Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-1

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory 

Compliance 

3-13.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and 

the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the 

Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical 

assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain 

conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, 

and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity is accomplished through restoration 

treatments that reduce basal area and number of stems (stand density) in over crowed stands and fuels 

treatments that protect the safety of the public and forest service personnel as well as prevent 

uncharacteristic wildfire. Stands that exist presently are no longer sustainable or resilient to changing 

environmental conditions that can and are occurring now and into the future. Drought induced stress, 

insect or disease attacks and wildfire all can have detrimental effects on the forest of today. Short-term 

activities described in the action alternatives are intended to lead to the enhancement of long-term 

productivity by beginning to restore forest conditions that resilient to disturbances. Additionally 

research can contribute to knowledge on the effects of treatments on resources and allow more 

informed decisions which can also contribute to long-term productivity.

Actions described in Chapter 1 lead to enhancement of long-term productivity, especially:

The need to increase the proportion of large trees across a landscape, 

The need to increase the proportion of fire resistant species such as pines,

The need to reduce wildfire intensity and spread across the landscape, 

The need to reduce stand density. and

The need to understand resource impacts due to treatments.

3-13.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Some species may be impacted by the project however no species viability is threatened. Other 

resources are enhanced or maintained at present levels based on the design features incorporated into 

the project therefore no unavoidable adverse effects would occur in the project area. 

3-13.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a 

species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-2

time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

power line rights-of-way or road. 

Approximately 2.6 miles of temporary road construction is proposed for the KREW Project. Road 

construction results in removal of surface soils and subsoil and complete loss of soil productivity within 

the road prism however temporary roads are obliterated after the project. 

The 2.6 miles of road is approximately 4.5 acres of ground with some loss of soil productivity. Applicable 

soil and water conservation Best Management Practices (BMP) will be implemented, including erosion 

control measures, such as water bars, straw mulching of fills and fertilization of soils to re-vegetate the 

bare soils. Road reconstruction and road maintenance operate within the road prism and have little 

effect to the soil resource. However, there can be a positive effect to the soil resource outside of the road 

prism from road reconstruction by restoring proper drainage features of the road. Restoration of 

drainage features will result in less surface erosion and soil loss that leads to loss in soil productivity.

3-13.4 Legal and Regulatory Compliance

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) 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.” The Proposed Action and alternatives must comply with the regulation

described below.

3-13.4.1 Principle Environmental Laws 

The following laws contain requirements for protection of the environment that apply to the Proposed 

Action and alternatives.

3-13.4.1.1 Endangered Species Act 

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 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 (USDI-FWS), 

pursuant to this act.

The KREW Project, through the inclusion of design criteria established for all action alternatives 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.

3-13.4.1.2 Clean Water Act

The KREW Project would comply with this Act by adoption of Best Management Practices and other 

design criteria established for all action alternatives as detailed in Chapter 2. 

3-13.4.1.3 Clean Air Act

Under the General Conformity Rule the KREW Project 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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-3

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. 

3-13.4.1.4 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)

The USDA Forest Service is directed to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, and manage historic properties 

by several laws. However, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et 

seq.) (NHPA) provides comprehensive direction to Federal agencies about their historic preservation 

responsibilities. 

Section 106 of the NHPA and the ACHP implementing regulations, Protection of Historic Properties (36 

CFR Part 800), require that Federal agencies take into account the effect of their undertakings on 

historic properties, and that agencies provide the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on those 

undertakings. Programmatic agreements (36 CFR 800.14(b)) provide alternative procedures for

complying with 36 CFR 800. Pacific Southwest Region 5, USDA Forest Service has such an agreement: 

Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State 

historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding The Identification, 

Evaluation and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by the National Forest of the Sierra Nevada, 

California (Sierran PA). This agreement provides specific standards for conducting cultural resources

inventory, evaluation, and management, including Forest Heritage Program requirements, identification 

standards, standard procedures for protecting cultural resources, reporting and public participation.

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based on stipulations 

within the Sierran PA. All alternatives would be in compliance with historic preservation law, policy and 

regulation, as this project meets the stipulations of the Sierran PA.

3-13.4.1.5 National Forest Management Act

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 standards and guidelines 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 Sections 1.3.3 and 2.6.1.6).

By the inclusion of design criteria as part of all action alternatives 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, this project would comply with this Act.

3-13.4.1.6 Soil Productivity 

Soil resource management is achieved by maintaining soil productivity using Regional Soil Quality 

Standard and GuidelinesManagement Objectives (USDA-FS, 2011) and management direction provided 

in the LRMP (USDA-FS 1992). The Geology/Soils section, starting on page 39 in Chapter 3, analyzes the 

existing soil productivity and effects of alternatives on soil productivity. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-4

3-13.4.1.7 Management Indicator Species (MIS)

The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the SNF MIS is found in the Sierra Nevada Forests 

Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (ROD) of 2007. 

Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all twelve of the terrestrial MIS. In addition, 

bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution population monitoring, is identified 

for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, the 

bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat. The current 

bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is discussed in the Sierra 

Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA-FS 

2008). 

3-13.4.2 Other Standards and Guidelines, especially those dealing with Water Quality

Best Management Practices

Best management practices will be applied to all action alternatives and are listed in Appendix B of 

this document. Design criteria listed in Chapter 2 incorporate additional protection measures to 

minimize and/or eliminate impacts to water quality. 

3-13.4.3 Executive Orders 

The following executive orders provide direction to Federal agencies that apply to the Proposed Action

and alternatives:

Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996, applies to the Proposed Action alternatives 

because of historic and prehistoric uses known in the area. This is specifically addressed in Chapter 3 

under Heritage Resources and Tribal Relations. All project alternatives comply with this order.

Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, Executive Order 11593 of May 13, 1971, directs 

Federal agencies to inventory cultural resources under their jurisdiction, to nominate to the 

National Register of Historic Places all Federally owned properties that meet the criteria, to use due 

caution until the inventory and nomination processes are completed, and to assure that Federal 

plans and programs contribute to preservation and enhancement of non-Federally owned 

properties. 

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based on 

stipulations within the Sierran PA. All alternatives would be in compliance with historic 

preservation law, policy and regulation, as this project meets the stipulations of the Sierran PA.

Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999, applies to the Proposed Action

alternatives. A risk of introducing invasive species does exist. Measures are in place to prevent the 

spread of these species. The Proposed Action alternatives comply by providing measures to prevent 

the introduction and spread of invasive species.

Recreational Fisheries, Executive Order 12962 of June 6, 1995, applies to the Proposed Action

alternatives. Action alternatives comply with this order by implementing BMP and other design 

criteria and correcting existing resource problems. These design criteria are detailed in Chapter 2 

and the list of specific Best Management Practices associated with this project are included in 

Appendix B of this document. 

Migratory Birds, Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001. Under the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-5

objectives (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)).” The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird 

Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition to the Partners 

in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for integrating bird 

conservation into forest management and planning.

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of the 

MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation 

between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other Federal, State, tribal and 

local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a 

diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is 

addressed when planning for land management activities. 

The SNF is proposing to manage lands on the HSRD that are located in the KREW Project boundaries. 

Proposed management is intended to implement direction contained within the LRMP (LRMP, USDA-FS 

1992) as amended. Opportunities to promote conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the 

project area were considered during development and design of the KREW Project (MOU Section C: 

items 1 and 11 and Section D: items 1 and 3). 

Likely impacts to habitats and select migratory bird populations resulting from the KREW Project have 

been assessed in detail within the project MIS report and impacts to select TES birds and their habitats 

have been analyzed in the project BA and/or BE. 

The project will not adversely impact migratory landbird species or their associated habitats. Potential 

impacts to migratory species would be minimized through the adherence of LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines as well as Design Criteria common to All Action Alternatives (pages 16-26). These define the 

retention levels for snags/down woody debris, activities occurring within riparian management areas 

which include SMZs, OFLs, how to minimize ground disturbance and maintenance of canopy cover. The 

project is designed to improve habitat conditions through the acceleration of late-successional habitat 

characteristics, while still maintaining current functional habitat. Specific project design criteria include: 

canopy cover will be maintained at 50 to 60% or greater where available; ground disturbance will be 

limited to those guidelines with the LRMP as amended; vegetation species diversity and composition 

will be maintained; and retention of snags and downed logs would be retained at levels defined in the 

Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives. In addition, no operations will occur during the wet 

weather season. 

Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, does not apply because of exclusions 

and buffers that are in place through design criteria for the action alternatives and are found in detail in 

Chapter 2.

Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977, does not apply because of exclusions and 

buffers that are in place through design criteria for the action alternatives and are found in detail in 

Chapter 2.

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994, applies to the Proposed Action

alternatives. Compliance has been attempted by making this document understandable and accessible.

Use of Off-Road Vehicles, Executive Order 11644, February 8, 1972, does not apply to this proposal. No off 

road use is being proposed nor existing use changed in this document.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-13 - Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-6

3-13.4.4 Special Area Designations

The selected alternative will need to comply with laws, regulations and policies that pertain to the 

following special areas.

3-13.4.4.1 Research Natural Areas

No research natural areas are located in the project area. This project would comply with applicable 

laws, regulations and policies for research natural areas.

3-13.4.4.2 Inventoried Roadless Areas

No Inventoried Roadless Areas are located in the project area. This project would comply with 

applicable laws, regulations and policies for Inventoried Roadless Areas.

3-13.4.4.3 Wilderness Areas

No Congressionally-designated wilderness areas are located in the project area. This project would 

comply with applicable laws, regulations and policies for wilderness areas.

3-13.4.4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers

No Congressionally-designated wild and scenic rivers occur in the project planning area.

3-13.4.4.5 Municipal Watersheds (FSM 2540)

No municipal watersheds occur in the project planning area.

3-13.4.5 Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) 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.”

Species surveys, review of recent literature, and professional judgment have been incorporated into 

determinations of possible effects on species. Surveys provide information on species presence and 

habitat on a local scale. An element of uncertainty exists for effects on species with distributions beyond 

the project or SNF boundaries. The Pacific fisher and Yosemite toad Forest Service sensitive species that 

have also been designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as candidate species for listing under the 

ESA. A candidate species is determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service through a 12-month finding 

as warranted for listing. The listing process is precluded by other priorities. The SNF requested and 

received technical advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to address uncertainty related to 

appropriate candidate species. Their advice is integrated extensively throughout the Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Species sections of Chapter 3.