Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-1

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3-7 Aquatic Biota

3-7.1 Introduction

The following section provides the scope of analysis, methodology, and indicators as well as the current 

affected environment to assess the environmental consequences of the alternatives for aquatic biota. 

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the aquatic biology are summarized from the 

Aquatic/Riparian Species Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation (Strand 2011), and Aquatic 

Management Indicator Species (Strand 2011a) reports for the KREW project.

Management of aquatic-dependent species and habitat and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource Planning Act of 1974, 

National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and 

implemented so that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered 

species or lead to a trend toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive species. In 

addition, management activities should be designed to maintain or improve habitat for Management 

Indicator Species to the degree consistent with multiple-use objectives established in each Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). It is Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, 

avoid harassment to wildlife and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat. Therefore, management 

decisions on NFS lands must consider effects to wildlife and their habitat.

3-7.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators

The following section identifies the scope of the area used to evaluate the project (analysis area), the 

methodologies utilized to collect information from with the analysis area, and indicators used to 

evaluate aquatic biota.

3-7.2.1 Scope of the Analysis

The proposed KREW Research project consists of two separated areas located in Fresno County, 

California, and is within the High Sierra Ranger District of the Sierra National Forest. The two project 

areas (Bull and Providence) comprise approximately 3,100 acres of public and private land located east 

of Shaver Lake. These two project areas are within the larger analysis area that will be evaluated for 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the KREW Research Project.

The KREW Bull Unit covers approximately 1,200 acres, with elevations ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 feet. 

There are approximately 2 miles of perennial streams and 45 acres of meadow within the project area. 

The aquatic/riparian systems represent potential habitat for resident trout, benthic macroinvertebrates, 

mountain yellow-legged frog, Yosemite toad, and Pacific tree-frog. Vegetation is comprised of California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR)(CDFG 2005) vegetation types Sierra mixed conifer and red fir. 

Mountain whitethorn and green-leaf manzanita dominate forest openings. The no-treatment control 

area for this section of the KREW study is located within the Teakettle watershed directly to the east of 

the KREW Bull Unit. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-2

The KREW Providence Unit covers approximately 1,870 acres, with elevations ranging between 4,000 

and 6,000 feet. There are approximately 8 miles of perennial streams and 30 acres of meadow within the 

project area. The aquatic/riparian systems represent potential habitat for resident trout, benthic 

macroinvertebrates, California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, Sierra 

Nevada yellow-legged frog , Yosemite toad, and Pacific tree-frog. Vegetation is comprised of CWHR 

(CDFG 2005) types of Sierra mixed conifer. Large older trees (greater than 200 years) are scattered 

across the management unit with dense ponderosa pine stands at lower elevations. 

The aquatic analysis area for the Kings River Research Project consists of the fourteen 8th code 

Hydrologic Units (HUC8) that contains any portion of the proposed project areas. Use of HUC8 

subwatersheds incorporates drainage patterns, along with water and its associated riparian corridors 

which represents the majority of habitat for fish and herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles). Use of 

HUC8s subwatersheds also facilitates evaluation of habitat connectivity and cumulative effects. There 

are approximately 83 miles of perennial streams within the analysis area HUC8s subwatersheds. Figure 

3-7-1 displays the perennial stream systems and subwatersheds for the KREW Research Project analysis 

area. 

3-7.2.2. Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis

The Effects Analysis Methodology section describes assumptions specific to aquatic biota, resource 

indicators with justifications, information sources used to support the analysis, timeframes for effects 

(short and long term) and the spatial boundaries of the effects analysis. 

Inventories

Information contained in this report represents a compilation of approximately 43 kilometers (26 miles) 

of stream and species survey data. Segments of analysis area streams have been surveyed for stream 

channel characteristics and stability between 1989 and 2007. Channels and riparian areas were 

evaluated using various methodologies, including Rosgen channel typing, Pfankuch channel stability 

ratings, and Stream Condition Inventory. Aquatic conditions were evaluated considering a combination 

of channel stability, stream shading, and water temperature. Surveys for herpetofauna (amphibians and 

aquatic/riparian reptiles) were completed at various times. 

Rosgen Channel Typing: Channel types (Rosgen 1996) were determined based on channel attributes 

such as width/depth ratio; gradient; sinuosity; and substrate, along with sediment and transport 

characteristics. Approximately 26 miles of stream channel have been evaluated within the analysis area. 

Stream reaches with low sensitivity are bedrock/boulder (Rosgen channel types A1-2, B1-3, C1-2, F1-2, 

and G1-2). These channel types are considered inherently stable and are not significantly influenced by 

land management activities. However, sediment build-up can occur in these channels if upstream stream 

channels degrade. Effects to aquatic habitat focuses on those Rosgen channel types considered as 

sensitive, degraded, or unstable (sensitivity of moderate and high). 

Pfankuch channel stability ratings: The Pfankuch channel stability rating (USDA – Forest Service 1975) 

was developed to evaluate stream channel condition and stability from within the floodplain and stream 

channel. This method utilizes observation of attributes from the upper banks, lower banks, and channel 

bottom. Channels are categorized into three ratings of Poor, Fair, or Good. Channel types were evaluated 

in terms of sensitivity to disturbance as presented by Rosgen (1996), which varies by channel gradient 

and size of substrate. The modifications proposed by Rosgen evaluate each channel type separately in 

terms of vegetative bank cover, stream bank cutting, channel bottom deposition, channel bottom scour 

and deposition, and percent stable material. Under Rosgen’s (ibid) modified approach, channels are 

evaluated considering sensitivity to disturbance, recognizing channel characteristics rather than 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-3

evaluating all channels against a common metric. Of stream channels evaluated within the analysis area, 

approximately 6 miles were channel types considered moderately to highly sensitive to disturbance. Of 

these 6 miles, approximately 1.9 were evaluated as being in Poor condition.

Stream Condition Inventory: Eight Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) (USDA-Forest Service 2005) plots 

were established along possible response or depositional channels (Montgomery and Buffington 1997) 

(low gradient, fine substrate) to evaluate current conditions and establish a possible baseline 

comparison for future monitoring (Table 3-7-3). These lower gradient areas would indicate effects if 

they were to occur as a result of this project. SCI consists of stream features or attributes that are useful 

in classifying channels, evaluating the condition of stream morphology and aquatic habitat and making 

inferences about water quality. Data on particle distribution and channel geometry information, woody 

debris, bank configuration, shade, and channel stability was collected. 

Species Surveys: Between 1993 and 2009 portions of the streams, meadows, and ponds within the 

analysis area were surveyed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for herpetofauna. USFS surveys have 

utilized a Visual Encounter Survey (VES) as described in Fellers and Freel (1995), which has been 

successful on the Sierra National Forest for detection of foothill yellow-legged frog; mountain yellowlegged frog; Yosemite toad; and western pond turtle, along with numerous common herpetofauna. 

Species records from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Museum of Vertebrate 

of Zoology were also queried for the analysis area.

Water Temperatures: Water temperatures were collected using dataloggers at various sites across the 

elevational range of the analysis area. Water temperature data was collected at a 30-minute increment 

through the warmest portions of the summer between 2005 and 2007. 

Habitat Suitability

The CWHR (CDFG 2005) was used to evaluate species habitat quantity and quality. The CWHR System 

contains life history, habitat relationships, and management information for amphibians and reptiles 

occurring in California. Suitable habitats for the species are described within the CWHR and suitability 

ratings for Reproduction, Cover, and Feeding are provided. An average habitat suitability value is also 

calculated for each stage using either arithmetic or geometric means based on numeric scores for the 

suitability ratings. Ratings are provided for habitat values as High, Medium, Low, or Unsuitable as 

described in the following:

High: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is optimal for species occurrence; habitat can support 

relatively high population densities at high frequencies. Suitability index value = 1.00. 

Medium: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is suitable for species occurrence; habitat can 

support relatively moderate population densities at moderate frequencies. Suitability index value = 

0.66.

Low: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is marginal for species occurrence; habitat can support 

relatively low population densities at low frequencies. Suitability index value = 0.33.

Unsuitable: Habitat stage is unsuitable for species occurrence, and the species where habitat is 

rated unsuitable is not expected to reliably occur in the habitat. Suitability index value = 0.00.

3-7.2.3 Indicators

Indicators are measures that can be used to describe the condition of aquatic/riparian ecosystems. They 

represent elements that might change as a result of management activities. There are two riparian 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-4

vegetation indicators identified in the Big Creek Analysis (USDA-Forest Service 2004a); riparian canopy 

cover and water temperature. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) (Jennings 1996; Moyle et. al. 

1996; Erman 1996) notes that these aquatic indicators could be potentially be affected by the types of 

activities being proposed. Flow will also be used as an indicator since water is a CWHR (CDFG 2005) 

essential element for each of the species analyzed. The indicators also represent important habitat 

elements for herpetofauna.

Riparian Canopy cover: Canopy cover is the degree to which tree canopies obscure the sky or block the 

sun. Riparian canopy cover was measured as the percentage of stream shading. Stream shading will vary 

by the width of the stream channel, which is generally a function of stream order. Lower order channels 

may have nearly overlapping canopies while large rivers may have limited shading from riparian 

vegetation. Stream shading is important in maintaining stream temperature with the effect varying by 

the height of adjacent vegetation, proximity to the stream, topography, angle of the sun, and aspect 

(Beschta et al. 1987; USGS 1997, 2002; Moore et al. 2005). Opening up of dense stream canopies has 

been noted to increase aquatic productivity (Beschta et al. 1987). However, opening up dense canopies 

can be accompanied by increases in sediment due to decreased site buffering and alteration of 

hydrologic regime. 

Water temperature: Water temperature has multiple effects on aquatic/riparian species and their 

behavior. Thermal effects relate to directing behavior (trigger migration or spawning); controlling 

factors (time of incubation and emergence); lethal (lead to breakdown of homeostatic system and 

increased susceptibility to disease); and growth (metabolic regulation; affected by food supply) (Beschta 

et al. 1987; Armour 1988; USGS 1997; 2002; Sauter et al. 2001). Elevation, aspect, stream width, channel 

roughness coefficient, riparian shading, solar radiation, air temperature, cloud cover, and stream 

discharge levels can affect water temperature. Of these elements, direct effects on riparian shading and 

indirect effects on stream discharge level (flow) could have the most effect on stream temperature 

(Beschta et al. 1987; Moore et al. 2005). These affects could also be cumulative if canopy cover were 

affected on multiple tributary stream systems. 

Flow: Flow is synonymous with stream discharge. Flow is affected by climate, geology, elevation, aspect, 

vegetative cover, road patterns, and topography. Changes to stream flow patterns, such as alteration of 

the timing, duration, and magnitude of runoff, could affect both life history of aquatic/riparian species, 

along with habitat availability and suitability. Alteration could be expressed as a change in flow pattern, 

in bank and channel instabilities, widening of the stream channel, and undermining of bank trees 

resulting in increased levels of sediment. Widening of the stream channel would decrease the level of 

canopy cover over the stream.

3-7.3 Affected Environment

The Affected Environment provides summarized direction from federal laws, management plans, 

manuals and handbooks applicable to the KREW Research Project. The scope of the project and aquatic 

analysis area have previously been identified. The Affected Environment includes methodologies and 

models used to evaluate aquatic biota and their habitat; indicators used to evaluate effects from the 

project; desired conditions that may have been established, and current conditions based on available 

data.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-5

3-7.3.1 Regulatory Setting

Direction relevant to analysis of the alternatives as it affects aquatic biota includes the:

Endangered Species Act (ESA) - The ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action 

authorized by a Federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or 

endangered (TE) species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible Federal 

agency to consult the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TE species under 

their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to TE species to ensure management 

activities are not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TE species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This 

assessment is documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and is summarized or referenced in this 

Chapter.

On February 16, 2006 the SNF requested review (technical assistance) from the USDI USFWS on the 

potential effects of the KRP on the Yosemite toad, which had been designated as a federal Candidate 

species. On July 27, 2006 a letter (#1-1-06-I-0818) addressing the USFWS findings and 

recommendations for Yosemite toad was sent to the SNF. The USFWS concluded that the KRP would 

likely result in the harm, harassment, or death of an unknown number of Yosemite toads. However, by 

adding the conservation measures listed below to the project, the effects of the project on the Yosemite 

toad would be substantially avoided and minimized. 

No mechanical treatments within 100 feet of meadows.

Trees may be felled within 100 feet of meadows and removed by means of cable; around 

meadows used as breeding habitat by Yosemite toads; only trees 50 or more feet away from the 

meadow will be felled.

Within 0.6 miles of occupied meadows, operations will start after breeding is over and end by 

October 1, and operation will cease for 24 hours after rainfall greater than 0.1 inches.

Heavy machinery will be kept at least 50 feet from moist upland habitats where toads are likely 

to be present during the summer, such as willow and lupine patches, but trees may be felled 

within this area and removed by means of cable.

Additional recommendations by the USFWS to avoid and minimize adverse effects of the KRP to the 

Yosemite toad:

Implement the project and conservation measures above;

Develop a research and monitoring program to determine the effects of the KRP on the Yosemite 

toad abundance and habitat use. Include population and habitat monitoring in occupied 

treatment and control meadows and radio tracking of adult and sub-adult Yosemite toads to 

determine non-meadow habitat use by this species.

These measures have been incorporated into the KREW Research Project design and the research and 

monitoring component for Yosemite toad was initiated in 2007.

Additional measures considering both a 500-foot and a 500-meter No Activity buffering of sites 

occupied by Yosemite toad were not adopted due to inability to implement the experimental research. 

Use of over-the-snow logging within occupied Yosemite toad habitat was also considered and eliminated 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-6

due to equipment limitations and questions of availability to meet research timelines. The most critical 

limitation to over-the-snow logging was variability in snow fall and the inability to access the project 

sites during the winter. It is likely that by the time the ground is frozen and snow depth is high enough 

to effectively use this type of logging that the area would not be accessible. An amendment to the Sierra 

Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA – Forest Service 2004) standard and guidelines #92 and 109 is 

part of the Project FEIS due to possible impacts to this species and its habitat from ground disturbing 

equipment. A limiting operating period of 5/1 through 7/15 would be included to exclude project 

activities during toad breeding and rearing, along with the period when post-breeding toads would 

return to foraging sites away from breeding meadows. A limiting operating period of 5/1 – 8/15 

proposed by Sanders (2006) had previously been rejected due to conflicts with objectives for research. 

The research requires that all treatments be completed within the same year. The proposed extended 

LOP would make it unlikely for this to occur.

Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (Manual/Handbook 2670) - Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) 

species are species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. The FS

develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become 

threatened or endangered and ensure their continued viability on National Forests. It is FS policy to 

analyze impacts to sensitive species to ensure management activities do not create a significant trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. This assessment is documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE) 

and is summarized or referenced in this Chapter.

Sierra National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan – The National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) established direction in the preparation of Land Resource Management Plans (LRMP). The 

SNF LRMP (1992) established management direction, goals, objectives, desired conditions, and 

monitoring over the Forest landscape. The LRMP provided direction for threatened, endangered, and 

FSS species, along with standards and guidelines to be implemented for the protection of aquatic biota 

and their habitat. The SNF LRMP was amended in 2001 and 2004 by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA), which provided a revision in LRMP standards and guidelines established under 

the LRMP, and included an Aquatic Management Strategy for habitat conservation. 

Streamside management zones (SMZs) are established to protect and maintain water quality, site 

productivity, channel stability, wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation and are zones for specific 

management direction (Sierra Supplement No. 1; USDA - Forest Service 1989). The width of the SMZ for 

each side of the stream channel varies depending on slope and stream class (Table 3-7-1).

Table 3-7-1. Streamside management zones as defined in the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA-Forest Service 1992) from Sierra Supplement 1 (USDA –Forest Service 1989)

Stream 

Class

Minimum 

Ground Cover 

Density (%)

SMZ Width 

(ft)

30% Slope

SMZ Width 

(ft)

40% Slope

SMZ Width 

(ft)

50% Slope

SMZ Width

(ft) 60% 

Slope

SMZ Width 

(ft)

70% Slope

I 50 100 130 160 190 220

II 50 75 105 135 165 195

III 50 50 80 110 140 170

IV 50 25 45 65 85 105

V 50 0 0 0 0 0

Notes: Stream class I is for highly significant perennial and intermittent streams with resource values associated 

with it (e.g., resident trout, threatened or endangered species, archeological sites). Stream class II is for

significant intermittent streams that are used by resident trout for spawning, rearing or migration. Stream class 

III is for moderately significant intermittent streams that are used as habitat for few resident trout species and 

rarely used for fishing. Stream class IV is for intermittent or ephemeral channels that are between 2 and 5 feet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-7

wide and are meant to protect downstream water sources. Stream class V is for intermittent or ephemeral 

channels that is less than 3 feet wide and are meant to carry water to Class IV streams.

Riparian conservation areas (RCAs) are designated along streams and around water bodies and are 

areas for specific management direction and analysis (USDA – Forest Service 2004). The following 

widths apply for RCAs within the project area:

Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the 

stream;

Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side 

of stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream

Streams in Inner Gorge: top of inner gorge

Special Aquatic Features or Perennial Streams with Riparian Conditions extending more than 150 

feet from edge of stream bank or Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions extending 

more than 50 feet from edge of stream bank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, 

whichever width is greater;

Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel: RCA width and 

protection measures determined through project level analysis.

In general, RCAs for the KREW Research Project area were delineated based on using the current Sierra 

National Forest stream layer (“snfstrm982ar” GIS layer – dated September 17, 2002) and the Strahler 

(1957) method of stream orders. Generalizations for the Kings River Project were first described in a 

white paper by Hopson and Eddinger (2003). The assumptions on how RCAs and SMZs were delineated 

for the Kings River Project are described below:

1. All order 1 stream channels are ephemeral. Per the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

(SNFPA) (USDA – Forest Service 2001 and 2004), seasonally flowing streams include ephemeral 

channels with defined channel or evidence of scour. In reality, all order 1 streams are most likely 

not channels with defined scour, so this is a conservative estimate. 

2. All order 2 channels are intermittent. Again, this assumption is presumed to be a conservative 

estimate.

3. Perennial streams begin at order 3 channels and include all channels order 3 and higher. While 

this may seem to be a conservative estimate of where perennial channels initiate, field 

experience has shown many first and second order channels as perennial. Project-level analysis 

would improve the accuracy of these assumptions.

4. Springs, lakes, and meadows on the SNF GIS coverage are correct. 

5. SMZ widths are based conservatively as:

a. Order 1 streams = Class IV streams (25 feet)

b. Order 2 streams = Class II streams (50-75 feet)

c. Order 3 + streams = Class I streams (100 feet)

d. Meadows, Lakes, Springs = Class I (100 feet)

6. RCA widths are based conservatively as:

a. Order 1 and 2 streams = Seasonal (150 feet)

b. Order 3 + streams = Perennial (300 feet)

c. Meadows, Lakes, Springs = Perennial (300 feet)

Detailed information on additional applicable standards and guidelines implemented under the KREW 

Research Project are provided in the Aquatic/Riparian Species Biological Assessment & BE for the DEIS 

for the Kings River Research Project (Strand 2011).

Management Indicator Species - NFMA and the Secretary of Agriculture’s implementing regulations 

(36 CFR 219) require selection of management indicator species (MIS) and evaluation of effects of 

alternatives on the viability and diversity of plant and animal communities. Management Indicator 

Species (MIS) are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-8

December 14, 2007. Guidance regarding MIS is set forth in the 2001 LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF 

MIS Amendment ROD. The effects of the project on MIS are to be assessed during the preparation of 

NEPA documents prior to project implementation to determine if project modifications are necessary to 

reduce potential negative effects (FSM 2534.1). MIS are addressed in a separate report (Strand 2010).

3-7.3.2 Existing Condition

The Providence and Bull project areas drain to the Kings River watershed and are comprised of portions 

of three 5th code Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC5), which drain to the North Fork Kings River (HUC5 

1803001006), to Dinkey Creek (1803001007), and to Pine Flat Reservoir (1803001008). The basins are 

further divided into HUC6, 7, and 8s. The Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service (R5) 

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (CWEA) was conducted at the HUC8 scale, which ranges from 

590 to 2,400 acres in the project areas. In this analysis, the term ‘subwatershed’ is used to refer to these 

HUC8 drainages. Table 3-7-2 summarizes stream drainage within the analysis area based on GIS. The 

perennial streams are potentially habitat for amphibians and reptiles (herpetofauna), along with fish, 

although seasonal channels can serve as migration corridors and also influence perennial stream 

habitat. The aquatic analysis area for the Kings River Experimental Research Project consists of the 

HUC8 that contain any portion of the proposed project areas. Use of HUC8 subwatersheds incorporates 

drainage patterns, along with water and its associated riparian corridors which represents the majority 

of habitat for fish and herpetofauna (amphibians and reptiles) (Figure 3-7-1).

Table 3-7-2: Stream drainage within project areas

Main 

Stream 

System

Watershed 

(HUC5)

Subwatersheds 

(HUC8) Project Areas

Stream Miles

Perennial Seasonal Total

Kings River NF Kings 

(18030001006) 521.0012 Bull 11.7 17.7 29.4

521.2001 Bull

Kings River Dinkey Creek 

(18030001007)

520.0014 Providence

46.9 64.9 111.8

520.0016 Providence

520.0017 Providence

520.2001 Bull

520.2051 Bull

520.3002 Bull

520.3051 Bull

520.3052 Bull

Kings River Pine Flat 

(18030001008)

519.0005 Providence

24.7 31.7 56.4 519.0007 Providence

519.0008 Providence

519.0011 Providence

Primary drainages in the analysis area are Duff, Providence, Lost, Dinkey Meadow, Forked Meadow, Glen 

Meadow, Turtle, Ross, Bull, Deer, East Fork Deer, Teakettle, and West Fork Long Meadow Creeks. The 

analysis area (figure 3-7-1) is within the Sacramento-San Joaquin zoogeographic province as described 

by Moyle (2002). Moyle (1996, 2002) identifies much of the west slope of the Sierra Nevada range above 

5,000 feet in elevation as being historically fishless due to glaciation during the Pleistocene and steep 

topography. Surveys within the analysis area have identified that rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and 

brown (Salmo trutta) trout occur in major perennial tributaries within the project area (approximately 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-9

18 miles occupied habitat). These species are non-native to the analysis area and are collectively 

referred to as resident trout. The fishery is self-sustaining, although a put-and-take fishery is maintained 

by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2010) along Dinkey Creek, which is subject to 

angling pressure. The fish community represented within the analysis area is the “rainbow trout” 

assemblage for the zoogeographic province described by Moyle (ibid). Habitats are characterized as 

having more riffle than pools, with water temperatures seldom exceeding 21o C. The lower bound of the 

analysis area is approximately 3000 feet elevation and represents a zone of transition (warming water 

temperatures) between Moyle’s rainbow trout and pikeminnow-hardhead-sucker fish assemblages.

Figure 3-7-1: KREW Research Project aquatic analysis area.

Beneficial uses identified for subwatersheds within the analysis area are hydropower generation; 

municipal and domestic supply; irrigation; water contact recreation; non-water contact recreation; 

warm and cold water habitat; rare, threatened, or endangered species; spawning, reproduction, and/or 

early development; freshwater replenishment; and wildlife habitat (SWRCB 1998, 2007). 

Data Summaries

Table 3-7-3 summarizes the physical habitat information from the subwatersheds within the analysis 

area. The majority of the proposed treatments would occur in subwatersheds 519.0007, 519.0008, and 

520.3002. SCI information suggests bank stability is currently fair or better at these sites. Past 

inventories identify that approximately 93% of the stream channels inventoried across the analysis area 

are considered stable or in Fair or better condition. However, about 1.9 miles of stream channel along 

Bull Creek were considered to have poor stability during a 1991 survey. The majority (0.9 mile) of the 

disturbed channels occurred along meadow 520M14 within subwatershed 520.3002. The 2005 SCI plot 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-10

established downstream of the site indicates streambanks to be generally stable and a stable substrate 

(D50), although the amount of sand in the channel is higher than other sites evaluated.

Table 3-7-3: Data collected regarding physical aspects of aquatic habitat

HUC8 Ac

Ac within 

Project 

Area

Rosgen 

Channel 

Typing 

(mi)

Sensitivity

Poor 

Stability

SCI 

Stable 

banks

SCI D50 

(mm)

SCI % 

Sand

SCI 

Rosgen 

Channel 

Type

SCI 

Low Mod High Sensitivity

519.0005 1140 57 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

519.0007 1719 357 ND ND ND ND ND 56% 21.2 5.8 B4 Moderate

519.0008 1976 957 ND ND ND ND ND 70% 44.3 8.8 B4 Moderate

519.0011 1246 96 ND ND ND ND ND 71% 117.8 11.2 B4 Moderate

520.0014 1066 23 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

520.0016 591 146 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND

520.0017 1953 238 7.1 6.4 0.1 0.6 0.3 76% 34.8 12.0 B4 Moderate

66% 5.3 24.0 B4c Moderate

520.2001 2010 7 6.3 5.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 ND ND ND ND ND

520.2051 2020 3 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 ND ND ND ND ND

520.3002 1661 1089 4.5 3.3 0.0 1.2 0.9 64% 69.9 22.0 C3b Moderate

520.3052 2206 8 ND ND ND ND ND 63% 45.1 12.0 B4c Moderate

520.3151 1317 74 1.7 1.2 0.5 0.1 0.0 80% 62.2 3.2 B4c Moderate

521.0012 2407 36 5.4 3.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 ND ND ND ND ND

521.2001 1014 4 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 ND ND ND ND ND

The soils baseline assessment on the subwatersheds in the KREW Project area identified one 

subwatershed (Dinkey Meadow Creek, 520.0014) that exceeded its lower TOC under existing conditions 

due to past disturbances. As part of project planning, this area was examined by the watershed 

interdisciplinary team to determine whether a CWE response is currently occurring, and the risk of 

triggering a CWE response as a consequence of project implementation. Visual observations showed 

stable stream banks and little sediment in the channel. Measurements of sediment depth in pools 

suggest that sediment accumulation is on the order of 10%, half of the maximum desired condition of 

20% pool sedimentation. Embeddedness, a measure of fine sediment intrusion into the channel 

substrate (primarily gravels), was low throughout the reach. Based on the data collected, it does not 

appear that this sub-watershed is experiencing a CWE response (Gallegos 2011). 

Figure 3-7-2 displays summer daily mean water temperatures in stream segments ranging from 3300 –

7100 ft within the analysis area representing several years (2005-2007). Water years 2005 and 2006 

were “wet” water years, while 2007 was a “Critically Dry” water year based on criteria established by 

the State Department of Water Resources. The maximum daily mean water temperature recorded was 

19.3o C, which was collected at Providence Creek, an unnamed tributary to Big Creek, and an unnamed 

tributary to Glen Meadow Creek. Streams in the project analysis area are within the expected summer 

temperature range (<21 C) for the zoogeographic province described by Moyle (2002).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-11

Figure 3-7-2: Mean daily water temperatures collected during summers of 2005-2007

Table 3-7-4 displays miles of perennial streams, miles occuppied by resident trout, daily maximum 

mean summer water temperatures for the larger perennial streams, stream shading, and water year 

type. 

Table 3-7-4: Summary of water temperature and stream shading data from analysis area. ND=No Data

5

10

15

20

6/21 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30 9/6 9/13 9/20

Duff Creek 

2006

EF Deer Creek 

2007

Glen Meadow 

2006

Glen Meadow 

trib 2006

Providence 

2006

Bull Creek 

2005

Big Creek T6 

2005

Water Temp C

Mean Daily Summer Water Temperatures within KREW Analysis Area

HUC8 Acres

Ac 

within 

Project 

Area Primary stream

Per. 

Streams 

(mi)

Fish 

(mi)

Elev 

(ft)

Max 

Daily 

Mean 

(C) Year

Water Year 

type

SCI 

Canopy 

Cover

519.0005 1140 57 Lost 4.4 ND ND ND ND

519.0007 1719 357 Duff 9.1 4000 19 2006 Wet 95%

519.0008 1976 957 Providence 7.4 2.9 3320 19.3 2006 Wet 95%

519.0011 1246 96 Big Creek, trib 3.8 3600 19.3 2005 Wet 92%

520.0014 1066 23 Dinkey Meadow 3.9 0.6 ND ND ND ND

520.0016 591 146 Forked Meadow 1.7 0.5 ND ND ND ND

520.0017 1953 238 Glen Meadow 12.5 2.3 6360 19.1 2006 Wet 70%

Glen Meadow, trib 6360 19.3 2006 Wet 78%

520.2001 2010 7 Turtle 9.4 ND ND ND ND
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-12

Species Accounts and Status

The following provides summarized information on aquatic/riparian threatened (T) , endangered (E), 

candidate (C), and Forest Service sensitive (FSS) species that are either known to occur or have potential 

habitat within the analysis area, along with the system used to quantify and evaluate potential habitat. 

Species evaluated are based on the January 29, 2009 online database (verified on November 9, 2010) of 

federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the SNF from the U.S. Department 

of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI USFWS); (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/is 

/spp_lists/NFActionPage.cfm). Listed species potentially affected by this project are the:

California red-legged frog (T), Rana aurora draytonii

Foothill yellow-legged frog (FSS), Rana boylii

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (R. sierrae) (C/FSS) 

Western pond turtle (FSS), Actinemys marmorata (Subspecies marmorata and pallida)

Yosemite toad (C/FSS), Anaxyrus(=Bufo) canorus

Complete species accounts and evaluation of effects from the KREW Research Project can be found in 

Aquatic/Riparian Species BA & BE for the FEIS for KREW (Strand 2011).

California red-legged frog

Description: The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (CRLF) is the largest native frog in 

the western United States (USDI-USFWS 2002). Adult females have a longer body length than males 

(138 millimeters [5.4 inches] versus 116 millimeters [4.5 inches] snout-urostyle length) (Hayes and 

Miyamoto 1984). The posterior abdomen and hind legs of adults are generally reddish; while the back 

has small black flecks among larger irregular dark blotches. Dorso-lateral folds (the ridges of skin along 

the back) are prominent. Larvae (tadpoles) range from 14 to 80 millimeters (0.6 to 3.1 inches) in length, 

and the background color of the body is dark brown or olive with darker spots (Storer 1925).

Distribution: Historically, the CRLF was common in coastal habitats from the vicinity of Point Reyes 

National Seashore, Marin County, California, and inland from the vicinity of Redding, Shasta County, 

California, southward to northwestern Baja California, Mexico (Jennings and Hayes 1985). It is believed 

to be nearly extirpated from the southern Transverse and Peninsular ranges, but is still common in the 

San Francisco Bay area (including Marin County) and along the central coast (USDI-USFWS 2002).

Life History: This species of frog breeds along aquatic vegetation in deep, slow water (<2% gradient) 

environments during the months of November through March (Storer 1925; Hayes and Jennings 1986), 

although breeding at higher elevations would likely occur between March and May (USDI-USFWS 2002).

During periods of wet weather, starting with the first rains of fall, some individuals may make overland 

excursions through upland habitats. They can be encountered living within streams at distances 

exceeding 2.8 km (1.8 miles) from the breeding site and have been found greater than 100 m (328 ft) 

from water in adjacent dense riparian vegetation for up to 77 days (USDI-USFWS 2002), but are 

520.2051 2020 3 Ross 7.0 0.1 ND ND ND ND

520.3002 1661 1089 Bull 4.1 0.4 7080 14 2005 Wet 78%

520.3052 2206 8 Deer 5.2 5.2 6720 18.7 2007 Critically Dry 55%

520.3151 1317 74 Deer, EF 3.1 0.4 6760 15.6 2007 Critically Dry 78%

521.0012 2407 36 Teakettle 8.6 2.5 ND ND ND ND

521.2001 1014 4 Long Meadow, WF 3.1 1.8 ND ND ND ND
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-13

typically within 60 m (200 ft) of water. At breeding sites, males frequently call in small groups of two to 

seven individuals, although in some instances they may call individually (Jennings and Hayes 1994)). 

Females are attracted to the calling males. Following amplexus females deposit 2,000-6,000 eggs (in 

masses) on emergent vegetation so that the masses float on the surface of the water (Hayes and 

Miyamoto 1984). 

Permanent or nearly permanent pools are required for tadpole development. Emergent and 

overhanging vegetation is used as refugia by adult frogs. Ponds with cattails or other species provide 

good cover (Martin 1992). The amount of time needed for metamorphosis is highly dependent on 

temperature. Tadpole development takes 11 to 20 weeks (Jennings and Hayes 1994), although there are 

accounts of overwintering (Fellers et al. 2001). Newly meta-morphosed juveniles tend to disperse 

locally July through September and then disperse away from the breeding habitat during warm rain 

events (USDI-USFWS 2002). Males become sexually mature at 2 years and females at 3 years (Jennings 

and Hayes 1985).

Status: The CRLF was federally listed as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813). Critical habitat was 

designated in 2001 (66 FR 14625), updated in 2004 (69 FR 19619), and a final recovery plan was 

published in 2010 (75 FR 12815 12959; USDI-USFWS 2010). The Sierra National Forest is a part of the 

recovery unit “Sierra Nevada Foothill and Central Valley”. However, the SNF was not listed as critical 

habitat for the species in 2001 or 2004, or 2010 critical habitat designations (66 FR 14625; 69 FR 

19619; 75 FR 12815 12959) nor were any recovery elements established for the species on the SNF in 

the species recovery plan (67 FR 57830; 75 FR 12815 12959 USDI-USFWS 2002, 2010). 

Predators and Threats: CRLF is now highly restricted in the Sierra Nevada, and has been eliminated 

from 95% of its historic range (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Habitat loss and alteration, the introduction 

of bullfrogs and other predators, and historic commercial timber harvest have been implicated in the 

population decline (Moyle 1973; Jennings 1988). Presence and abundance of species that prey upon and 

compete with CRLF such as bullfrogs and centrarchids may make habitat unsuitable. In addition to 

competition, bullfrogs can also interfere with CRLF reproduction (Jennings per. comm. 1998). Thus 

bullfrogs are able to prey upon and out-compete red-legged frogs.

Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), raccoons (Procyon lotor), bitterns (Botaurs lentiginosus), and garter 

snakes (Thamnophis sp.) have been noted as a predators (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Rathbun 1998), 

however Alvarez (2005) also noticed CRLF being impaled on barbed wire by loggerhead shrikes (Lanius 

ludovicianus). Removal of non-native fish has been reported to increase CRLF reproductive success 

(Alvarez et al. 2003).

Occurrence on the Sierra National Forest: Few documented populations are known to remain in the 

Sierra Nevada, compared to more than 60 historical records (USDI-USFWS 2002). None of these known 

populations occur within the SNF. There are 3 historic records of CRLF in the area of the SNF, although 

the records are west of the actual Forest boundary: Willow Creek (near O’Neals); the San Joaquin 

Experimental Range; and Miami Creek. Except for the San Joaquin Experimental Range, the other sites 

are on private property. Review of records in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) reveals 

no known locations of CRLF within the Forest or within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the Forest. CRLF records 

queried from the CNDDB for Fresno, Madera, Kings, Tuolumne, Calaveras, and Mariposa counties are 

displayed on Figure 3-7-3. The CNDDB (2008) indicated the nearest location to be Little Panoche 

Diversion dam in Fresno County. This site is approximately 90 air miles southwest from the analysis 

area. Review of specimen records from the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (Berkeley, California) for 

Mariposa, Madera, and Fresno indicates the closest CRLF specimens were collected near O’Neals, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-14

California (Madera County) in 1952. This site is also displayed on Figure 3-7-3 (as a green triangle). 

CRLF are considered to be extirpated from areas adjacent to the SNF, probably since the late 1960s 

according to herpetology expert Mark Jennings (per. comm. 1998).

Figure 3-7-3: CRLF locations from CNNDB in relation to SNF

Potential Habitat: Several sites within or adjacent to the analysis area have had habitat assessments 

(USDI-USFWS 1997; 2005) completed and were considered non-habitat or marginal for a variety of 

reasons. An estimated acreage of potential suitable breeding habitat was derived from the total miles of 

stream identified as suitable for breeding through CRLF habitat assessment (Eddinger 2000a, 2000b), 

with a 300-foot dispersal area (from each bank) (CDFG 2005) for an estimated total 124 acres of 

potential breeding habitat for this species within one mile of the project areas (Table 3-7-5). All 

potential habitat is within subwatershed 519.0007. Figure 3-7-4 displays the overall locations of 

potential suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF within one mile of the two project areas. The habitat 

available (Table 3-7-5) is indicated to be of low quality for breeding, cover, or foraging for all lifestages 

of CRLF based on CWHR (ibid) criteria. Additionally, the USDI - USFWS (2006) indicates that the 

elevation range within the SNF would most likely be less than 4,000 feet elevation. Thus, the acreage of 

potential habitat is considered to provide for habitat conservation and is evaluated on a conservative 

basis. Protocol level surveys for species detection have not been conducted in the identified potential 

suitable breeding habitat, thus this analysis assumes that potential suitable habitat is occupied. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-15

Figure 3-7-4: Potential suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF within one mile of proposed treatment areas.

Table 3-7-5 CWHR quantity and quality of habitat for CRLF reproduction, cover and feeding.

Within one mile KREW Bull analysis area there are zero acres of suitable breeding habitat for the 

CRLF. Within one mile of the KREW Providence analysis area there are approximately 124 acres of 

potential habitat.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog

Description: The foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)(FYLF) is moderate sized, measuring between 

37-82 mm. The color is variable, being dark to light gray, brown, green or yellow which makes is 

somewhat mottled in appearance (Zweifel 1955). Adult males have swollen, darkened thumb base and a 

pale triangle may be present on the snout and the underside of the frog is yellow to orangish yellow 

along the legs and lower belly. Dorso-lateral folds are not distinct (Jennings and Hayes 1994). 

Habitat Quality Repro (ac) Repro (%) Cover (ac) Cover (%) Feeding (ac) Feeding (%)

None 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Low 123 0.99 123 0.99 123 0.99

Medium 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1

High 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-16

Distribution: Historically, FYLF occurred between sea level and 6,000 feet in most Pacific drainages west 

of the Sierra-Cascade crest from the Santiam River, Marion County, Oregon, to the San Gabriel Drainage, 

Los Angeles County, California (Hayes and Jennings 1988). 

Life History: Breeding occurs in shallow, slow flowing water (with at least some pebble and cobble 

substrate) between March and June after high flows have receded. FYLF have small vocal sacs and the 

mating call for FYLF is rarely heard, but may be heard both from the air and underwater. Breeding

generally occurs in perennial streams defined by some shading (> 20%), water temperatures not 

exceeding 20°C for egg-laying and larval development, shallow riffles (< 0.21 m), and cobble or larger 

substrates (Hayes and Jennings 1986; CDFG 2005; Lind et al. 2003). Approximately 1000 eggs are laid in 

a cluster. Eggs hatch in 5 to 30 days (Zweifel 1955) and tadpoles transform in about 15 weeks, from July 

to September. FYLF tadpoles feed on algae scraped from rocks or plants. They seem to grow fastest 

feeding on epiphytic diatoms and have been observed to preferentially graze on this algal type (Jennings 

and Hayes 1994).

During breeding season and in the summer, FYLF are rarely encountered far from permanent water. 

During the winter, FYLF have been observed in abandoned rodent burrows and under logs as far as 100 

meters (328 feet) from a stream (Zeiner et al. 1988). FYLF usually reach sexual maturity between one to 

two years, although some individuals may reproduce as early as six months after metamorphosis 

(Jennings 1988). The life span of the FYLF is essentially unknown (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Diet 

probably consists of a wide variety of invertebrates.

Status: Jennings (1996) indicates that FYLF no long occur within 45% of historic habitat in California, 

and has disappeared from 66% of its historic habitat within the Sierra Nevada mountain range. R5 of the 

FS designated the FYLF as a sensitive species in 1998. 

Predators and Threats: Garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.) are a primary predator of FYLF of both tadpoles 

and sub-adults (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Bullfrogs (R. catesbeiana) have been implicated in declines of 

several anurans in the west, by both direct predation, and competition for resources (Hayes and 

Jennings 1986, Jennings 1988, Jennings and Hayes 1994). All life stages of FYLF are susceptible to 

predation by various fish species are suspected to feed on ranids (Jennings 1988). Herons (Ardeidae) 

will feed on the tadpoles of a number of anuran species, as well as adults. Mammalian predators such as 

raccoons (Procyon lotor) may also forage opportunistically on tadpoles and frogs (Zweifel 1955). 

Lind et al. (1996) identified habitat alteration downstream of dams as a contributing factor in species 

declines. Changes may relate to alteration to the timing and magnitude of the hydrograph; riparian 

encroachment; and changes to water temperatures. Sparling (2001) identified air-borne pesticides from 

the San Joaquin Valley as a primary threat to Sierra Nevada anurans. Jennings and Hayes (1994) 

mention tolerance of eggs to silt deposition produced from logging or grazing is unknown. Lanoo (2005) 

also notes that chytrid fungus has been detected within FYLF, but its role in the species decline is 

unknown.

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: There is currently one known population of FYLF on the SNF (Jose 

Basin – San Joaquin drainage), approximately 10 miles from the closest portion of the analysis area. 

Neither the CNNDB nor the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology ((MVZ); Berkeley, California) indicate FYLF 

specimens from the analysis area, and USFS surveys have not detected them. 

Potential Habitat: The CWHR (CDFG 2005) notes that highly suitable habitats for this species are 

riverine and valley/foothill riparian with mostly submerged and flooded gravels, cobble, boulders, and 

bedrock with trees greater than six inches in diameter and canopy closures greater than 10%. The 

essential elements for the species are indicated to be algae, invertebrates, lithic (rocky substrate), and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-17

water. Potential suitable habitat for the FYLF was identified from GIS using perennial (stream order 3

and greater) streams below 5,000 feet in elevation with a 165-foot dispersal area (ibid) on each side of 

the stream (Figure 3-7-5). Within the analysis area there are approximately 20 miles of potential habitat 

providing an estimated potential habitat acreage of 745 acres for this species (Table 3-7-6). The 

potential habitat is within subwatersheds 519.0005, 519.0007, 519.0008, 519.0011, 520.2011, and 

520.2051. The CWHR habitat values for the acres of potential habitat for breeding, cover, and feeding 

are displayed in Table 3-7-6. The table indicates that most (86%) the habitat in the analysis area is of 

Low or No quality for FYLF. As displayed in Figure 3-7-5, habitat connectivity is available via riparian 

corridors associated with the perennial stream system.

Table 3-7-6: Quantity and quality of FYLF habitat in the Analysis Area based on CWHR.

Figure 3-7-5: Potential habitat for the FYLF in relation to the proposed treatment areas.. 

Within the KREW Bull analysis area there are 228 acres of potential habitat for the FYLF. Within the 

KREW Providence analysis area there are 517 acres of potential habitat for this species.

Habitat Quality Repro (ac) Repro (%) Cover (ac) Cover (%) Feeding (ac) Feeding (%)

None 21 0.03 21 0.03 21 0.03

Low 617 0.83 617 0.83 617 0.83

Medium 108 0.14 108 0.14 108 0.14

High 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-18

Western Pond Turtle

Description: Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)(WPT) are a drab, brown moderate-sized 

(120-210 mm) turtle that lack markings on the carapace. Males usually have a light colored, unmottled 

throat as they mature, contrasting with females which are dark or mottled (Holland 1991).

Distribution: The central Sierra Nevada Mountains are an area of overlap between two pond turtle 

subspecies, Actinemys marmorata marmorata (northwestern pond turtle) and Actinemys marmorata 

pallida (southwestern pond turtle). These pond turtles, collectively known as western pond turtles, are 

found from sea level to 4,690 feet in elevation (Jennings and Hayes 1994). There are records of WPT 

detected at elevations exceeding 6,000, but turtles were known to be introduced at these sites (Jennings 

and Hayes ibid). 

Life History: Reproduction among WPT is not fully documented. Females begin laying eggs at a carapace 

length greater than 4.3 inches (11 cm) and are probably 6-7 years old (Holland 1991). Courtship and 

mating have been observed in the field during most of the year except December-January (Holland 

1985). Across the SNF it appears mating occurs in late April to early May (Holland 1991). Nesting 

extends from late April through August (Holland ibid) depending on the latitude, with a peak from late 

May to early July. Females may travel along a waterway as far as 1.2 miles (2 km) to distant nesting 

areas if suitable nesting habitat is not available locally (Rathbun et al. 1993). Nests are excavated in 

either the morning or evening (Storer 1930) and are usually located along stream or pond margins. 

Nesting is favored at unshaded south facing slopes, with clay/silty soils (Rathbun et al. ibid). Clutch size 

examined by Holland (1991) ranged from 1-13 eggs (mean 6.12). Eggs hatched between 80-126 days, 

varying with latitude (Holland ibid). Young WPT are believed to over-winter in the nest (Holland ibid). 

Hatchlings out of the nest occupy shallow water habitats where they feed on nekton (Holland ibid). 

WPT eat a wide variety of food items including: algae, various plants (including the pods of the yellow 

water lily), snails, crustaceans (crayfish, Daphnia), isopods, insects, fish, frogs (tadpoles and adults), 

mallard duck carrion, and a mouse fragment (Holland 1991; Bury 1986). Males prefer larger food items 

and consume more insects and vertebrates than females, who eat more algae. Juveniles eat smaller foods 

and take higher numbers of individual prey than do adults (Bury ibid). 

Holland (1991) notes that WPT may overwinter on land or in water varying with latitude and habitat 

type. Rathbun et al. (1993) observed movements to overwintering sites varying between several to 350 

meters. WPT are believed to be relatively long lived with recaptures of marked specimens exceeding 40 

years.

Status: In 1992 the USFWS was petitioned to list WPT under the ESA (USDSI-USFWS 1992). Following 

review, the USFWS declined to list the species. R5 of the FS designated the western pond turtle as a 

sensitive species in 1993. Bury and Germano (2008) note that WPT abundance appears to be declining 

in the northern and southern portions of the species range, but not in the core of the range from central 

California to southern Oregon.

Threats: WPT have declined due to loss and fragmentation of habitat, farming and land development, 

commercial exploitation in the late 19th century, drought, grazing, lacking of recruitment (nesting 

failures), introduced predators and competitors (fish, bullfrogs, red fox, black bear), and increased 

raccoon populations due to human disturbance (Holland 1991). The greatest single threat to this species 

is habitat destruction. Over 90 percent of the wetland habitats within the historic range of the species in 

California alone have been eliminated due to agricultural development, flood control and water 

diversion projects, and urbanization (USDI-USFWS 1992). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-19

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: Surveys for WPT have been conducted between 1995 and 2006. WPT 

have been detected along segments of Big Creek, along with lower Duff and lower Providence Creeks

within the analysis area over a total of approximately 3 miles (Figure 3-7-6).

Potential Habitat across the Sierra National Forest: WPT occurs in a variety of both permanent and

intermittent aquatic habitats. Highly suitable areas include those with short or tall herbaceous plants 

and vegetation closures greater than 40% with trees larger than six inches in diameter and canopy 

closure greater than 10%. In stream, lakes, and pond habitats are highly suitable areas that range from 

mostly exposed to flooded cobbles, boulders, and bedrock. Water and Slow Water are identified as 

essential elements of habitat. Potential habitat within the analysis area was evaluated as perennial 

streams and lakes and ponds below 5000 feet elevation (3-7-7). Within the analysis area there are 

approximately 20 miles of potentially suitable stream habitat. Terrestrial habitat used for breeding or a 

movement corridor of 325 feet to either side of the channels and around lakes and ponds would define 

potential habitat (CDFG 2005). Potential habitat within the analysis area has been projected using GIS

based on CWHR criteria. There are approximately 1,390 acres of potential habitat within the analysis 

area (Table 3-7-7). The potential habitat is within subwatersheds 519.0005, 519.0007, 519.0008, 

519.0011, 520.2011, and 520.2051

The CWHR habitat values for the acres of potential WPT habitat for breeding, cover, and feeding are 

displayed in Table 3-7-7. The table indicates that most of the habitat (86%) in the analysis area is 

generally of Low or No quality for WPT. As displayed in Figure 3-7-6, habitat connectivity is available via 

riparian corridors associated with the perennial stream system.

Table 3-7-7: Quantity and quality of WPT habitat in the Analysis Area based on CWHR.

Habitat Quality Repro (ac) Repro (%) Cover (ac) Cover (%) Feeding (ac) Feeding (%)

None 39 0.03 39 0.03 39 0.03

Low 1152 0.83 1152 0.83 1152 0.83

Medium 199 0.14 199 0.14 199 0.14

High 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-20

Figure 3-7-6: Western pond turtle occupancy and habitat in relation to the project analysis area.

Within the KREW Bull analysis area there are 434 acres of potentially suitable habitat for the western 

pond turtle. Within the KREW Providence analysis area there are 956 acres of suitable habitat for this 

species. There are approximately 230 acres of occupied habitat within the Providence analysis area, but 

no occupied habitat within either project area.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (Mountain yellow-legged frog)

Description: The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierra) is moderate in size, with adults 

measuring 40-80 mm in length. The FSS species list and the USFWS refer to the species as mountain 

yellow-legged frog (MYLF) and this evaluation will follow that nomenclature. The species is described as 

having a dorsal pattern ranging from discrete dark spots or irregular lichen-like patches. The color is 

highly variable with a mix of brown or yellow along with grey, red or green-brown (Jennings and Hayes 

1994). Dorso-lateral folds are present, but not noted as being prominent (Stebbins 1985). The 

undersurface of the lower belly and legs are yellow. Females are slightly larger than males and males 

have a swollen, darkened thumb base. 

Distribution: This species occurs at high elevation (4,500-12,000 ft) only in the Sierra Nevada Mountains 

of California (CDFG 2005). The range of this species extends from Plumas County to Tulare County. DNA 

sequencing by Vredenburg et al. (2007) suggest two species within the historic range of MYLF. R. 

muscosa (Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog) would apply to populations south of the divide between the 

Middle and South Forks of the Kings River. Populations to the north (including the analysis area) would 

be considered R. sierra (Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-21

Life History: The MYLF is diurnal and is seldom far from water. The species prefers well illuminated 

lakes and tarns, sloping banks of meadow streams, riverbanks, and isolated pools (Mullally and 

Cunningham 1956; Zeiner et al. 1988; Martin 1992). At high elevations, breeding occurs between May 

and August as soon as the meadows and lakes are free of snow and ice (CDFG 2005). In lower elevations 

breeding occurs between March and June once high water in streams subsides. Male frogs lack vocal 

sacks, but produce a call underwater to attract females (Vredenburg et al. 2005). Following amplexus 

the female deposits their 30-400 eggs in clusters submerged along stream banks or on vegetation 

(Zweifel 1955), and tadpoles develop after 2-3 weeks. 

Tadpoles maintain a relatively high body temperature by selecting warmer microhabitats (margins of 

waterbodies) where they may congregate in the hundreds feeding on algae (Bradford 1984). Tadpoles 

require up to three years before metamorphosis. Following metamorphosis, it can take up to four years 

for juveniles to reach sexual maturity. Juveniles and adult MYLF feed primarily on aquatic and terrestrial 

invertebrates. MYLF are considered long-lived (Matthews and Miaud 2007), with adults possibly 

reaching ages of 15-20 years. MYLF may move several hundred meters between breeding, feeding, and 

overwintering habitats (Pope and Matthews 2001). They tend to follow lake shores and streams, but will 

move short distances across dry land (Matthews and Pope 1999).

Tadpoles and adults of this species may overwinter in deep pools with undercut banks that provide 

cover (Martin 1992), although Pope and Mathews (2001) also report use of granitic crevices in lakes. 

Since the adults and tadpoles overwinter underwater, at high elevations they are restricted to relatively 

deep lakes (over five feet deep) which do not freeze solid in winter (Knapp 1996). Over-wintering of 

tadpoles in an aquatic habitat makes them more susceptible to fish predation and diseases. 

Status: Vredenburg et al. (2007) report that MYLF no longer occur at more than 92% of its historic sites, 

in the Sierra Nevada, with even greater declines in the Tranverse Range and southern California. Brown 

(per. comm. 2010) found that the species has declined in both distribution and abundance based on FS

monitoring at the bioregional scale. The decline was pronounced for evidence of breeding within 

watersheds occupied more recently (after 1990 to 2001, 48% with tadpoles, egg-masses, or 

metamorphs), and even more pronounced for those historically occupied prior to 1990 (3% had current 

evidence of successful breeding). Brown further notes that abundances were low, with approximately 

9% of the watersheds having abundances corresponding to historical population description within 

literature (>500 tadpoles or >100 adults and subadults). The USDI-USFWS (2003) found that listing was 

warranted as threatened or endangered for this species. However the listing was precluded at the time 

based on other higher priority issues (68 FR 2283). It is designated as a candidate species and is 

currently managed as sensitive by the USFS. 

Predators and Threats: Threats noted for MYLF include disease; non-native trout; and wind-bourne 

pesticides. Chytridiomycosis or chytrid fungus, has been detected in MYLF. Research indicates this fungus 

is distributed throughout the range of the species. Infected MYLF tadpoles die soon after 

metamorphosis. Monitoring of infected and uninfected populations in Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks documented severe declines and local extirpations (Vredenburg et al. 2010). 

Garter snakes (Thamnophis sp), coyotes (Canis latrans), Brewer's blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus) 

and introduced trout prey upon various life stages of MYLF (Mullally and Cunningham 1956; Zeiner et al 

1988; Bradford 1991). Due to the adults overwintering underwater and the tadpoles' long 

metamorphosis, this species is very vulnerable to introduced fish (Knapp 1996). Survey of thousands of 

lakes and ponds indicates that lakes containing nonnative trout are much less likely to contain mountain 

yellow-legged frogs than fishless lakes (Bradford 1989; Bradford et al. 1998; Knapp et al. 2003; Knapp 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-22

2005). Studies involving removal of fish have documented population increases for MYLF (Knapp and 

Matthews 1998; Vredenburg 2004; Knapp et al. 2007).

Wind-bourne agricultural chemicals have been detected in MYLF (Fellers et al. 2004). Studies have 

reported a positive correlation in the probability of extinction for MYLF populations upwind from 

agricultural lands treated with pesticides (Davidson 2004; Davidson and Knapp 2007). The USDI -

USFWS (2008) includes livestock grazing among human activities that have altered habitat, and may 

directly affect MYLF through crushing.

Species Occurrence in the Analysis Area: On the SNF there are 38 known locations currently occupied by 

MYLF. There are no known locations within either analysis area, although not all potential habitat has 

been surveyed and habitat is assumed occupied. The closest occupied site is approximately 2.5 miles 

from the Bull project area (Figure AQ-7). 

Potential Habitat: The CWHR highly suitable habitats (CDFG 2005) for this species are lacustrine, 

montane riparian, riverine, and wet meadows; with mostly submerged and flooded gravels, cobbles, and 

boulders; with trees greater than one inch in diameter; short or tall herbaceous cover; and vegetation 

and canopy closures greater than 10%. Essential elements for habitat are identified as algae, 

invertebrates, terrestrial insects, and water. Potential habitat for MYLF was evaluated as the perennial 

streams and lakes above 5,000 feet in elevation, although juveniles have been noted as using 

intermittent streams to disperse (Bradford 1991). There is approximately 63 miles of stream habitat, 

and 3 acres of pond and lake habitat. An estimated acreage of suitable habitat is derived from the total 

miles of stream and acres of lakes or ponds, with a 165-foot habitat on each bank (CDFG 2005) for an 

approximate total of 2,524 acres of potential habitat for this species (Table 3-7-8). 

The CWHR habitat values for the acres of potential MYLF habitat for breeding, cover, and feeding are 

displayed in Table 3-7-8. The table indicates that most of the habitat in the analysis area (85%) is of 

Medium quality for MYLF reproduction, cover, or feeding. As displayed in Figure 5-9, habitat 

connectivity is available via riparian corridors associated with the perennial stream system, although 

some segments are isolated by elevation.

Table 3-7-8: Quantity and quality of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat in the analysis area based on 

CWHR.

Habitat 

Quality Repro (ac)

Repro 

(%)

Cover 

(ac)

Cover 

(%) Feeding (ac)

Feeding 

(%)

None 173 0.07 173 0.07 173 0.07

Low 92 0.04 92 0.04 92 0.04

Medium 2138 0.85 2140 0.85 2130 0.85

High 121 0.05 1119 0.05 119 0.05
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-23

Figure 3-7-7: Distribution of potential habitat for MYLF across the analysis area.

Yosemite Toad

Description: The Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus (=Bufo) canorus) (YT) can be distinguished from the similar 

looking western toad (Bufo boreas) by its smaller size, wide paratoid glands, the small space between 

paratoids, lack of vertebral stripe and high degree of sexual dichromatism (Martin 1992). Camp (1917) 

gave the species the name canorus which in Latin means "tuneful". Males are olive green with varying 

black spotting, females are grey or brown with dark markings (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The iris is 

dark brown with gold iridophores (Jennings and Hayes ibid). YT tadpoles are uniformly black, the snout 

is blunt, the coiled intestines are scarcely or not at all visible, and the dorsal fin is transparent and 

marked with few relatively large branched melanophores (Stebbins 1985). 

Distribution: The original range of the YT extends from Ebbetts Pass in Alpine County to south of Kaiser 

Pass and Evolution Lake in Fresno County (Karlstrom 1962, CDFG 2005) above 6000 feet elevation. 

However, populations have been found as far south as Spanish Mountain on the SNF during Forest-wide 

inventories conducted by the USFS between 2002 and 2004. 

Life History: YT breed in shallow pools and small, slow moving, shallow streams usually in meadows 

(Martin 1992). Both Liang and Brown note fidelity in the use of breeding sites by adults monitored

within the Bull Creek watershed over several years (per. comm. 2010) Movement to and from breeding 

sites could be extensive, including travel over extensive snowfields from over-winter hibernation sites 

in forested areas (CDFG 2005). Males arrive at breeding pools several days before females (Kagarise 

Sherman 1980; Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984). Breeding takes place from mid-May to mid-August 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-24

(Kagarise Sherman 1980; Martin 1992). Both sexes are primarily active during the day (Martin 1992; 

Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984), although both Martin (2008) and Liang (per. comm. 2010) 

observed that adults may move nocturnally between breeding and upland foraging sites. Brown (per. 

comm. 2010) also reports instances of nocturnal breeding. Males appear to outnumber females at 

breeding sites (Karlstrom 1962; USDI-USFWS 2002a), and females may only breed once in three years. 

Males call diurnally and can be heard from more than 100 yards (Martin 1992), although Brown reports 

observing nocturnal calling (per. comm. 2010). Eggs are laid in single or double strands, typically in 

pools or streams not more than three inches deep with a loose silt substrate (Martin ibid; USDI-USFWS 

2002a). A single female lays an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 eggs (Martin ibid). Individual males only stay 

at breeding ponds for a week or two, and females leave shortly after breeding (Kagarise Sherman and 

Morton 1984; USDI-USFWS 2002a). Eggs hatch in about 10-12 days, and tadpoles metamorphose seven 

to nine weeks after the eggs are laid (Kagarise Sherman and Morton ibid; USDI-USFWS 2002a). 

After breeding both sexes were thought to remain in meadow areas to feed for two to three months 

before hibernating (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984), although recent studies indicate adults may 

move several hundred meters from meadows to upland foraging sites (Martin 2008; Liang per. comm. 

2010). Seasonal variation in home range size is considerable. Mullally (1953) estimated home ranges of 

some toads to be about 20 ft, but suggested that individuals may travel long distances away from water 

(CDFG 2005). Martin (2008) estimated home range at approximately 8,460 m2 (2.1 ac), while Liang (per. 

comm. 2010) estimated mean home range of 27,430 m2 (6.8 ac), and noted female home range was 

more than 1-1/2 times larger than males. YT seek cover during non-breeding seasons (approximately 

August to March) in abandoned rodent burrows (Jennings and Hayes 1994) or by moving into adjacent 

forested areas (CDFG 2005). 

Yosemite toads feed on various insects and small arachnids (Mullally 1953). In the late fall the toads are 

only active on warm days. Yosemite toads enter hibernation in late September or early October, and 

emerge in the spring. The toads utilize rodent burrows, crevices under rocks, or the base of willows for 

hibernation (Martin 1992; 2008). Males emerge from hibernation for breeding as soon as snow melts 

from meadows (Martin ibid). Females first breed at 4-6 years and males at 3-5 years of age (USDIUSFWS 2002a). It is estimated that some females may live at least 15 years and males at least 12 years 

(Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984, Brown per. comm. 2008).

Status: USFS monitoring at the bioregional scale indicates the species to be fairly widespread relative to 

recent (watersheds with toad localities after 1990) distribution, but there are indicators of decline 

(Brown per. comm. 2010). In watersheds occupied after 1990, 81% had signs of breeding (tadpoles, eggmasses, or metamorphs), whereas in watersheds historically occupied prior to 1990, only 12% had 

evidence of breeding. Brown further noted that even through the species appears fairly widespread, 

abundances of adult males and egg masses were low at monitoring meadows in two monitored 

watersheds compared to historical population abundances reported from literature. Current estimates 

indicate disappearance of 47 to 69 percent from historical locations (USDI-USFWS 2002a). Remaining 

populations seem more scattered than they were historically and frequently appear to consist of small 

numbers of breeding adults. The USFWS (2002a) determined that listing was warranted as threatened 

or endangered for this species. However, the listing was precluded at the time based on other higher 

priority issues (67 FR 75834). The species is managed as sensitive by the USFS.

Predators and Threats: YTs serve as prey for frogs, insects, snakes and birds. Mullally (1953) observed 

that YT tadpoles are preyed upon by mountain yellow-legged frogs. Kagarise Sherman and Morton 

(1984, 1993) reported robins (Turdus migratorius) and diving beetles (Dytiscus sp.) eating tadpoles, and 

adult YTs being killed by Clark's Nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), common ravens (Corvus corax), 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-25

and California gulls (Larus californicus). Some have suggested introduction of non-native trout as 

contributing to the decline of YT, but Grasso (2005) indicated that brook trout found all early life stages 

of YTs to be unpalatable and were unlikely rely on these stages as a primary food source. Further, YT

tadpoles that were sampled by trout did not appear to suffer any ill effects.

YT populations experienced sharp declines in the eastern Sierra Nevada from 1971 to 1991 (Kagrise 

Sherman and Morton 1993). The declines were attributed to drought, predation and disease. Tadpoles 

are susceptible to mass desiccation if breeding ponds dry up before metamorphosis. Prolonged drought 

during that period may have resulted in below average snow depths, and low or no reproductive success 

at many breeding sites. Kagarise Sherman and Morton (ibid) report that disease caused extensive deaths 

of adults in 1977 and 1978. Livestock grazing may have detrimental impacts on YT through trampling, 

alteration of meadow habitat, and lowered water quality (Martin 1992, 2008), and the USDI-USFWS 

(2002a) indicates both direct and indirect effects from grazing. The USFS is completing a study on the 

effects of livestock grazing on YT, including several sites located within the SNF.

Amphibian declines for some species appears related to the spread of chytrid fungus. While MYLF

populations have been greatly impacted by chytrid, its role in the decline of YT is not clear. Bull (2006, 

2009) reports chytrid-associated death in both subadults and adult western toads (B.boreas). Pilliod et 

al. (2010) also note declines of 5-7% within the similar Boreal toad populations over a six-year study. 

Effects of chytrid on YT is an area in need of further study, although some data is being collected within 

the Bull Creek watershed as part of the USFS bioregional amphibian monitoring. 

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: Yosemite toad was inventoried by the Sierra National Forest for 

occurrence across the Sierra National Forest between 2002 and 2004. Nine breeding meadows have 

been identified within the Bull unit of the analysis area (Figure 3-7-8). Six of these meadows are 

partially or totally within the Bull project area. Additionally there are two breeding meadows outside 

the Bull analysis area, but which may be within dispersal range for adult Yosemite toads. Non-detection 

of toads during surveys does not necessarily indicate non-use since females may not return to breeding 

sites each year and small populations may include a limited number of females. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-26

Figure 3-7-8. Known Distribution of Yosemite Toad in KREW Bull Unit meadows

Several occupied breeding meadows (Figure 3-7-9) have been monitored as part of the intensive 

demographic monitoring under the Regional Amphibian Monitoring Program during 2006-2009. Several 

meadows were also included in a 2007-2009 telemetry study (Liang) of adult toads following breeding 

(meadows 520M14, 520M15, 520M16, 520M20 and 520M25).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-27

Figure 3-7-9: Occupied breeding meadows included in Regional Amphibian Monitoring and study of adult 

toad movements following breeding

The intensive monitoring component of the Regional Amphibian Monitoring program includes 

abundance estimates of breeding males; egg mass counts; and recruitment. Brown (per. comm. 2010) 

notes that population estimates are small based on breeding male and egg mass abundances. Numbers 

of egg masses were low and Table 3-7-9 displays recruitment (% of breeding sites where yearling toads 

were observed). In general, Brown (ibid) notes that recruitment was low, although it was possible that 

survey frequency (every two weeks) may have been too long to capture metamorphosis and dispersal. 

Brown cautions that low recruitment in a given year may not necessarily be indicative of population 

decline for a species that may sustain itself through infrequent years of high recruitment. The largest 

population had only 16 to 21 breeding males (meadow 520M15 2006, 2009; Table 3-7-10) and some 

meadows had only a few toads. The number of adults can be contrasted with counts in the 100s 

identified by Kagrise-Sherman and Morton (1993) near Tioga Pass. Brown suggests continued study of 

breeding and recruitment success would benefit the understanding of YT ecology. 

Table 3-7-9: Recruitment data from Regional Amphibian Monitoring (Brown per. comm. 2010, Sierra Nevada 

Amphibian Monitoring Program). NS=No Survey

2006 2007 2008 2009

Breeding Areas w Eggs or Tads 13 9 12 7

Breeding Areas with Metamporphs 6 NS NS 1

% Breeding Areas with Morphs 46 NS NS 14
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-28

Table 3-7-10: Estimates of breeding adults and egg masses within Bull Creek watershed occupied meadows 

(from C. Brown, 2010, DRAFT from Sierra Nevada Amphibian Monitoring Program). M=Male (estimated), F= 

Female (actual count). N= Number or count; CI=95% Confidence Interval; and SE is Standard Error.

Potential Habitat: YT is endemic to the central Sierra Nevada Mountains in meadows, lake edges, and 

some stream habitats above 6000 feet elevation. The dispersal patterns are not totally understood, but 

similar high elevation toads in Colorado can disperse up to 0.6 miles (900 m)(CDFG 2005) to reach 

breeding or over-winter habitats. Liang’s 2007-2009 study of toad movements in the Bull Creek 

drainage reports individual movements beyond 1200 meters, with average movements of 275 m and 

average maximum movements of 393 m. The study tracked movements of 35 adult toads post-breeding 

(per. comm. 2010). Average movement for female toads (420 m) was more than double that of males 

(166 m) and long-distance movements mainly occurred within 60 days of breeding. Longer movements 

occurred during the night and were not associated with drainages. Average movements recorded by 

Liang (ibid) were consistent with those reported by Martin (2008) of 279 m. Liang et al. (2010) in an 

analysis of occupied sites across the SNF identified that seasonal waters in relatively flat meadows 

facing a southwesterly direction and covered with more than 75% snow through late spring were most 

likely to be used by toads for breeding.

YT also require terrestrial habitat. Metamorphs appear to overwinter their first year in the terrestrial 

meadow habitat adjacent to their rearing site and move to more distant terrestrial habitat during midsummer of their second year (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993; USDI-USFWS 2002a). In meadows, 

metamorphs and yearlings appear to be associated with willows and long sedges and grasses. Moist 

upland areas such as seeps and springheads are important summer non-breeding areas for adults (67 

FR 75834). In a study of YT within the Bull Creek analysis area, Liang indicates some adult YT are 

utilizing Sierra mixed-conifer forest for cover and foraging after leaving the breeding sites. Liang 

indicates adult toads preferred burrows as a component of terrestrial habitat, although they did also 

utilize logs, rocks, and stumps. Within CWHR Sierra mixed conifer forest, she notes burrows tended to

located within “clearings” (less trees and overhead canopy) with a high percent coverage of herbaceous 

plants. She also noted fidelity in the use of upland microsites for toads monitored over consecutive years 

(per. comm. 2010).

The CWHR highly suitable habitats (CDFG ibid) for this species are wet meadows that have short (< 12 

inches) herbaceous plants with vegetation closures greater than 10%. Essential elements for habitat are 

identified as algae, invertebrates, water, and slow water. Potential habitat for this analysis was 

considered all meadows above 6000 feet elevation. There are approximately 260 acres of meadow 

habitat above 6000 feet elevation within the analysis area. Species surveys conducted between 2002-

2004 indicate that some meadows would not be suitable for breeding. While all meadows may not be 

suitable for breeding, they may represent habitat for other life stages. The CWHR model evaluates wet 

meadows as providing high quality habitat for Yosemite toad reproduction, cover, and feeding. For the 

purposes of this analysis, YT habitat was also evaluated as occupied meadows. Occupied habitat was 

considered confirmed sightings from meadows inventoried during the 2002-2004 Forest-wide survey, 

and buffered with a 900-m dispersal area (CDFG 2005). Martin (2008) suggests a minimum 500-m 

buffer to accommodate all lifestages and life history needs. Confirmed breeding meadows with a 900-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-29

meter (0.6 mi) buffer incorporate approximately 3423 acres, which is much larger than the individual 

home range projected by Martin (ibid)(2.1 ac) or Liang (ibid)(6.7 ac). Home range projections from 

Martin and Liang were based on studied movement patterns. CWHR assigns a home range around 

breeding sites without knowledge of movement patterns post-breeding, thus provides a conservative 

estimate. Figure 3-7-10 and Table 3-7-11 display information on habitat and occupancy.

The CWHR habitat values for the acres of occupied YT habitat for breeding, cover, and feeding are 

displayed in Table 3-7-11. The table indicates that most of the habitat in the analysis area is of Medium 

quality for YT reproduction, cover, or feeding. As displayed in Figure 3-7-10, habitat connectivity is 

provided via a network of meadows distributed across the landscape. The majority of the meadow 

potential habitat (212 acres) and all occupied meadow habitat is within the Bull unit of the analysis area.

Table 3-7-11: Quantity and quality of occupied Yosemite toad habitat in the Analysis Area based on CWHR.

Habitat 

Quality Repro (ac)

Repro 

(%)

Cover 

(ac)

Cover 

(%) Feeding (ac) Feeding (%)

None 45 0.01 45 0.01 45 0.01

Low 846 0.25 846 0.25 846 0.25

Medium 2499 0.73 2499 0.73 2499 0.73

High 33 0.01 33 0.01 33 0.01

Figure 3-7-10: Spatial relationship of YT occupied and unoccupied meadows, including buffered habitat
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-30

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat

As previous noted, an assessment of Aquatic MIS has been completed as part of the analysis of the effects 

from the KREW Research Project, which includes lacustrine/riverine habitat. “Benthic”

Macroinvertebrates (BMI) represent the habitat type. BMI have been demonstrated to be very useful as 

indicators of water quality and aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al. 1986; Hughes 

and Larsen 1987; Resh and Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, 

temperature, and physical habitat. BMI are an important component of the foodweb, providing a food 

source for birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish. KREW uses BMI as a biological indicator and 

has been collecting data.. The indicators used for the lacustrine/riverine habitat are flow, sediment, and 

stream shading. Flow and stream shading were previously identified as indicators, and potential effects 

from sediment are evaluated in the Project Soils Report (Gallegos 2011). Table 3-7-1 identified 

approximately 83 miles of perennial streams, which represents the lacustrine/riverine habitat.

Wet Meadow Habitat

As previously noted, an assessment of Aquatic MIS has been completed as part of the analysis of the 

effects from the KREW Research Project, which includes wet meadow habitat. Pacific tree-frog

represents the habitat type. The Flow indicatorused for the lacustrine/riverine habitat, wet meadow, 

and changes to meadow hydrologywas previously identified . Table 3-7-12 identifies approximately 208 

acres of CWHR wet meadow within the analysis area.

Table 3-7-12: Distribution of wet meadow within the KREW Research Project analysis area

Habitat Summary

Table 3-7-13 summarizes potential habitat within the KREW Research Project analysis area for each the 

special interest herpetofauna by subwatershed. The CWHR essential habitat elements for the species 

are:

California red-legged frog: algae, invertebrates.

Foothill yellow-legged frog algae, invertebrates, lithic, water

Western pond turtle: water, slow water

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: algae, invertebrates (aquatic and terrestrial), water

Yosemite toad: algae, invertebrates, water, slow water

HUC 8 

Subwatershed

519.0005519.0007520.0014520.0016520.0017520.2001520.2051520.3002520.3052520.3151521.0012521.2001

total

Acres Wet 

Meadow 32 1 60 17 13 6 31 18 7 2 10 12 208
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-31

Table 3-7-13: Acres of potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna with the project analysis area

HUC8 Ac

Ac 

within 

Project 

Area

California 

red-legged 

frog

Foothill 

yellowlegged frog

Western 

pond 

turtle

Sierra 

Nevada

yellowlegged frog

Yosemite 

toad

Yosemite 

toad 

occupied*

519.0005 1140 57 84 154 94

519.0007 1719 357 124 269 490 81 1

519.0008 1976 957 96 180 203 5

519.0011 1246 96 69 134 80

520.0014 1066 23 152

520.0016 591 146 68 23

520.0017 1953 238 491 19

520.2001 2010 7 133 254 221 8 521

520.2051 2020 3 83 160 195 36 120

520.3002 1661 1089 183 45 1209

520.3052 2206 8 180 14 152

520.3151 1317 74 125 29 277

521.0012 2407 36 12 20 329 48 1040

521.2001 1014 4 121 31 104

124 745 1390 2524 259 3423

* CWHR habitat projected within 900-meters of Yosemite toad occupied breeding meadows.

3-7.3.3 Desired Condition

Desired conditions for the analysis area were identified in the Big Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA –

Forest Service 2004a) and aquatic management strategy from the SNFPA (USDA – Forest Service 

2001;2004). The watershed analysis identified issues and questions related to the Big Creek watershed 

and established desired conditions for a number of resource areas. Among desired conditions provided 

within the watershed analysis include the first two indicators used for this project analysis (below). 

Desired conditions are: 

Stream shading of > 50% of the riparian zone as a desired condition (Big Creek Watershed 

Analysis). 

Water temperatures of less than 70o F (21.1o C) as the desired condition (Big Creek 

Watershed Analysis). This temperature is also consistent with that described by Moyle 

(1976; 2002) within the rainbow trout assemblage.

Water Quality: Maintain and restore water quality to meet goals of the Clean Water Act and 

Safe Drinking Water Act, providing water that is fishable, swimmable, and suitable for 

drinking after normal treatment (SNFPA).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-32

Species Viability: Maintain and restore habitat to support viable populations of native and 

desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Prevent 

new introductions of invasive species. Where invasive species are adversely affecting the 

viability of native species, work cooperatively with appropriate State and Federal wildlife 

agencies to reduce impacts to native populations (SNFPA).

Plant and Animal Community Diversity: Maintain and restore the species composition 

and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and 

meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions (SNFPA).

Special Habitats: Maintain and restore the distribution and health of biotic communities in 

special aquatic habitats (such as springs, seeps, vernal pools, fens, bogs, and marshes) to 

perpetuate their unique functions and biological diversity( SNFPA). 

Watershed Connectivity: Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity for 

aquatic and riparian species within and between watersheds to provide physically, 

chemically and biologically unobstructed movement for their survival, migration and 

reproduction (SNFPA).

Floodplains and Water Tables: Maintain and restore the connections of floodplains, 

channels and water tables to distribute flood flows and sustain diverse habitats (SNFPA).

Watershed Condition: Maintain and restore soils with favorable infiltration characteristics 

and diverse vegetative cover to absorb and filter precipitation and to sustain favorable 

conditions of stream flows (SNFPA).

Streamflow Patterns and Sediment Regimes: Maintain and restore in-stream flows 

sufficient to sustain desired conditions of riparian, aquatic, wetland, and meadow habitats 

and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which aquatic and riparian 

biota evolved (SNFPA).

Stream Banks and Shorelines: Maintain and restore the physical structure and condition 

of streambanks and shorelines to minimize erosion and sustain desired habitat diversity

(SNFPA).

3-7.4 Environmental Consequences

This section analyzes the effects of the KREW Research Project on the aquatic TEPS species and their 

habitats. Effects are discussed in terms of direct, indirect, and cumulative. Effects of the action refers to 

the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of 

other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the 

environmental baseline. The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all 

Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of 

all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 

consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the 

consultation in process. Direct effects are caused by action and occur at the same time and place. 

Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are 

reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on 

the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-33

utility apart from the action under consideration. Cumulative effects result from incremental impacts of 

the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Appendix XX). 

There is a need for ecological restoration in the headwaters in the Kings River watershed to improve 

forest health and reduce the risk of severe fire. The FS is currently directing land management activities 

towards ecological restoration through intentional activities that initiate or accelerate the recovery of an 

ecosystem with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability. Ecological restoration is the process of 

assisting the recovery of resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems that have been degraded, 

damaged, or destroyed. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, pattern, 

hydrologic function and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems 

sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. 

One aspect of ecological restoration is helping restore forests to a healthy, diverse, fire resilient 

condition by reducing stand densities and fuel loads. Such management activities involve thinning 

forests to reduce competition among trees for water, nutrients, and sunlight and reducing the continuity 

of fuels through decreasing the fuel load by thinning and underburning. 

This project includes a research component to assess the response of the ecosystem to these 

management practices. KREW would collect cause-effect data related to management practices. The 

forest ecological restoration management practices include treatments designed to reduce the effects of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, drought, invasive species and insect attack, while maintaining/restoring 

habitat for wildlife species including sensitive species such as California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and 

Yosemite toad. 

Additionally there is a need to understand the impacts of these forest health treatments on the 

environment. There is limited information on fire history within the riparian areas in the west, but it is 

expected to vary from those experienced in upland areas (Dwire and Kauffman 2003; Bisson et al. 

2003). Riparian areas differ from upland areas in topography, microclimate, geomorphology, and 

vegetation. Further they are characterized as having cooler air temperatures, lower daily maximum air 

temperatures, and higher relative humidity. These characteristics may contribute to higher moisture 

content of live and dead fuels, and riparian soils, which presumably lowers the intensity, severity and 

frequency of fire (Dwire and Kauffman 2003). The ecological diversity of riparian corridors is 

maintained by natural disturbance regimes including fire and fire-related flooding, debris flows, and 

landslides (Dwire and Kauffman ibid). Many species have adapted life histories that are shaped by, and 

may depend on disturbance events (Dunham et al. 2003; Bisson et al. 2003; Rieman et al. 2005). 

Nakamura et al. (2007) note some success with reducing crown fire after thinning and burning for the 

Cone and Megram Fires. They also note that some fires are so large (McNally or Cedar Fires) that they 

would continue to burn through or around treatment areas. Analysis following the Angora Fire (USDAForest Service 2007), indicated that fire spread was facilitated in part by corridors provided in the notreatment Streamside Environmental Zones

There remains debate among Aquatic Ecologists regarding the need to treat riparian areas, and the 

types of treatments. Part of the controversy is related to the diverse and complex effects that fire can 

have on aquatic systems (Dunham et al. 2003). Researchers agree that aquatic systems have developed 

under a disturbance regime. Some aquatic biologists believe that wildfire poses additional risk to 

endangered species, while others feel affects from treatments to reduce fire severity are more likely to 

damage aquatic systems than fire (Erman 1996; Bisson et al. 2003). Stone et al (2010) note that 

alteration of aquatic systems from flow regulation, livestock grazing, logging, mining, wildfire, and 

wildfire suppression make it difficult to define a natural range of variability to use as goals regarding 

fuels reduction within riparian areas. They further identify that monitoring efforts used to evaluate 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-34

success were frequently qualitative, lacked standardization, or were not collected within sufficient 

spatial and temporal replication that would provide for quantitative summaries. Stone et al. (ibid) and 

Dwire et al. (2010) both identify the need for guidelines to assist land managers when conducting 

riparian fuels treatments.

3.1.4.1 Assumptions

In general perennial stream layer for the project area were delineated based on using the current SNF 

stream layer (“snfstrm982ar” GIS layer – dated September 17, 2002) and the Strahler (1957) method of 

stream orders. The assumptions on how RCAs and SMZs were delineated for the project area are 

described below and presented in Table 3-7-14: 

All order 1 stream channels are ephemeral, but lack annual scour or deposition and are 

considered ephemeral rather than seasonal streams under the SNFPA (USDA-FS 2001, 2004), 

unless associated with a meadow or spring.

All order 2 channels are intermittent or seasonal streams with annual scour or deposition. 

Drainages below meadows are included under this category, unless they are already associated 

with an order 3 system or greater.

Perennial streams begin at order 3 channels and include all channels order 3 and higher. It is 

recognized that there would be some variation by elevation. 

Springs, lakes and meadows on the SNF GIS coverage are correct. Project-level analysis would 

improve the accuracy of this assumption. 

Table 3-7-14: RCA widths are considered as:

Feature Type

Corresponding GIS 

Stream Order or 

Layer

RCA Width

(feet)

Perennial streams Order 3+

300 ft

Each side of the stream, 

measured from the bank 

full edge of the stream

Seasonally flowing streams Order 2

150 ft

Each side of the stream, 

measured from the bank 

full edge of the stream

Ephemeral streams Order 1

150 ft (each side of the 

stream, measured from 

the bank full edge of the 

stream) if associated 

with spring or meadow, 

otherwise none

Streams in inner gorge Stream order varies

To top of inner gorge

(at least 300 ft)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-35

Feature Type

Corresponding GIS 

Stream Order or 

Layer

RCA Width

(feet)

Special Aquatic Features (fens, bogs, 

springs, seeps, lakes, ponds, wetlands, 

etc)

Corresponding GIS 

layer or identified in 

the field

300 ft

Perennial streams with riparian 

conditions extending more than 150 feet 

from edge of streambank

Either mapped as 

‘meadows’ or 

identified in the field

300 ft

Seasonally flowing streams with riparian 

conditions extending more than 50 feet 

from edge of streambank

Either mapped as 

‘meadows’ or 

identified in the field

300 ft

Aquatic/riparian species occupy perennial (stream order 3 and greater) water type habitats. 

Stream order 1-2 channels are used in the development of the RCA analysis. They do not provide 

suitable habitat for aquatic/riparian species. Ephemeral channels (stream order 1) were not 

considered for aquatic/riparian species habitat except if associated with a meadow or spring. 

All stream order channels were considered in cumulative effects for habitat impacts related to 

sediment transport into downstream perennial and intermittent channels. 

CWHR vegetation is based on the Sierra National Forest GIS vegetation coverage. This Sierra 

National Forest Existing Vegetation (Eveg) polygon layer was a 2007 Classification and 

Assessment with LANDSAT of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG) map product at a scale of 

1:24,000, which updated and revised the National Forest administrative areas, including private 

land in holdings. The CALVEG classification system was used for vegetation typing and crosswalked to other classification systems in this database.

Appropriate species dispersal corridors using the CWHR program (CDFG 2005) were calculated 

for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species. The focus of this analysis is on suitable 

aquatic/riparian species habitat. If protocol level surveys could not be completed to determine 

habitat suitability or species occupancy, perennial streams and, meadow, spring and lake/pond 

habitat were assumed occupied.

Aquatic/riparian species spend all or significant portions of their life cycles either in or moving 

through aquatic or riparian habitats. 

Evaluation of species effects were reviewed for consistency with the LRMP, and incorporated 

the "best available science", which included but was not limited to peer-reviewed literature, 

Forest survey information, material presented by researchers, and personal communications.

3-7.4.2 Alternative 1—No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, no thinning (either commercial, pre-commercial and/or biomass 

operations), mastication of brush/shrub patches, prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel 

accumulations, use of herbicides, and/or treatment of infestations of noxious weeds would be 

implemented. No new road construction or road reconstruction proposed under this project would be 

undertaken. All ongoing USFS activities with existing decisions or permits would continue, including 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-36

underburning (as part of the SNF forest-wide prescribed fire program), plantation maintenance, cattle 

grazing, recreation, and maintenance of recreation residences. 

Based on silvicultural modeling of this alternative, stand density and the risk of catastrophic fire may 

increase over time

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct or indirect effects on aquatic species as a result of the implementation of the 

No Action Alternative. No commercial timber removal or underburning would occur under this 

alternative. Direct effects on herpetofauna such as crushing or burning associated with the project 

would not be anticipated. Habitat would be anticipated to remain as displayed in Table 3-7-13.

Riparian Canopy Cover: No direct affects to riparian canopy cover would be anticipated from 

Alternative 1. No indirect effects on canopy cover for stand density alteration or fuel treatment would 

occur under Alternative 1. Stream shading would meet the desired condition of > 50%. 

In the event of a wildfire occurrence there could be varied response depending on size and severity. A 

large, high severity fire could disrupt flow regime and alter stream channel dynamics. Soil water storage, 

baseflow, streamflow regime, peak flow, water quality (sediment, temperature, pH, ash slurry), and 

chemical characteristics can be affected by wildfire (Neary et al. 2005a and 2005b). Riparian trees not 

subject to direct mortality could be undermined and toppled, leading to loss of their stream shading. 

Amaranthus et al. (1989) reported a reduction of 60% stream shading following the Silver Fire (1987) in 

Oregon. The effects would persist until trees became re-established to the extent they were able to 

provide shading, which could last 25-50 years.

Algae and aquatic macroinvertebrate populations have been noted to increase when more sunlight has 

been available. The impact of wildfire on the macroinvertebrate community varies by burn intensity and 

extent, steam size and gradient, precipitation and amount of runoff, vegetative cover, geology, and 

topography. Some indicators of community health may return to pre-fire conditions within 1-2 years, 

but the overall community would probably vary for 5-10 years after the fire (Minshall 2003; Reardon et 

al. 2005). Recovery is related to the relative quick recovery of riparian vegetation (25-50 years for full 

canopies). 

Water Temperature: No direct affects to riparian canopy cover would be anticipated and indirect 

effects on water temperature would not be anticipated from Alternative 1. Water temperature data 

collected from the project area between 2005-2007 indicate project area streams are within both the 

desired condition and within the tolerance limits identified for species. It is anticipated that Alternative 

1 would maintain water temperatures within the desired condition (< 21° C), consistent with those 

expected for the zoogeographic province defined by Moyle (2002). There would be no anticipated 

indirect effects on aquatic/riparian species related to water temperature. 

If a small low to moderate intensity fire were to occur, there would be no expected direct effects on 

water temperature. Higher severity fires have been noted as directly increasing water temperature. Hitt 

(2003) reported a probable 7.7° C (14° F) increase in water temperature during the Moose Creek Fire 

(2001) in Montana. Probability of direct mortality on aquatic/riparian species would increase for low 

order (small) streams having high fire severity through streamside vegetation. Water temperature 

monitoring on the McNally Fire indicated direct thermal effects as the fire burned through Tobias Creek 

(although not at high severity), but not to the extent it was probable that direct mortality of fish 

occurred. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-37

If a wildfire were to occur and burn at greater than moderate severity, there is potential to influence 

water temperature due to reductions in riparian canopy cover over the SMZ (loss of stream shading). 

The extent of this effect would vary depending on severity of the burn and the extent it burned through 

the SMZ. A large fire could indirectly affect water temperature through increased direct solar radiation, 

increased air temperatures, and reduced stream depths (due to increased fines and widening of stream 

channel). Amaranthus et al. (1989) reported increases of up to 10° C (18° F) after the Silver Fire (1987) 

in Oregon, with increases related to remaining components of shade, aspect, topography, and amount of 

flow. Sestrich (2005) found that streams temperatures increased with burn severity and that daily mean 

increased by approximately 3.5° C along high severity sites. Temperatures could be reduced through 

mixing with cooler, unaffected tributaries. These effects could last several decades until trees were of 

sufficient size and density to screen direct solar radiation. 

Flow: No direct affects to flow would be anticipated from Alternative 1. CWHR essential habitat 

elements associated with water would be maintained at current conditions.

In the event of a wildfire occurrence there could be varied response depending on size and severity. A 

large, high severity fire could disrupt flow regime and alter stream channel dynamics. Soil water storage, 

baseflow, streamflow regime, peak flow, water quality (sediment, temperature, pH, ash slurry), and 

chemical characteristics can be affected by wildfire (Neary et al. 2005a and 2005b).

Sediment: The soils report (Gallegos 2010) notes that under a No Action Alternative, roads that are in 

need of maintenance or reconstruction would not be treated and would continue on their current trend. 

In most cases the trend is road deterioration including erosion and loss of soil contributing sediment to 

streams.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: No effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment would be anticipated. 

Habitat would be maintained in current condition.

Wet Meadow Habitat: No effects to meadow hydrology would be anticipated. Habitat would be 

maintained in current condition.

Cumulative Effects 

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project areas were discussed in Chapter 3. 

For the KREW Research Project, other known activities occurring spatially and temporally within the 

analysis area are recreational use (both developed and undeveloped), vegetation and fuels projects 

(precommercial thinning, mastication, and fuelbreaks), existing roads, cattle grazing, fish stocking, and 

fires. Table 3-7-15 summarizes overlap of potential habitat by other Actions. Habitat may also be 

altered by climate change and alteration of the fire return interval.

Recreation: There are approximately 15 miles of inventoried Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) routes within 

the analysis area, some which cross habitat for special interest herpetofauna. Slow moving species (such 

as reptiles and amphibians) are more susceptible to vehicle mortality because their life histories often 

involve migration between wetland and upland habitats (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Bury et al. 

(1977) reported declines in individuals, diversity, density and biomass related to areas of off highway 

motor vehicle use. The SNF has completed a Travel Management Plan (USDA – Forest Service 2010a) 

that would eliminate cross-country travel by OHVs, designate routes approved for OHV use, and 

establish a season of use. Approved routes require improvements to protect resources. This analysis 

considers the currently inventoried routes (15 miles) within the analysis area, although approximately 1 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-38

mile was approved under the ROD for the Travel Management Plan. The remaining 14 miles (11 acres) 

would continue to have effects within the next 10-15 years during site recovery.

Within the project analysis area there are 6 developed campgrounds and day use sites, and several other 

developed sites (Ranger Station, pack station, etc). These facilities total approximately 40 acres. Most of 

the campgrounds and day use areas are located adjacent to water, thus are within habitat for 

herpetofauna. Recreation activities include use of motor vehicles and dispersed camping. These 

activities have the potential to affect aquatic/riparian habitat through changes in hydrologic regime; site 

compaction; sediment contribution; loss of vegetation; or direct mortality (Bury et al. 1977). 

Amphibians and reptile species adjacent to campgrounds may be subject to handling; collection; 

consumption; or translocation (Maxwell and Hokit 1999). Handling may harm animals or in some 

instances handlers. Increased mortality rates may result from pets accompanying recreationists, along 

with mortality associated with use areas from pets or predators (ravens, skunks, raccoons, coyotes or 

foxes) that may occur at greater frequency at these sites due to refuse. Ravens are noted as natural 

predators for a variety of herpetofauna (Kagrise-Sherman and Morton 1993; Jennings and Hayes 1994; 

Ashton et al. 1997; Maxell and Hokit 1999; and Boatman 2002). Ashton et al. (1997) note that areas of 

human influence can drive out larger predators. Thus, the numbers of small predators (such as ravens) 

may be supported at artificially high numbers near areas of increased human activities. Boatman (2002) 

identifies that increased forage opportunities for raven may be associated with road mortality and 

landfills. Rainbow trout are stocked by the CDFG at several sites along Dinkey Creek. Fish stocking does 

not occur near sites known to be occupied by MYLF.

Vegetation and Fuels Projects: There are several Vegetation/Fuels projects proposed at least partially 

within the analysis area. These foreseeable actions are Dinkey North, Dinkey South, Soaproot, and East 

Fork. These proposals include approximately 2440 acres within the analysis area. Additionally, Southern 

California Edison (SCE) is planning on treating approximately 550 acres within the analysis area in 

conjunction with the KREW research treatment areas. The projects include habitat for special interest 

herpetofauna. Activities within habitat could include felling, bucking (cutting into logs), skidding to the 

road, mastication, tractor piling of slash, and burning (piles and underburn). Reptiles and amphibians 

could be subject to direct effects from crushing related to felling of trees, or when skidding logs to the 

road. Skidding can also reduce ground cover, increase site compaction, and result in off-site erosion. 

Project design measures (Forest standards and guidelines and Best Management Practices) and 

mitigation measures will be provided to foreseeable project to reduce potential effects to species and 

habitat when they undergo NEPA analysis. Activities on private property are subject to Timber Harvest 

Plans (THPs) approved by the state. THPs include identification of SMZs and BMPs. SMZs do not extend 

protection of the CWHR defined habitat dispersal distances, thus effects to habitat are anticipated.

Roads: The existing National Forest Transportation System (approximately 120 miles or 230 acres in 

analysis area) could result in mortality to aquatic/riparian species in a variety of ways including 

collisions and introduction of non-native species, parasites or disease vectors. Slow moving species 

(such as reptiles and amphibians) are more susceptible to road mortality because their life histories 

often involve migration between wetland and upland habitats (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Linear 

features, such as roads, represent both physical barriers as well as sites of direct morality. Collisions 

with vehicles have been documented in numerous different aquatic and riparian dependant species and 

they may even be particularly vulnerable to it (Trombulak and Frissell ibid). Two adult YT have been 

documented crushed on an access road to a campground on the Stanislaus National Forest (per. comm. 

Brown 2009). Literature suggests that highest road-kill rates are near wetlands and that amphibians 

represent the largest percent of species. Some frogs and toads disperse at night due to lower 

temperatures and increased relative humidity. 

Cattle grazing: The analysis area includes portions of the Dinkey, Blue Canyon, and Patterson Mountain 

allotments, which are not part of this NEPA decision. A ROD covering Blue Canyon was signed in 2006. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-39

The other two allotments have not had a NEPA decision within the past decade. Cattle grazing also 

occurs on private property within the analysis area. There are approximately 1445 acres of Primary Use 

(sites of focused grazing) within the analysis area. Primary use areas are defined as a 250 buffers 

surrounding meadows. Primary use areas are primarily at high elevation and represent potential habitat 

for MYLF, YT, Pacific tree-frog, and BMI. 

Numerous effects on aquatic habitat and species have been attributed to prolonged use of riparian areas 

by cattle. Literature suggests potential effects from cattle grazing relating to channel function, water 

quantity, hydrologic alteration, and water quality (Elmore and Beschta 1987; Clary and Webster 1989; 

EPA 1991; Meehan et. al. 1991; Belsky et. al. 1999). Animal wastes could directly impair water quality 

through bacterial contamination and increasing nutrient levels (EPA 1991; Derlet et al. 2006; 2008; 

2010), although Campbell and Allen-Diaz (1997) reported no significant differences in nitrate, 

orthophosphate, dissolved oxygen, temperature, or pH in a study evaluating grazing effects to water 

quality. Movement of cattle within riparian zones can lead to reductions in stream shading, compaction 

of stream banks, and trampling of stream banks (Meehan et. al. 1991; Armour et. al. 1994). All of these 

factors could result in negative effects to habitat for herpetofauna and aquatic MIS. However, 

quantifying effects related to continued cattle grazing and recovery from past effects has proved difficult 

to evaluate due to absence of reference sites that have never been grazed by livestock (Kattelmann 

1996). Some of the effects described in literature are noted as resulting from “heavy” or “overgrazing”. 

Cattle grazing is administered under USFS permits, which include compliance with standards and 

guidelines from the SNF LRMP (USDA – Forest Service 1992; 2001; 2004). It is expected that cattle 

grazing is locally resulting in exposed streambanks and erosion. 

Climate Change: Climate change has been suggested as a contributing agent in the decline of amphibians 

(Pounds and Crump 1994; Steward 1995; Pounds et al. 1999). The Species Survival Commission (2008) 

notes that over 50% of the amphibians may be potentially susceptible to climate change. Reaser and 

Blaustein (in Lannoo 2005) summarize that site specific review of amphibian declines indicate possible 

global changes, and that regional warming, increasing ultraviolet radiation, and diseases are a potential 

result of global change. California anticipates warmer temperatures, accompanied by altered patterns of 

precipitation and runoff related to climate change (DWR 2007). Annual runoff in the San Joaquin basin 

has declined by 19% over the past 100 years, and projected precipitation alterations could reduce the 

snowpack by 25% by the year 2050. 

It is expected that air temperatures and precipitation patterns may change within the KREW Research 

Project analysis area over time. The two project areas are within an elevational zone characterized as 

having warm/hot summers (varies by elevation) and cool winters. Most precipitation above 5500 feet 

falls in the form of snow from fall through spring. Change is expected to be reflected through an increase 

in daily maximum, minimums, and mean air temperatures, along with altered rainfall patterns. In a 

review of weather station data for sites within or adjacent to the SNF, Meyer and Safford (2010) note 

that mean annual temperature at Huntington Lake has increased by 1.8o F, with a mean minimum 

(nighttime) increase of 4o F since 1915. Utilizing information projected by Meyer and Safford (ibid), 

mean annual temperature increases by 0.3 o F; mean annual minimum temperature increases by 0.4 o F; 

and mean annual maximum temperature increases by 0.19 o F over the next 10-year period at 

Huntington Lake (7000 feet). Thompson (2005) summarizes that direct solar radiation has the greatest 

influence on water temperature, thus managing to maintain or improve shade is important to reduce 

heat flux. Possible effects to stream shading on most public and private land could be limited through 

application of SMZs. 

Precipitation changes would be expected to reflect a great deal of variability. Information from Meyer 

and Safford (ibid) project an increase in annual precipitation of 2.1 inches at Huntington Lake over the 

10-year period, but the projections at Grant Grove in Kings Canyon National Park project no change. 

Dinkey, Deer, East Fork Deer, Providence, and Duff Creeks, are influenced by snowmelt runoff. Spring 

runoff is occurring earlier in the year and fraction of runoff occurring in the spring is decreasing. With 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-40

less snowfall expected to result from elevated air temperatures associated with climate change, it is 

likely that less water would be available during the late summer and that the water would be warmer 

than current conditions. An increasing snow level would reduce the quantity of shallow pools during the 

springs which provide breeding habitat for YT. A similar effect to shallow lakes would reduce the 

suitability of habitat for MYLF, which could result in localized extirpations in a species with a high 

degree of site fidelity. These projected changes may alter habitat within the next 30 years.

Lind (2008) notes that amphibian and reptile populations respond to changes and variability in air or 

water temperature, precipitation, and the hydro-period of their environments. Over the short-term 

(annually), these factors can influence reproductive success rates and survival to metamorphosis. Over 

the long term, the frequency and duration of extreme temperature and precipitation events can 

influence the persistence of populations and structure of meta-populations on the landscape. The net 

effect of less water and higher temperatures would be a reduction in the quantity and quality of 

aquatic/riparian habitat. Water is a CWHR (CDFG 2005) essential element for herpetofauna and they 

would likely be concentrated at sites where water is available, increasing their susceptibility to 

predators. The changing elements of habitat would provide conditions more favorable for invasion by 

species currently occurring at lower elevational sites, and possibly an increase in non-native species. 

Bullfrogs have not been confirmed within the analysis area, but warmer waters may result in range 

expansion of this non-native species.

Alteration of the fire return interval: The USFWS (2003) identified that “Fire suppression, and changes in 

fire frequency and hydrology, has probably contributed to the decline of Yosemite toads through habitat 

loss caused by conifer encroachment on meadows. Under natural conditions, conifers are excluded from 

meadows by fire and soils too saturated for their survival. But as conifers begin to encroach on a meadow, if 

they are not occasionally set back by fire, they transpire water out of the meadow, reducing the saturation 

of the soils, and facilitating further conifer encroachment. Therefore, some vegetation treatment may be 

needed to maintain or restore Yosemite toad habitat.” In an analysis of occupied YT sites on the SNF, 

Liang et al. (2010) note that YT was less likely to occur in areas where the fire regime was significantly 

altered. Meyer and Safford’s (2010) review of fire literature indicates increases on fire frequency, size, 

total area burned and severity in the Sierra Nevada over the past 20-30 years. Since 2007 (year of 

Vegetation Typing for this analysis), there has been 0 acres of fire within the analysis area, thus no 

recent changes that would contribute to a cumulative effect to habitat.

Table 3-7-15 provides a summary of other past, present, and foreseeable actions within the analysis 

area in relation to potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna and aquatic MIS habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-41

Table 3-7-15: Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 1

Potential 

habitat 

(ac)

Grazing 

Primary 

Use (ac)

Rec/OHV 

Effected 

(ac)

Silv Fuels 

Reduction 

(ac)

Roads 

(ac) KREW

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Affected Species/Habitat 

type

California redlegged frog124 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%

Foothill yellowlegged frog745 0 0 95 8 0 103 14%

Western pond 

turtle

1,389 0 0 198 13 0 211 15%

Sierra Nevada

yellow-legged frog

2,524 428 11 379 19 0 837 33%

Yosemite toad 259 259 0 0 1 0 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 587 0 0 37 0 624 18%

Lacustrine/Riverine 

habitat 101 12.8 0.6 14.2 0.5 0 27.8 28%

CWHR Wet Meadow 

Habitat 208 208 0 16.2 0 0 208 100%

* occupied habitat

California red-legged frog: Table 3-7-15 indicates approximately 2 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by the transportation system.

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Table 3-7-15 indicates approximately 103 aces of habitat are currently 

being affected by on-going or future activities. The majority of the potentially affected acreage is from 

proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects.

Western pond turtle: Table 3-7-15 indicates approximately 211 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by on-going or future activities. The majority of the potentially affected acreage is from 

proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Table 3-7-15 indicates approximately 837 aces of habitat are 

currently being affected by on-going or future activities. The majority of the potentially affected acreage 

is from a combination of proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects and current livestock grazing.

Yosemite toad: Table 3-7-15 indicates that all 259 acres of potential habitat is currently affected by 

cattle grazing. Of the acres of occupied habitat, approximately 587 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by current livestock grazing. 

Cumulative Effects Summary

There would be no additional cumulative effects to aquatic/riparian species as a result of the 

implementation of the No Action Alternative. If a large wildfire were to occur within the analysis area, a 

cumulative effect on aquatic species and their habitats would be the reduction of streamside vegetation, 

increases in sedimentation to the stream channel, and an overall loss of habitat in the short-term for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-42

those aquatic species occurring in the wildfire area. However aquatic species populations can be 

resilient if other good quality dispersal and breeding areas are available and can be found by the species. 

Riparian Canopy Cover: Foreseeable actions would include SMZs. Those projects are not yet well 

enough defined to include design measures to reduce effects on aquatic resources. On FS administered 

lands there are typically restrictions on the use of heavy machinery with Class I SMZs. These restrictions 

reduce the amount of habitat that is likely to be affected and the figures in table 6-3 may be reduced as 

the foreseeable actions are designed. It is expected that riparian canopy cover would be maintained at 

current levels.

Fire within the analysis area could result in a reduction of riparian canopy cover. The extent would vary 

based on the condition of the fuels, time of year, and aspect where the ignition occurred.

Water Temperature: Riparian canopy cover would be anticipated to remain at current levels, thus 

there would not be a cumulative effect to water temperature through implementation of Alternative 1. 

On a localized level for small fire, loss of riparian canopy cover would likely affect stream water 

temperatures. The effect would be diminished when unaffected tributaries provide cooler flow. The 

effects would last until trees became re-established to the extent they were able to provide shading, 

which could last 25-50 years. 

A large fire could indirectly affect water temperature through increased direct solar radiation, increased 

air temperatures, and reduced stream depths (due to increased fines and widening of stream channel). 

Lack of cooling tributary flows would extend the effect downstream from the basin. The Indirect Effects 

on water temperature noted temperature increases ranging from 3.5° C (Sestrich 2005) to 10° C 

(Amaranthus et al. 1989). Additionally, Neary et al. (2005) cited increases up to 16.7° C reported 

following fire. Thermal increases are accompanied by decreases in dissolved oxygen, which in 

combination decrease the quality habitat. These effects could last several decades until water quality 

had recovered, and trees were of sufficient size and density to screen direct solar radiation. 

Flow: No KREW Research Project treatments would occur under this alternative. Flow would be 

anticipated to remain at current levels, with no alteration to timing duration or magnitude (Aebly 2010).

The chances of wildfire would increase under Alternative 1. In the event of a wildfire, flow may increase 

and water quality could be decreased by an increase in hillslope erosion resulting in increased fine 

sediment deposition in stream habitat. Further, depending on the severity of the wildfire, runoff would 

increase for several years possibly causing increased channel erosion and destabilization of channel 

banks (Aebly 2010).

Sediment: The soils report (Gallegos 2010) notes that under a No Action Alternative, roads that are in 

need of maintenance or reconstruction would not be treated and would continue on their current trend. 

In most cases the trend is road deterioration including erosion and loss of soil contributing sediment to 

streams. 

A high severity fire could result in water quality degradation. Sedimentation rates would increase many 

times over the existing rate. With slopes denuded of ground cover overland flows would be increased 

and channel modification would occur to carry the additional flows. Loss of cover would reduce 

infiltration and base flows would be decreased. 

If a large storm or rain on snow event occurred during the recovery period, accelerated erosion and 

increased sedimentation would result, but with no ground disturbance this effect would be less than if 

the ground is disturbed. If a wildfire were followed by a large precipitation event, accelerated erosion 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-43

and increased sedimentation would occur and sediment would be transported to the stream system via 

overland flow from burnt slopes and roads. In the project soils report Gallegos (2010) notes sediment 

modeling indicates up to 4 times more sediment could be generated post-fire from untreated sites 

compared to treated areas.

Barring a severe, catastrophic wildfire, Alternative 1 (No Action) has a lower potential to cause adverse 

effects to listed aquatic species and habitats than the action alternatives. The determinations for 

Alternative 1 are shown in Table 3-7-25 , along with the rationale for the determination.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 28% of habitat occurs within on-going or foreseeable 

actions, primarily cattle grazing and silviculture/fuels treatments. It would be anticipated that 

silviculture and fuels actions includes SMZs that would provide a level of protection. The actual SMZs 

prescribed and the treatments that might occur within the habitat would be included as design 

measures for the individuals projects. No effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment would be 

anticipated. Habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (83 miles).

Wet Meadow Habitat: All wet meadows are currently undergoing cattle grazing. There is also some 

overlap with foreseeable silvicultural/fuels treatments (16 ac). It is anticipated that foreseeable actions 

would include buffers around wet meadows, although some treatments to reduce conifer encroachment 

may be proposed. Meadow 520M14 was identified as being in poor condition. No effects to meadow 

hydrology (flow) would be anticipated. Habitat would be maintained in current condition.

3-7.4.3 Alternative 2 – Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration)

Under Alternative 2, mechanical treatments would be implemented to remove the excess fuels, reduce 

stand densities, and re-establish structural, species and age diversity. Use of herbicides to treat noxious 

weeds and release existing plantations would be included under this alternative. These mechanical 

treatments consist of: 

1. Mechanical tree and biomass removal, 

2. Mechanical mastication of biomass and fuels, 

3. Mechanical piling of fuels for managed burning, and 

4. Underburning in natural stands 

Under Alternative 2, stand treatment applications would concentrate on reducing stand densities by 

harvesting trees up to 30” dbh according to the KREW Research Project uneven-aged strategy. There 

are two landscape treatment prescriptions, the Old Forest Emphasis Thin (maintain minimum 50% 

canopy cover) and General Forest Thin (maintain minimum 40% canopy cover or no more than 20% 

reduction in basal area). Fuels treatments such as mastication and tractor piling would occur within 

thinned areas (not counted as additional acres treated). New road constructions and reconstruction are 

part of the proposal.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The analysis area includes habitat for special interest herpetofauna and aquatic MIS habitat. Table 3-7-

16 displays the acres of habitat within areas proposed for treatment under Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-44

* analysis of occupied sites for Yosemite toad

Streams = Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat

WTM= CWHR Wet Meadow

California red-legged frog: No treatments are proposed within 300 feet of suitable breeding habitat 

identified for this species (Figure 3-7-11). No direct effects would be anticipated, although USFWS 

protocol surveys have not been conducted within the potential habitat and presence is assumed.

Calif. redlegged 

frog

Foothill 

yellowlegged 

frog

Western 

pond 

turtle

Mountain 

yellowlegged 

frog

Yosemite 

toad* Streams WTM

Table 3-7-16: 

Alternative 2 Ac. 124 56 108 297 970 10.6 31.5

Thinnings 1668 0 14 35 116 678 6 0

 General 

Forest Thin 1480 0 8 25 90 617

 Old Forest 

Emphasis Thin 188 0 6 10 26 61

 Hand pile 15 0

 Lop & scatter 757 0

 Mastication 227 0 0 0 5 24

 Tractor pile 670 0 0 0 41 359

No thin, Under 

burn 668 0 0 0 34 148 1.5 0

No Treatments 759 124 42 73 147 144 3.1 31.5
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-45

Figure 3-7-11: CRLF potential habitat in relation to proposed activities

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Approximately 14 acres of potential habitat would be treated under 

Alternative 2. The proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning 

proposed within potential habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment 

units or the analysis area.

Western pond turtle: Approximately 35 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 

2. Proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning proposed within 

potential habitat. The species is documented within the analysis area, but not within the project 

treatment units.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Approximately 116 acres of potential habitat would be treated 

under Alternative 2. Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling 

(41 ac), and mastication (5 ac), in addition to 34 acres of underburning proposed within potential 

habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment units or the analysis area, 

although surveys for this species are incomplete and presence is assumed.

Yosemite toad: Approximately 826 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 2 

(Figure 3-7-12). Proposed thinnings (678 ac) would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor 

piling (359 ac), and mastication (24 ac). Additionally there would be 148 acres of underburning 

proposed within potential habitat. The species is documented within the analysis area and the proposed 

treatment units.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-46

Figure 3-7-12: KREW Bull treatments in relation to occupied Yosemite toad sites

Species Effects

Based on the timing of the proposed actions, there could be disruption (e.g., noise disturbance and 

disruption of breeding cycle) amphibian and reptiles in their burrows and sheltering habitats, or as they 

disperse from upland habitat to aquatic habitat for breeding or feeding as a result of all the ground 

disturbing activities proposed. Amphibian and reptile species can move several hundred feet from 

streams and ponds to shelter in burrows or under logs that would not be protected during road building, 

mastication, tractor piling, prescribed fires, or stand thinning. Potential direct effects to aquatic species

as a result of Alternative 2 include crushing for CRLF, FYLF, WPT, MYLF, and YT. Crushing may be a 

result of tree felling, yarding of logs, tractor piling or mastication. Lop and scatter or handpiling of fuels 

would not be expected to directly affect herpetofauna. MYLF and YT could also be subject to incineration 

(e.g., direct mortality) due to burning of tractor piles and possibly from underburning within potential 

habitat, although both Russel et al. (1999) and Pilliod et al. (2003) suggest herpetofauna may seek cover 

to survive underburning.

The probability of individuals being directly affected would be greatest for Yosemite toad. Six breeding 

meadows have been confirmed within the KREW Bull unit. Two other occupied breeding meadows are 

within dispersal distance of KREW Bull units. Based on the telemetry study at occupied meadows within 

Bull Creek watershed, adult movements have been recorded up to 1250 meters (mean 275 m) from 

breeding sites, which is well beyond the 100 feet no mechanical equipment buffer provided around the 

occupied meadows. Tracking of adult toads following breeding indicates movements within areas 

proposed to be thinned and/or burned under Alternative 2 (Figure 3-7-12). Table 3-7-16 indicates 

thinning 678 acres, masticating 24 acres, tractor piling and burning 359 acres, and underburning 148 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-47

acres within occupied Yosemite toad habitat. Liang (2010) suggests Yosemite toad may have difficulty in 

responding to widespread land management changes related to timber harvest or use of fire. However, 

Liang further notes that negative effects associated within fire may be greater for areas subject to long 

fire-return intervals or subject to long-term fire suppression activities. She also suggests a possible 

benefit associated with timber removal by reducing conifer encroachment or alteration of local microclimatic conditions.

Occupied Yosemite toad habitat has a project exclusion date between 5/1 and 7/15. No project 

associated noise would disrupt the breeding chorus, or breeding. Rearing through metamorphosis 

occurs within meadows, which are not proposed for any treatments. Martin (2008) notes post breeding 

migration by adults to foraging sites occurred over a short period of less than a few days, while Liang -

(per. comm. 2009) reported most movements to foraging sites occurred within 3-1/2 weeks. The 

Yosemite toad limiting operating period for the KREW Bull watershed provides 30-50 days of no activity 

and would be expected to reduce probability of project-related direct effects to post-breeding adults 

moving to foraging sites. Once at the foraging sites and after the no activity period, adults would remain 

susceptible to direct effects if the foraging site is located within a proposed treatment unit. 

At the foraging sites Liang (per. comm. 2010) noted use of the same micro-site for several days to weeks 

and possible overwintering at the sites, along with some site fidelity with individuals tracked in multiple 

years returning to the same site. The project would utilize existing skid roads and landings to the extent 

possible. These previously disturbed sites likely have some compaction and may be less likely to 

represent an occupied foraging site. The limited information on toad foraging sites in the project area 

(Figure 3-7-13) indicates some adults of both sexes within and outside of proposed treatment areas. 

Direct effect to adult toads from project activities may result in mortality. The project may be 

detrimental to the local Yosemite toad populations within the Bull Creek watershed. It appears that the 

populations at these meadows represent persistent use by a relatively small number of adult toads 

(Brown per. comm. 2010). The adult mortality risk is possibly greater to females since they may not 

annually travel to breeding sites, they disperse further from meadows to foraging sites, and they spend 

more time away from breeding areas. Given the relatively long-life span of the species (12-15 years), 

loss of an adult represents loss of multiple breeding opportunities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-48

Figure 3-7-13: foraging sites for Yosemite toad within portion of KREW Bull treatment area

Figure 3-7-14 displays unoccupied potential habitat available within the 1500 m dispersal distance 

evaluated by Liang (per. comm. 2010). This could represent potential connectivity between occupied 

sites. In modeling of meadows used for breeding, Liang suggests the concept of intermittent use 

(contrasting with persistent use) of breeding sites by adults toads. Intermittent sites appear to be used 

for breeding less than 50% of breeding years, and have relatively few individuals when occupied. Use of 

intermittent sites may be important for recruitment, re-colonization, and gene flow. Intermittent use of 

sites appeared to be associated with distance to fire perimeter, response to vegetation types, distance to 

timber harvest, and a broad set of aspect classes (Liang ibid). Lodgepole pine forest appears to be of 

more frequent use by adults associated with use of intermittent breeding sites. Apparent site fidelity by 

Yosemite toad may limit intermittent use of breeding sites. Liang indicates that breeding patch type is 

determined more by environmental variables than by acreage or distance to nearest occupied site, and 

that disturbance, topographic and bioclimatic variables are the apparent primary factors. The current 

distribution and its spatial relation to other occupied sites indicate some level of separation despite 

there being meadows (potential habitat) within the zone of separation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-49

Figure 3-7-14: Relationship of several occupied Yosemite toad adult foraging sites in relation to 

treatment areas

Based on the distribution of the occupied breeding meadows, the local population appears to represent 

a meta-population (Sjogren-Gulve 1994; Marsh and Trenham 1998). The nearest occupied meadows are 

more than 2.5 miles beyond any of the YT meadows in the Bull Creek watershed (Figure 3-7-14). This 

distance may represent isolation of the populations within the Bull Creek watershed. Localized 

populations isolated in this manner may be prone to extinction (Hanski 1999) due to inability to recolonize.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Proposed management actions have the potential to directly alter stream 

shading (solar radiation); and indirectly or cumulatively alter water temperature; water quantity; water 

quality; sediment, nutrient, and litter inputs; woody debris; and channel structure. All of these elements 

can affect aquatic habitat and nutritional resources of aquatic organisms (Gregory et al. 1987; 

Chamberlin et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991; Dwire et al. 2006). Pilliod et al. (2003) identify that 

amphibians may be directly affected by fire (mortality), and indirectly affected through alteration of 

habitat. Habitat alteration could include decreased cover, increased temperature, increased nutrients, 

sedimentation, alteration in woody debris, channel scour, or hydroperiod alteration.

Various life stages of resident herpetofauna utilize macroinvertebrates as a food source. 

Macroinvertebrates are recognized for their importance in the aquatic/riparian systems. Erman (1996) 

notes that springs, seeps, peatlands and small first/second order streams could contain rare or endemic 

invertebrates. Thus, if the project alters stream temperature, canopy cover, hydrologic regime, sediment 

inputs, seeps/springs/headwater areas, and nutrient cycling (LWD or litter inputs), it could affect 

aquatic/riparian species indirectly through affects to the invertebrate community 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-50

Of all the activities being proposed by Alternative 2, thinning and underburning have the greatest 

potential to directly affect riparian canopy cover and/or stream and meadow shading. If thinning were 

to occur along perennial streams there could be an increase in solar radiation to the stream channel. 

Additionally, underburning could result in tree mortality and openings within the riparian canopy. 

Within portions of the CRLF habitat (300 ft buffer), there would be no harvesting. The remaining Class I 

SMZs within the project have a 50-foot “No treatment” buffer on the inner 50 feet of the stream channel. 

The remaining outer 50 feet exclude heavy mechanical equipment and would be treated. Under the “Old 

Forest Linkage” prescription along lower Providence Creek, basal area would be maintained at a 

minimum of 280 square feet and stand composition would focus on attributes for fisher (maintain large 

and decadent trees). The remaining Class I SMZs would be treated consistent with silvicultural 

prescription for the entire stand. These treatments would reduce the canopy cover to a minimum of 

40% under the General Forest Thin. In the outer 50-feet of treated SMZs there is a possible increase of 

open space within the understory and intermediate components of the treated stand. This provides an 

opportunity for increased angular solar radiation. It is anticipated that the majority of the trees would 

be retained and the inner 50-foot No Treatment zone would intercept angular solar radiation and a 

change to riparian canopy cover would not be anticipated. 

Beschta et al. (1987) noted that buffers of 30 meters (98.4 feet) or more would generally provide the 

same level of shading as an old growth stand. Within buffers, mean air temperature rates decreased 

from a rate of -1.6o C/10 meters to -0.2o C/10 meters beyond 30 meters (98 ft), while relative humidity 

rates declined from +3.8%/10 meters to +0.6%/10 meters beyond that same distance as reported by 

Ledwith (1996). Moyle et al. (1996a) noted that the benefits to riparian function and microclimate vary 

by the distance from the stream channel. Riparian shading appears to be maximized at one tree-height 

distance from the stream channel.

Fire would be introduced to within 5 feet of the streambank in the research watersheds, which increases 

the possibility of direct effects to animals and habitat, as well as reducing ground cover and potential for 

off-site sediment. Prescribed fire is not proposed for introduction into the Class I SMZs in the remaining 

portions of this project, but would be allowed to creep within the SMZ. Dwire et al. (2006) suggest that 

prescribed fire may top-kill some riparian trees and shrubs. A study at Blodgett Forest in northern 

California introduced prescribed fire into the riparian zone and found that a 4.4% mortality rate 

resulted, occurring in trees 11 – 40 centimeters (4.5 - 15.7 inches) dbh (diameter at breast height; Bêche 

et al. 2005). Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no detectable changes in periphyton, macroinvertebrates, 

amphibians, fish, and riparian and stream habitats compared to data collection in unburned reference 

streams over a three year period following a prescribed burn. Personal observations of past prescribed 

burning under these criteria on the HSRD are that it has not resulted in a noticeable decline in 

streamside canopy cover. 

Kattleman (1996) noted that several studies demonstrated that communities of aquatic invertebrates 

changed significantly in response to upstream logging, with some of these effects persisting for two 

decades. Much of the food base for stream ecosystems is derived from adjacent terrestrial ecosystems 

with litter fall from deciduous stands exceeding that of coniferous stands. Deciduous input (leaves) 

generally breaks down in less than half the time necessary for the breakdown of coniferous input 

(needles; Gregory et al. 1991). Buffer strips 30 meters (98.4 feet) wide are noted as protecting 

invertebrate communities from logging induced changes (Gregory et al. 1987; EPA 1991). 

Little alteration of the existing stream shading is expected from Alternative 2. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-51

Water Temperature: Elevation, aspect, stream width, channel roughness coefficient, riparian shading, 

solar radiation, air temperature, cloud cover, and stream discharge levels can all affect water 

temperature. Of these elements, solar radiation has the most effect on water temperature (Beschta et al. 

1987; USGS 1997, 2000). Shading effects from forest canopies are important during the summer months 

due to high levels of radiation (high sun angles, long days, clear skies) accompanied by low stream 

discharges (Beschta et al. 1987). Solar radiation through forest canopies depends on the heights of the 

crowns and density, along with the foliage (Moore et al. 2005). 

If forest harvesting occurred in streamside areas there could be a direct increase solar radiation 

(reduction in canopy cover) to the stream channel. However, in evaluating possible project direct effects 

to canopy cover it was noted that large changes in overhead canopy from stands adjacent to perennial 

streams would not be anticipated. Stream shading would meet the desired condition of > 50%. However, 

in addition to direct solar radiation, Beschta et al (1987) addresses possible affects from angular solar 

radiation and describes how canopy cover can be evaluated as angular canopy density. Figure 3-7-15

provides a rough portrayal of solar radiation effects on a perennial stream.

Figure 3-7-15: Possible avenues of solar radiation for treated and untreated Class I SMZs (concepts from 

USGS 2002)

There would be no thinning under any prescription within the inner 50-feet of a Class I SMZ. In the outer 

50-feet of treated SMZs there is a possible increase of open space within the understory and 

intermediate components of the treated stand. This provides an opportunity for increased angular solar 

radiation. However, it is anticipated that the majority of the trees would be retained and the inner 50-

foot “No Treatment” zone would intercept angular solar radiation. There would be no affect to water 

temperatures anticipated from Alternative 2. 

Underburning would take place within Class I SMZs. When this occurs there are design measures that 

allow for creeping into the SMZ, but not active introduction of fire. It is expected that underburning 

would occur within the 100-foot zone and some understory trees could be killed as a result. It is not 

expected that trees contributing to stream shading and blocking solar radiation would be killed by the 

underburning. Effects could be more prevalent in research watersheds where fire would be introduced 

within 5 feet of the streambank.

Flow: Of the remaining elements that may affect water temperature, only stream discharge level could 

be affected by the proposal. Changes to stream discharge would be an indirect effect from the proposal 

due to decreases as basal area (and evapo-transpiration) decline due to changes in stand density 

(Chamberlin et al. 1991; Kattleman 1996). If more water were available as baseflow during the late 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-52

summer, there would be a possible reduction in stream temperature. Potential increases in peak flows 

are related to changes in snow accumulation and snow melt. 

Late summer, when solar radiation potential is greatest, air temperatures are warmest, and stream 

flows are lowest, is the period when canopy cover is essential in moderating water temperatures. 

Typically only perennial channels flow during this period, thus concerns over water temperature focus 

on these stream channels. Forest thinning projects have the potential to affect water quantity through 

changes in interception of precipitation, changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt (important in 

snow-dominated areas but less so in rain-dominated and ‘warm snow’ zones such as the project area), 

and changes in available soil moisture due to decreased evapotranspiration. Area weighted mean 

reductions in basal area and canopy cover were calculated for all HUC 8 subwatersheds. Reductions in 

basal area and canopy cover as a result of implementing alternative 2 will range from 0 to 3 % and 0 to 

6%, respectively. Based on literature, it is unlikely that these reductions would affect water timing or 

magnitude of flows. (Aebly 2010). 

Herbicides: Under Alternative 2, the herbicide glyphosate will be applied by hand methods on 64 acres 

of the Providence Unit, where bear clover, greenleaf manzanita or similar aggressive sprouting species 

occur in the reforestation groups to control these species and assure successful reforestation. 

Approximately 8 acres of potential WPT habitat (none occupied), 5 acres of MYLF habitat, and 

approximately 1 acre of FYLF habitat would be treated with herbicides. Herbicides are not proposed for 

use in the Bull Creek watershed that is occupied by YT. Two factors determine the degree of adverse 

impacts of herbicide application on aquatic species: the toxicity of the herbicide, and the likelihood that 

an organism would be exposed to toxic levels of the herbicide. The recovery plan for the CRLF (USDI -

USFWS 2002) indicated the following for the use of glyphosate that would be applicable to the aquatic 

species covered here:

Glyphosate does have the potential to contaminate surface waters due to its use patterns 

and through erosion, as it adsorbs to soil particles suspended in runoff. If glyphosate 

reached surface water, it would not be broken down readily by water or sunlight. Toxicity 

tests performed under standard conditions at the Columbia National Fisheries Laboratory 

indicated that this compound is “moderately toxic” to rainbow trout (U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 1993). Some formulations may be more toxic to aquatic species due to 

the different surfactants used in formulation.

With hand-application of the herbicide it is expected that drift would be negligible and streamside 

buffers would prevent herbicides from being applied too close to streams, thus reducing the probability 

of direct effects on aquatic/riparian species.

It not expected spraying with glyphosate formulated as Accord and R-11 would be harmful or toxic to 

aquatic species except in event of direct spray, spillage, or if project design measures were not followed. 

Precautions in handling of herbicides, described under Section 3, would help to prevent accidental spills. 

Monitoring results from 1991 to 2000 of surface water adjacent to projects involving the use of 

glyphosate on seven projects on the Sierra, Stanislaus, and Eldorado National Forests resulted in no 

detections.

Since glyphosate would not be applied to or near open water and it has very low mobility in soil, any 

direct effects to aquatic species in perennial water bodies is unlikely. There appears to be no systematic 

differences in toxicity among species when doses of glyphosate are expressed in units of mg/kg body 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-53

weight (SERA 2003). The results show glyphosate residues when applied aerially were 10,000 times 

less than would be necessary to produce acute mortality (Trumbo 2000). 

R-11, the surfactant that would be used with glyphosate, is labeled for application to water and has a 

history of satisfactory use in aquatic situations by California agencies such as the Department of Water 

Resources and the Department of Boating and Waterways. Testing of R-11 has been limited because 

none is required by EPA and the Department of Pesticide Regulation only requires testing on fish and 

insects. The results of the CDFG study referred to in the previous paragraph show R-11 residues when 

applied aerially were 100 times less than would be necessary to produce acute mortality (Trumbo 

2000). 

There has been concern expressed about the potential for surfactants containing nonylphenol 

polyethoxylate (NPE), such as R-11, to cause endocrine disruption and other deleterious effects. 

However, in comparison to natural estrogen, NPE is approximately 10,000 to 1,000,000 times weaker in 

eliciting an estrogenic response (USDA –Forest Service 2003). NPE is classified as slightly or practically 

non-toxic to mammals and is not mutagenic (USDA – Forest Service ibid). Recent studies have shown 

that some herbicides, but not glyphosate, have an estrogen mimicking effect on reptiles (Raloff 1994). 

Estrogen and other endocrine hormones are mainly six-carbon ring molecules (cyclohexane or benzene) 

while glyphosate has a distinctly different structure. It is a carbon chain based on a single phosphorous 

atom and does not have a ring structure. The likelihood of these distinctly different molecules mimicking 

and disrupting hormones or working in the same lock-and-key relationship is remote.

Habitat alteration: Most of the indirect effects to herpetofauna would be related to habitat alteration. 

Table 3-7-16 displays the amount of species habitat potentially affected by Alternative 2. Thinnings are 

proposed within the red fir, Sierra mixed-conifer, and ponderosa pine CWHR types. The primary 

changes reduce size group 5 to size group 4 and reduce density for a 20-30 year period based on 

silvicultural modeling. CWHR habitat quality would remain unchanged for all species except YT based on 

projected stands following thinning. For YT, a reduction in stand density for smaller diameter lodgepole 

pine would improve the habitat quality based on CWHR. Changes to microclimate (such as increased air 

temperatures and lower relative humidity) within treated areas may not be accounted for at the CWHR 

scale.

New roads and prescribed fire can reduce vegetative cover. Therefore, there may be increased overland 

flow and sediment delivery to the aquatic ecosystem. The 0.1 miles of new road construction would not 

be within potential habitat for any of the species being evaluated. Prescribed fire and understory 

burning, thinning, and fuel break construction/maintenance can furnish short-term (3-5 years) 

sediment supplies. This sediment can affect aquatic organisms by reducing the amount of suitable 

habitat by increasing stream width to depth ratios, increasing water temperature and reducing 

streambank stability. Where more ground is disturbed the potential for increased short-term effects 

exist but the benefit from the fuel reduction is also reduced over time. 

Sediment: No significant impacts are expected in either the Providence or Bull management units 

because soil compaction is expected to be minimal, soil cover and disturbed soil would meet Regional 

Soil S&G requirements, and erosion control measures would be implemented in a timely manner

(Gallegos 2010).

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 7.3 acres of habitat occurs thinning or underburn (no 

thin). It would be anticipated that SMZs which exclude heavy mechanical equipment provide protection 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-54

from sediment, maintain stream shading, and changes to flow would not be anticipate (Aebly 2010).

Habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (10.6 miles within two project areas).

Wet Meadow Habitat: No treatments within meadows are proposed. Wet meadows are 100 feet SMZs 

surrounding them, within treatments limited to the outer 50 feet. No effects to meadow hydrology 

(flow) would be anticipated and habitat would be maintained in current condition (31.5 acres).

Cumulative Effects 

Effects from actions not part of the KREW Research Project were previously disclosed under Alternative

1 and effects would be similar to those discussed under the No Action Alternative.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Foreseeable actions and Alternative 2 would include SMZs (including private 

land operating under THPs). It is expected that riparian canopy cover would be maintained at current 

levels as described under Direct and Indirect Effects.

On a localized level for small fire, loss of riparian canopy cover would likely affect stream water 

temperatures. The effect would be diminished when unaffected tributaries provide cooler flow. The 

effects would last until trees became re-established to the extent they were able to provide shading, 

which could last 25-50 years. 

Water Temperature: Riparian canopy cover would be anticipated to remain at current levels based on 

use of Class I SMZs (minimum 100 ft) that include No Action of the inner 50 ft, thus a cumulative effect 

to water temperature through implementation of Alternative 2 would not be anticipated. 

A large fire could indirectly affect water temperature through increased direct solar radiation, increased 

air temperatures, and reduced stream depths (due to increased fines and widening of stream channel). 

Lack of cooling tributary flows would extend the effect downstream from the basin. The Indirect Effects 

on water temperature noted temperature increases ranging from 3.5° C (Sestrich 2005) to 10° C 

(Amaranthus et al. 1989). Additionally, Neary et al. (2005) cited increases up to 16.7° C reported 

following fire. Thermal increases are accompanied by decreases in dissolved oxygen, which in 

combination decrease the quality habitat. These effects could last several decades until water quality 

had recovered, and trees were of sufficient size and density to screen direct solar radiation. 

Flow: Reductions in basal area and canopy cover as a result of implementing alternative 3 will range 

from 0 to 3 % and 0 to 7%, respectively. Based on the literature discussed above, it is unlikely that these 

reductions will affect water timing or magnitude of flows (Aebly 2010).

Sediment: A cumulative watershed effects analysis (CWEA) was completed as part of the Project Soils 

Report (Gallegos 2010). The CWEA was discussed under General Affects Common to the Action 

Alternatives (2-5). Project design measures have been developed to reduce the likelihood of CWE. The 

cumulative effect of increased sediment into channels draining the project area is highest in stands 

where soil disturbance would occur. The report identifies that no significant impacts are expected in 

either the KREW Providence or KREW Bull management units because soil compaction is expected to be 

minimal, soil cover and disturbed soil would meet Regional Soil Standard and Guideline requirements, 

and erosion control measures would be implemented in a timely manner. There is increased potential 

for CWE in the KREW Providence Management Area in subwatersheds 519.0007, 519.0008 and 

520.0016, because Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) are approaching the upper 14% TOC. However, there 

are mitigating factors to consider in determining if CWE will occur in these subwatersheds. The 

cumulative effect of increased sediment into channels draining the project area is highest in stands 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-55

where soil disturbance would occur. Soil disturbance would occur where tractor piling for fuel 

treatment is proposed, but can also occur where skid trails are not being properly drained and 

maintained. This will most likely occur in subwatersheds 519.0007, 519.0008 and 520.0016, which 

would have a low potential for a CWE. 

A high severity fire could result in water quality degradation. Sedimentation rates would increase many 

times over the existing rate. With slopes denuded of ground cover overland flows would be increased 

and channel modification would occur to carry the additional flows. If a large storm or rain on snow 

event occurred during the recovery period, accelerated erosion and increased sedimentation would 

result, but with no ground disturbance this effect would be less than if the ground is disturbed. If a 

wildfire were followed by a large precipitation event, accelerated erosion and increased sedimentation 

would occur and sediment would be transported to the stream system via overland flow from burnt 

slopes and roads.

Species Summary

Table 3-7-17 provides an overview of the spatial distribution of other past, present, and foreseeable 

actions within the analysis area in relation to potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna and 

aquatic MIS habitats.

Table 3-7-17: Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 2

Alternative 2

Potential 

habitat 

(ac)

Grazing 

Primary 

Use (ac)

Rec/OHV 

Effected 

(ac)

Silv Fuels 

Reduction 

(ac)

Roads 

(ac)

KREW 

(ac)

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Affected

Species/Habitat types

California red-legged frog 124 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%

Foothill yellow-legged 

frog

745 0 0 95 8 14 117 16%

Western pond turtle 1,389 0 0 198 13 35 246 18%

Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog2,524 428 11 379 19 150 987 39%

Yosemite toad 259 259 0 0 1 0 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 587 0 0 37 826 1450 42%

Lacustrine/Riverine 

habitat 101 12.8 0.6 14.2 0.5 7.3 35.4 35%

CWHR Wet Meadow 

Habitat 208 208 0 16.2 0 0 208 100%

* occupied habitat

California red-legged frog: Table 3-7-17 indicates approximately 2 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by the transportation system (Road 10S14). It is likely that project-related traffic would utilize 

the road as part of project implementation, which could result in mortality to animals attempting to 

cross.

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Table 3-7-17 indicates approximately 103 aces of habitat being affected by 

on-going or future activities. An additional 14 acres of habitat would be affected by actions proposed 

under Alternative 2. Similar to Alternative 1, the majority of the potentially affected acreage is from 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-56

proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects and affects are primarily related to changes to CWHR 

size and density.

Western pond turtle: Table 3-7-17 indicates approximately 211 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by on-going or future activities. An additional 35 acres would be affected under actions 

proposed under Alternative 2. None of the affected habitat is occupied. Similar to Alternative 1, the

majority of the potentially affected acreage is from proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects and is 

primarily related to changes to CWHR size and density.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Table 3-7-17 indicates approximately 837 aces of habitat are 

currently being affected by on-going or future activities. An additional 150 acres would be affected 

under actions proposed under Alternative 2. This represents nearly 40% of potential habitat subject to 

effects, although these figures do not account for probable no treatment segments along Class I SMZs on 

Forest Service administered lands. Similar to Alternative 1, the majority of the potentially affected 

acreage is from proposed silvicultural/fuels reduction projects and is primarily related to changes to 

CWHR size and density. As previously noted, CWHR quality would be maintained, but affects to 

microclimate may not be accounted under the rating.

Yosemite toad: Table 3-7-17 indicates that all 259 acres of potential habitat is currently affected by 

cattle grazing. Of the acres of occupied habitat, approximately 624 aces of habitat are currently being 

affected by current livestock grazing. An additional 826 acres (Figure 3-7-11) would be affected under 

actions proposed under Alternative 2. The majority of the potentially affected acreage is from proposed 

silvicultural/fuels reduction projects (678 acres) and current livestock grazing, which results in more 

than 40% of potential habitat being affected. In the meadows that are occupied with Yosemite toad, the 

cumulative effect of the KREW project coupled with future management activities within the adjacent 

KRP area surrounding the occupied meadows may be detrimental to the local population in the Bull 

Creek watershed. Currently, these meadows provide suitable breeding areas, however with continued 

management activities contributing sediment, noise disturbance, compaction of burrow habitat, and 

possible direct mortality. These populations are spatially isolated from other occupied sites and appear 

to express metapopulation dynamics. Mortality from activities associated with Alternative 2 would 

negatively affect a population that appears to have limited adults. The population complex may be 

subject to localized extirpation. 

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 35% of habitat occurs within proposed KREW 

treatments or on-going or foreseeable actions, primarily cattle grazing and silviculture/fuels treatments. 

It would be anticipated that silviculture and fuels actions includes SMZs that would provide a level of 

protection. The actual SMZs prescribed and the treatments that might occur within the habitat would be 

included as design measures for the individuals projects. No effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment 

would be anticipated. Habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (83 miles).

Wet Meadow Habitat: No KREW treatments are proposed within wet meadows and those treatments 

adjacent to wet meadows would have buffers. All wet meadows are currently undergoing cattle grazing. 

There is also some overlap with foreseeable silvicultural/fuels treatments (16 ac). It is anticipated that 

foreseeable actions would include buffers around wet meadows, although some treatments to reduce 

conifer encroachment may be proposed. Meadow 520M14 was identified as being in poor condition. No 

cumulative effects to meadow hydrology (flow) would be anticipated. Habitat would be maintained in 

current condition and level (208 acres).

Species Effects

Overall, Alternative 2 has a higher potential to adversely affect the aquatic species and habitat than 

Alternative 1 (No Action) in the short term (10 years). Over the long term Alternative 2 may decrease 

the risk of large stand-replacing fires. However, Alternative 2 may also continue to provide certain 

stresses on the listed aquatic species and their habitats. If a large wildfire does occur within the KREW 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-57

Project area, initially, a cumulative effect on aquatic species and their habitats would be the reduction of 

streamside vegetation, increases in sedimentation to the stream channel, and an overall loss of habitat in 

the short-term for those aquatic species occurring in the wildfire area. However aquatic species 

populations can be resilient if other good quality dispersal and breeding areas are available and can be 

found by the species. The determinations for Alternative 2 are shown in Table 3-7-26 along with the 

rationale for the determination.

3-7.4.4 Alternative 3 – Fuels Reduction

Alternative 3 has a treatment strategy that reduces fuels hazards to meet fire behavior objectives.

Structural restoration is not an emphasis for this alternative. Fuels reductions are emphasized with a 

cautious approach to treating fuels in sensitive wildlife habitat. This alternative differs from Alternative 

2 by reducing the upper diameter limit for harvesting to 20” dbh on the General Forest Thin and 

herbicides are not included for plantation release or noxious week removal. The upper diameter limit 

for treatments in Old Forest Emphasis Areas would be reduced to 12” dbh to minimize the impacts to 

sensitive species. As part of the emphasis on fuels reduction, the defense zone thin would remove trees 

up to 20” dbh; the defense zone thins in the other alternatives only remove trees up to a 12” diameter.

The control and prescribed fire units would be the same as the other action alternatives and are 

described in Alternative 2. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The analysis area includes habitat for special interest herpetofauna and aquatic MIS habitat. Table 3-7-

18 displays the acres of habitat within areas proposed for treatment under Alternative 3.

Calif. redlegged 

frog

Foothill 

yellowlegged 

frog

Western 

pond 

turtle

Sierra 

Nevada 

yellowlegged 

frog

Yosemite 

toad* Streams WTM

Table 3-7-18: Alternative 3 Ac. 124 56 108 297 970 10.6 31.5

Thinnings 1668 0 14 35 116 678 6 0

Defense Zone Thin 681 0 5 12 65 0

 General Forest Thin 896 0 3 13 41 617

 Old Forest Emphasis Thin 92 0 6 10 10 61

 Hand pile 15 0

 Lop & scatter 757 0

 Mastication 227 0 0 0 5 24

 Tractor pile 670 0 0 0 41 359 1.5 0

No thin, Under burn 668 0 0 0 34 148 1.5 0

No Treatments 759 124 43 73 147 144 3.1 31.5

* analysis of occupied sites for Yosemite toad

Streams=Lacustrine/Riverine

WTM=CWHR Wet Meadow

California red-legged frog: No treatments are proposed within 300 feet of suitable breeding habitat 

identified for this species. No direct effects would be anticipated, although USFWS protocol surveys have 

not been conducted within the potential habitat and presence is assumed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-58

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Approximately 14 acres of potential habitat would be treated under 

Alternative 3. The proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning 

proposed within potential habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment 

units or the analysis area.

Western pond turtle: Approximately 35 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 

3. Proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning proposed within 

potential habitat. The species is documented within the analysis area, but not within the project 

treatment units.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Approximately 116 acres of potential habitat would be treated 

under Alternative 3. Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling 

(41 ac), and mastication (5 ac), in addition to 34 acres of underburning proposed within potential 

habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment units or the analysis area..

Yosemite toad: Approximately 826 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 3. 

Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling (359 ac), and 

mastication (24 ac), in addition to 148 acres of underburning proposed within potential habitat. The 

species is documented within the analysis area and the proposed treatment units.

Species Effects

Based on the timing of the proposed actions, there could be disruption (e.g., noise disturbance and 

disruption of breeding cycle) amphibian and reptiles in their burrows and sheltering habitats, or as they 

disperse from upland habitat to aquatic habitat for breeding or feeding as a result of all the ground 

disturbing activities proposed. Potential direct effects to aquatic species as a result of Alternative 3 are 

consistent with Alternative 2, including crushing CRLF, FYLF, WPT, MYLF, and YT. Additionally, MYLF

and YT could be subject to incineration (e.g., direct mortality). 

Similar to Alternative 2, the probability of individuals being affected would be greatest for YT. Figure 3-

7-14 displayed unoccupied potential habitat is available within the 1500 m dispersal distance evaluated 

by Liang (per. comm. 2010). The current distribution and its spatial relation to other occupied sites 

indicate some level of separation despite there being meadows (potential habitat) within the zone of 

separation. Localized populations isolated in this manner may be prone to extinction (Hanski 1999) due 

to inability to re-colonize.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Of all the activities being proposed by Alternative 3, thinning and 

underburning have the greatest potential to directly affect riparian canopy cover and/or stream and 

meadow shading. Effects would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2 and there would be no 

change to riparian canopy cover anticipated under Alternative 3. 

Water Temperature: It is anticipated that riparian canopy cover would meet the desired condition of 

>50% under Alternative 3. There would be no thinning under any prescription within the inner 50-feet 

of the Class I SMZ. In the outer 50-feet of treated SMZs there is a possible increase of open space within 

the understory and intermediate components of the treated stand. This provides an opportunity for 

increased angular solar radiation. Alternative 3 would have an upper diameter limit of 20” dbh over 

most of the project area (Alternative 2 had 30” dbh as the upper treatment limit). Similar to Alternative 

2, it is anticipated that the majority of the trees would be retained and the inner 50-foot “No Treatment” 

zone will intercept this angular solar radiation. The retention of the larger diameter trees (22-30” dbh) 

would further reduce the probability of angular solar radiation. Effect from underburning would be 

similar to Alternative 2. There would be no change to water temperatures anticipated under Alternative 

3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-59

Flow: Reductions in basal area and canopy cover as a result of implementing Alternative 3 will range 

from 0 to 3 % and 0 to 7%, respectively. Based on literature, it is unlikely that these reductions will 

affect water timing or magnitude of flows (Aebly 2010).

Herbicides: Under Alternative 3 there would be no herbicides utilized. Treatments to remove noxious 

weeds would utilize hand-pulling of individual weeds that would be removed from the sites. No effects 

to aquatic/riparian species or potential habitat would be anticipated.

Habitat alteration: Most of the indirect effects to herpetofauna would be related to habitat alteration. 

Table 3-7-18 displays the amount of species habitat potentially affected by Alternative 3. Similar to 

Alternative 2, thinnings are proposed within the red fir, Sierra mixed-conifer, and ponderosa pine CWHR 

types. Proposed thinning under Alternative 3 is less likely to reduce the CWHR size class, however 

density may be reduced over a 20-30 period based on silvicultural modeling. CWHR habitat quality 

would remain unchanged for all species except YT based on projected stands following thinning. For YT, 

a reduction in stand density for smaller diameter lodgepole pine would improve the habitat quality 

based on CWHR. Changes to microclimate (such as increased air temperatures and lower relative 

humidity) may not be accounted for at the CWHR scale. Retention of larger trees under Alternative 3 

may result in reduced effects (relative to Alternative 2) to microclimate within the portions of potential 

herpetofauna habitat being affected.

Sediment: No significant impacts are expected in either the Providence or Bull management units 

because soil compaction is expected to be minimal, soil cover and disturbed soil would meet Regional 

Soil S&G requirements, and erosion control measures would be implemented in a timely manner

(Gallegos 2010).

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 7.3 acres of habitat occurs thinning or underburn (no 

thin). Effects would similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.

Wet Meadow Habitat: No treatments within meadows are proposed. Wet meadows are 100 feet AMZs 

surrounding them, within treatments limited to the outer 50 feet. Effects would similar to those 

discussed under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Effects from actions not part of the KREW Research Project were previously disclosed under Alternative 

1 and would be similar and effects would be similar to those discussed under the No Action Alternative.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Foreseeable actions and Alternative 3 would include SMZs (including private 

land operating under Timber Harvest Plans (CDFG 2005). Cumulative Effects to riparian canopy cover 

would be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2 and it is expected that riparian canopy cover 

would be maintained at current levels, which meets the desired condition.

Water Temperature: Riparian canopy cover would be anticipated to remain at current levels based on 

use of Class I SMZs (minimum 100 ft) that include No Action of the inner 50 ft. Cumulative Effects to 

water temperature would similar to those discussed under Alternative 2. A cumulative effect to water 

temperature would not be anticipated through implementation of Alternative 3. 

Flow: Project design criteria to reduce current levels of sedimentation from roads would not occur 

under this Alternative. Sedimentation rates and levels in streams would be maintained at current levels. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-60

Sediment: The CWEA completed as part of the Project Soils Report (Gallegos 2010) indicates 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would result in three subwatersheds exceeding their lower Threshold of 

Concern (TOC) and are at low risk of a CWE. These are subwatersheds are 519.0007, 519.0008, and 

520.0016 (all in Providence treatment unit). None of these subwatersheds would exceed the upper TOC 

of 14%. Effects would similar to Alternative 2.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 35% of habitat occurs within proposed KREW 

treatments or on-going or foreseeable actions, primarily cattle grazing and silviculture/fuels treatments. 

Similar to Alternative 2, no effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment would be anticipated. Habitat 

would be maintained in current condition and level (83 miles).

Wet Meadow Habitat: No KREW treatments are proposed within wet meadows and those treatments 

adjacent to wet meadows would have buffers. All wet meadows are currently undergoing cattle grazing. 

Similar to Alternative 2, habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (208 acres).

Species Summary Effects

Table 3-7-19 provide an overview of the spatial distribution of other past, present, and foreseeable 

actions within the analysis area in relation to potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna and 

Aquatic MIS habitats. These figures are identical to those resulting from Alternative 2.

Table 3-7-19: Acres of potential habitat potentially influenced by actions with the analysis area under 

Alt. 3

Alternative 3

Potential 

habitat 

(ac)

Grazing 

Primary 

Use (ac)

Rec/OHV 

Effected 

(ac)

Silv Fuels 

Reduction 

(ac)

Roads 

(ac)

KREW 

(ac)

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Affected

Species/Habitat Types

California red-legged frog 124 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%

Foothill yellow-legged frog 745 0 0 95 8 14 117 16%

Western pond turtle 1,389 0 0 198 13 35 246 18%

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog

2,524 428 11 379 19 150 987 39%

Yosemite toad 259 259 0 0 1 0 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 587 0 0 37 826 1450 42%

Lacustrine/Riverine habitat 101 12.8 0.6 14.2 0.5 7.3 35.4 35%

CWHR Wet Meadow Habitat 208 208 0 16.2 0 0 208 100%

* occupied habitat

Cumulative effects to CRLF, FYLF, WPT, MYLF, YT, and aquatic MIS habitat would be as discussed under 

Alternative 2.

Overall, Alternative 3 has a higher potential to adversely affect the aquatic species and habitat than 

Alternative 1 (No Action) in the short term (10 years). Effects would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative 2, although may be somewhat reduced due to diameter limits restrictions that may provide 

better microclimate (relative to Alternative 2), and non-use of herbicides. The determinations for 

Alternative 3 are shown in Table 3-7-26 along with the rationale for the determination. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-61

3-7.4.5 Alternative 4 – North GTR (Ecological Restoration)

Under Alternative 4, the FS would manage forest health on the KREW units based on a landscape 

strategy that emphasizes ecological restoration as a guide for forest management treatments. The term 

“process restoration” refers to a process of reintroducing fire to the landscape without extensive 

mechanical removal of trees. This alternative contains three landscape treatment prescriptions – the 

Southwest Aspect Thin, Neutral Aspect Thin, and the Canyon/Fisher Thin. The Canyon/Fisher Thin 

follows the same prescription as the Old Forest Emphasis Thin described in Alternative 2. Additional 

stand treatments would be applied as described in Alternative 2. This alternative would also retain 1-2 

acre “fisher rest sites” within stands of CWHR size class 5M, 5D, and 6.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 3-7-20 displays the acres of habitat within areas proposed for treatment under Alternative 4.

Calif. redlegged 

frog

Foothill 

yellowlegged 

frog

Western 

pond 

turtle

Sierra 

Nevada

yellowlegged 

frog

Yosemite 

toad* Streams WTM

Table 3-7-20: Alternative 4 Ac. 124 56 108 297 970 10.6 31.5

Thinnings 1668 0 14 35 116 678 6 0

Defense Zone Thin 681 0 5 12 65 0

 General Forest Thin 896 0 3 13 41 617

 Old Forest Emphasis Thin 92 0 6 10 10 61

 Hand pile 15 0

 Lop & scatter 757 0

 Mastication 227 0 0 0 5 24

 Tractor pile 670 0 0 0 41 359 1.5 0

No thin, Under burn 668 0 0 0 34 148 1.5 0

No Treatments 759 124 43 73 147 144 3.1 31.5

* analysis of occupied sites for Yosemite toad

Streams = Lacustrine/Riverine

WTM = CWHR Wet Meadow

California red-legged frog: No treatments are proposed within 300 feet of suitable breeding habitat 

identified for this species. No direct effects would be anticipated, although USFWS protocol surveys have 

not been conducted within the potential habitat and presence is assumed.

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Approximately 14 acres of potential habitat would be treated under 

Alternative 4. The proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning 

proposed within potential habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment 

units or the analysis area.

Western pond turtle: Approximately 35 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 

4. Proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning proposed within 

potential habitat. The species is documented within the analysis area, but not within the project 

treatment units.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-62

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Approximately 116 acres of potential habitat would be treated 

under Alternative 4. Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling 

(41 ac), and mastication (5 ac), in addition to 34 acres of underburning proposed within potential 

habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment units or the analysis area.

Yosemite toad: Approximately 826 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 4. 

Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling (359 ac), and 

mastication (24 ac), in addition to 148 acres of underburning proposed within potential habitat. The 

species is documented within the analysis area and the proposed treatment units.

Species Effects

Potential direct effects to aquatic species as a result of Alternative 4 are similar to Alternative 2 and the 

discussion under that Alternative.

The probability of individuals being affected would be greatest for YT. Figure 3-7-14 displayed 

unoccupied potential habitat is available within the 1500 m dispersal distance evaluated by Liang (per. 

comm. 2010). The current distribution and its spatial relation to other occupied sites indicate some level 

of separation despite there being meadows (potential habitat) within the zone of separation. Localized 

populations isolated in this manner may be prone to extinction (Hanski 1999) due to inability to recolonize

Riparian Canopy Cover: Of all the activities being proposed by Alternative 4, thinning and 

underburning have the greatest potential to directly affect riparian canopy cover and/or stream and 

meadow shading. Effects would similar to those discussed under Alternative 2 and there would be no 

change to riparian canopy cover anticipated under Alternative 4 

Water Temperature: It is anticipated that riparian canopy cover would meet the desired condition of 

>50% under Alternative 4. Similar to Alternative 2, it is anticipated that the majority of the trees would 

be retained and the inner 50-foot “No Treatment” zone would reduce the probability of angular solar 

radiation. Effects from underburning would be similar to Alternative 2. There would be no change to 

water temperatures anticipated under Alternative 4. 

Flow: Reductions in basal area and canopy cover as a result of implementing alternative 4 will range 

from 0 to 6 % and 0 to 12%, respectively. Based on literature, it is unlikely that these reductions will 

affect water timing or magnitude of flows (Aebly 2010).

Herbicides: Under Alternative 4 there would use of herbicides to release plantations and remove 

noxious weeds. Effects to be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.

Habitat alteration: Most of the indirect effects to herpetofauna would be related to habitat alteration. 

Table 3-7-20 displays the amount of species habitat potentially affected by Alternative 4. Similar to 

Alternative 2, thinnings are proposed within the red fir, Sierra mixed-conifer, and ponderosa pine CWHR 

types. The primary changes reduce size group 5 to size group 4 for a 20-30 year period based on 

silvicultural modeling. CWHR habitat quality would remain unchanged for all species except YT based on 

projected stands following thinning. For YT, a reduction in stand density for smaller diameter lodgepole 

pine would improve the habitat quality based on CWHR. Changes to microclimate (such as increased air 

temperatures and lower relative humidity) may not be accounted for at the CWHR scale. 

Sediment: No significant impacts are expected in either the Providence or Bull management units 

because soil compaction is expected to be minimal, soil cover and disturbed soil would meet Regional 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-63

Soil S&G requirements, and erosion control measures would be implemented in a timely manner

(Gallegos 2010).

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 7.3 acres of habitat occurs thinning or underburn (no 

thin). Effects would similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.

Wet Meadow Habitat: No treatments within meadows are proposed. Wet meadows are 100 feet AMZs 

surrounding them, within treatments limited to the outer 50 feet. Effects would similar to those 

discussed under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Effects from actions not part of the KREW Research Project were previously disclosed under Alternative 

1.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Foreseeable actions and Alternative 4 would include SMZs (including private 

land operating under THPs. Cumulative effects to riparian canopy cover would similar to those 

discussed under Alternative 2 and it is expected that riparian canopy cover would be maintained at 

current levels under Alternative 4.

Water Temperature: Riparian canopy cover would be anticipated to remain at current levels based on 

use of Class I SMZs (minimum 100 ft) that include No Action of the inner 50 ft. A cumulative effect to 

water temperature would not be anticipated through implementation of Alternative 4. 

Flow: As noted under direct and indirect effects, reductions in basal area and canopy cover as a result of 

implementing alternative 4 will range from 0 to 6 % and 0 to 12%, respectively. Based on literature, it is 

unlikely that these reductions will affect water timing or magnitude of flows (Aebly 2010).

Sediment: The CWEA completed as part of the Project Hydrology Report (Gallegos 2010) indicates 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would result in three subwatersheds exceeding their lower Threshold of 

Concern (TOC) and are at low risk of a CWE. These are subwatersheds are 519.0007, 519.0008, and 

520.0016 (all in Providence treatment unit). None of these subwatersheds would exceed the upper TOC 

of 14%. Effects would similar to Alternative 2.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 35% of habitat occurs within proposed KREW 

treatments or on-going or foreseeable actions, primarily cattle grazing and silviculture/fuels treatments. 

Similar to Alternative 2, no effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment would be anticipated. Habitat 

would be maintained in current condition and level (83 miles).

Wet Meadow Habitat: No KREW treatments are proposed within wet meadows and those treatments 

adjacent to wet meadows would have buffers. All wet meadows are currently undergoing cattle grazing. 

Similar to Alternative 2, habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (208 acres).

Species Summary Effects

Table 3-7-21 provides an overview of other past, present, and foreseeable actions within the analysis 

area in relation to potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna and aquatic MIS habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-64

Table 3-7-21: Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 4

Alternative 4

Potential 

habitat 

(ac)

Grazing 

Primary 

Use (ac)

Rec/OHV 

Effected 

(ac)

Silv Fuels 

Reduction 

(ac)

Roads 

(ac)

KREW 

(ac)

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Affected

Species

California red-legged frog 124 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%

Foothill yellow-legged frog 745 0 0 95 8 14 117 16%

Western pond turtle 1,389 0 0 198 13 35 246 18%

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog

2,524 428 11 379 19 150 987 39%

Yosemite toad 259 259 0 0 1 0 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 587 0 0 37 826 1450 42%

Lacustrine/Riverine habitat 101 12.8 0.6 14.2 0.5 7.3 35.4 35%

CWHR Wet Meadow Habitat 208 208 0 16.2 0 0 208 100%

* occupied habitat

Cumulative effects to CRLF, FYLF, WPT, MYLF, YT and aquatic MIS habitat would be as discussed under 

Alternative 2.

Overall, Alternative 4 has a higher potential to adversely affect the aquatic species and habitat than 

Alternative 1 (No Action) in the short term (10 years). Effects would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative 2. The determinations for Alternative 4 are shown in Table 3-7-26, along with the rationale 

for the determination. 

3-7.4.6 Alternative 5 – Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, the FS would apply treatments on the majority of the acres in Providence 

and Bull units for ecological restoration and study their short- and long-term effects at the watershed 

scale. This alternative is considered a hybrid approach since it combines the treatment designs of two of 

the action alternatives separated by the experimental watershed boundary. Outside of the watershed 

boundaries, the North GTR strategy of Alternative 4 would be applied, and inside the experimental 

watersheds, the uneven-aged management strategy of Alternative 2 would be applied. Under Alternative 

5, the Proposed Action, the FS would conduct separate thinning operations within and outside the 

boundaries of the experimental watersheds on the KREW units. This alternative complies with the 2004 

SNFPA which states that “trees 30 inches dbh and larger would be retained in all thinning projects” 

(USDA – Forest Service 2004). This also meets the 2004 SNFPA desired conditions that Spotted Owl 

HRCA and Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Areas have at least 50% habitat cover. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

The analysis area includes habitat for special interest herpetofauna. Table 3-7-22 displays the acres of 

habitat within areas proposed for treatment under Alternative 5.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-65

Calif. 

redlegged 

frog

Foothill 

yellowlegged 

frog

Western 

pond 

turtle

Sierra 

Nevada

yellowlegged frogYosemite 

toad Streams WTM

Table 3-7-22: Alternative 

5 Ac. 124 56 108 297 970 10.6 31.5

Thinnings 1668 0 14 35 116 678 6 0

General Forest Thin 618 0 2 6 45 425

Old Forest Emphasis Thin 59 0 0 8 31

Canyon/fisher thin 189 0 9 17 38 29

Neutral Aspect thin 400 0 1 4 13 39

South/west aspect thin 402 0 1 8 12 154

 Hand pile 15 0

 Lop & scatter 714 0

 Mastication 227 0 0 0 9 24

 Tractor pile 670 0 0 0 41 359

No thin, Under burn 667 0 0 0 34 148 1.5 0

No Treatments 759 124 43 73 147 144 3.1 31.5

* analysis of occupied sites for Yosemite toad

Streams = Lacustrine/Riverine

WTM = CWHR Wet Meadow

California red-legged frog: No treatments are proposed within 300 feet of suitable breeding habitat 

identified for this species. No direct effects would be anticipated, although USFWS protocol surveys have 

not been conducted within the potential habitat and presence is assumed.

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Approximately 14 acres of potential habitat would be treated under 

Alternative 5. The proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning 

proposed within potential habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment 

units or the analysis area.

Western pond turtle: Approximately 35 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 

5. Proposed thinnings would be followed by lop and scatter of fuels, with no burning proposed within 

potential habitat. The species is documented within the analysis area, but not within the project 

treatment units.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: Approximately 116 acres of potential habitat would be treated 

under Alternative 2. Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling 

(41 ac), and mastication (5 ac), in addition to 34 acres of underburning proposed within potential 

habitat. The species has not been documented within the proposed treatment units or the analysis area.

Yosemite toad: Approximately 826 acres of potential habitat would be treated under Alternative 5. 

Proposed thinnings would be followed by fuels treatments including tractor piling (359 ac), and 

mastication (24 ac), in addition to 148 acres of underburning proposed within potential habitat. The 

species is documented within the analysis area and the proposed treatment units.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-66

Species Effects

Potential direct effects to aquatic species as a result of Alternative 5 are consistent with Alternatives 2, 3,

and 4 for the segments that would be treated consistent with the description for those alternatives. 

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 4, the probability of individual herpetofauna being affected would be 

greatest for Yosemite toad. Figure 3-7-14 displayed unoccupied potential habitat is available within the 

1500 m dispersal distance evaluated by Liang (per. comm. 2010). The current distribution and its spatial 

relation to other occupied sites indicate some level of separation despite there being meadows 

(potential habitat) within the zone of separation. Localized populations isolated in this manner may be 

prone to extinction (Hanski 1999) due to inability to re-colonize.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Of all the activities being proposed by Alternative 5, thinning and 

underburning have the greatest potential to directly affect riparian canopy cover and/or stream and 

meadow shading. Effects would similar to those discussed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, with no 

changes to riparian canopy cover anticipated.

Water Temperature: It is anticipated that riparian canopy cover would meet the desired condition of > 

50% under Alternative 5. Similar to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, it is anticipated that the majority of the trees 

would be retained and the inner 50-foot “No Treatment” zone will intercept this angular solar radiation 

and reduce the probability of angular solar radiation. Effect from underburning would be similar to 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. There would be no change to water temperatures anticipated under Alternative 

5. 

Flow: Reductions in basal area and canopy cover as a result of Alternative 5 will depend on how much 

of each subwatershed lies within a research area. However, total reductions will not be more than 

either alternative 2, 3, or 4. Based on literature, it is unlikely that these reductions would affect water 

timing or magnitude of flows.

Herbicides: Under Alternative 5 there would use of herbicides to release plantations and remove 

noxious weeds. Effects to be similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.

Habitat alteration: Most of the indirect effects to herpetofauna would be related to habitat alteration. 

Table 3-7-22 displays the amount of species habitat potentially affected by Alternative 5. Similar to 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, thinnings are proposed within the red fir, Sierra mixed-conifer, and ponderosa 

pine CWHR types. The primary change reduce size group 5 to size group 4 for a 20-30 year period based 

on silvicultural modeling. CWHR habitat quality would remain unchanged for all species except 

Yosemite toad based on projected stands following thinning. For YT, a reduction in stand density for 

smaller diameter lodgepole pine would improve the habitat quality based on CWHR. Changes to 

microclimate (such as increased air temperatures and lower relative humidity) may not be accounted 

for at the CWHR scale. 

Sediment: No significant impacts are expected in either the Providence or Bull management units 

because soil compaction is expected to be minimal, soil cover and disturbed soil would meet Regional 

Soil S&G requirements, and erosion control measures would be implemented in a timely manner

(Gallegos 2011).

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 7.3 acres of habitat occurs thinning or underburn (no 

thin). Effects would similar to those discussed under Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-67

Wet Meadow Habitat: No treatments within meadows are proposed. Wet meadows are 100 feet AMZs 

surrounding them, within treatments limited to the outer 50 feet. Effects would similar to those 

discussed under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Effects from actions not part of the KREW Research Project were previously disclosed under Alternative 

1. The discussion under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is relevant for Alternative 5 as well.

Riparian Canopy Cover: Foreseeable actions and Alternative 5 would include SMZs (including private 

land operating under THPs (CDFG 2005)). Cumulative Effects to riparian canopy cover would similar to 

those discussed under Alternative 2 and it is expected that riparian canopy cover would be maintained 

at current levels, which meets the desired condition.

Water Temperature: Riparian canopy cover would be anticipated to remain at current levels based on 

use of Class I SMZs (minimum 100 ft) that include No Action of the inner 50 ft. Cumulative Effects to 

water temperature would similar to those discussed under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. A cumulative effect 

to water temperature through implementation of Alternative 5 would not be anticipated. 

Flow: Effects to flow would be similar to those discussed noted under direct and indirect effects.

Sediment: The CWEA completed as part of the Project Hydrology Report (Gallegos 2010) indicates 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would result in three subwatersheds exceeding their lower Threshold of 

Concern (TOC) and are at low risk of a CWE. These are subwatersheds are 519.0007, 519.0008, and 

520.0016 (all in Providence treatment unit). None of these subwatersheds would exceed the upper TOC 

of 14%. Effects would similar to Alternative 2.

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat: Approximately 35% of habitat occurs within proposed KREW 

treatments or on-going or foreseeable actions, primarily cattle grazing and silviculture/fuels treatments. 

Similar to Alternative 2, no effects to flow, stream shading, or sediment would be anticipated. Habitat 

would be maintained in current condition and level (83 miles).

Wet Meadow Habitat: No KREW treatments are proposed within wet meadows and those treatments 

adjacent to wet meadows would have buffers. All wet meadows are currently undergoing cattle grazing. 

Similar to Alternative 2, habitat would be maintained in current condition and level (208 acres).

Species Summary Effects

Table 3-7-23 provides an overview of other past, present, and foreseeable actions within the analysis 

area in relation to potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna and aquatic MIS habitat. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-68

Table 3-7-23: Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 5

Alternative 5

Potentia

l habitat 

(ac)

Grazing 

Primary 

Use (ac)

Rec/OHV 

Effected 

(ac)

Silv Fuels 

Reduction 

(ac)

Roads 

(ac)

KREW 

(ac)

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Species/Habitat Types Affected

California red-legged frog 124 0 0 0 2 0 2 2%

Foothill yellow-legged frog 745 0 0 95 8 14 117 16%

Western pond turtle 1,389 0 0 198 13 35 246 18%

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog

2,524 428 11 379 19 150 987 39%

Yosemite toad 259 259 0 0 1 0 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 587 0 0 37 826 1450 42%

Lacustrine/Riverine habitat 101 12.8 0.6 14.2 0.5 7.3 35.4 35%

CWHR Wet Meadow Habitat 208 208 0 16.2 0 0 208 100%

* occupied habitat

Cumulative effects to CRLF, FYLF, WPT, MYLF, YT and aquatic MIS habitat would be as discussed under 

Alternative 2.

Overall, Alternative 5 has a higher potential to adversely affect the aquatic species and habitat than 

Alternative 1 (No Action) in the short term (10 years). Effects would be similar to those discussed under 

Alternative 2. The determinations for Alternative 5 are shown in Table 3-7-26, along with the rationale 

for the determination. 

3-7.5 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-7-24 summarizes the five alternatives’ affects on habitat and indicators. All of the action 

alternatives (2-5) treat the same acres of ground, through variations of thinning and burning. Through 

application of project design measures (including Forest LRMP standards and guidelines), changes to 

flow, riparian canopy cover, and water temperature would not be anticipated under any of the 

alternatives. Road maintenance under the action alternatives may decrease the amount of sediment that 

is currently being generated by roads relative to Alternative 1 (No Action). Habitat acres would 

primarily be modified by a reduction in stand density and in some instances size class. Under the CWHR 

model, these changes do not result in a change in quality rating for the herpetofauna species evaluated. 

The system may not reflect possible changes in microclimate within these stands. The retention of larger 

diameter trees under Alternative 3 may reduce possible effects to microclimate relative to the other 

action alternatives. 

Individual herpetofauna may be subject to crushing or incineration by actions being considered under 

the project. Cumulatively, habitat for both MYLF and YT is being widely affected across the analysis area 

by on-going and foreseeable actions. Potential effects would be most likely to YT. Extensive habitat for 

this species would be treated by thinning and/or burning. On-going monitoring of adult toads following 

breeding indicates movements of several hundred meters to foraging sites within stands that would be 

treated. The number of adults is small (most meadows less than 20 adult toads) and the Bull Creek 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-69

watershed occupied complex (group of occupied meadows) appears to reproductively isolated from 

nearest occupied sites beyond the watershed.

Alternative 1 would have the least effects to species and habitat, until at some point a fire occurs. The 

extent and severity of the effects would vary depending on a variety of factors, although current fuel 

loading may increase the severity. 

None of the Alternatives would be expected to alter the existing trend in habitat for the 

lacustrine/riverine or the wet meadow MIS habitats across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Table 3-7-24: Summary table for aquatic/riparian habitat and indicators for the KREW Research Project.

Potential 

habitat 

(ac)

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Cum. 

Effect 

(ac)

% 

Habitat 

Species/Habitat/Indicator Affected

California red-legged frog 124 0 0 0 0 0 2 2%

Foothill yellow-legged frog 745 0 14 14 14 14 103 16%

Western pond turtle 1,389 0 35 35 35 35 211 18%

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog

2,524 0 150 150 150 150 837 39%

Yosemite toad 259 0 259 259 259 259 259 100%

Yosemite toad* 3,442 0 826 826 826 826 377 35%

Lacustrine/Riverine 101 0 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.3 28.1 35%

Wet Meadow 208 0 0 0 0 0 208 100%

Riparian Canopy Cover DC DC DC DC DC DC

Water Temperature DC DC DC DC DC DC

Flow NC NC NC NC NC NC

Sediment NC NC NC NC NC NC

* occupied habitat

DC = Desired Condition

NC = No Change anticipated

The determinations for each of the threatened, endangered, candidate, and FSS species are shown in 

Tables 3-7-25 and 3-7-26 for the KREW Research Project. The complete analysis of these species is 

within the Aquatic/Riparian Species BA & BE for the FEIS for the KREW Research Project (Strand 2011).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-70

Table 3-7-25: Effects determinations for the Alternative 1 (No Action)

Species

Status Determination Rationale for the Determination

California red-legged frog 

threatened No effect No anticipated impacts to species or habitat from 

Alternative 1.

Foothill yellow-legged frog 

Forest Service sensitive No effect No anticipated impacts to species or habitat from 

Alternative 1.

Western pond turtle Forest 

Service sensitive No effect No anticipated impacts to species or habitat from 

Alternative 1.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog 

Candidate/Forest Service 

sensitive

No effect No anticipated impacts to species or habitat from 

Alternative 1.

Yosemite toad 

Candidate/Forest Service 

sensitive

No effect No anticipated impacts to species or habitat from 

Alternative 1.

The Action Alternatives (2-5) treat the same acres of ground both through thinning, fuels reductions, 

and plantation release. Alternative 3 thins to a lower diameter limit than the other alternatives, and does 

include herbicides. The primary effects to habitat are a reduction in CWHR size that does not affect the 

habitat quality rating, although effects to microclimate (relative humidity and air temperature) may not 

be reflected in the rating. The diameter limit in alternative 3 may result in reduced effects to 

microclimate relative to the other action alternatives, although the determinations for all species (Table 

3-7-26) are similar.

Table 3-7-26: Effects determinations for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5

Species and 

status

Determination Rational for the Determinations for Proposed Action

California redlegged frog

threatened

May affect, not 

likely adversely 

affect

Species not detected during herpetofauna surveys, but 

species protocol surveys not conducted. 

Closest known population is approximately 90 air-miles 

from the project area

This species has not historically been found on the Sierra 

NF and potential breeding habitat is limited. 

Three potential breeding sites were identified through 

USFWS Habitat Assessment.

USFWS recommended measures for species are part of 

project design.

No proposed actions within 300 feet of potential 

breeding habitat.

Haul of timber would utilize road traversing through 

potential breeding habitat.

Big Creek drops 1000 feet elevation over a one mile 

stream segment isolating the sites from other potential 

breeding sites. Migration barriers, spring runoff scouring 

flows, and introduced fish all further diminish suitability 

of habitat for this species. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-71

Foothill yellowlegged frog

sensitive

May affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability.

Only one known population on Sierra National Forest (8 

miles from analysis area), and it is not within dispersal 

distance of the KREW Research Project.

Species not detected during surveys

14 acres potential habitat affected, primarily reduction in 

CWHR size and density

Project affects to microclimate beyond riparian corridors 

could affect dispersal habitat

Western pond 

turtle

sensitive

May affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability.

Known locations of WPT within analysis area 

subwatersheds.

Not detected during project area surveys.

35 acres potential habitat affected, primarily reduction in 

CWHR size and density

Project affects to microclimate beyond riparian corridors 

could affect dispersal habitat

Mountain yellowlegged frog

candidate/sensitive

May affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability.

Nearest known site approximately 2.5 miles from Bull 

project area

Not all potential habitat surveyed. Occupancy assumed.

150 acres of potential habitat affected, primarily 

reduction in CWHR size and density 

Project affects to microclimate beyond riparian corridors 

could affect dispersal habitat

Yosemite toad

candidate/sensitive

May affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability

Six occupied meadows identified within Bull unit. Two 

other occupied meadows within dispersal distance of 

species.

Over 820 acres of potential habitat (based on CWHR 900 

m buffers around occupied meadows) affected by 

project. 

Based on telemetry data collected from occupied 

meadows, it is likely that adult toads use sites proposed 

for thinning, tractor piling, and underburning. Adult 

mortality may result from project actions.

Localized populations in Bull Creek watershed resemble 

a meta-population. The distance to nearest occupied 

meadow complexes is beyond dispersal range of species, 

suggesting isolation by the Bull Creek occupied sites. 

Considering the apparent isolation of these sites and the 

small populations there is a possibility of local 

extirpation.

Sierra National Forest has located over 200 additional 

occupied breeding meadows since the species 

determination as a candidate (2002).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-7 – Aquatic Biota 3.7-72

Conservation Recommendation: Study of YT in the KREW watershed has provided new information 

on the movement patterns of adults following breeding. This information indicates adult move several 

hundred meters to foraging sites within forested areas that are proposed for thinning, mastication, 

tractor piling, burning, and underburning. It is probable that direct mortality on adults may result from 

these actions. There has been consideration that alteration of the fire regime and lodgepole pine 

encroachment has resulted in breeding habitat declines for this species. It is probable that the FS will 

propose future actions similar to those implemented under the KREW Research Project within potential 

and occupied habitat for YT. KREW research studies should continue telemetry monitoring of adult YT

movements during project implementation including post-project treatments. This information would 

add to an understanding of the species ecology and risks associated with management actions within its 

habitat.