Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

76. For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation
treatments within approximately % mile of the nest site during the breeding season (February 15
through September 15) unless surveys confirm that northern goshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand
within a protected activity center (PAC) is unknown, either apply the LOP to a %4- mile area surrounding

the PAC, or survey to determine the nest stand location. Vegetation treatments as designed to meet forest
h obj ined in C) atives in Detail roject
ccur ii k PAC: mb ithin the KRE) j ndary (tl i E
an ing the i ‘on ph ne

Fisher Den Sites (S&G#85): “Protect fisher den site buffers from disturbance with a limited operating
period (LOP) from March 1 through June 30 for vegetation treatments as long as habitat remains
suitable or until another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented. The LOP may be
waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation documents
that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration,

timing, and specific location.”  Veget ation treatments as designed to meet. forest health objectives and
fine: 2, Alteri red in REW. ccur i)
Uy innin in the fun ithin the KRE

Vegetation Management

Spotted Owl Mechanical Thinning (S&G # 70) - Within Home Rang Core Areas: Where existing
vegetative considerations permit, design projects to retain at least 50% canopy cover averaged
within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed in limited situations where additional trees must
be removed to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide sufficient spacing for equipment operations
or minimize re-entry. Where 50% canopy cover retention cannot be met for reasons described
above, retain at least 40% canopy cover averaged within the treatment. Outside Home Range Core
Areas: Where existing vegetative conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50% canopy
cover within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed where project objectives require additional
canopy modifications (such as the need to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide for safe and
efficient equipment operations, minimize re-entry, design cost efficient treatments, and/or
significantly reduce stand density.) Where canopy cover must be reduced below 50%, retain at least
40% canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. Within California spotted owl PACs: Where
treatment is necessary, remove only material needed to meet project fuels objectives. Focus on
removal of surface and ladder fuels.

Spotted Owl PACs (S&G # 71): When designing treatment unit intersections with PACs, limit
treatment acres to those necessary to achieve strategic placement objectives and avoid treatments
adjacent to nest stands whenever possible. If nesting or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically
treated, mitigate by adding acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treated acres using adjacent acres of
comparable quality wherever possible.

Spotted Owl PACs (S&G # 72): Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives
in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in WUI threat
zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding
PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels
strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed to maintain habitat structure and function of
the PAC.

Spotted Owl PACs (S&G # 73): While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected
activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, they are
prohibited within 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center within the designated

10


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Forest Service Sensitive Plants

1. Avoid impacts to known occurrences of sensitive plants within the management units. Known
occurrences are shown on maps in GIS.

2. To protect threatened and sensitive plant species that grow in rock outcrops and associated
gravel soils:

a. Do not fell trees or drive equipment or vehicles on rock outcrops or on thin, sandy or
gravelly soils.

b. Consult with a FS botanist before cutting hand line through shallow, gravelly soils.

c. Donotuse herbicides on shallow soils below 3,800 feet in elevation without prior
approval from the botanist (this may require a springtime survey prior to application, at
the botanist’s discretion).

d. Avoid hand thinning of shrubs on rock outcrops or associated gravelly soils unless
approved by the botanist.

e. Consider areas occupied by sensitive plants whether the maps in the Biological
Evaluation show known occurrences or not. Planning would occur far enough in
advance that further surveys could be done and appropriate design measures put in
place if project activities would use an area of unknown occupancy.

f. Do not build temporary roads through areas of thin, gravelly soils until plant surveys of
the proposed routes are complete, or the botanist has approved the road location.

3. During prescribed fire, protect areas of known sensitive plant occurrences below 4,500 feet in
elevation from mid-February through July. For burns conducted February through July in these
areas, provide enough lead time for the botanist to be able to conduct pre and post monitoring
of sensitive plants in the area (based on botanist's discretion).

Prevention of Spread of Noxious Weeds

a. All heavy equipment used for implementing the project would be washed before arriving on site
to remove soil and seeds of noxious weeds. This is to ensure that weed seeds or propagules are not
inadvertently introduced into the project area.

b. Infestations of noxious weeds occurring in treatment units or other areas such as landings
where they are likely to be spread as a result of project activities would be removed prior to project
implementation. Because these areas would still have soil contaminated with seeds of the weeds, a
buffer zone would be flagged for avoidance to prevent heavy equipment from transporting seeds to
other areas within the project boundary and beyond. In some cases it may be necessary to wash
equipment after working in an infested unit prior to moving to a clean area elsewhere within the
project boundary and/or upon exiting the project area altogether.

c Any seeding, planting, or mulching for erosion control would be pre-approved by the Forest
Botanist to minimize the likelihood of accidental introduction of noxious weeds and to ensure
compliance with the FS Pacific Southwest Region Native Plant Policy.

d. Follow noxious weed management goals identified in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2081.2 by
the following: Prevent the introduction of new invaders; conduct early treatment of new infestations;
contain and control established infestations. To reduce the potential spread of noxious weeds, clean
heavy equipment of soil and plant parts before bringing onto the National Forest and before beginning
work in a new management unit, if previously working in an infested unit.


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

those areas to increase visual interest and attract wildlife. The edges of the islands will be
feathered and undulated to create a near-natural appearance.

7. Tree marking (painting) and flagging should be done in a manner that screens these indicators
from view of Dinkey Creek Road and McKinley Grove Road.

14


National Register of Historic Places resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to
archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with Section 106.

Tn accordance with the Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), a cultural resource identification
effort was conducted of the APE by a professional archaeologist. The goal was to identify
cultural resources at risk of adverse effects from the proposed actions. Results of this
investigation are reported in Cultural Resource Management of the Kings River Experimental
Watershed Forest Health and Research Project (KREW Bull and KREW Providence Units), High
Sierra Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, R2011051552001 (Marsh 2010). No direct effects
to cultural resources with archaeological values are anticipated from implementation of my
decision. Specific protection and management measures derived from the Regional PA would be
applied to archaeological sites as project design measures (FEIS Chapter 2). All National
Register eligible and potentially eligible properties would be managed for no effect (per the
Regional PA) from project activities. (FEIS Sections 3-3,1.2.2 and 3-3.5.1).

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based on
stipulations within the Regional PA. My decision would be in compliance with historic
preservation law, policy and regulation, as this project meets the stipulations of the Regional PA
(FEIS Section 3-12).

Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (issued
February 11, 1994), requires that each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice
part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high or
adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations. None of the alternatives disproportionately
affect minority and low-income populations. (FEIS Chapter 3-13).

Clean Water Act (CWA): The Clean Water Act delegates authority for management of water
quality to the states, and waives sovereign immunity for state and local laws pertaining to water-
quality protection. Compliance with the federal CWA is primarily through the California Porter-
Cologne Act as administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin
Plans and implementation of Best Management Practices (FEIS Chapter 3-6 and FEIS Appendix
B). The Water Resources analysis concluded that my decision complies with the CWA through
implementation of the design criteria and BMPs listed in FEIS Appendices A and C. The CWA
also regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC
1344) prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the
United States without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands
are regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 404).
No dredging or filling is part of this decision and no permits are required.

Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA): The CAA provides for the protection and enhancement of the
nation’s air resources. Under the General Conformity Rule my decision has been determined to
comply with this Act and the California State Implementation Plan through the implementation of
treatments following Best Available Control Measures (BACMs) for prescribed burning as well
as Rules and Regulations established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
and Mountain Counties Air Pollution Control District as required under section 190 of this Act, as
amended in 1990. No exceedance of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is
expected to result from any of the alternatives (FEIS Section 3-1).

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973: The Forest Service is directed to comply with this Act
and does so through Biological Assessments that are used to analyze the effects of the proposed

35


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project
BMP Name, Objective, and Application to the KREW Project
irection

Pesticide Containers and Equipment: To
prevent water contamination resulting from
cleaning or disposal of pesticide containers.

Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and directives.

BMP 5-12 Streamside Wet Area Protection
During Pesticide Spraying: To minimize the
risk of pesticide inadvertently entering
waters, or unintentionally altering the
riparian area, SMZ, or wetland.

When spraying glyphosate, an untreated strip of land and vegetation will be left
alongside surface waters, wetlands, riparian areas, or SMZ. Strip widths established by
the IDT are 5 feet for dry channels and 25 feet for flowing channels (see Herbicide Use
design criteria).

BMP 6-2 Consideration of Water Quality in
Formulating Fire Prescriptions: To provide

for water quality protection while achieving
the management objectives through the use
of prescribed fire.

Prescribed buming is planned at the minimum intensity and severity necessary to achieve
management objectives, and each Burn Plan will incorporate all relevant design
measures from this EIS.

BMP 6-3 Protection of Water Quality from
Prescribed fire Effects: To maintain soil
productivity, minimize erosion, and
minimize ash, sediment, nutrients, and
debris from entering water bodies.

Fires will be allowed to back into riparian vegetation, but direct lighting within riparian
vegetation will not occur.

All fire lines within RCAs and CARs will be water barred per BMP 1-17 spacing
requirements. Fire lines within RCA (ie., 150 ft, seasonal streams, and 300 ft, perennial
streams, springs, and meadows) will be designed and constructed to reduce sediment
entry into channels. Fire lines in RCAs will cross perpendicular to streams and follow
the natural landscape contour as much as possible, Firelines within the SMZ will be
hand cut. Waterbars will be placed on either side of each stream crossing to prevent or
reduce sediment entry into streams.

BMP 7-3 Protection of Wetlands: To avoid
adverse water quality impacts associated
with destruction, disturbance, or
modification of wetlands.

Ground disturbing activities will not occur in wetlands or meadows.

BMP 7-4 Oil and Hazardous Substance
Spill Contingency Plan and Spill Prevention
Containment and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan: To prevent contamination of water
from accidental spills.

A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure plan (SPCC) must be
prepared if hazardous materials (including fuels and oils) stored on the Sierra National
Forest exceed 1320 gallons, or if a single container exceeds 660 gallons.

The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of hazardous materials
located in the project area, pre-project identified locations for hazardous materials
storage and fueling/maintenance activities (must be located outside of RCA and CAR
unless prior approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist is obtained), methods
for containment of hazardous materials and contents of on-site emergency spill kit, and a
contingency plan (including contact names with phone numbers) to implement in the
event of a spill.

The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to project implementation.

Appendix A

A-7



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius buffer. Hand treatments, including
hand line construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be
conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat. Treatments in
the remainder of the PAC use the forest wide standards and guidelines for mechanical thinning.

Great Gray Owl PACs (S&G # 84): In meadow areas of great gray owl PACs maintain herbaceous
vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species. Follow
regional guidance to determine potential prey species and associated habitat requirements at the
project level.

The following are the minor-amendments requested for Pacific fisher den buffer and
California spotted owl PACs and home range vegetation management standards and
guidelines — changes are underlined.

86. “Avoid fuel treatments in fisher densite buffers to the extent possible. If areas within densite buffers
must be treated to achieve fuels objectives of the urban wildland intermix zone, limit treatments to
mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder and surface fuels to achieve fuels objectives. Use piling or
mastication to treat surface fuels during initial treatment. Burning of piled debris is allowed. Prescribed
fire ‘may be used to to treat fuels ifne no other reasonable alternative exists.” _Hegetation treatments as

a h r 2, Alt

“74, 1n PACs located outside the WUI, limit stand-altering activities to reducing surface and ladder fuels
through prescribed fire treatments. In forested stands with overstory trees 11 inches dbh and greater,
design prescribed fire treatments to have an average flame length of 4 feet or less, Hand treatments,
including handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be
conducted prior to burning 2 as s needed t to te important elements of owl habitat. “ Vegetation

id defined in Ch ati idere

Design Criteria to Ensure Retention of Key Wildlife Habitat Features
These apply to all areas and all alternatives (except where noted).

In addition to the above standards and guidelines for wildlife, the following Wildlife Best
Management Practices (WIdBMPs) would be implemented to reduce impacts and retain important
wildlife habitat features.

e¢ WIdBMP 1- Project Level LOP - A Project-Level LOP (unique to this project and different from
the SNFPA-ROD 2004 LOP S&G) would be implemented for the period of February 1 through
June 15 for all mechanical vegetation management treatments to avoid disturbance during the
most vulnerable spring period for denning and nesting (e-g., fisher, marten, spotted owls,
goshawks). Also, spring under story burning would not occur from February 1 to mid-May
(exact date in mid-May would vary according to weather opportunities) to avoid the most
vulnerable period of wildlife denning and nesting.

¢ WIdBMP 2- All mature oaks, >8 inches dbh would be retained, unless they are a hazard to
operations. Decadent oaks maybe left overtopped by conifers, whereas conifer canopy cover
around the more vibrant growing oaks would be cleared enough to allow further growth and
survival of oak trees (also refer to the vegetation management prescriptions).

Appendix A A-11


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

AQUATICS

Yosemite toad population and habitat monitoring requested under Technical Assistance from the
USFWS should be continued through implementation of all treatments. Annually monitor water
temperature at representative sites within treatment areas and within control units for the life of the
KREW Project.

HERITAGE

In accordance with the stipulations of the First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement,
monitoring will be conducted as necessary to ensure that identified cultural resource protection
measures are effective. Sierra NF heritage program staff will determine the schedule and requirements
for monitoring, based on the project implementation schedule and locations of cultural resources. A
record will be completed of each monitoring event, and included in the Forest's Programmatic

Agreement annual report.

HUMAN HEALTH FOR GLYPHOSATE AND RO11 APPLICATION

Herbicide use is proposed for the KREW Project in reforestation areas. There is little chance
glyphosate or the surfactant R11 will reach waterways, following application by ground spraying;
however in response to concerns by Californians for Alternatives to Toxics on past projects similar to
KREW Project, the High Sierra Ranger District plans to carry out monitoring to test for glyphosate and
R11 in waterways.

SAMPLE COLLECTION

Background data for this project will be collected prior to application. When a perennial stream is
adjacent to an application area, one sample will be gathered from the stream above and below the
application area prior to spraying glyphosate and R-11. Sample collection will be accomplished
according to Standard Methods. (Standard Methods, 20t edition, page 1-27, 1-28). Sample bottles
will be obtained from a certified water quality laboratory. Bottles will be prepared by the laboratory
in accordance with standard methods for the detection of glyphosate (page 6-114). Sample bottles
for R-11 only need to be one liter plastic or glass. Samples will be collected for analysis of both
glyphosate and R11 as follows:

1. Samples will be collected the day prior to the application.

2. The day of the application, samples will be collected immediately following application of the
chemicals.

3. Additional samples will be collected daily during project implementation.

4, Additional sampling at the same locations in perennial streams adjacent to application areas will
be collected following a significant rain event within 90 days of application. Significant means a
rain that result in overland runoff.

QUALITY CONTROL

1. A blank sample of distilled water in a similar container for each chemical will be included with
the transported samples for quality control. It will be labeled similarly to the other bottles. It
should not be labeled as Distilled Water.

2. Individual(s) collecting the samples will not be allowed to come in contact with any spray
apparatus, or bulk containers of glyphosate or R-11. Samplers will not ride in vehicles with

people doing the application or come in contact with them during or after application or mixing

of chemicals.

3. A spiked sample containing the chemicals may included with the transported samples to test for

the laboratory accuracy.

Appendix A A-17


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Mdws

Glyphosate
application x | xX | xX | 45 15} x | x

Limit Thinning

Plantations (beetle | X x x x xX
habitat)

PAC

Spotted Owls

Prohibit veg xX xX x xX 15
treatments w/in %

Great Gray Owl

Prohibit veg
treatments and xX x
road construction

w/in % mile of PAC

Fisher

Protect Den Site x x x x 15
from disturbance

Goshawk xX xX X X 15

Visual Resources (Visual Quality):
The following are the design measures for visual resources:

1.

Tree stumps that are highly visible (i.e. within view of a 300-foot distance) from Dinkey Creek
Road and McKinley Grove Road, will be cut to a 6-inch maximum height from the uphill side.

Construct temporary roads in a manner that closely duplicates the existing contour lines, with a
minimum degree of landform alteration limiting the amount of earthwork. Avoid excessive cut
and fill slopes for road construction. Avoid straight linear road construction. Design and
construct temporary roads so that they will not be highly visible from Dinkey Creek Road and
McKinley Grove Road. Use BMPs and avoid road outcrops or sensitive areas. Upon completion,
where the road access is no longer necessary to implement the project, the temporary roads will
be closed and restored using native vegetation.

Restrict burn piles to occur within existing openings. Locate burn piles in areas where they
would not be highly visible from Dinkey Creek Road and McKinley Grove Road. Locate burn
piles at a minimum distance of 150 feet away from these roads. Piles in these areas should burn
with more than 90 percent consumption. If 90 percent consumption is not reached (and the
remaining fuels still meet the fuels objectives), the remnant slash will be scattered throughout
the site. Efforts will be made to burn these piles within three years.

Restrict landings to occur within existing openings. Do not locate landings perpendicular to
main arterial roads when possible to eliminate direct views into landings from these roads.
Minimize landing sizes and locate landings where they would not be highly visible from Dinkey
Creek Road and McKinley Grove Road.

In those areas where skid trails are highly visible from Dinkey Creek Road and McKinley Grove
Road, the skid trails will be rehabilitated so that they are not visually evident within three years.

Firelines will follow natural contours whenever possible. Underburns will be conducted to
produce low intensity fire to minimize mortality to the overstory. While meeting the fuels
objectives in the broadcast burn units of shrub species, retain islands of unburned vegetation in

Appendix A A-13




Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Soils:

substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large
diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to
provide nesting structure. When determining snag retention levels and locations, consider land
allocation, desired condition, landscape position, potential prescribed burning and fire
suppression line locations, and site conditions (such as riparian areas and ridge tops) avoiding
uniformity across large areas.

The general guidelines for large-snag retention are as follows:
Westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types - four of the largest snags per acre.

Use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet this guideline. Snags should be clumped and
distributed irregularly across the treatment areas. Consider leaving fewer snags strategically
located in treatment areas within the WUI. When some snags are expected to be lost due to
hazard removal or the effects of prescribed fire, consider these potential losses during project
planning to achieve desired snag retention levels.”

All snags >15 inches in dbh that are not hazards to humans or firefighter safety would be
retained within the southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Area, old forest emphasis areas,
and spotted owl home range and core areas. In the defense and threat zones, the four largest
snags per acre would be retained except for health and safety reasons.

Snag Felling: Snags can be felled for fireline construction if they meet the definition of a danger
tree as defined in the Forest Service Handbook 7709.59, Chapter. 40 or in the National Wildfire
Coordination Group (NWCG) Fire Line Handbook Chapters 1 and 2.; have the potential to fall
across prescribed fire control lines, and/or pose a threat to firefighter safety during prescribed
fire implementation. All snags not meeting the hazardous tree criteria would remain as standing
snags within the project area.

Snag felling for defensible space would also comply with California State Public Resource Code
4291 in the urban core stands as directed by Forest Service Regional Forester letter dated
December 17, 2009. This letter serves to provide direction for a consistent approach to the
management of defensible space on National Forest System (NFS) lands in California. The
definition of defensible space is found in parts (a)(1) and (a)(2) of California Code - Section
4291.

Where consistent with existing LRMP direction, Forest Supervisors would provide for a one-
hundred foot defensible space minimum (ref. Section 4291) for all structures on administrative
sites, structures authorized by permit, and for developments adjacent to NFS lands. However,
hazardous trees may be found beyond this zone within urban core stands; these trees may
present a danger to the public in recreation areas, along roads and structures and may be
removed if found to be a hazard.

The following are the design measures for soil protection:

1.

For mechanical treatments, outside the KREW research boundaries, leave a 100-foot wide buffer
of 100 percent soil cover below large rock outcrops. These areas have a high potential to
generate runoff that can cause accelerated erosion on soils down slope. Prescribed burning
would employ firing patterns to maximize cover in these areas. This measure is not applied
inside the KREW research boundaries because a research objective is to quantify the amount of
upland erosion and stream sedimentation generated from mechanical treatments.

Conduct tractor-piling operations when the soil is sufficiently dry in the top 12 inches to prevent
unacceptable loss of soil porosity (compaction). Field checking by a soil scientist would be done
to determine if operations could continue under wet soil conditions. Maintain at least 90
percent of the soil porosity over 85 percent of an activity area found under natural conditions.

8




Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project
BMP Name, Objective, and Application to the KREW Project
rection

@ Stream crossings will be designed to provide the most cost efficient drainage
facility consistent with resource protection, facility needs, and legal obligations.

BMP 2-3 Timing of Construction
Activities: To minimize erosion by
conducting operations during minimal
runoff periods and when soils are dry and
Iess prone to compaction.

Ground-disturbing activities will occur when soils are dry. In some cases soils may never
dry sufficiently. Ground-disturbing work that occurs off of existing roads will occur
during the dry season and will reduce ground disturbance as much as possible.

BMP 2-5 Road Slope Stabilization
Construction Practices: To reduce
sedimentation by minimizing erosion from
road slopes and slope failure along roads.

An adequate soils and geologic investigation will be conducted when finalizing new
road construction designs for: correct cut and fill steepness based on the angle of repose
for the type of material; methods to handle surface runoff; and necessary compaction
standards and surfacing needs.

BMP 2-7 Control of Road Drainage: To
minimize the erosive effects of water
concentrated on roads, to disperse runoff
from road surfaces, to lessen sediment yield
from roaded areas, and to minimize erosion
of the road prism.

Newly constructed or reconstructed roads will be designed to reduce hydrologic
connectivity and soil erosion wherever feasible. The sale administrator or other Forest
Service representative will ensure that roads are adequately maintained during project
implementation to ensure that road drainage features function as designed.

BMP 2-8 Constraints Related to Pioneer
Road Construction: To minimize sediment
production and mass wasting from pioneer
road construction.

(@) Roads will be constructed within the planned roadway limits unless otherwise
specified or approved by the ER or COR.

(b) Pioneer roads will be located to prevent undercutting of the designated final cut
slope, avoid deposition of materials outside the designated roadway limits, and
accommodate drainage with temporary culverts or log crossings.

(©) Erosion control work will be completed prior to the rainy season and in accordance
with the contract.

(d) Crossing sites on live streams will be dewatered during construction with diversion
devices (see BMP 2-15).

BMP 2-9 Timely Erosion Control Measures
on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing
Projects: To minimize erosion and
sedimentation from disturbed ground on
incomplete projects.

Erosion control must be completed before the rainy season (usually October in the

KREW project area). Preventative measures for timely erosion control include:

(a) Removal of temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams, or elevated stream
crossings.

(b) Installation of temporary culverts, side drains, flumes, cross drains, diversion
ditches, energy dissipaters, dips, sediment basins, berms, debris racks, or other
facilities needed to control erosion.

(c) Removal of debris, obstructions, and spoil material from channels and floodplains.

(@) Planting vegetation, mulching, and/or covering exposed surfaces with jute mates or
other protective material.

BMP 2-10 Construction of Stable
Embankments: To construct embankments
with materials and methods which minimize
the possibility of failure and subsequent
water quality degradation.

Roadways will be designed and constructed as stable and durable earthwork structures
with adequate strength to support the treadway, shoulders, subgrade and road traffic
loads.

BMP 2-11 Control of Sidecast Material
During Construction and Maintenance: To
minimize sediment production originating
from sidecast material during road
construction or maintenance.

Sidecasting is not permitted within SMZs.
Waste areas must be located where excess material can be deposited and stabilized.

BMP 2-12 Servicing and refueling
equipment: To prevent pollutants such as.
fuels, lubricants, bitumens and other
harmful materials from being discharged
into or near rivers, streams and
impoundments, or into natural or man-made
channels.

Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and refueling of
equipment will be conducted at pre-designated locations outside of RCAs and CARs. If
fueling and/or storage of hazardous materials are needed within RCAs or CARs, those
sites must be reviewed and approved by the forest Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist.
‘Additional protection measures, such as containment devices, may be necessary.

BMP 2-13 Control of Construction and
Maintenance Activities Adjacent to SMZs:
To protect water quality by controlling

Construction and maintenance fills, sidecast, and end-hauled materials will be kept out of
SMZs except at designated crossing sites to minimize the effect to the aquatic
environment.

Appendix A

AS



Record of Decision
Project

Kings River Experimental Watershed

Appendix C Best Management Practices

BMP Name, Objective, and
Direction

Application to the KREW Project

BMP 1-1 Timber Sale Planning Process: To
incorporate water quality and hydrologic
considerations into the timber sale planning
process.

Implemented through the Riparian Conservation Objectives/Forest Plan Consistency
report, specification of operational BMPs, Environmental Analysis including
interdisciplinary team office and field discussions, and incorporation of water quality
protection measures in the Timber Sale Contract for the KREW EIS.

BMP 1-4 Use of Sale Area Maps (SAM)
and/or Project Maps for Designating Water
Quality Protection Needs: To ensure
recognition and protection of areas related
to water quality protection delineated on a
SAM or project map.

The sale administrator and purchaser will review these areas on the ground prior to
‘commencement of ground disturbing activities. Examples of water quality protection
features that will be designated on the project map include:

1) Location of streamcourses and riparian zones to be protected, including the width of
the protection zone for each area.

2) Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive areas (such as shallow
soils) to be protected.

3) Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where hauling activities are
prohibited or restricted, areas of different skidding and/or yarding methods,
including post-harvest fuels treatments, and water sources available for purchaser's
use.

BMP 1-5 Limiting the Operating Period of
Timber Sale Activities: To ensure that the
purchasers conduct their operations,
including erosion control work, road
maintenance, and so forth, in a timely
manner, within the time frame specified in
the Timber Sale Contract.

The purchaser’s contract operation period will be limited to contract-specified periods
when adverse environmental effects are not likely. The Sale Administrator will close
down operations due to rainy periods, high water, or other adverse operating conditions
in order to protect resources.

BMP 1-8 Streamside Management Zone
Designation: To designate a zone along
riparian areas, streams and wetlands that
will minimize potential for adverse effects
from adjacent management activities.
Management activities within these zones
are designed to improve riparian values.

Streamside management zones (SMZs ) have been supplemented with RMAs and RCAs.

Within SMZs, the constraints defined in Sierra Supplement No. 1 apply. This includes
no self-propelled ground based equipment, a minimum groundcover of 50%, and shade
canopy may not be modified in a way that affects stream temperature.

Under Alternative 3, harvest in SMZs will follow the SMZ Prescription described in
Watershed Design Measure #2 (following this table) to ensure compliance with these
constraints. Under Alternative 3, Class I and II streams in sub-watersheds with CWE
concerns will have no harvest within SMZs to provide increased protection to these
areas.

Modifications to these guidelines are possible where site-specific needs exist if the action
is reviewed by a hydrologist or fisheries biologist.

BMP 1-9 Determining Tractor Loggable
Ground: To minimize erosion and
sedimentation resulting from ground
disturbance of tractor logging systems.

Limit ground skidding and machine piling with tractors to slopes less than 35%.
Endlining can be used to remove logs from steeper slopes. Ground disturbance on areas
of shallow soils, notably soils adjacent and abutting to rock outcrops, will be avoided.

BMP 1-10 Tractor Skidding Design: By
designing skidding patterns to best fit the
terrain, the volume, velocity, concentration,
and direction of runoff water can be
controlled in a manner that will minimize
erosion and sedimentation.

The sale administrator and purchaser will designate all skid trails prior to ground
disturbing activities. If uncertainty arises regarding potential resource impacts of skid
trail location, consult with an earth science specialist (ic., hydrologist, aquatic biologist,
or soil scientist). Utilize existing skid trails whenever feasible if they are outside an
RCA or SMZ

BMP 1-11 Suspended Log Yarding in
‘Timber harvesting: To protect the soil
mantle from excessive disturbance; to
maintain the integrity of the SMZ or other
sensitive watershed area; to control erosion
on cable corridors.



(tf) or Word (.doc)] formats, may be submitted to appeals-pacificsouthwest-regional-
office @fs.fed.us with Subject: KREW Project.

For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic
acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an
automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure
timely receipt by other means [36 CFR 215.6(a)(4)(iii)].

1.10 Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day appeal period, implementation of the decision may occur
on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are
filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of

the last appeal disposition.
1.11 Contact Person

The FEIS and supporting documents are available for public review at the Sierra National Forest,
Supervisors Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, CA 93611, (559) 297-0706. For further
information on this decision, contact Judi Tapia (jetapia@fs.fed.us), IDT Team Leader at (559)
297- 0706 extension 4938.

ML WSK Werf Zot

SCOTT G. ARMENTROUT Date

Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest

37


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

alternatives. These assessments and evaluations make determinations on Federally-listed
endangered, threatened, candidate and proposed species and their habitat. The analysis was
conducted in part to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant to this
act.

My decision, through the inclusion of design criteria for species covered under this Act as well as
the completion of Biological Assessments for Botanical, Aquatic and Terrestrial species, is in
compliance with this Act. The FS consulted with the USFWS on the red legged frog, the only
T&E species in the project area. The FS also requested technical assistance from the USFWS on
the Yosemite toad. The result of the consultation and technical assistance has been incorporated
into the project thus my decision complies with the Act (FEIS Section 3-9).

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976: The National Forest Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1604) and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528-531) give
direction to National Forests to develop National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans
that (A) insure consideration of the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of
renewable resource management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of
forest resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber,
watershed, wildlife, and fish; (B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on
the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use
objectives, and for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species. As set forth by these
Acts, LRMP, as amended by the SNFPA in 2004, set specific S&Gs which are to be followed
during project level planning and implementation. Although most of the applicable S&Gs in the
SNFPA have been incorporated into the project, eight non-significant plan amendments were
added to the project to allow for the flexibility needed by the research design (See FEIS Sections
1.3.3 and 2.6.1.6).

By the inclusion of design criteria as part of my decision to minimize or eliminate significant
environmental effects from proposed management actions as well as the inclusion of standards
and guidelines from the SNF-LRMP and SNFPA ROD as amended (USDA-FS 2004b) used to
design this project, my decision complies with this Act.

1.9 Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. In accordance with the April 24, 2006
order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Missoula Division of the District of Montana in
Case No. CV 03-119-M-DWM, only those individuals and organizations who provided
comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal [36 CFR 215.11(a), 1993 version].
Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the legal notice in the Fresno
Bee. Notices of appeal must meet the specific content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. An appeal,
including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or
messenger service) with the appropriate Appeal Deciding Officer [36 CFR 215.8] within 45 days
following the publication date of the legal notice. The publication date of the legal notice is the
exclusive means for calculating the time period to file an appeal [36 CFR 215.15 (a)]. Those
wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other
source.

Appeals must be submitted to Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive,

Vallejo, CA 94592, (707) 562-8737. Appeals may be submitted by FAX [(707) 562-9091] or by
hand-delivery to the Regional Office, at the address shown above, during normal business hours
(Monday-Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm). Electronic appeals, in acceptable [plain text (.txt), rich text

36



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

3. Subsoil and water bar skid roads and trails in areas where soils have a high compaction hazard
and compaction exceeds 15 percent of the treatment unit. This includes areas where Holland

family soils occur.
4. Limit tractor piling to slopes less than 35 percent.

Maintain 50 percent soil cover over treatment areas. Where shrub species predominate,
attempt crushing before piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over the site for
soil cover and erosion protection.

6. Prioritize aggregate surfacing of National Forest System Roads (NFSR)}, on sensitive soils (soil
map units 136, 137, 138, 139, & 140), to sub-watersheds that exceed the threshold of concern

(TOC).

Watershed:

1. For prescribed fire units, avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation and or within the SMZ;
prescribed fires may back into SMZ and riparian vegetation areas. For the prescribed fire
treatments inside the KREW research areas, avoid direct lighting within 5 feet of the stream
channel or within riparian vegetation.

2. Locate hazardous material (including oils and fuels) storage and refueling sites outside of RCA
and Critical aquatic refuges (CAR), except at administrative sites and sites covered under a
special use authorization, unless approved by an aquatic or watershed specialist.

3. Do not remove or otherwise alter existing riparian vegetation.

4, Do not build new roads, including temporary roads, within the SMZ unless approved by an
aquatic or watershed specialist.

5. Obliterate temporary roads within the SMZ wherever feasible.

6. Temporary road crossings would be removed and the crossing hydrologically stabilized prior to
the onset of the wet season. This requirement would not apply if the crossing is designed and
constructed to pass the 100-year flood.

Implement all BMPs listed in Appendix C.Wildlife Species:
Standards and Guidelines (SNFPA-ROD 2004) - Limited Operating Periods

Great Gray Owls (S&G #83): Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation
treatments and road construction within approximately % mile of active great gray owl nest stands
during the nesting period (typically March 1 through August 15).

The following are the minor-amendments requested for California spotted owl, Pacific
fisher and northern goshawk LOP standards and guidelines — changes are underlined.

75. “For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation
treatments within approximately % mile of the activity center during the breeding season (March 1
through August 31), unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not present. Prior to
implementing activities within or adjacent to a California spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest
site or activity center is uncertain, conduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or

activity center.” Vegetation treatments as designed to meet forest health objectives, defined in Chapter 2,
Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW Project EIS, may occur in spotted owl PACs from July 1 to

“ithin the KREW Proj nda re wn in
5 2 i i ie hi je

Appendix A A-9


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Appendices

Appendix A A-1


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Appendix B Monitoring Plan

Monitoring is critical component of each of the action alternatives. Specific resource monitoring includes
the following types of monitoring:

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Implementation monitoring includes a combination of administrative controls on project preparation,
review of completed plans, and inspections during operation to ensure that project activities are
accomplished consistent with any decision associated with this analysis. Administrative controls include
having qualified staff prepare contracts and plans to implement the actions. Those plans are reviewed by
higher level staff or Line Officers to ensure the plans include required resource protections measures.
Project implementation is overseen by qualified staff with the delegated authority to make sure the
project is implemented according to the approved plans, and to take corrective action during project
implementation if actions are not in compliance with the approved plans.

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Effectiveness monitoring includes site review after treatments to determine if the required measures
achieved the intended results. Examples include post burn surveys to determine if adequate ground
cover remains after treatment. The protocols associated with the Best Management Practices Evaluation
Program (BMPEP) will be applied concurrently with treatments to provide “real time” monitoring of the
effectiveness of water quality protection measures.

VEGETATION

Changes in canopy cover, stand density and tree species by aspect zone and stocking and survival in
plantations will be determined. In addition, fisher rest sites identified during sale preparation will be
revisited to determine if they remained intact following treatments.

TRANSPOR’ TON

Monitoring includes review of road contract packages and maintenance standards to insure that
mitigation and design measures are implemented. Road projects are supervised by qualified inspectors
to ensure that measures are implemented and corrective action is taken if those measures are not

implemented correctly.

BMPEP evaluations E08: Road Surface, Drainage, and Slope Protection; E09: Stream Crossings; E11:
Control of Sidecast Material; and E13: In-Channel Construction Practices will be conducted on selected
road segments where road reconstruction or maintenance occurs. See the description of watershed
monitoring for more information.

E S — PRESCRIBED FIRE MONITORING

Direct and indirect effects of prescribed burns will be monitored using a modified National Park Service
format. Monitoring plots will be initiated for all prescribed burn units using the Browns Planar Intercept
method to collect pre- and post- burn dead and down fuel loading, and duff and litter consumption, and
to inventory overstory and understory vegetation, brush, and down logs, soil hydrophobicity, and post
burn severity. Plots are permanent and are re-monitored immediately post burn (as conditions
warrant), and at one, three and five years post burn. Plots are reset prior to second entry burns.
Monitoring will not be done on pile burn projects.

BMPEP evaluation F25: Prescribed Fire will be conducted in selected burn units.

Appendix A A-15


1.7 Significant Issues

Comments from the public and other agencies were used to formulate issues concerning the
proposed action. No scoping comments were received from members or groups from the Native
American community. The FS separated KREW Project issues into two groups: significant and
non-significant issues. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to
specific actions. Significant issues are issues with potentially significant impacts. The Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7,

“., identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have
been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” Significant issues are used to
formulate alternatives to the proposed action, or prescribe mitigation and monitoring measures.
They also may be used for analyzing environmental effects.

A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may
be found in the KREW Project record located at SNF Supervisor’s Office.

The FS identified two significant issues during scoping. These issues are used to develop
alternatives as well as measure consequences between alternatives in Chapter 3.

Issue#1 — Removing trees between 20 — 30 inches dbh could adversely affect some wildlife species.

This issue is tracked as an alternative considered in Chapter 2 and addressed in Chapter 3 under
environmental consequences to vegetation and wildlife. Factors used to measure consequences

include:

. Stem area of trees (basal area) greater than 35 inches dbh after 30 years
. Number of trees between 20 and 30 inches before/after treatment

. Increase in the number of large trees

. Potential wildfire and prescribed fire severity

Issue#2 - The proposed stand treatment could jeopardize the viability and habitat of the Pacific
fisher, spotted owl, marten, goshawk, and Yosemite toad, and the short-term risks to aquatic

management.

This issue is addressed in Chapter 3. Factors used to measure consequences include:
° Spotted owl - canopy cover and suitable habitat

Goshawk - canopy cover and suitable habitat (i.e. CWHR classes by acres)
Fisher - canopy cover and suitable habitat

Marten - canopy cover and suitable habitat

Yosemite toad- presence and duration of toad breeding meadows

oc ee

The IDT identified an additional issue to be addressed:

Issue#3 - The use of herbicides/surfactant could harm people and wildlife.

This issue would be tracked as an alternative considered in Chapter 2 and addressed in Chapter 3
under environmental consequences to aquatic species, human health and safety and wildlife.
Factors used to measure consequences include:

. Hazard to people and wildlife

. Monitoring results from other projects where herbicide/surfactant was employed.

31


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Bull Unit Roads: 10S24 (Ross Crossing Road), 1S15 and 11S23

2. All other roads within prescribed fire burn boundaries may be used as secondary control lines, to be
determined by burn boss during ignition operations. Snags may be felled as necessary if they pose a
threat to firefighter safety at time of burn.

3. Presence of large woody debris within 100 feet of strategic roads increases resistance to control of a
fire, increases the risk of spotting, increases fire residence time and intensity and compromises
firefighter safety. Large woody debris created from snag felling operations would be removed to
increase efficiency of fire control operations and improve firefighter safety.

4. Larger trees would be protected from understory burning to maintain stand structures that would
contribute to future habitat diversity.

Aquatic Species
General aquatic species and riparian habitat

1. Follow all applicable aquatic wildlife species and riparian habitat standards and guidelines from the
2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Impact Statement and Record of
Decision (USDA 2004a), the existing SNF LRMP direction (USDA 1992), FSH 2509.22 Sierra Supplement
#1 for treatments within Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) (USDA 1990), Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and other applicable laws and regulations (USDA 2000b). The RCA’s are defined in
Table 1-1.

2. Protect any seeps, springs, bogs, fens, and/or wet areas that may be found during project
implementation that are not already identified on project analysis maps. Treat these areas as perennial
areas with 300 foot RCA.

3. Protection measures for the habitat of FS Sensitive Aquatic/Riparian Species are:
a) No piling or burning of piles within Class | SMZs.
b) No ignition of fires within SMZs, fires are allowed to creep into SMZ, (not applicable to stands
within KREW research areas) and use only water for dust abatement within SMZ.
c) No mechanical treatments within SMZ during the wet season in the KREW Providence unit.
The wet season occurs from mid-fall through late spring and is administered by the Forest Service
consistent with BMP 1-5, with no operations occurring during rainy periods, periods of high water,
or other adverse operating conditions.

4. General aquatic species and riparian habitat protection measures within all RCA are:
i, Do not allow mechanical equipment within 100 feet of meadows or other special
aquatic features.

ii. To protect bank stability, do not cut stream bank trees (trees with drip line
extending to or over edge of stream bank).

iii, No removal of any riparian vegetation.
iv. No storage of petroleum products within RCA.

v. For water drafting, use a screened intake device and pumps with low entry
velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish and
amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. A Hydrologist and
Aquatic Biologist would approve water-drafting sites. See BMP 2-21 in Table 2-
15 for specific requirements.

vi. Monitor potential project affects on streams and aquatic habitat using the
Region 5 (R5) Stream-Condition Inventory protocols (Frazier and others 2005).

vii. Monitor post project affects to listed aquatic species and their habitats. Seek
mitigation measures and replacement habitat if irretrievable loss occurs to
habitat or species viability because of project implementation.


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Appendix A

Design Measures

Design measures have been developed to protect resources within the proposed project. These
measures have been designed to meet legal requirements, management direction, and policies. The
action alternatives would adhere to the majority of the standards and guidelines of the Sierra LRMP;
however, eight non-significant plan amendments are adopted to allow the research design to be
implemented (See FEIS Sections 2.3.1.6). This is the only deviation from the Sierra LRMP. Additionally,
best management practices would be undertaken to avoid, minimize, or reduce the effects of
management activities (see Appendix C).

The general project design measures incorporated into the decision are displayed below. Design
measures for some resources are different within the boundaries of the research areas (see FEIS Figure
1-1) for research areas identified as P301, P302, P304, D102, B201, B203, B204, T003) than those
specified outside the research areas but within the Providence and Bull Management Units. This
difference is required to meet the objectives of the research design. No management activities described
in this decision would occur in the control areas for the research (watersheds P304 and T003) with the
exception of hand release and hand thinning in the plantation in P304. Design measures may be refined
using site-specific information during implementation.

Unless otherwise explained in this section, the measures allow the Forest to comply with the LRMP as
amended.

Air Quality (Fuels)

The following are best available control measures (BACMs) for prescribed fire as required under Section
190 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in 1990. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
developed implementation strategies and BACM for areas that are designated as in serious non-
attainment for particulate matter less than 10 microns (PMio) in 1992. Specific techniques to reduce fire
emissions include the following:

. Employ commonly used reduction techniques such as burning units after harvest before new
live fuels appear; burning in the springtime prior to “green-up;” burning when 1,000-hour fuels (woody
debris larger than 3 inches in diameter) moistures are high; and burning when the duff is wet (after fall
precipitation, or during winter and spring).

. Employ avoidance techniques such as burning on cloudy days when the plume and residual
smoke cannot be seen, burning during periods of atmospheric instability for better smoke dispersal, and
burning during periods of low visitor use.

. Employ techniques to optimize flaming combustion, including burning piled fuels rather than
broadcast burning, reducing the amount of soil in piles, and employing rapid ignition to create a high
intensity fire.

. Ensure that all activities conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

. Conduct a full conformity analysis, as required by the CAA and the SIP to assess whether the
action produces less than de minimis emissions. (For full determination, refer to the Air Quality
Specialist Report for KREW.

Fire and Fuels

1. The following roads would be managed as strategic and tactical (critical) holding/ignition lines for
prescribed operations and would be snagged prior to burn operations:

Providence Unit Roads: FRE2240, 10825, 10S17 (Providence Creek Road), 10S11 and 10S10A

Appendix A A-1


Record of Decision
Project

Kings River Experimental Watershed

BMP Name, Objective, and
Direction

Application to the KREW Project

ground cover, soil, and hydrologic Function
of meadows.

BMP 1-19 Streamcourse and Aquatic

Protection: The objectives of this BMP are:

a. Toconduct management actions
within these areas in a manner that
maintains or improves riparian and
aquatic values.

b. To provide unobstructed passage of
stormflows.

c. To control sediment and other
pollutants entering streamcourses.

d. — Torestore the natural course of any
stream as soon as practicable, where
diversion of the stream has resulted
from timber management activities,

a. The location and method of crossings on Class IV and V streams must be agreed to
by the sale administrator (SA) prior to construction.

b. Stream crossings on Class I- III streams must be approved by the hydrologist and
aquatic biologist.

cc. Damage to stream banks and channels will be repaired to the extent practicable.

4d. All sale-generated debris will be removed from streamcourses, unless otherwise
agreed to by the SA, and in an agreed upon manner that will cause the least
disturbance.

e. Felled trees will not be pulled across perennial or intermittent stream channels
without prior approval by the hydrologist or aquatic biologist.

f. Methods for protecting water quality while utilizing tractor skid trail design in
stream course areas where harvest is approved include: (1) end lining, (2) falling to the
lead, and (3) utilizing specialized equipment with low ground pressure such as feller
buncher harvester.

g. Water bars or other erosion control structures will be located so as to disperse
concentrated flows and filter out suspended sediments prior to entry into streamcourse.
h. Material from temporary road construction and skid trail streamcourse crossings
will be removed and streambanks restored to the extent practicable.

i. Special slash treatment site preparation activities will be prescribed in sensitive
areas to facilitate slash disposal without use of mechanized equipment.

j. Project-related bare soil areas (e.g. skid trails, landings, temporary roads, etc.) will
be covered with existing native vegetation mulch, organic debris, or certified weed free
straw to at least 50%, well distributed cover, and cross-ditched per BMP 1-17
requirements.

BMP 1-20 Erosion Control Structure
Maintenance: To ensure that constructed
erosion control structures are stabilized and
working

During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will provide maintenance of
soil erosion control structures contracted by the purchaser until they become stabilized,
but not more than one year after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal
maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility and charge the
purchaser accordingly. The Forest Service sale administrator is responsible for ensuring
erosion control maintenance work is completed.

BMP 1-21 Acceptance of Timber Sale
Erosion Control Measures before Sale
Closure: To ensure the adequacy of required
erosion control work on timber sales.

‘The sale administrator must inspect erosion control measures to ensure their adequacy
prior to accepting closure on the unit and/or sale.

The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be evaluated using BMPEP protocols
after the sale area has been through one or more wet seasons. This evaluation is to ensure
that erosion control treatments are in good repair and functioning as designed before
releasing the purchaser from contract responsibility.

‘The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control treatments that fail to meet
criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as determined by the Sale Administer, for up to one
year past closure of the sale.

BMP 1-22 Slash Treatment in Sensitive
Areas: To maintain or improve water
quality by protecting sensitive areas from
degradation which would likely result from
using mechanized equipment for slash
disposal.

All bum piles made with mechanical equipment must be located outside of the SMZ.
Hand piles will be kept at least 50 feet away from all streams, meadows, springs, seeps,
and other sensitive aquatic areas.

Project design measures include specialized mechanized fuels treatments to be used in
sub-watersheds with cumulative watershed effects concerns in order to minimize ground
disturbance.

BMP 2-1 General guidelines for the
Location and Design of Roads: To locate
and design roads with minimal resource
damage.

The following considerations are incorporated into the planning process of road location

and design. These measures are preventative, apply to all transportation activities, and

indirectly protect water quality:

(a) Transportation facilities will be developed and operated to best meet the resource
management objectives with the least adverse effect on environmental values.

(b) The location, design, and construction of roads will include the use of the IDT.

(c) Sensitive areas such as wetlands, inner gorges, and unstable ground will be avoided
to the extent practiable.

4



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project
BMP Name, Objective, and Application to the KREW Project
jirection

BMP 1-12 Log Landing Location: To
locate new landings in such a way as to
avoid watershed impacts and associated
water quality degradation

The following criteria are to be used by the Sale Administrator when evaluating

landings:

a, Utilize existing landings if they are not located in an RCA. In some cases, using an
existing landing located within an RCA is preferable to constructing a new landing
outside of it. These situations will be reviewed on a site-by-site basis by an earth
science specialist (aquatics, hydrology, geology, or soils).

b. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that needed for safe and
efficient skidding and loading operations. Trees considered dangerous will be
removed around landings to meet the safety requirements of OSHA.

¢. Selected landing locations will involve the least amount of excavation and fill
possible. Landings must be located outside of SMZs.

d. Locate landings near ridges away from headwater swales in areas that will allow
skidding without crossing stream channels, violating SMZs, or causing direct
deposit of soil and debris to a stream.

e. Locate landings where the least number of skid roads will be required, and sidecast
can be stabilized without entering drainages or affecting other sensitive areas. Keep
the number of skid trails entering a landing to a minimum.

f. Position landings such that the skid road approach will be nearly level as feasible,
to promote safety and to protect soil from erosion.

g. Avoid excessive fills associated with landings constructed on old landslide
benches.

h. Construct stable landing fills or improve existing landings by using appropriate
compaction and drainage specifications.

BMP 1-13 Erosion Prevention and Control
Measures during Timber Sale Operations:
To ensure that the purchasers’ operations
will be conducted reasonably to minimize
soil erosion.

Timber purchaser responsibilities for erosion control will be set forth in the Timber Sale
Contract. Equipment will not be operated when ground conditions are such that
excessive damage will result. The kinds and intensity of control work required of the
purchaser will be adjusted by the sale administrator to ground and weather conditions
with emphasis on controlling overland runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. At certain times of the
year this means daily, if precipitation is likely or weekly when precipitation is predicted
for the weekend. Erosion prevention measures must be applied no later than October 1
and immediately upon completion of activity begun after November 1.

If the purchaser fails to perform seasonal erosion control work prior to any seasonal
period of precipitation or runoff, the Forest Service may temporarily assume
responsibility, complete the work, and use any unencumbered deposits as payment for
the work.

BMP 1-16 Log Landing Erosion Protection
and Control: To reduce the impacts of
erosion and subsequent sedimentation
associated with log landings by use of
mitigating measures.

Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils are compacted), re-contoured (as
necessary), and mulched after use and before the winter precipitation period, whichever
comes first. Excess material not needed for erosion control can be piled and bumed.
Upon completion of the project, consult with the hydrologist or soil scientist to
determine the need for additional soil protection measures.

BMP 1-17 Erosion Control of Skid Trails:
To protect water quality by minimizing
erosion and sedimentation derived from
skid trails.

Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid trails, tractor roads, and temporary
roads. Erosion control measures include, but are not limited to, cross ditches (water
bars), organic mulch, and ripping.

Cross ditches will be spaced according to the guidelines below, maintained in a
functioning condition, and will not discharge directly into a watercourse. The level of
maintenance will be contingent upon existing or predicted weather patterns as
determined by the Sale Administer (see BMP 1-13).

Minimum Cross Drain Spacing
% Slope Maximum Spacing

0-15 125 feet

15-35 45 feet

BMP 1-18 Meadow Protection during
Timber Harvesting: To avoid damage to the

Mechanical equipment is not permitted in meadows unless specifically authorized by an
aquatic biologist and hydrologist.

Appendix A

A-3



1.12 References Listed in the ROD

Ballard and Bahro 2006. Ballard, C. and B. Bahro. 2006. ProbAcre Modeling. USDA
Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District. District Files.

Graham et al. 1999. Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, T. B. Jain, and J. R. Tonn. 1999. The
Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests.
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-463. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station,
USDA Forest Service.

USDA-FS 1992, 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

USDA-2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
Vallejo, CA 492pp + 72 pp (ROD). January 7.

USDA-FS 2004b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision. USDA
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA 492pp + 72 pp (ROD). January 7.


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

e WIdBMP 3- All snags greater than 15 inches dbh would be retained, unless they are a safety
hazard within defense zones, fire control lines or otherwise deemed a hazard, such as within
300 ft of roads. A large number of small dbh snags also would be retained, and small and large
diameter snags also would be created during management, such as through prescribed fire and
incidental damage to retained trees (also refer to the vegetation management prescriptions).

© WIdBMP 4- Trees >30 inches dbh retained: All live trees larger than 30 inches dbh would be
retained

© WIdBMP 5- An average 50% overstory tree canopy cover would be retained across the Bull and
Providence Units immediately after treatments, with greater canopy cover increasing with
growth during the following decades (Alternatives 3-5 only). Specific areas would vary with
either higher or lower canopy cover as a result of prescriptions designed to meet fuels
management in Wildland/Urban Interface Zones and unique site conditions, such as lower
canopy cover in south aspect thin (southern and western slope pine ecotypes), and higher
canopy cover in riparian areas, lower valley slopes and some neutral aspect thin areas
(e.g.north and east slopes).

© WIdBMP 6- Patches of dense large trees (typically %4 to 2 acres) would be retained for possible
fisher rest or den sites. The highest priority would be those patches with the largest trees and
trees with cavities or decadence and an abundance of coarse woody material on the forest floor
(Alternatives 4 and 5 only and primarily within the canyon and fisher strategies, which are
designed to retain dense forest conditions and forest structural elements near streams and
potential fisher rest sites).

© WIdBMP 7- Firing patterns and fire lines would be placed around the most high value snags and
large logs (i.e. known den site structures, where practicable prior to prescribed burning, to
minimize the loss of those structures.

° WIdBMP 8- Retain decadent live trees greater than 15 inches dbh, by using the Fisher and
Priority Sites Marking Guide - Kings River Project that selects and retains a portion of live trees
with cavities, rot, broken tops, broken large limbs, forked tops, mistletoe infestations and other
deformities potentially used by wildlife (Alternatives 3 -5 only).

© WIdBMP 9- Create a mosaic of understory vegetation heterogeneity of shrubs, forbs and grasses
with variable species, ages, and patch sizes, by retaining some existing shrub cover as well as
burning or cutting back other patches to convert decadent growth to younger age growth, as
well as promoting new growth by opening the overstory canopy cover in some areas (also refer
to the vegetation management prescriptions).

¢ WIdBMP 10- Conserve riparian ecosystems by implementing streamside management zone
protection measures.

¢ WIdBMP 11- Create a system of Old Forest Linkages (OFL) that are 300 ft buffers along
perennial streams with an overstory forest canopy cover of at least 50-60% and greater tree
basal area as compared with adjoining forests, except in KREW research areas where an
objective is a riparian vegetation study.

Table 2-3. Summary of Limited Operating Periods
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec

RCA’s
xX | xX x x xX x x x
No Mechanical

Operations Within X Xx xX 4 4 xX xX xX xX x
0.6 Miles Occupied

12




Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

1) Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between level of
multiple-use goals and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10(e)).

The changes proposed by the action alternatives would help achieve, not alter, the relationship
between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. The wildlife species
would continue to receive protection as required to meet all applicable laws and regulations.

2) Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect land and
resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the planning period.

The changes proposed would modify a SNFPA mitigation measure. The action alternatives do
not change land allocation or other elements of the SNF LRMP or SNFPA. The changes
proposed for the PACs and fisher den buffer are only for those particular areas within the KREW
management areas and the changes would not apply to areas outside the KREW management
areas nor to the entire forest plan. There is predicted to be an increase in forest health treatments
from current levels; the current levels are well below the predictions displayed in the SNFPA.
FSEIS. The purpose of the proposal is to achieve levels of forest health treatments that were
expected when the SNFPA ROD was signed in 2004. Thus, the action alternatives would help
achieve (and not change) the multiple use goals and objectives set forth in the SNFPA ROD.

Conclusions

As discussed in the Evaluation of Significance above, the LRMP Amendments included in my
decision:

¢ Do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and
resource management.

© Do not cause significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term
land and resource management.

e Represent minor changes in standards and guidelines.

e Provide opportunities for additional management practices that contribute to achievement
of the management prescription.

* Do not alter the long-term relationships between the levels of goods and services
projected in the LRMP.

¢ Do not change land allocations or management direction for other elements of the LRMP.

Based on consideration of the factors above and the analysis contained in the FEIS, I determined
that these LRMP Amendments are not significant in the context of NFMA. I hereby amend the
LRMP with the non-significant amendments described in Section 1.3(4).

1.8.3 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969: NEPA directs “to the fullest extent
possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and
integrated with ...other environmental review laws and executive orders.” My decision was made
and the FEIS was prepared in accordance with the following:

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966: Section 106 requires federal agencies to
consider the potential effects of a Preferred Alternative on historic, architectural, or
archaeological resources that are eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places
and to afford the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to
comment. Section 110 requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, and protect

34


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

e. After vegetation treatments occur in a unit, survey disturbed areas for noxious weeds for two
years post-treatment. If weeds are found, promptly remove to stop seed set. Continue treatment for as
long as necessary to eradicate the occurrence(s).

f. Coordinate with botanist prior to layout of final road locations. Allow enough lead time for road
corridor survey when required

g Treat the known noxious weed sites as described in the unit descriptions before disturbing
these areas.

Herbicide Use:

The following design measures would be applied when herbicides are used in reforestation groups,
plantations or noxious weed eradication. They were either adopted from the SNFPA 2004 ROD
Appendix A: Management Direction or are one of the remaining operational LRMP standards and
guidelines. They have been found to be effective on reforestation projects and noxious weed eradication
over the last decade on the High Sierra Ranger District.

1. To protect water quality, glyphosate would not be applied within SMZs of flowing streams. It
may be applied within 5 feet of dry streams.

2. Glyphosate application would not occur between the first frontal storm system after October
15th and before April 15th that results in greater than % inch of rainfall to minimize impacts to

amphibian species.
3. Plants of significance to Native Americans (such as deergrass, sourberry, redbud, elderberry,

willow) would be carefully avoided when using glyphosate. Additional specific plants or areas
could be protected from treatment through consultation with local Native Americans.

4, All applicable pesticide laws and label restrictions would be followed to ensure human health
and safety (BMP 5.8 and 5.11).

5. To avoid affecting non-target plants and aquatic habitats, application of glyphosate would be
stopped when wind speed exceeds 5 miles per hour or as soon as drift is visually observed (BMP

5.13).

6. To help assure no effects occur to human health and safety, all areas treated with glyphosate
would be signed warning that herbicide had been applied and that products should not be
gathered for food or medicine for 30 days.

7. Herbicide would not be used in the Bull Unit to protect amphibians.

Cultural Resources:

Project implementation would comply with the stipulations of the First Amended Regional
Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State
Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for
Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National
Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA), dated 2001 (USDA 2001b). This project meets
Stipulations III.C. (2) and III.D.(3)., Undertakings Where Management Measures Are Necessary for the
Protection of Historic Properties.

Archaeological Resources:

The nature and scope of this project are such that the potential affects to archaeological properties can
be reasonably predicted, and appropriate protection measures derived from the Regional PA
(Attachment B, and the Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and
Vegetation Reduction Projects) would be taken to ensure the values of National Register eligible or
potentially eligible cultural resources are not affected:

Appendix A A-S


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Dust abatement would occur as a preventative measure during project activities with the
objective of promoting safe use of roads; prevent excessive loss of road material, the prevention
of fugitive dust, and the protection of adjacent resources. Use water or other dust palliatives to
accomplish dust abatement. Adhere to design measures identified in the Aquatic Resources
section above.

Road/site conflicts found during field surveys would be addressed with recommendations
provided by the District Archeologist. These protection measures would be noted on the
engineering road maintenance plans.

All culvert installations, new road construction, and temporary road construction would be
reviewed by an Aquatic Biologist and Hydrologist early in the design phase to determine if
additional species conservation measures are needed and to ensure their location and design
would not adversely affect water quality.

Roadways would be managed for safe passage by road users. This would include the
management of hazards associated with roadside vegetation, including the identification and
mitigation of danger (hazard) trees. A danger tree, as defined in Forest Service Handbook
7709.59, Chapter 40, is a standing tree (live or dead) that presents a hazard to people due to
conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root system,
trunk, stem, or limbs and the direction of lean of the tree (FSH 6709.11, Glossary).

Selection criteria guidelines for the marking and removal of danger trees in prescribed fire
control lines would be tiered to the NWCG Fireline Handbook: Firefighter Safety Chapter 1 -
Hazard Trees pg 58, Fire Suppression Tactics for snag removal Chapter 2 pg 94 and Snag
Removal pg 105.

Vegetation:
The following design measures for vegetation were developed from experience on the High Sierra
Ranger District over the last decade or from the LRMP as amended.

1.

To provide for oaks for wildlife needs, maintain the 5 to 35 percent of growing space devoted to
oaks. Also, maintain all decadent oaks throughout the stand(s) within the limits appropriate for
each forest type. Do not remove decadent oaks. Do not prevent over topping of decadent oaks.

Enhance vigorously growing oaks by reducing density around oaks or clumps to below 100
square feet of basal area.

Ensure that reforestation stocking meets standards described in the LRMP. The release of
existing plantations should meet the growth and stocking standards outlined in growth and
yield tables (Oliver and Powers 1978).

Limit thinning in plantations to periods when slash would be less likely to provide Ips (beetle)
species habitat (December to June) to reduce the potential from insect attacks.

Ensure that marking priorities emphasize pine and oak retention both in clumps and across
aspect/landscape zones.

Ensure that restoration treatments emphasize pine and oak growth enhancement though
reductions in growing space allocated to fir and incense cedar.

Reduce tree density in areas dominated by pine (mixed conifer pine or Jeffrey pine) to improve
the growth of residual pine trees.

Snags and Down Woody Material

Snag Retention (SNFPA S&G #11): “Design projects to implement and sustain a generally
continuous supply of snags and live decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a
landscape. Retain some mid- and large-diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have

Appendix A A-7


The action alternatives would change Pacific fisher den site, owl PAC, Yosemite toad protection
management as well as fisher, owl and goshawk LOPs and stream sediment minimization
requirements in a limited area during research implementation. The action alternatives would not
reduce species protection below legally required levels or increase timber harvest beyond levels
identified in the SNFPA FSEIS or SNF LRMP. The action alternatives improve the SNF’s ability
to conduct forest management activities at a level described in the LRMP. Selection of one of the
action alternatives would enable the SNF to better meet the long-term goals and objectives
currently identified in the LRMP. Tree removal and fuels reduction activities are expected to
reduce the extent, severity and intensity of wildfires within and adjacent to treated stands while
maintaining existing habitat functionality (FEIS Section 3-9.4.4). Information resulting from the
project would add to an understanding of the Yosemite toad ecology and risks associated with
management actions within its habitat (FEIS Section 3-7.4.6). Any project impacts would be short
term and habitat for the California spotted owl will increase in the long term from the project. The
project increases the proportion of large trees (>35 inches dbh) over the 30 year analysis period in
the Providence Unit and the Bull Unit (respectively) (FEIS Section 3-11.4.5). Resistance of trees
to density induced mortality and insect disturbance increases (FEIS Section 3-11.4.5). By opening
up the overstory canopy and clearing some of the decadent understory vegetation, the understory
vegetation will become more diverse in age and structure, with a greater amount of new growth
helping lead to greater understory vegetation abundance which can lead to greater prey species
abundance and diversity (Section 3-9.4.4).

3) Minor changes in standards and guidelines,

The action alternatives would modify S&Gs added to the SNF LRMP in the 2004 SNFPA ROD.
The action alternatives would not significantly change any key elements of the underlying
strategy or standards and guidelines. Removing or modifying SNFPA S&Gs #74, 75, 76, 85, 86,
92, 109 & 111 would be a relatively minor change because: (1) the amendment of S&Gs #74, 75,
76, 85, 86, 92, 109 & 111 is limited in scope (1,524 acres being inside the research areas which is
where the majority of the amendments are applied and 3,055 acres for the LOP amendments -out
of the more than 1.3 million acres in the SNF (0.1 and 0.2 percent of the total forest respectively)
and in time frame (amendments would only be applicable during the research implementation
phase of KREW); (2)changes in the S&Gs do not result in a trend toward federal listing for forest
sensitive species or adversely impact threatened or endangered species; (3) the alternatives
include extensive areas (50 percent of the project area) of no thinning management and (3) the
forest health treatments would help sustain the habitat conditions needed by wildlife species in
the long-term. The effects discussion in Chapter 3 helps to quantify the change within the context
of the proposed project.

4) Opportunities for additional management practices that would contribute to
achievement of the management prescription.

The action alternatives are specifically designed to allow research to occur as there will be
sufficient time to perform treatment prescription in one water year and install instrumentation
prior to weather precluding the opportunities to work in the project area. Additionally the
amendments allow the treatments to occur in the riparian area which allows information to be
gathered about effects. This research was envisioned as part of adaptive management identified
in the SNFPA ROD and meets the underlying need for continuing information to make the best
land management decisions.

FSM 1922.52 — Changes to the Forest Plan that are Significant. The following
examples are indicative of circumstances that may cause a significant change in a forest plan.

33


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Evaluation V28: Vegetation Manipulation will be conducted in selected treatment units to evaluate
tractor piling, mastication, and other mechanical treatments. See the description of watershed
monitoring for more information.

BOTANY/NOxIOUS WEEDS — PLANT SPECIES COMPOSITION AND INVASIVE PLANT MONITORING

To date (April 2010), no known Sierra National Forest TES plant species were found in the KREW
Project stands. However, it does not preclude new findings of TES plant species in the future and if there
are new occurrences found, the following monitoring will occur:

Monitoring of known sensitive plant occurrences within the KREW Project stands will be done when
possible to ensure that populations are not being affected significantly. If observations reveal that
significant impact is taking place, then treatments are expected to be modified to reduce impact and
subsequent effects evaluations will take this into account.

Noxious weed monitoring for KREW Project stands will be done concurrently with planned noxious
weed treatments as well as the standard post-treatment surveys throughout the project following
the early detection and rapid response (EDRR) strategy the SNF employs for all projects.

WILDLIFE

Fisher monitoring The Kings River Fisher Project is funded through 2013. Using a variety of overlapping
monitoring techniques, this project will provide estimates of population density, survival, and
reproduction for the Kings River Project area, including the KREW Project. Live trapping will provide
data on population structure and individual health. Telemetry, both conventional VHF and GPS, will
provide data on animal movement, home range sizes and habitat use, dispersal, survival, and resting and
denning sites. Scat detector dog surveys will provide additional information on population density,
habitat use, and diet. Treatments applied in areas where fishers occur will be used to examine the effects
of the treatments on fisher behavior and habitat selection.

Spotted Owl monitoring - The PSW California spotted owl demographic study was initiated in 1990 to
estimate spotted owl reproduction, survival, and population rate of change and to examine the effects of
habitat and habitat alteration (timber harvest and fuels treatment) on these parameters. The
demography study will continue over the next five years. Owls will be captured and banded or resighted
each year to determine survival and population trends. Reproduction will be monitored by locating
nests and counting the number of fledglings produced. Results from owl surveys in treated areas will be
compared to results from the larger demographic study area and may provide insights on the effects of
the treatments on spotted owls.

Northern goshawks will be monitored according to the 2002 goshawk protocol. Surveys will be
conducted within the KREW Project. According to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment surveys
will be conducted when activities are planned within or adjacent to a PAC to establish or confirm the
location of the nest or activity center.

WATERSHED

Monitoring of watershed and hydrology in the project area will be based on the Region 5 Best
Management Practice Evaluation Program (BMPEP). This program serves a duel purpose. It determines
if BMPs were implemented and if they were effective. It provides a feedback loop of on-site evaluations
to document observations of how well BMPs protect water quality. It will also identify deficiencies, their
causes and necessary corrective actions. In addition, baseline SCI data have been taken and post-project
monitoring of these same stream reaches will be conducted using this protocol.

16


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

The SNF developed and considered alternatives to the Proposed Action based on comments
received and identified significant issues.

1.8 Legal and Regulatory Compliance

My decision complies with the laws, policies, and executive orders listed below and described in
FEIS Chapter 3.

1.8.1 Forest Plan Consistency

My decision includes eight amendments to the management direction contained in the LRMP.
More information about these amendments and the evaluation of significance under the NFMA is

provided below.

LRMP Amendments

Evaluation of Significance

My decision results in amendment of the SNF LRMP. If an amendment to a Forest Plan results
in “significant change in the plan,” the NFMA and its 1982 implementing regulations, under
which this EIS is prepared, require that the amendment process follow the procedures used in the
initial development of the plan. If the proposed change in the plan is not significant, public
notification and completion of the NEPA procedures are still required (16USC 1604(f)(4) and 36
CFR 219.10(f)). Determining whether a plan amendment is a significant change uses difference
criteria than those use in evaluating significance in the NEPA process. For the NFMA
requirement, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1922.51 and 52) provides specific direction.

FSM 1933.51 — Changes to the Forest Plan that are Not Significant.
Changes to the forest plan that are not significant can result from:

1) Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for the long-
term land and resource management.

The actions proposed in these alternatives would not alter the objectives and the multiple-use
goals of the SNF land and resource management plan as amended by the SNFPA. The purpose of
the action alternatives is to facilitate achieving these goals and objectives. The action alternatives
would continue to provide species protection in compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations, while making more Agency resources available for other forest management
priorities. The underlying need to which the action alternatives are responding is the need to
achieve the objectives originally established for the SNFPA. Without the LRMP amendments the
research objectives of the project are frustrated as work could not be conducted in the timeframe
and within a footprint needed to accomplish both the treatments and the data collection. This
footprint is needed so that comparative data among paired watersheds could be collected. If
treatment areas were to be limited meaningful experimental results would not be achieved.

2) Adjustment of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting
from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the
multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

32


Record of Decision
Project

Kings River Experimental Watershed

BMP Name, Objective, and
Direction

Application to the KREW Project

construction and maintenance actions
within and adjacent to SMZs so that SMZ
functions are not impaired.

BMP 2-14 Controlling In-Channel
Excavation: To minimize stream channel
disturbances and related sediment
production.

There will be no in-channel or streambank excavation during any phase of project
activities unless authorized by the forest hydrologist or aquatic biologist.

BMP 2-16 Stream Crossings on Temporary
Roads and Skid Trails:

Mechanical equipment crossing of perennial and intermittent (generally class I - 111)
streams is not permitted unless approved by the district hydrologist or aquatic biologist.
Ephemeral streams (stream class IV and V) may be crossed at designated locations as
agreed upon by the sale administrator and purchaser. Designate skid trails to avoid
stream crossings and SMZs wherever possible. Designated crossings must be as
perpendicular to the channel as possible and avoid sensitive soils and riparian vegetation
damage. Stream banks must be repaired upon completion of the project.

BMP 2-19 Disposal of Right-of-Way and
Roadside Debris: To ensure that organic
debris generated during road construction is,
Kept out of streams so that channels and
downstream facilities are not obstructed.

Slash generated by road work will not be disposed of into any watercourse or SMZ.

BMP 2-21 Water Source Development
Consistent with Water Quality Protection:
To supply water for roads and fire
protection while maintaining existing water
quality.

Water drafting will not occur in streams when the base discharge is less than 1.5 cfs, and
will not draft more than 50% of the ambient discharge over 1.5 cfs. New drafting sites
shall be approved by the District Hydrologist or Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist and located
to minimize sediment and maintain riparian resources, channel condition, meadow
integrity, and aquatic species viability and habitat. Approaches will be as near
perpendicular to the stream as possible and will be gravel surfaced or otherwise
stabilized.

If water-drafting is required, pumps with low entry velocity and suction strainers with
screens less than 2 mm in size (1/8 in.) will be used.

BMP 2-22 Maintenance of Roads: To
maintain roads in a manner that provides for
water quality protection by minimizing
rutting, failures, sidecasting, and blockage
of drainage facilities, all of which can cause
erosion, sedimentation, and deteriorating
watershed conditions.

Roads needed for project activities will be brought to current engineering standards of
alignment, drainage, and grade before use, and will be maintained through the life of the
project. Roads will be inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is
needed to keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities functional and the road
stable.

BMP 2-23 Road Surface Treatment to
Prevent Loss of Materials:

Surface stabilization will be considered where grades exceed 12% of road is within
riparian conservation areas.

BMP 2-24 Traffic Control During Wet
Periods: To reduce road surface disturbance
and the rutting of roads, and to minimize
sediment washing from disturbed road
surfaces.

On roads not designated for all weather or winter haul, heavy equipment operations will
be limited until the period after the soil has dried in the top 12 inches in the spring.

BMP 2-26 Obliteration or
Decommissioning of Roads: To reduce
sediment generated from temporary roads,
unneeded system and non-system roads by
obliterating or decommissioning them at the
completion of the intended use.

Temporary roads will be obliterated after serving their intended purpose for this project.
This includes: (1) road effectively barricaded; (2) road effectively drained by measures
such as re-contouring or outsloping to return surface to near natural hydrologic function;
(3) a well distributed muich or organic cover provides at least 50% cover, or road surface
is revegetated using local native species; (4) sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized to
match the natural contour (as necessary); and (5) stream crossings are removed and
natural channel geometry is restored.

If non-local mulch is used (such as straw), it must be approved by the Forest Service as
weed free.

BMP 5-8 Pesticide Application According
to Label Directions and Applicable Legal
Requirements: To avoid water
contamination by complying with all label
instructions and restrictions for use.

This BMP requires glyphosate applicators to strictly adhere to pesticide label
instructions,

BMP 5-11 Cleaning and Disposal of

The cleaning and disposal of glyphosate containers will be done in accordance with

6



TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE
All samples will be iced to 2° C, kept away from light and transported to the laboratory the same

day of sampling or the following Monday if a weekend (samples may be safely stored up to 2
weeks under these conditions (pg 6-114, B, 2)). Chain of custody procedures will be followed

using the laboratory's forms. (pg 1-30)



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

viii. When lighting slash piles, start burn from one end only to allow escape route for
any species inhabiting piles.

2. Report any discovery of amphibians or reptiles (e.g. frogs, toads, salamanders, and turtles)
during project sale preparation and implementation to the District Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist
immediately.

3. If newly listed or unknown occurrences of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed,
candidate or FS sensitive aquatic species are found within the affected project area during sale
preparation and implementation, additional species protection measures may need to be
recommended by the District Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist.

4, KREW study site instruments (e.g. flumes, instrument houses, etc.) are to be removed at the
completion of the research. If it appears funding sources are no longer available to continue the
study, study sites should be rehabilitated to their pre-project condition (e.g. sediment basins
removed and stream channel banks re-stabilized).

California red-legged frog (CRLF; Federally Threatened Species)
Suitable breeding habitat has been identified within the Providence Creek portion of the project area;
therefore the following specific protection measures would be applied:

a. No mechanical treatments within 300 feet of identified habitat.

b. Use only water for dust abatement within 300 feet of identified habitat.

c. No water drafting sites within 300 feet of identified habitat.

Yosemite toad
In addition to the protection measures for the habitat of FS Sensitive Aquatic/Riparian Species listed
above, protection measures identified by the USFWS for the meadows located in the Bull Unit are as

follows:
a. A limiting operating period excluding activities between 5/1 and 7/15
b. No mechanical treatments within 100 feet of meadows.

c. Trees may be felled within 100 feet of meadows and removed by means of a cable.
Around meadows used as breeding habitat by Yosemite toads, only trees 50 or more feet
away from the meadow edge would be felled.

d. Within 0.6 miles of occupied meadows, operations would cease for 24 hours after rainfall
>0.1 inch.

e. Within 0.6 miles of occupied meadows, operations would start after breeding is over,
August 1 and end by October 1, and operations would cease for 24 hours after rainfall >0.1
inch.

f. Heavy machinery would 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 a cable.

g. No water drafting within 0.6 miles of occupied meadows.
Botanical Resources/Botany -- Rare Plants and Noxious Weeds:

The following project design measures are for protecting threatened and sensitive plant species and
preventing the introduction and spread of noxious weeds within the proposed project area.

Appendix A A-3


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

a. Avoid Historic Properties with Ground Disturbing Activities: The nature of the archaeological
resources is such that ground disturbance can result in alteration of characteristics that could affect the
National Register of Historic Places eligibility of that resource. Archaeological resources would be
excluded from proposed project undertaking activities that could result in ground disturbance within
their boundaries (i.e. the use of ground-based mechanical equipment, planting, piling, fire-line
construction, etc.), in accordance with the Standard Protection Measures (Attachment B) of the Regional
PA. Typical implementation of the Standard Protection Measures is the practice of “flag-and-avoid”
(Measure I.B.).

b. Allow Certain Non-Ground Disturbing Activities Within Site Boundaries: Certain proposed activities
lack the potential to adversely affect the character of historic properties. Implementation of these
activities would help reduce the isolation of a site from its surroundings and is consistent with the
Regional PA:

i, Archaeological resources may not be resources of interest for prescribed fire (in accordance with
the provisions of the Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels
and Vegetation Reduction Projects). The standard resource protection measures of the Interim
Protocol would be applied only to those historic properties defined as “at-risk” from the use of
prescribed fire treatments.

ii. Mechanical shredding or removal of fuels inside of site boundaries with an articulated boom
shredder/harvester would not affect the archaeological materials, provided the tracked or wheeled
equipment stays outside of the delineated site boundary and the machine head does not contact the
ground surface or site features (Interim protocol, Measure V.B.11.). Removal of fuels by hand
(manual thinning with chainsaws) would not affect archaeological materials (Attachment A, II.C.).

iii, Chemical applications for reforestation (treatment of vegetation for site preparation and release)
and noxious weed control would not affect historic properties where the application meets the
intent of the Regional PA Stipulation IILE, specifically Attachment A, IIE, application of pesticides
that do not have the potential to affect access to or use of resources by Native Americans.

Non-Archaeological Cultural Resources:

Traditional cultural properties, locations of contemporary Native American gathering, and other such
cultural resources identified through consultation with Native American tribes and individuals would be
protected through avoidance by project activity, or managed through project implementation and
consultation to enhance the resource. For example, planned prescribed fire can have positive effects to
regenerate growth in certain plant species used by Native Americans in basketry or traditional food
preparation.

In the event of inadvertent effects or new discovery during implementation, the Forest would comply
with the stipulations of the Regional PA (V.).

Transportation:
The criteria below, and applicable BMPs listed in Appendix C, apply for road use and maintenance
related to the implementation of action alternatives:

1. Acquire legal access before using any road through private lands.

2. Engineering would provide site-specific recommendations for reconstruction or extraordinary
maintenance.
3. New or replacement culverts would be designed to accommodate a 1 percent annual chance

flood (also known as a 100-year flood). Consider surface stabilization (distance of 50 feet on
either side of the culvert) at the time. Follow BMPs and address specific hydrologic and aquatic

species concerns.