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.12

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-55

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-100HEast, R.

471505GDRCO No:471505

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 810523 41.21 21.61 19.60

B 810819 48.10 17.99 18.76 11.34

C 810918 20.22 16.93 3.29

D 810721 39.31 31.85 7.44

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-56

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-100HEast, R.

471505GDRCO No:471505

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) 1F 1.39

A RSMZ(SSS) 1F 4.41

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.19

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.34

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.45

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.58

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.15

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.98

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.20

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.66

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.48

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.15

B CMZ 1F 0.33

B CMZ 1F 0.27

B DSL 1F -

B RSMZ(SSS) 1F 0.13

B SRL 1F 1.21

B SRL 1F -

B SRL 1F -

B SRL 1F -

B SRL II-1 -

B SRL II-2 -

D HWS II-1 0.31

D HWS II-1 0.21

D HWS II-1 0.17

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-57

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-100HEast, R.

471505GDRCO No:471505

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-58

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-085HGomez,T

471506GDRCO No:471506

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 801210 33.32 25.15 8.18

B 903509 44.56 31.18 13.38

C 903605 14.68 8.97 5.71

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-59

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-033HStrong, J.

471509GDRCO No:471509

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 912120 29.58 25.84 3.74

B 912132 32.89 29.02 3.87

C 912501 43.07 35.57 7.50

D 913604 47.61 29.02 17.83 0.76

E 913506 23.84 19.60 4.24

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

D SRL II-2 1.00

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.52

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-60

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-054HCamper, L.

471601GDRCO No:471601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 913517 41.16 23.51 16.74 0.91

B 810204 32.92 27.50 5.42

C 810309 41.69 31.52 9.75 0.41

D 810217 35.95 26.42 6.82 2.71

E 811121 29.03 24.20 4.64 0.18

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-61

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-054HCamper, L.

471601GDRCO No:471601

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.22

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.33

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.36

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.65

C CMZ 1F 0.41

C CMZ 1F 0.41

D CMZ 1F 1.69

D CMZ 1F 1.69

D FLOOD 1F 1.03

D FLOOD 1F 1.03

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.18

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-62

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-113HUMCrocker, K.

471604GDRCO No:471604

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 911402 36.76 31.47 4.90 0.40

B 912718 17.50 14.23 3.27

C 913422 11.47 9.28 2.19

D 913409 26.66 24.52 2.14

E 913525 33.90 29.25 4.64

F 810104 25.22 21.08 4.14

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.38

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-63

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-106HKegerreis,J

471605GDRCO No:471605

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 912218 19.87 17.86 1.64 0.36

B 912705 28.26 23.72 4.54

C 912802 26.33 16.71 9.62

D 912724 22.86 18.99 3.87

E 912825 39.25 32.32 6.93

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Ponds Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-64

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-123HMohrmann, Z.

471607GDRCO No:471607

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 902510 5.35 4.74 0.61

B 903615 19.61 16.99 2.13 0.49

C 903512 42.27 28.80 7.83 5.64

D 800213 25.71 17.13 8.58

E 801209 35.99 27.56 8.43

F 811815 30.69 27.52 3.16

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Ponds Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

E par log suspension RMZ Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description If yarding through an RMZ is deemed necessary, partial suspension may be required to facilitate yarding.

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-65

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-123HMohrmann, Z.

471607GDRCO No:471607

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-66

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-142HStrong, J.

471608GDRCO No:471608

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 911628 87.89 5.18

B 911621 35.41 26.97 8.44

C 912621 38.25 30.32 7.93

D 912622 36.33 32.04 4.30

E 902518 29.98 22.31 7.67

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-67

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-142HStrong, J.

471608GDRCO No:471608

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.00

E RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.45

E RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.12

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.42

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.45

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-68

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-002HGomez,T

481401GDRCO No:481401

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 833106 37.08 31.20 5.88

B 822502 29.62 25.89 3.73

C 822622 17.55 15.61 1.94

D 823522 17.37 15.36 2.00

E 720205 29.78 25.49 4.29

F 720226 37.53 26.33 11.21

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-69

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-002HGomez,T

481401GDRCO No:481401

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.82

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.78

B SRL II-1 0.01

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.06

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.24

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.17

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.40

F RSMZ(SSS) II-2 6.31

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.42

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 2.26

F SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.15

F SRL II-2 0.01

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-70

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-136 HUMHurst, R.

511402GDRCO No:511402

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 920402 28.78 19.70 9.09

B 1023421 37.27 17.61 18.83 0.83

C 920214 32.38 26.08 0.76 5.54 0.50 3.00

D 921001 23.89 19.09 3.29 1.51

E 921105 39.15 19.79 19.36

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B HWS II-1 0.68

C DSL II-2 -

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-71

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-136 HUMHurst, R.

511402GDRCO No:511402

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-72

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-030HSatterlee, B.

511503GDRCO No:511503

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 930904 30.98 25.05 5.42 0.51

B 930912 51.89 28.56 15.31 8.02

C 930926 96.98 3.75

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-73

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-030HSatterlee, B.

511503GDRCO No:511503

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A SRL II-2 0.20

A SRL II-2 0.30

A SRL II-2 0.30

A SRL II-2 0.30

A SRL II-2 -

A SRL II-2 -

A SRL II-2 -

A SRL II-2 -

B DSL II-1 -

B DSL II-2 -

B DSL II-2 -

B HWS 3B 0.20

B SRL II-1 0.28

B SRL II-1 0.01

B SRL II-2 0.16

B SRL II-2 -

B SRL II-2 0.96

B SRL II-2 1.52

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-74

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-042HSmith, S.

511504GDRCO No:511504

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 931923 43.22 33.04 10.18

B 932028 35.68 32.53 3.14

C 932024 42.53 30.69 11.03 0.81

D 932106 42.46 31.17 11.06 0.23

E 932104 35.23 31.84 0.43 2.97

F 932805 29.07 26.26 2.80

G 932107 40.94 29.99 10.94

H 932116 37.96 30.58 7.38

I 931503 34.97 31.94 3.04

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-75

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-042HSmith, S.

511504GDRCO No:511504

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C SRL II-2 0.48

C SRL II-2 0.12

C SRL II-2 0.14

C SRL II-2 0.57

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 6.25

D SRL II-2 0.42

H RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.66

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

G DSL Alt Geology 3B 10.53 U

Reason Not Met?

Description An STZ has been established around the body of Landslide LS1 and has been delineated in the field with “Geology” and “Pink” flagging. this area willretain all hardwoods not damaged during operations and maintain a minimum of 100 square feet of basal area of conifers.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-76

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-039HUMFreeman,C

511505GDRCO No:511505

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 920220 34.13 29.89 4.24

B 920112 33.10 28.95 1.70 2.45

C 920108 18.71 16.47 2.24

D 1023636 33.64 16.97 1.43 15.25

E 920119 24.66 21.87 2.80

F 920118 22.84 19.79 3.06

G 930613 34.45 29.31 5.14

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-77

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-039HUMFreeman,C

511505GDRCO No:511505

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

D CMZ 1F 0.99

D CMZ 1F 0.63

D RSMZ(SSS) 1F 7.94

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.02

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.86

D SRL -

D SRL 1F 2.44

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-78

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-057HDobosh, B.

561401GDRCO No:561401

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1123202 41.67 25.05 11.53 5.09

B 1122806 42.18 26.08 10.86 5.24

C 1122802 39.97 25.01 14.96

D 1122709 42.91 25.14 13.17 4.60

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-79

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-057HDobosh, B.

561401GDRCO No:561401

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.25

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.79

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.27

A SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.20

A SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.39

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.08

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.22

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.20

B RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.80

B SRL II-2 -

B SRL II-2 -

D RSMZ(SSS) 1F 2.77

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.39

D SMZ(SSS) 1F 0.71

D SRL 1F -

D SRL 1F -

D SRL 1F -

D SRL II-2 -

D SRL II-2 -

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-80

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-052HDols, T.

561402GDRCO No:561402

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1223423 26.42 23.40 3.02

B 1120236 29.16 4.07

C 1120332 39.08 10.67

D 1120304 21.97 19.87 0.96 1.14

E 1120337 13.23

F 1120233 30.54 19.57 8.03 2.94

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Ponds Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-81

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-052HDols, T.

561402GDRCO No:561402

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C DSL II-1 -

C SRL II-1 0.40

F SRL II-1 -

F SRL II-2 0.80

F SRL II-2 -

F SRL II-2 1.50

F SRL II-2 -

F SRL II-2 -

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-82

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-082HVanderhorst, B.

561403GDRCO No:561403

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1121608 42.48 27.67 13.92 0.89

B 1121626 35.88 27.25 5.04 3.60

C 1121623 27.57 23.71 1.31 2.55

D 1120930 33.81 23.69 9.24 0.88

E 1120927 31.67 27.98 1.92 1.77

F 1120919 35.37 31.09 0.55 3.72

G 1121009 58.32 28.02 7.88 22.42

H 1121516 48.88 24.89 12.26 11.73

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-83

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-082HVanderhorst, B.

561403GDRCO No:561403

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B HWS 3A 1.45

B SRL 3A 0.01

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.27

G SRL II-1 0.01

G SRL II-2 0.30

G SRL II-2 0.65

G SRL II-2 0.48

G SRL II-2 0.01

H SRL 3A 0.34

H SRL II-2 0.01

H SRL II-2 0.01

H SRL II-2 1.40

H SRL II-2 0.77

H SRL II-2 0.01

H SRL II-2 0.01

H SRL II-2 0.72

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.38 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.01 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-84

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.36 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.50 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.53 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.56 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.62 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.69 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.98 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 1.02 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 1.10 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 1.29 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-85

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 2.24 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvest on or within the buffer of Shallow Rapid Landslide.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology 1F 0.18 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.53 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.20 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.35 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.37 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.69 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.71 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 1.98 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

G RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 3.63 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

32/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-86

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

G SRL Alt Geology II-2 0.52 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-1 0.11 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.14 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.16 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.38 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.58 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 0.98 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 2.54 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

H RSMZ(SSS) Alt Geology II-2 4.27 Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description No harvesting within the RSMZ.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

42/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-87

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-036HDobosh, B.

561502GDRCO No:561502

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1223114 32.60 24.59 6.81 1.29

B 1223310 29.32 24.98 0.83 3.51

C 1120407 48.19 27.12 18.94 2.13

D 1223419 42.09 27.98 11.82 2.30

E 1223408 26.59 16.60 9.53 0.46

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 0.10

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-2 -

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-88

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

Retent. Req. Met?

A SRL II-2 - Yes

B SRL II-1 - Yes

B SRL II-1 - Yes

B SRL II-1 0.39 Yes

C HWS 1F 0.05 Yes

C SRL 1F 0.40 Yes

C SRL 1F 0.45 Yes

C SRL 1F 0.05 Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F 0.43 Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL 1F - Yes

C SRL II-1 0.45 Yes

C SRL II-2 0.71 Yes

C SRL II-2 0.74 Yes

C SRL II-2 0.45 Yes

C SRL II-2 - Yes

C SRL II-2 - Yes

C SRL II-2 0.45 Yes

C SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-1 0.80 Yes

D SRL II-2 0.06 Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-89

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

Retent. Req. Met?

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

D SRL II-2 - Yes

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

42/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-90

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-008HMohrmann, Z.

561503GDRCO No:561503

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1223018 26.01 2.88

B 1223228 38.99 4.67

C 1120517 18.51 16.17 2.34

D 1120516 34.61 24.35 6.57 3.70

E 1120429 73.74 28.26 6.23 17.04

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier A Modified

Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-91

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-008HMohrmann, Z.

561503GDRCO No:561503

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A SRL II-1 0.74

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 3.72

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.36

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.33

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.15

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.78

D SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.87

E RSMZ(SSS) 1F 3.22

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.83

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.20

E SRL II-1 0.01

E SRL II-2 0.01

E SRL II-2 0.01

E SRL II-2 0.80

E SRL II-2 0.66

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-92

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-091HUMDols, T.

561601GDRCO No:561601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1021718 55.51 36.99 8.27 1.24

B 1021615 56.17 33.05 14.13 0.36

C 1022019 47.86 27.94 11.17 0.50

D 1022015 48.82 30.15 13.85

E 1022107 52.94 32.70 15.78 0.31

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-93

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-091HUMDols, T.

561601GDRCO No:561601

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A CMZ 1F 0.21

A CMZ 1F 0.21

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

A SRL 1F -

B DSL II-2 -

C DSL 1F -

C SRL 1F -

E SRL 1F 0.31

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-94

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-091HUMDols, T.

561601GDRCO No:561601

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

A Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Exceptions to AHCP Sections 6.2.5.4 and 6.2.1.2.1: Proposed reduction of overstory canopy within Class I RMZs to 50% overstory canopy.

B Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Exceptions to AHCP Sections 6.2.5.4 and 6.2.1.2.1: Proposed reduction of overstory canopy within Class I RMZs to 50% overstory canopy.

C Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Exceptions to AHCP Sections 6.2.5.4 and 6.2.1.2.1: Proposed reduction of overstory canopy within Class I RMZs to 50% overstory canopy.

D Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Exceptions to AHCP Sections 6.2.5.4 and 6.2.1.2.1: Proposed reduction of overstory canopy within Class I RMZs to 50% overstory canopy.

E Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Exceptions to AHCP Sections 6.2.5.4 and 6.2.1.2.1: Proposed reduction of overstory canopy within Class I RMZs to 50% overstory canopy.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-95

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-129HUMHurst, R.

561609GDRCO No:561609

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1223017 20.53 11.62 8.91

B 1223009 21.31 18.57 0.62 2.12

C 1223117 14.58 8.86 5.20 0.52

D 1223116 36.69 16.13 17.88 2.69

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.42

D HWS II-1 0.13

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-96

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-019 DEL/HBMDrakeford, J.

661503GDRCO No:661503

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1323224 166.04 10.94

B 1220621 38.42

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-97

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-072DELHurst, R.

661601GDRCO No:661601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1312605 20.95 19.08 1.88

B 1312623 24.14 21.13 3.01

C 1312621 51.04 27.31 3.78 19.95

D 1312633 75.83 11.38

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C CMZ 1F 3.21

C CMZ 1F 4.02

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-98

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-037DELKegerreis,J

661604GDRCO No:661604

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1220516 28.47 25.83 0.56 2.08

B 1323225 40.57 5.93

C 1323221 21.76 19.56 1.24 0.96

D 1323220 11.78 10.00 1.78

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B RSMZ(SSS) II-1 2.78

B SRL 3A 0.10

B SRL II-1 0.10

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.45

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.38

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-99

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-037DELKegerreis,J

661604GDRCO No:661604

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

C Class III skid crossing Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description Class III Shovel Crossing: an existing skid trail crossing will be utilized by shovels to access an area of Unit C.

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-100

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-001DELCrocker, K.

661605GDRCO No:661605

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1312819 29.97 19.77 10.20

B 1312820 40.10 4.64

C 1312806 37.62 24.79 12.83 1.00

D 1312812 40.65 18.87 6.90 14.89

E 1312821 54.01 12.91

F 1312718 32.86 27.93 2.97 1.97

G 1313421 28.69 23.36 5.33

H 1313415 29.15 26.99 2.16

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-101

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-001DELCrocker, K.

661605GDRCO No:661605

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C RSMZ(SSS) 1F 1.35

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.09

C SMZ(SSS) 1F 0.34

C SMZ(SSS) II-1 1.62

D SRL II-2 0.82

E CMZ 1F 0.08

E DSL II-2 0.55

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

E CMZ 1F

Reason Not Met:

E DSL II-2

Reason Not Met:

AHCP Exceptions:

Unit Feature Exception Watercourse Acres of Retention

Clearcut Acres

Exception Met?

C Alternative to default geologic prescriptions

U

Reason Not Met?

Description No harvest SSS

D Use of landings within an RMZ

Yes

Reason Not Met? N/A

Description A segment of temporary road that may be required for decking and loading falls between, and within, the WLPZ(RMZs) of the two adjacent Class II watercourses. This THP proposes the use of this road as a landing within a WLPZ(RMZ) to facilitate the decking and loading logs from 5.5 acres of Unit D. The landing area and road located outside of the WLPZ(RMZ) will not be large enough to provide for safe decking and loading operations outside of the WLPZ(RMZ). The cutting of trees for road right of way clearance may intrude into the WLPZ(RMZ) approximately 15 feet for approximately 80 feet of WLPZ(RMZ) length. This road and associated right of way area is proposed for use as a landing. Erosion control and deactivation measures that meet or exceed those found in Items 18 and 24 will be applied as well as the site specific measures listed below.

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-102

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-001DELCrocker, K.

661605GDRCO No:661605

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-103

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-14-048DELStrong, J.

711301GDRCO No:711301

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1513434 28.86 27.12 1.74

B 1513426 38.77 30.51 8.26

C 1410337 42.63 24.88 17.43 0.31

D 1410225 68.82 33.04 35.49 0.29

E 1410319 35.68 30.29 4.97 0.41

F 1410321 21.56 19.06 1.82 0.67

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-104

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-140 DELCamper, L.

711502GDRCO No:711502

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1512727 74.94 14.85

B 1513448 30.60 4.21

C 1513340 41.43 9.52

D 1410437 59.16 0.96

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-105

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-140 DELCamper, L.

711502GDRCO No:711502

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.72

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.25

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.92

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 1.76

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 2.05

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 1.14

A SRL 3B 0.01

A SRL II-2 0.14

A SRL II-2 0.01

A SRL II-2 0.01

A SRL II-2 0.01

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-106

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-037 DELCamper, L.

711601GDRCO No:711601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1513330 37.51 32.35 5.12

B 1513419 42.92 27.37 2.18 13.37

C 1513427 26.96 23.08 0.95 2.94

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-107

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-143DELFreeman,C

711602GDRCO No:711602

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1513336 35.72 26.75 7.95 1.02

B 1410315 28.92 25.43 0.63 2.86 6.50

C 1410929 31.28 27.34 1.48 2.46

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B SRL 3A 0.73

B SRL 3A 0.60

C SRL II-1 0.07

C SRL II-1 0.19

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-108

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-027 DELFreeman,C

731501GDRCO No:731501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1421920 36.81 26.75 7.35 2.71

B 1423009 10.63 9.44 1.19

C 1423125 30.53 26.69 1.68 2.21

D 1423114 19.84 17.95 1.89

E 1320606 23.11 21.14 1.97

F 1320608 4.69 3.46 0.81 0.41

G 1320619 24.77 15.67 7.30 1.81

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-109

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-027 DELFreeman,C

731501GDRCO No:731501

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.43

A SMZ(SSS) II-2 1.91

A SRL II-1 0.80

A SRL II-1 0.80

A SRL II-1 -

A SRL II-1 -

F SRL 1F 0.40

F SRL II-1 -

F SRL II-1 -

G SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.60

G SRL II-2 -

G SRL II-2 -

G SRL II-2 1.20

G SRL II-2 1.30

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-110

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-062 DELStrong, J.

731602GDRCO No:731602

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1413604 38.18 32.40 4.64 1.14

B 1310309 25.26 22.60 2.70

C 1310205 32.99 27.24 5.75

D 1310206 28.37 19.28 4.69 4.41

E 1310209 34.48 23.60 9.31 1.56

F 1311129 118.96 0.09 18.77

G 1311113 22.28 20.31 1.97

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-111

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-17-062 DELStrong, J.

731602GDRCO No:731602

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.34

A RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.84

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.11

A SMZ(SSS) II-2 0.10

D RSMZ(SSS) II-1 2.68

D RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.80

D SMZ(SSS) II-1 0.09

D SRL II-1 0.83

D SRL II-1 0.48

D SRL II-1 0.63

D SRL II-1 0.39

E DSL II-1 3.54

F DSL II-1 0.09

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-112

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-060DSatterlee, B.

851501GDRCO No:851501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1320826 27.82 25.12 2.69

B 1320819 16.07 12.91 3.16

C 1320810 31.34 25.32 2.35

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

C SRL 3A 2.35

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-113

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-069DDobosh, B.

931501GDRCO No:931501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1903323 29.11 13.48 14.02 1.61

B 1903404 37.00 25.36 10.34 1.29

C 1903414 34.69 19.14 13.25 2.30

D 1903322 55.07 9.51

E 1903313 7.95 5.67 2.28

F 1903424 44.09 0.57 8.02

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Yes

Ponds Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-114

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-069DDobosh, B.

931501GDRCO No:931501

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-115

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-147DDobosh, B.

931503GDRCO No:931503

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1813014 46.19 26.16 20.03 3.28

B 1813017 26.26 23.80 0.48 1.97

C 1813128 174.91 31.16

D 1813105 33.89 28.47 5.42

E 1813119 35.76 26.95 5.74 3.07

F 1803605 48.96 23.47 24.44 1.05

G 1802508 21.53 19.26 1.79 0.48

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

Class III Tier B Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Wet areas Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-116

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-15-147DDobosh, B.

931503GDRCO No:931503

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A CMZ 1F 3.28

A CMZ 1F 2.47

A CMZ 1F 0.49

E DSL II-2 -

E DSL II-2 -

E SRL II-1 -

F DSL 1F -

F DSL 1F -

F DSL 1F 0.50

F SRL 1F -

F SRL 1F 0.19

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-117

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-038DELVanderhorst, B.

931504GDRCO No:931504

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1913109 23.89 17.54 4.39 1.96

B 1913112 25.47 17.96 7.51

C 1810609 21.70 14.35 6.89 0.46

D 1810614 29.38 21.88 7.49

E 1810617 41.89 22.30 18.46 1.13

F 1810628 31.31 6.20

G 1810626 35.34 27.11 8.23

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-118

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-038DELVanderhorst, B.

931504GDRCO No:931504

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.84

C RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.82

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.40

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.41

E RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.48

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.56

F RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.34

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.62

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.17

G RSMZ(SSS) II-2 0.20

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-119

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-074DELFreeman,C

931601GDRCO No:931601

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1810811 42.82 29.89 12.06 0.87

B 1810902 31.58 22.75 8.00 0.82

C 1810916 45.32 27.92 3.01 14.39

D 1810908 33.94 29.91 2.82 1.21

E 1811615 35.55 28.79 5.43 1.33

F 1811611 31.56 20.15 5.04 6.36

G 1812113 34.56 25.56 8.04 0.95

H 1812119 34.38 21.72 1.65 11.01

I 1811640 26.24 0.15 4.09

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

Seeps/Springs Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-120

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-074DELFreeman,C

931601GDRCO No:931601

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

B SRL II-1 0.08

B SRL II-1 -

C SRL II-1 0.12

C SRL II-2 0.06

F SRL 1F -

G SRL II-1 0.10

G SRL II-1 0.03

G SRL II-1 0.04

H DSL II-2 -

H DSL II-2 -

H SRL II-1 -

H SRL II-1 -

H SRL II-1 0.06

H SRL II-1 0.20

H SRL II-2 2.45

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-121

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-119DELFreeman,C

931605GDRCO No:931605

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 1813008 34.75 25.60 8.73 0.42

B 1813003 38.97 20.04 17.97 0.96

C 1812905 32.37 22.94 5.67 3.80

D 1813236 35.35 0.60 3.82

E 1813024 99.13 27.07

F 1813023 34.54 6.75

G 1813129 35.61 6.27

H 1710511 55.53 3.61

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I Yes

Class III Tier A Yes

II-1: Class II 1st Order Yes

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

Yes

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Yes

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-122

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 1-16-119DELFreeman,C

931605GDRCO No:931605

Geology

Unit Feature Watercourse Acres of Retent.

A DSL II-2 0.22

A SRL II-1 0.10

B CMZ 1F 0.65

B CMZ 1F 0.96

C CMZ 1F 0.54

C CMZ 1F 0.30

C RSMZ(SSS) II-1 0.25

C SRL II-1 0.16

E CMZ 1F 0.95

E CMZ 1F 0.95

E SRL 1F 0.58

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

22/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-123

THP Name:

RPF: CDF No: 6-740-06095Dobosh, B.

991501GDRCO No:991501

Units

Unit TTRRSSLL Gross Acres Clear Cut Acres Selection Acres No Harvest

AcresIn Unit ROW

AcresOut Unit

ROW Acres Other Acres

A 91632507 26.33 17.71 6.49 2.13

B 91632504 6.05 4.89 1.15

C 91632505 3.44 2.37 1.07

Riparian

Feature Requirements Met?

Class I

II-1: Class II 1st Order

II-2: Class II 2nd Order

II-FPR: Class II Forest Practice Rules

Reason Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

Geology

*** None ***

Reason Retention Requirements Not Met:

*** N/A ***

AHCP Exceptions:

*** None ***

Additional Comments

*** None ***

12/27/2019 12:05:20 PM Rpt_CAAHCPPostHarvest_Bulk

AHCP Post Harvest Report

Begin Date: 1/1/2017, End Date: 12/31/2018, Status: Completed

A-124

Appendix B

Steep Streamside Slope (SSS) Assessment Field Data Sheet

Aerial Photo No: - Aerial Photo Yr: - Data Source: SSS Assessment

THP Mitigation: -

A.P. Mapper: - Field Mapper: Scott Kirkman

Field Crew: Anne Ferenbach

Data Entry: -

Location: CK - Mynot Creek

Date: 12/6/2017 Stream Reach: 0.00 Sub Reach: 0.00 LSID: -UTM Top X/Y: - / - Accuracy (ft): - Meas. Count: -

UTM Bottom X/Y: - / - Accuracy (ft): - Meas. Count: -

Feature Type: Shallow Landslide Forensics: Creek Erosion Landslide Type: Debris Slide

Material: Debris (20-80% >2mm/med sand

Bedrock: KJfbf Mode: Translation

Type: Slide Activity: Active Certainty: Definite

Failure Surface: GM Watercourse Class: I-F: Class I Fish Bearing

Delivery: Yes Delivery Location: Active Channel Delivery Est. %: -

Dimensions Ave. Slope Inclination (%)

Lr: 38.00 Ld: 27.00 Road Type: - Source: 120Wr: 48.00 Wd: 46.00 Road

Assoc:No Association Debris: 84

Dr: 4.50 Dd: 4.00 Curvature: Planar Ave Slp Clino/Side Slope Source:

93 / Field Estimate

Lt (toe to crown): 42.00 Toe-Water: 0Dwat (from crown): 38.00 Above Slide: 84

Timber Type (Ls): Alders/Shrub Delivery Vol. (cu. ft.): 1565.56Timber Type (adj): ALDERSHRUB Calculated Delivery %: 36

Comments: FIeld Notes - 261 ft from top of SSS to crown of slide. The landslide is within the SSS and the SSS was not harvested. Slide failed post-harvest. Slide debris is still partially vegetated with ferns and salmonberries. Slide was observed from 2017 helicopter flight. Old-growth snag and advanced regen fir have recently fallen over within slide and fir is leaning across the creek. The stream channel is filled in with LWD (older) and recent slide debris, which fans out downstream of the margin. Slide scarp contains thin layer of moss. Slide was not previously observed during SSS assessment of 2014. LWD has buttressed some of slide debris, but creek has also washed away some debris at the toe. Volume adjustment calculated for debris buttressed by log.

CA Landslide ReportLS14145Landslide

B-1

Appendix C

Summary Table of Road Treatment Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring Results from 2017 and 2018

C- 1

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

090502 1-05-127H 4 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

091501 1-15-068H 01 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

091501 1-15-068H 02 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

091501 1-15-068H 03 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

091501 1-15-068H 04 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

140504 1-06-090H MC_13 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

140901 1-09-080H 307 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

141701 1-17-116H 01 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

141701 1-17-116H 02 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

141701 1-17-116H 03 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

141701 1-17-116H 06 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

141701 1-17-116H 15 Sep 25 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

151601 1-16-093H 10 Oct 5 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

151601 1-16-093H 11 Oct 2 2018 Liz McCullough

No Functional

171601 1-16-107H 3 Oct 2 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

171601 1-16-107H 3.1 Oct 2 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

171601 1-16-107H 4 Oct 2 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

171601 1-16-107H 5 Oct 2 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

191601 1-16-140H 01 Oct 2 2018 Tyler Brown

No Functional

191601 1-16-140H 02 Oct 2 2018 Tyler Brown

No Functional

191601 1-16-140H 03 Oct 1 2018 Tyler Brown

No Functional

191601 1-16-140H 04.1 Oct 2 2018 Tyler Brown

No Functional

191602 1-17-033HUM 01 Sep 28 2018 Jeremy Wright

No Functional

191602 1-17-033HUM 02 Sep 28 2018 Jeremy Wright

No Functional

191602 1-17-033HUM 03 Sep 28 2018 Jeremy Wright

No Functional

191602 1-17-033HUM 05 Sep 28 2018 Jeremy Wright

No Functional

191602 1-17-033HUM 06 Sep 28 2018 Jeremy Wright

No Functional

241401 1-15-044H 01 Sep 29 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

241401 1-15-044H 04 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

241401 1-15-044H 05 Sep 29 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

241401 1-15-044H 3.1 Sep 29 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

241701 1-17-048H 09 Oct 17 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

241701 1-17-048H 13 Oct 9 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261401 1-14-060H 1 Sep 28 2018 Liz McCullough

No Functional Removed to standards

261401 1-14-060H 2 Sep 28 2018 Liz McCullough

No Functional Removed to standards

C- 2

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

261401 1-14-060H 3 Sep 28 2018 Liz McCullough

No Functional Removed to standards

261602 1-16-083H 04 Oct 5 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261602 1-16-083H 05 Oct 5 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 01 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 02 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional Decommissioned crossing, does not appear to have been used as a temp Xing this year.

261603 1-16-128H 03 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 09 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 10 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 11 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 13 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 14 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 15 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

261603 1-16-128H 17 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

271402 1-14-132H 05 Sep 13 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site set to specifications.

271702 1-17-118HUM 01 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 02 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 03 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 04 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 05 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 06 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 07 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 08 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 09 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 10 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 11 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 12 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

271702 1-17-118HUM 13 Sep 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee

No Functional

341601 1-17-031H 07 Nov 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee Aug 30 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to specifications.

341601 1-17-031H 09 Nov 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee Aug 30 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Bigger pipe installed than prescribed.

341601 1-17-031H 11 Nov 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee Aug 30 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to specifications.

401701 1-18-003HUM 04 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

401701 1-18-003HUM 05 Sep 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

401701 1-18-003HUM 06 Oct 9 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

C- 3

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

430201 1-02-036H 46 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

431501 1-15-124H 01 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" set to AHCP standards.

431501 1-15-124H 02 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431501 1-15-124H 03 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

431501 1-15-124H 04 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

431501 1-15-124H 05 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431501 1-15-124H 05.1 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431501 1-15-124H 06 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to AHCP standards.

431501 1-15-124H 07 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431501 1-15-124H 08 Sep 26 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431501 1-15-124H 20 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional Side slopes around outlet are not rocked, hayed or seeded.

431502 1-15-134H 01 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

431502 1-15-134H 02 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 42" CMP set to standards.

431502 1-15-134H 03 Sep 30 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site removed to AHCP standards.

431502 1-15-134H 04 Sep 30 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site removed to AHCP standards.

431502 1-15-134H 05 Sep 30 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site removed to AHCP standards.

431502 1-15-134H 09 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to specifications.

431502 1-15-134H 10 Sep 26 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

431502 1-15-134H 13 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

431502 1-15-134H 14 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site set to FPR and AHCP specifications.

431502 1-15-134H 15 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional DRC clear of debris.

431502 1-15-134H 16 Sep 29 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is FPR and AHCP compliant.

431702 1-17-148HUM 1 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

431702 1-17-148HUM 2 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

431702 1-17-148HUM 3 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

431702 1-17-148HUM 4 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

431702 1-17-148HUM 5 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

471501 1-15-079H 05 Sep 16 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP standards.

481501 1-15-143H 01 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jun 9 2017 Liz McCullough No Functional 72" CMP installed to standards. No issues.

481501 1-15-143H 05 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

481501 1-15-143H 10 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 24"cpm Set to stream grade ahcp compliant

C- 4

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

481501 1-15-143H 11 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 36" culvert instead of 24".

481501 1-15-143H 12 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 36" cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481501 1-15-143H 13.1 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

481501 1-15-143H 14 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

481501 1-15-143H 15 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 24" cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481501 1-15-143H 16 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

481501 1-15-143H 17 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 24" cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481501 1-15-143H 23 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 36" cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481501 1-15-143H 25 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 24"cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481502 1-16-001H 10 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jun 9 2017 Liz McCullough No Functional Installed to FPR and AHCP standards.

481502 1-16-001H 11 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jun 9 2017 Liz McCullough No Functional Installed to FPR and AHCP standards.

481502 1-16-001H 12 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jun 9 2017 Liz McCullough No Functional The watercourse crossing meets standards. There is a seep emerging at the cutbank. The ditchline needs to be extended.

481502 1-16-001H 15 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 42" cmp set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481502 1-16-001H 16 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional 18" cpm set to stream grade ahcp compliant

481503 1-16-125H 23 Nov 11 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 13 2018 Jed Huff No Functional Crossing decommissioned to standards. Temporary bridge pulled.

481701 1-17-091H 01 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

481701 1-17-091H 02 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

481701 1-17-091H 04 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

Yes Functional Inlet is flush with road fill. No rock above inlet.

481701 1-17-091H 05 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

481701 1-17-091H 07 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

481701 1-17-091H 08 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

481701 1-17-091H 09 Sep 28 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

511501 1-15-050HUM 7 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Crossing removed to AHCP standards.

C- 5

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

511501 1-15-050HUM 8 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Rock dissipater installed as prescribed and to standards.

511502 1-15-132H 03 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 04 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 05 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 06 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" pipe set to AHCP standards.

511502 1-15-132H 07 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" CMP set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 08 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" pipe set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 09 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 11 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 12 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 14 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Decommissioned to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 16 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 17 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Decommissioned to specifications.

511502 1-15-132H 19 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

511503 1-16-030H 01 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

511503 1-16-030H 02 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant, no issues.

511503 1-16-030H 03 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 3 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

511503 1-16-030H 05 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional No ditchline installed as prescribed.

511503 1-16-030H 06 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications, no issues.

511503 1-16-030H 07 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed crossing to standards.

511503 1-16-030H 08 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed crossing to standards.

511503 1-16-030H 09 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed crossing to specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 01 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP standards, no issues.

511504 1-16-042H 02 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Rocked ford set to GDRCo specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 03 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

511504 1-16-042H 04 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional No issues, site is compliant.

511504 1-16-042H 05 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional No issues.

511504 1-16-042H 07 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

511504 1-16-042H 10 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 20 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed Humboldt crossing to specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 14 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" cmp installed to specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 15 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" cmp installed to AHCP standards.

C- 6

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

511504 1-16-042H 16 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown

No Functional

511504 1-16-042H 17 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional No critical dip. diversion potential left 600'

511504 1-16-042H 18 Oct 2 2017 Jamie Larrabee Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP standards.

511504 1-16-042H 19 Oct 2 2017 Jamie Larrabee Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to standards.

511504 1-16-042H 20 Oct 2 2017 Jamie Larrabee Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specs

511504 1-16-042H 21 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" cmp installed to grade.

511504 1-16-042H 22 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" cmp installed to AHCP standards.

511504 1-16-042H 23 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 24 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" cmp set to grade.

511504 1-16-042H 25 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 48" cmp set to AHCP standards.

511504 1-16-042H 26 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 48" pipe set to standards.

511504 1-16-042H 29 Oct 2 2017 Jamie Larrabee Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" cmp set to AHCP specifications.

511504 1-16-042H 31 Oct 2 2017 Jamie Larrabee Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to standards.

511504 1-16-042H 37 Oct 7 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP standards.

511504 1-16-042H 38 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Sep 21 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional Small rock used on the ford

511504 1-16-042H 39 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Sep 21 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

511504 1-16-042H 40 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Sep 21 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

511505 1-16-039HUM 1 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

511505 1-16-039HUM 2 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" pipe set to AHCP standards.

511505 1-16-039HUM 3 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP set to AHCP standards.

511505 1-16-039HUM 4 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP set to specifications.

511505 1-16-039HUM 5 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

511505 1-16-039HUM 6 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

511505 1-16-039HUM 7 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

561401 1-15-057H 15 Sep 23 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

561401 1-15-057H 19 Sep 21 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP standards.

561401 1-15-057H 21 Sep 21 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

561401 1-15-057H 22 Sep 21 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

561401 1-15-057H 23 Sep 21 2016 Jamie Larrabee Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP specifications.

561403 1-15-082H 04 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

561403 1-15-082H 05 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

561403 1-15-082H 06 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards.

561403 1-15-082H 07 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

C- 7

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

561403 1-15-082H 08 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

561403 1-15-082H 09 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

561403 1-15-082H 10 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

561403 1-15-082H 11 Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" pipe set to specifications.

561504 1-16-061

HUM 09.1 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to AHCP standards.

561504 1-16-061

HUM 11 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown

No Functional

561504 1-16-061

HUM 17 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Sep 19 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

561504 1-16-061

HUM 19 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

561504 1-16-061

HUM 20 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to standards.

561601 1-16-091HUM 01 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to grade, no water flow at time of survey.

561601 1-16-091HUM 02 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jun 28 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

561603 1-16-120HUM 0.5 Jul 27 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" cmp installed to AHCP standards.

561603 1-16-120HUM 01 Jul 28 2017 Tyler Brown Jul 5 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" cmp installed to specs.

561603 1-16-120HUM 04 Oct 4 2017 Liz McCullough Sep 7 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Upgraded to standards.

561603 1-16-120HUM 04 Oct 4 2017 Liz McCullough Sep 14 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional Upgraded to standards.

561605 1-16-139H 19 Nov 5 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 02 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 03 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 04 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 05 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 06 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 07 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 10 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057 11 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

C- 8

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

HUM

561611 1-17-057

HUM 12 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 13 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 14 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 15 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 16 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 17 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

561611 1-17-057

HUM 21 Sep 25 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611501 1-15-108H 01 Sep 21 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to specifications.

611501 1-15-108H 09 Sep 21 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

611501 1-15-108H 10 Sep 21 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site set to AHCP standards.

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 01 Oct 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 02 Oct 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 112 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional DRC outlet is the watercourse drainage.

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 113 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 114 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 12 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 13 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 14 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 15 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

611701 1-17-

079HUM-DEL 16 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

661501 1-15-137D 06 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to specifications.

661501 1-15-137D 07 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

C- 9

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

661501 1-15-137D 10 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 72" CMP installed to specifications.

661501 1-15-137D 12 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional To Specs

661501 1-15-137D 16 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to specifications.

661501 1-15-137D 17 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP standards.

661501 1-15-137D 18 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to standards.

661501 1-15-137D 19 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP specifications.

661501 1-15-137D 20 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 01 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

661502 1-16-002 DEL 03 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional To Standards

661502 1-16-002 DEL 04 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 05 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 06 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 07 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional No waterbars yet to specs

661502 1-16-002 DEL 08 Sep 20 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Meets compliance no issues.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 09 Sep 20 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 11 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 12 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" CMP set to AHCP standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 13 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 14 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to specifications.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 15 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 16 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Decommissioned to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 17 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Crossing decommissioned to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 18 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30" CMP set to standards.

661502 1-16-002 DEL 19 Oct 12 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 42" CMP installed to standards. No issues.

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

02 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional No hydrologic disconnects were installed at this site.

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

03 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to standards.

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

04 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to standards.

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

05 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards.

C- 10

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

06 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to specifications.

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

07 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

661503 1-16-019 DEL/HBM

08 Oct 3 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 15 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional CMP installed to AHCP standards.

661605 1-17-001DEL 04 Nov 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee Sep 12 2018 Nalani Ludington Yes Functional Water bars not installed yet.

661605 1-17-001DEL 05 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional Very little rock below outlet to dissipate energy.

661605 1-17-001DEL 06 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

661605 1-17-001DEL 10 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional Rock at inlet and outlet sparse.

661605 1-17-001DEL 10.1 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional Outlet rocking is sparse.

661605 1-17-001DEL 10.2 Sep 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

711301 1-14-048DEL 18 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

711301 1-14-048DEL 21 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 48" CMP functioning.

711301 1-14-048DEL 22 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

711401 1-15-038D 08 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711501 1-15-045D 08 Nov 16 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Decommissioned to AHCP specifications.

711501 1-15-045D 09 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711501 1-15-045D 10 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711501 1-15-045D 13 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP specifications.

711501 1-15-045D 14 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711501 1-15-045D 15 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe set to specifications.

711501 1-15-045D 16 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

711502 1-15-140 DEL 1 Nov 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Cleared inlet.

711502 1-15-140 DEL 4 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

711502 1-15-140 DEL 5 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 42" CMP set to specifications.

711502 1-15-140 DEL 6 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711502 1-15-140 DEL 7 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711502 1-15-140 DEL 9 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711502 1-15-140 DEL 9 Sep 26 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711503 1-15-145D 02 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP standards.

711503 1-15-145D 03 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711503 1-15-145D 04 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

711503 1-15-145D 07 Sep 21 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

C- 11

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

711702 1-17-073 03 Oct 24 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

931302 1-14-046DEL 02 Sep 28 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 02 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 03 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site set to AHCP standards.

931501 1-15-069D 04 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 06 Oct 13 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to specifications.

931501 1-15-069D 07 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 08 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to AHCP standards.

931501 1-15-069D 09 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to standards.

931501 1-15-069D 10 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 11 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to FPR and AHCP standards.

931501 1-15-069D 17 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 18 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 19 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is FPR and AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 20 Sep 27 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to AHCP standards.

931501 1-15-069D 22 Sep 28 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 24 Sep 28 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931501 1-15-069D 25 Sep 28 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown Yes Functional The watercourse was installed as prescribed. No ditchline was installed as prescribed.

931501 1-15-069D 26 Sep 28 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown Yes Functional

There was a minor outboard road edge failure after the first winter. The failure was captured by rock armor and did not deliver to the watercourse.

931503 1-15-147D 18 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP compliant.

931503 1-15-147D 19 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to AHCP standards.

931503 1-15-147D 20 Sep 27 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to AHCP and FPR guidelines.

931503 1-15-147D 23 Sep 27 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional

931503 1-15-147D 24 Sep 26 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 25 Sep 27 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Standards.

931503 1-15-147D 28 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 29 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 30 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 31 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 32 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

C- 12

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

931503 1-15-147D 35 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs

931503 1-15-147D 37 Sep 23 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 25 2017 Tyler Brown No Functional To Specs. Roads fabric placed after the BOT

941401 1-14-146DEL 32 Sep 28 2016 Garrett Dennis

No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards.

941501 1-15-105D 01 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Road widened to specifications.

941501 1-15-105D 02 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to specifications.

941501 1-15-105D 04 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" pipe installed to specifications.

941501 1-15-105D 05 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Ditchline maintained.

941501 1-15-105D 06 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe installed to standards.

941501 1-15-105D 07 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Stabilized.

941501 1-15-105D 08 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional 30" CMP installed to grade. After the first winter, the inlet is blocked by a rock but the pipe is still conveying water.

941501 1-15-105D 09 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

941501 1-15-105D 10 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to AHCP standards.

941501 1-15-105D 11 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to specifications.

941501 1-15-105D 12 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site set to FPR and AHCP standards.

941501 1-15-105D 13 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 14 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Pipe set to FPR and AHCP standards.

941501 1-15-105D 14 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 42" CMP set to specs.

941501 1-15-105D 15 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jun 28 2018 Tyler Brown No Functional 36" CMP installed to standards.

941501 1-15-105D 16 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 17 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to FPR and AHCP standards.

941501 1-15-105D 17 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional Side slope failure has resulted in plug potential for the inlet.

941501 1-15-105D 18 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional DRC set to specifications.

941501 1-15-105D 19 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Decommissioned to standards.

941501 1-15-105D 20 Sep 27 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 26 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 36" CMP installed to standards.

B10-02 Sep 15 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

B10-03 Sep 15 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

There has been some settling of the rock armor but the site still is compliant.

B100-01 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

A ditch relief culvert was installed to specifications.

C- 13

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

B100-02 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Set to AHCP specifications.

B100-03 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

B100-04 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional

There is no critical dip. There is diversion potential along the left approach.

B100-05 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is set to standards.

B100-06 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

The site was treated to treatment specifications. The debris was cleared from the channel.

B100-11 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

B100-12 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

Road surface reconstructed as prescribed. No issues.

B100-13 Oct 4 2016 Garrett Dennis Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

New decking installed to AHCP specifications.

B140-03 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

B830-01 Sep 15 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee Yes Functional

A tree has fallen in front of inlet. The culvert has not plugged yet.

B830-02 Sep 15 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

A new culvert was set is AHCP specifications.

B835-01 Sep 15 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24" CMP set to specifications.

B900.18L-01 Oct 4 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Upgraded to Specifications.

B900.18L-02 Oct 4 2016 Liz McCullough

No Functional Upgraded to Specs

BL510-01 Feb 1 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 12 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional

Site was removed to AHCP and FPR specifications.

BL510-02 Feb 1 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Site is AHCP complaint, no issues.

BL510-03 Feb 2 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed to specifications.

BL510-04 Feb 2 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed to specifications.

BL510-05 Feb 2 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 18 2017 Jamie Larrabee No Functional Removed crossing to AHCP specifications.

CR1800-01 Oct 22 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

CR1800-04 Oct 19 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

CR1800-05 Oct 19 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

CR1800-06 Oct 19 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

CR1800-08 Oct 19 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

F Oct 22 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

C- 14

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

PWA 1635 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1635.1 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1635.2 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1636 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1637 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1637.1 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1638 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1639 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1640 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1641 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1642 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

C- 15

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

PWA 1643 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1644 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1645 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1646 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1647 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1648 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1649 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1650 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1651 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1652 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1652.1 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

C- 16

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

PWA 1652.2 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1653 Aug 29 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1653.1 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

PWA 1653.1 Sep 26 2017 Tyler Brown Oct 8 2018 Jeremy Wright No Functional

East Fork Ryan Creek Habitat Improvement and Sediment Reduction Project

R 120-01 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 36" CMP installed to standards

R 120-02 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards.

R 120-03 Feb 26 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards.

R 120-04 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 36" CMP installed to standards, No issues.

R 120-05 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional No issues

R 120-06 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 30" CMP installed to standards

R 120-07 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional No issues

R 120.42-01 Feb 27 2016 Liz McCullough Oct 10 2016 Garrett Dennis No Functional 24" CMP installed to standards, no issues.

RM200-03 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 2 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

24" cmp set to stream grade AHCP compliant

RM200-04 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 2 2018 Jed Huff No Functional

36" cmp outlet set to stream grade AHCP compliant

RM200-05 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown

No Functional

RM200-07 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 2 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 24inch pipe set to AHCP standards.

RM200-08 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown

No Functional

RM200-09 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Jul 2 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30 inch pipe set to specs.

RM200-09 Sep 16 2016 Tyler Brown Sep 10 2018 Nalani Ludington No Functional

WM 1830-01 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

WM 1830-02 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

WM 1830-04 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

WM 1830-05 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

C- 17

GDRCO # State # Road Point

Pre-Winter Inspection

Date RPF

Pre-Inspection

Post-winter Inspection

Date RPF

Post-Inspection Issues

Identified Functional

Status Notes

WM 1830-07 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

WM 2040-01 Oct 3 2017 Liz McCullough Jul 6 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional 30 inch pipe set to AHCP standards.

WM 2400-01 Oct 26 2018 Nalani Ludington

No Functional

WM 900-01 Sep 15 2016 Liz McCullough Jul 3 2018 Jamie Larrabee No Functional