Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  i 

Table of Contents 

Chapters and Sections 

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action 1-1 

1.1 Document Structure 1-1 

1.2 Scope of the EIS Analysis 1-1 

1.3 Background 1-5 

1.3.1 History 1-5 

1.3.2 Management Direction 1-5 

1.3.3 Adaptive Management, Monitoring and Research 1-8 

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action 1-11 

1.5 Proposed Action 1-12 

1.6 Decision Framework 1-15 

1.7 Public Involvement 1-15 

1.8 Issues 1-17 

1.9 Other Related Efforts 1-18 

1.10 Changes between the DEIS and FEIS 1-18 

1.10.1 Corrections Applied to the FEIS 1-18 

   Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2-1 

2.1 Introduction 2-1 

2.1.1 Research Design Measures 2-1 

2.1.2 Alternatives Summary 2-10 

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail - No Action 2-10 

2.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail - The Action Alternatives 2-12 

2.3.1 Activities Common to All Action Alternatives 2-12 

2.3.1.1 Thinning Strategies 2-12 

2.3.1.2 Research   2-13 

2.3.1.3 Noxious Weed Treatment 2-13 

2.3.1.4 Treatment Methods in the Four Action Alternatives 2-13 

2.3.1.5 Road Related Actions 2-20 

2.3.1.6 Non-Significant Plan Amendments 2-24 

2.3.1.7 Monitoring Plan 2-29 

2.3.1.8 Design Measures 2-31 

2.3.2 Alternative 2 Uneven-Aged Management (Structural Restoration) 2-45 

2.3.2.1 How the Alternative Was Developed 2-45 

2.3.2.2 Description of Alternative 2 2-46 

2.3.3 Alternative 3 Fuels Reduction 2-54 

2.3.3.1 How the Alternative Was Developed 2-54 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  ii 

2.3.3.2 Description of Alternative 3 2-54 

2.3.4 Alternative 4 North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 2-61 

2.3.4.1 How the Alternative Was Developed 2-61 

2.3.4.2 Description of Alternative 4 2-62 

2.3.5 Alternative 5 The Proposed Action - Hybrid Forest Health Restoration 2-67 

2.3.5.1 How the Alternative Was Developed 2-67 

2.3.5.2 Alternative Description 2-67 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 2-75 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 2-78 

   Chapter 3  Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-1 

3.1 Introduction 3-2 

3.2 Organization of Chapter 3 3-2 

3.3 Assumptions and Uncertainty 3-3 

3.4 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities in the KREW Area 3-4 

3.5 Climate Change at the Project Scale 3-18 

   3-1 Air Quality 3.1-1 

3-1.1 Introduction 3.1-1 

3-1.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.1-1 

3-1.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.1-1 

3-1.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis 3.1-2 

3-1.3 Affected Environment   3.1-3 

3-1.3.1 Regulatory Setting (Applicable Laws, Policies, and Regulations) 3.1-3 

3-1.3.2 Existing Condition 3.1-10 

3-1.3.3 Desired Condition 3.1-10 

3-1.4 Environmental Consequences 3.1-10 

3-1.4.1 Assumptions 3.1-10 

3-1.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action  3.1-10 

3-1.4.3 Alternative 2 - Uneven-aged 3.1-14 

3-1.5 Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 3.1-19 

3-1.5.1 Comparison of Alternatives 3.1-19 

   3-2 Fire and Fuels 3.2-1 

3-2.1 Introduction 3.2-1 

3-2.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.2-1 

3-2.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.2-1 

3-2.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis 3.2-1 

3-2.2.3 Indicators 3.2-2 

3-2.3 Affected Environment 3.2-4 

3-2.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.2-4 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  iii 

3-2.3.2 Existing Condition 3.2-5 

3-2.3.3 Desired Condition 3.2-11 

3-2.4 Environmental Consequences 3.2-13 

3-2.4.1 Assumptions 3.2-13 

3-2.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action  3.2-14 

3-2.4.3 Action Alternatives 3.2-16 

3-2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.2-33 

   3-3 Cultural Resources 3.3-1 

3-3.1 Introduction 3.3-1 

3-3.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.3-1 

3-3.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.3-1 

3-3.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis 3.3-1 

3-3.2.3 Indicators 3.3-1 

3-3.3 Affected Environment 3.3-2 

3-3.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.3-2 

3-3.3.2 Existing Condition 3.3-4 

3-3.3.3 Desired Condition 3.3-7 

3-3.4 Environmental Consequences 3.3-8 

3-3.4.1 Assumptions 3.3-8 

3-3.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.3-8 

3-3.4.3 Alternative 2 - Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.3-9 

3-3.4.4 Alternative 3 - Fuels Reduction 3.3-11 

3-3.4.5 Alternative 4 - North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.3-11 

3-3.4.6  Alternative 5 - Proposed Action 3.3-11 

3-3.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.3-12 

   3-4 Botanical Resources 3.4-1 

3-4.1 Introduction 3.4-1 

3-4.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.4-1 

3-4.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.4-1 

3-4.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis 3.4-1 

3-4.2.3 Indicators 3.4-1 

3-4.3 Affected Environment 3.4-1 

3-4.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.4-1 

3-4.3.2 Existing Condition 3.4-2 

3-4.3.3 Desired Condition 3.4-2 

3-4.4 Environmental Consequences 3.4-3 

3-4.4.1 Assumptions 3.4-3 

3-4.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.4-3 

3-4.4.3 Alternative 2 - Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.4-4 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  iv 

3-4.4.4 Alternative 3 - Fuels Reduction 3.4-5 

3-4.4.5  Alternative 4 - North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.4-5 

3-4.4.6 Alternative 5 - Proposed Action 3.4-6 

3-4.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.4-9 

   3-5 Economics 3.5-1 

3-5.1 Introduction 3.5-1 

3-5.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.5-1 

3-5.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.5-1 

3-5.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in Analysis 3.5-1 

3-5.2.3 Indicators 3.5-2 

3-5.3 Affected Environment 3.5-2 

3-5.3.1 Existing Condition 3.5-2 

3-5.3.2 Desired Condition 3.5-6 

3-5.4 Environmental Consequences 3.5-6 

3-5.4.1 Assumptions 3.5-6 

3-5.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.5-6 

3-5.4.3 Alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5 3.5-6 

   3-6 Hydrology 3.6-1 

3-6.1 Introduction 3.6-1 

3-6.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.6-4 

3-6.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.6-4 

3-6.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in Analysis 3.6-5 

3-6.2.3 Indicators 3.6-6 

3-6.3 Affected Environment 3.6-6 

3-6.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.6-6 

3-6.3.2 Existing Condition 3.6-7 

3-6.3.3 Desired Condition 3.6-19 

3-6.4 Environmental Consequences 3.6-20 

3-6.4.1  Alternative 1 - No Action 3.6-20 

3-6.4.2 Alternative 2 - Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.6-21 

3-6.4.3 Alternative 3 - Fuels Reduction 3.6-23 

3-6.4.4 Alternative 4 - North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.6-23 

3-6.4.5 Alternative 5 - Proposed Action 3.6-24 

3-6.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.6-24 

   3-7 Aquatic Biota 3.7-1 

3-7.1 Introduction 3.7-1 

3-7.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.7-1 

3-7.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.7-1 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  v 

3-7.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in Analysis 3.7-2 

3-7.2.3 Indicators 3.7-3 

3-7.3 Affected Environment 3.7-4 

3-7.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.7-5 

3-7.3.2 Existing Condition 3.7-8 

3-7.3.3 Desired Condition 3.7-31 

3-7.4 Environmental Consequences 3.7-32 

3-7.4.1 Assumptions 3.7-34 

3-7.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.7-35 

3-7.4.3 Alternative 2 - Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.7-43 

3-7.4.4 Alternative 3 - Fuels Reduction 3.7-57 

3-7.4.5 Alternative 4 - North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.7-61 

3-7.4.6 Alternative 5 - Proposed Action 3.7-64 

3-7.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.7-68 

   3-8 Research 3.8-1 

3-8.1 Introduction 3.8-1 

3-8.2 Affected Environment 3.8-1 

3-8.2.1 Why the Research is Important 3.8-1 

3-8.2.2 Methods and Design 3.8-2 

3-8.3 Environmental Consequences 3.8-13 

3-8.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.8-13 

3-8.3.2 Alternative 2 - Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.8-13 

3-8.3.3 Alternative 3 - Fuels Reduction 3.8-13 

3-8.3.4 Alternative 4 - North GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.8-14 

3-8.3.5 Alternative 5 - Proposed Action 3.8-14 

3-8.4 Comparison of Alternatives 3.8-14 

   3-9 Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9-1 

3-9.1 Introduction 3.9-1 

3-9.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.9-1 

3-9.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.9-1 

3-9.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in Analysis 3.9-2 

3-9.2.3 Indicators 3.9-3 

3-9.3 Affected Environment 3.9-4 

3-9.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.9-4 

3-9.3.2 Existing Condition 3.9-4 

3-9.4 Environmental Consequences - TES Species 3.9-21 

3-9.4.1 Assumptions 3.9-21 

3-9.4.2 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.9-21 

3-9.4.3 Alternatives 2 - 4 3.9-23 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  vi 

3-9.4.4 Alternative 5 - Hybrid Action - Preferred Alternative 3.9-66 

3-9.5 Comparison of Alternatives - TES Species 3.9-94 

3-9.6 Management Indicator Species (MIS) 3.9-97 

3-9.6.1 Scope of Analysis   3.9-97 

3-9.6.2 Methodology   3.9-98 

3-9.6.3 Environmental Consequences   3.9-98 

   3-10 Soil and Cumulative Watershed Effects 3.10-1 

3-10.1 Introduction 3.10-1 

3-10.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.10-1 

3-10.2.1 Scope of the Analysis 3.10-1 

3-10.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in Analysis 3.10-2 

3-10.2.3 Soil Indicators 3.10-2 

3-10.2.4 Soil Porosity 3.10-3 

3-10.2.5 Soil Cover 3.10-3 

3-10.2.6 Large Woody Debris 3.10-3 

3-10.2.7 Cumulative Watershed Effects 3.10-4 

3-10.3 Affected Environment 3.10-5 

3-10.3.1 Regulatory Setting 3.10-5 

3-10.3.2 Existing Condition 3.10-7 

3-10.3.3 Desired Condition 3.10-14 

3-10.4 Environmental Consequences 3.10-14 

3-10.4.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 3.10-15 

3-10.4.2 Alternatives 2 through 5 3.10-16 

3-10.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.10-20 

   3-11 Vegetation and Silviculture 3.11-1 

3-11.1 Introduction 3.11-1 

3-11.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 3.11-1 

3-11.3 Affected Environment  3.11-3 

3-11.3.1 Existing Condition 3.11-4 

3-11.3.2 Restoration Strategies and Desired Conditions 3.11-13 

3-11.3.3 Forest Resilience – Fire, Climate, Insects, Species Composition 3.11-20 

3-11.4 Environmental Consequences 3.11-26 

3-11.4.1 Assumptions 3.11-26 

3-11.4.2 Alternative 1 – No Action 3.11-27 

3-11.4.3 Alternative 2 – Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) 3.11-32 

3-11.4.4 Alternative 3 – Fuels Reduction 3.11-51 

3-11.4.5 Alternative 4 – GTR (Ecological Restoration) 3.11-56 

3-11.4.6 Alternative 5 – Proposed Action 3.11-62 

3-11.5 Comparison of Alternatives 3.11-67 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  vii 

3-11.5.1 Tree Canopy Cover 3.11-67 

3-11.5.2 Insect and Tree Density – Resilience 3.11-68 

3-11.5.3 Large Trees, tree removals and species composition 3.11-70 

3-11.5.4 Wildfire Severity 3.11-73 

3-11.5.5 Forest Restoration 3.11-73 

   3-12 

Effects of Ground Application of Glyphosate on Human Health and Safety 3.12-1 

3-12.1 Introduction 3.12-1 

3-12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects 3.12-1 

3-12.3 Cumulative Effects 3.12-3   3-13 Other Required Findings and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-1 

3-13.1 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 3.13-1 

3-13.2 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 3.13-1 

3-13.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 3.13-1 

3-13.4 Legal and Regulatory Compliance 3.13-2 

3-13.4.1 Principle Environmental Laws 3.13-2 

3-13.4.2 Other Standards and Guidelines, especially those dealing with Water Quality 3.13-4 

3-13.4.3 Executive Orders 3.13-4 

3-13.4.4 Special Area Designations 3.13-6 

3-13.4.5 Other Required Disclosures 3.13-6   Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination 4-1 

4.1 Consultation and Coordination 4-1 

4.1.1 Introduction 4-1 

4.1.2 Public Involvement 4-1 

4.1.2.1 Public Meetings 4-1 

4.1.3 Consultation and Coordination 4-2 

4.1.3.1 Cooperating Agencies 4-2 

4.1.3.2 Government Agencies 4-2 

4.1.3.3 Tribes 4-3 

4.1.3.4 Organizations and Members of the Public 4-3 

4.1.4 List of Preparers 4-4   Chapter 5 References 5-1 

Appendix A Research Measurements A-1 

Appendix B Monitoring Plan B-1 

Appendix C Best Management Practices C-1 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  viii 

Appendix D Historic Forest Conditions D-1 

Appendix E FVS Description E-1 

Appendix F Timeline F-1 

Appendix G Modeling Data G-1 

Appendix H Stand Description H-1 

Appendix I Response to Comments I-1 

Appendix J-1 Marking Guidelines for Alternative 4 J.1-1 

Appendix J-2 Marking Guidelines for Alternative 2 J.2-1 

Appendix J-3 Marking Guidelines for Alternative 3 J.3-1 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  ix 

Tables 

1-1 Protected Features and RCA Widths 1-8 

1-2 Treatment Acre Totals by Location 1-14   2-1 Summary of Total Acres of Prescribed Fire for the KREW Project 2-17 

2-2 KREW Project Temporary Roads 2-20 

2-3 Summary of Limited Operating Periods 2-43 

2-4 Alternative 2 Thinning Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units 2-48 

2-5 Alternative 2 Thinning Strategies by Stand 2-51 

2-6 Alternative 3 Thinning Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units 2-56 

2-7 Alternative 3 Thinning Strategies by Stand 2-58 

2-8 Alternative 4 Thinning Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units 2-64 

2-9 Range of Residual Basal Area, Tree Canopy, and Trees Per Acre by Aspect and Topographic Zones for All Stands 2-65 

2-10 Alternative 4 Thinning Strategies by Stand 2-66 

2-11 Alternative 5 Thinning Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units 2-70 

2-12 Alternative 5 Thinning Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units Outside Research Areas 2-70 

2-13 Alternative 5 Fuels Acreage by Emphasis Area on the KREW Units 2-70 

2-14 Alternative 5 Thinning Strategies by Stand 2-72 

2-15 Comparison of Actions Under Each of the Alternatives 2-78 

2-16 Comparison and Summary of KREW Alternatives 2-81 

2-17 Comparison of Treatments Within the Research and Non-Research RCA’s 2-91   3-1 Past Activities 3-5 

3-2 Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities 3-6 

3-3 Details About the Current SNF Fuels Program that are Relevant to the KREW Project 3-9 

3-4 Acres of Wildlife Habitat Changed by Timber Sale and Recent Fires 3-10 

3-5 Cumulative Effects Analysis Geographic and Temporal Scales for Resource Areas 3-17   3-1-1 

Federal de minimus Threshold Levels for Criteria Pollutants based on Air Basin Attainment Status 3.1-5 

3-1-2 Class I Airsheds Near the KREW Project 3.1-7 

3-1-3 Statewide Emission Inventory 2002 for Natural Sources-Wildfire 3.1-11 

3-1-4 Potential Emissions if a Wildfire were to Burn Within the Entire KREW Area 3.1-11 

3-1-5 Tons of Estimated Pollutants per Individual Project - Annual Understory Burn Program of Work 3.1-13 

3-1-6 Total Emissions from All Prescribed Fire Treatments Proposed in this Action 3.1-14 

3-1-7 Total Emissions from All Thinning Operations 3.1-15 

3-1-8 Emissions Conformity to General Conformity Rule for Criteria Pollutants 3.1-18 

3-1-9 Comparison of Alternatives, Effectiveness of Treatments in Reducing Smoke Particulates 3.1-20 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  x 

3-2-1 Hauling Chart: Fire Suppression Interpretations of Flame Length and Fireline Intensity 3.2-3 

3-2-2 80th, 90th, and 97th Percentile Weather from 1973-2003 for Fence Meadow Weather Station 3.2-8 

3-2-3 Acres of Post Thinning Fuels Treatment 3.2-16 

3-2-4 Acres of Fire Severity for All Alternatives 3.2-18 

3-2-5 Acres of Fire Type for Potential Wildfire - All Alternatives 3.2-20 

3-2-6 Cumulative Effects: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities, summary 3.2-27 

3-2-7 The HSRD Understory Burn Program 3.2-30 

3-2-8 Comparison of Fire Effects by Alternative in Acres by Potential Type 3.2-33  3-3-1 Comparison of Alternatives  3.3-12  3-4-1 Comparison of Alternatives 3.4-9  3-5-1 Value the FS Receives (Stumpage Calculations) 3.5-7 

3-5-2 FS Costs; Agency Responsibility 3.5-8 

3-5-3 Service Costs: Contract 3.5-9 

3-5-4 Vegetation Re-Establishment Services 3.5-10 

3-5-5 Services and Project Cost Summary and Comparison 3.5-11 

3-5-7 USFS Benefit /Cost Analysis 3.5-12 

3-5-8 Societal Benefits 3.5-13  3-6-1 Subwatersheds and stream miles in the KREW Management Units 3.6-4 

3-6-2 Streamflows at USGS gauging stations at various recurrence intervals  3.6-8 

3-6-3 Subset of flow estimates at various return intervals 3.6-8 

3-6-4 Designated beneficial uses for Dinkey Creek and Big Creek 3.6-9 

3-6-5 Water Quality in Big Creek and Dinkey Creek, 1979-1983 3.6-11 

3-6-6 SCI Attributes for Sample Reaches in the Project Area 3.6-14 

3-6-7 RCA’s in the Project Boundary 3.6-19 

3-6-8 Comparison of Alternatives 3.6-24   3-7-1 

Streamside Management zones as defined in the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 3.7-6 

3-7-2 Stream Drainage within Project Areas 3.7-8 

3-7-3 Data collected regarding physical aspects of aquatic habitat 3.7-10 

3-7-4 Summary of water temperature and stream shading data from analysis area 3.7-11 

3-7-5 CWHR quantity and quality of habitat for CRLF reproduction, cover and feeding 3.7-15 

3-7-6 Quantity and quality of FYLF habitat in the Analysis Area based on CWHR 3.7-17 

3-7-7 Quantity and quality of WPT habitat in the Analysis Area based on CWHR 3.7-19 

3-7-8 Quantity and quality of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat in the analysis area based on CWHR 3.7-22 

3-7-9 Recruitment data from Regional Amphibian Monitoring 3.7-27 

3-7-10 Estimates of breeding adults and egg masses within Bull Creek watershed occupied meadows 3.7-28 

3-7-11 Quantity and quality of occupied Yosemite toad habitat in the Analysis Area based on 3.7-29 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  xi 

CWHR 

3-7-12 Distribution of wet meadow within the KREW Research Project analysis area 3.7-30 

3-7-13 Acres of potential habitat for special interest herpetofauna in the project analysis area 3.7-31 

3-7-14 RCA widths are considered as: 3.7-34 

3-7-15 Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 1 3.7-41 

3-7-16 Alternative 2  3.7-44 

3-7-17 Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 2 3.7-55 

3-7-18 Alternative 3   3.7-57 

3-7-19 Acres of potential habitat potentially influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 3 3.7-60 

3-7-20 Alternative 4   3.7-61 

3-7-21 Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 4 3.7-64 

3-7-22 Alternative 5  3.7-65 

3-7-23 Acres of potential habitat possibly influenced by actions with the analysis area under Alt. 5 3.7-68 

3-7-24 Summary table for aquatic/riparian habitat and indicators for the KREW Research Project 3.7-69 

3-7-25 Effects determinations for the Alternative 1 (No Action) 3.7-70 

3-7-26 Effects determinations for Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 3.7-70   3-8-1 

Number of research sampling points established to evaluate effects in riparian and upland portions of each research watershed 3.8-7 

3-8-2 Summary of Alternative’s Ability to Meet Research Objectives 3.8-15  3-9-1 High and moderate capability habitat for Pacific fisher 3.9-13 

3-9-2 Fisher locations in KREW Providence area as of June 24, 2010 3.9-19 

3-9-3 Acres of KREW Project mid-seral and late-seral forest habitat with canopy cover >40%, under Alt. 1 3.9-22 

3-9-4 Acres of post-thinning fuels treatment for all action alternatives 3.9-23 

3-9-5 Comparison and summary of KREW action alternatives 3.9-23 

3-9-6 Summary of changes in post-treatment acres for early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat 3.9-26 

3-9-7 Number of trees retained, per acre by alternative, immediately after KREW project treatment 3.9-26 

3-9-8 Number of snags, by alternative, immediately after KREW project treatment 3.9-27 

3-9-9 Large Woody Debris per Acre in Treatment Stands 3.9-28 

3-9-10 Spotted owl habitat in PACs and HRCAs in the Bull and Providence areas, for all alternatives 3.9-29 

3-9-11 Acres of silvicultural management in fisher #19 den buffer in the Providence Management Area 3.9-35 

3-9-12 Acres of fisher habitat within the fisher #19 den site buffer, by alternative 3.9-37 

3-9-13 Acres of fisher habitat within the fisher #19 home range, by alternative 3.9-37 

3-9-14 Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher #19 den buffer that overlaps the Providence Management Area 3.9-38 

3-9-15 Acres of fisher habitat within treatment types in the fisher #19 home range that 3.9-38 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  xii 

overlaps the Providence Management Area 

3-9-16 Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher F12 den buffer that overlaps the Providence Management Area 3.9-39 

3-9-17 Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher F22 den buffer that overlaps the Providence Management Area 3.9-39 

3-9-18 Average canopy cover for the KREW Project 3.9-42 

3-9-19 Effects of Alternative 2-4 on spotted owl habitat when compared with cumulative effects of habitat available at different scales 3.9-51 

3-9-20 Major actions within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area evaluated for the cumulative effects analysis for fisher 3.9-58 

3-9-21 Effects of Action Alternatives on Pacific fisher habitat in the Providence Area when compared with habitat available at different scales 3.9-60 

3-9-22 Acres of KREW Project mid-seral and late-seral forest habitat with canopy cover >40%, under Alternative 5 3.9-67 

3-9-23 Effects of Alternative 5 on spotted owl habitat when compared with habitat available at different scales 3.9-71 

3-9-24 Acres of moderate to high quality fisher habitat for Alternative 5 3.9-81 

3-9-25 Changes in weighted fisher habitat scores for all alternatives 3.9-82 

3-9-26 Major actions within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area evaluated for the cumulative effects analysis for fisher 3.9-88 

3-9-27 Effects of Alternative 5 on Pacific fisher habitat when compared with habitat available at different scales 3.9-90 

3-9-28 Acres of mature forest habitat, by alternative, immediately after KREW project treatment 3.9-94 

3-9-29 Number of trees retained, per acre by alternative, immediately after KREW project treatment 3.9-94 

3-9-30 Number of snags, by alternative, immediately after KREW project treatment 3.9-95 

3-9-31 Large woody debris per acre in treatment stands 3.9-95 

3-9-32 Determinations of the effects of the KREW project on terrestrial wildlife species 3.9-96 

3-9-33 MIS species and their habitats assessed for the KREW project 3.9-97 

3-9-34 Summary of changes in post-treatment MIS habitat, Providence Management area 3.9-99 

3-9-35 Summary of changes in post-treatment MIS habitat, Bull management area 3.9-100  3-10-1 Cumulative Watershed Effects Baseline Assessment Values 3.10-8 

3-10-2 Large Woody Debris per Acre in Treatment Stands 3.10-12 

3-10-3 Snags per Acre in Treatment Stands 3.10-13 

3-10-4 Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects 3.10-19  3-11-1 

Site quality, percentage of CWHR size and density classes by stand, and vegetation type by stand 3.11-6 

3-11-2 Acres of plantation within in each stand by year of planting 3.11-12 

3-11-3 Range of residual basal area, tree canopy, and trees per acre by aspect and topographic zones for all stands 3.11-17 

3-11-4 Tree numbers for each alternative across all project acres – treated and untreated acres 3.11-35 

3-11-5 Summary of effects on vegetation of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 3.11-48 

3-11-6 Tree numbers for Alternative 3 across all project acres – treated and untreated acres 3.11-53 

3-11-7 Tree numbers for Alternative 4 across all project areas – treated and untreated acres 3.11-58 

3-11-8 Tree numbers for Proposed Action across all project acres – treated and untreated acres 3.11-63 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  xiii 

Figures  

1-1 General KREW Project Location 1-4   2-1 KREW Project Actions Overview – Bull Unit 2-3 

2-2 KREW Project Actions Overview – Providence Unit 2-4 

2-3 Bull Unit Timber Stands 2-6 

2-4 Providence Unit Timber Stands 2-7 

2-5 Bull Unit timber harvest versus hand thinning 2-8 

2-6 Providence Unit timber harvest versus hand thinning 2-9 

2-7 2002 Forest Conditions in the KREW Project Area 2-11 

2-8 Bull Unit understory burning under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 2-18 

2-9 Providence Unit understory burning under Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 2-19 

2-10 Bull Unit Project related roads 2-22 

2-11 Providence Unit Project related roads 2-23 

2-12 Typical J curve for a mixed conifer stand 2-46 

2-13 Alternative 2 thinning treatments for Bull Unit 2-52 

2-14 Alternative 2 thinning treatments for Providence Unit 2-53 

2-15 Alternative 3 thinning treatments for Bull Unit 2-59 

2-16 Alternative 3 thinning treatments for Providence Unit 2-60 

2-17 Alternative 4 thinning treatments for Bull Unit 2-67 

2-18 Alternative 4 thinning treatments for Providence Unit 2-68 

2-19 Alternative 5 thinning treatments for Bull Unit 2-73 

2-20 Alternative 5 thinning treatments for Providence Unit 2-74   3-1 Active Cattle Allotments in the KREW 3-12 

3-2 Private Land Ownership Within the Big Creek and Dinkey Creek drainage basins (KRP) 3-14   3-1-1 

Diagram of the Atmospheric Flow Approach to forested lands and wood products carbon accounting for the California GHG inventory 3.1-9 

3-1-2 Total tons PM10 by alternative 3.1-15  3-2-1 ProbAcre Analysis - Risk of Loss in Acres 3.2-9 

3-2-2 ProbAcre Analysis - Probability of Risk of Loss in Acres over Time 3.2-10 

3-2-3 Predicted Fire Severity in the KREW Project Area 3.2-17 

3-2-4 Predicted Fire Type in KREW 3.2-19 

3-2-5 Predicted Fire Type for Bull in No Action Alternative 1 3.2-21 

3-2-6 Predicted Fire Type for Providence in No Action Alternative 1 3.2-22 

3-2-7 Predicted Fire Type for Bull in Alternative 5 3.2-23 

3-2-8 Predicted Fire Type for Providence in Alternative 5 3.2-24 

3-2-9 Predicted Wildfire Flame Lengths in the Core Defense Zone 3.2-25 

3-2-10 Effectiveness of Maintaining Desired Flame Lengths throughout the Project Area 3.2-26 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  xiv 

3-5-1 Sierra National Forest Volume Sold, 1981 to 2008 3.5-4  3-6-1 Bull Project Area 3.6-2 

3-6-2 Providence Project Area 3.6-3 

3-6-3 Definition sketch of SMZs, RMAs, and RCAs 3.6-16 

3-6-4 RCAs within the Bull management unit 3.6-17 

3-6-5 RCAs within the Providence management unit 3.6-18  3-7-1 KREW Research Project Aquatic Analysis Area 3.7-9 

3-7-2 Mean daily water temperatures collected during summers of 2005-2007 3.7-11 

3-7-3 CRLF locations from CNNDB in relation to SNF 3.7-14 

3-7-4 Potential suitable breeding habitat for the CRLF within one mile of proposed treatment areas 3.7-15 

3-7-5 Potential habitat for the FYLF in relation to the proposed treatment areas 3.7-17 

3-7-6 Western pond turtle occupancy and habitat in relation to the project analysis area 3.7-20 

3-7-7 Distribution of potential habitat for MYLF across the analysis area 3.7-23 

3-7-8 Known distribution of Yosemite toad in KREW Bull Unit meadows 3.7-26 

3-7-9 Occupied breeding meadows included in Regional Amphibian Monitoring and study of adult toad movements following breeding 3.7-27 

3-7-10 Spatial relationship of YT occupied and unoccupied meadows, including buffered habitat 3.7-29 

3-7-11 CRLF potential habitat in relation to proposed activities 3.7-45 

3-7-12 KREW Bull treatments in relation to occupied Yosemite toad sites 3.7-46 

3-7-13 Foraging sites for Yosemite toad within portion of KREW Bull treatment area 3.7-48 

3-7-14 Relationship of several occupied Yosemite toad adult foraging sites in relation to treatment areas 3.7-49 

3-7-15 Possible avenues of solar radiation for treated and untreated Class I SMZ's 3.7-51   3-8-1 

Permanent grid points for sampling of treatment effects on terrestrial characteristics of the Bull Unit research watersheds 3.8-5 

3-8-2 Permanent grid points for sampling of treatment effects on terrestrial characteristics of the Providence Unit research watersheds 3.8-6 

3-8-3 Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation – Bull Unit 3.8-9 

3-8-4 Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation – Providence Unit 3.8-10 

 3-9-1 Total snags greater than 15 inches dbh for all alternatives 3.9-27 

3-9-2 Spotted owl PACs and HRCAs within the Bull Management Area 3.9-30 

3-9-3 Spotted owl PACs and HRCAs within the Providence Management Area 3.9-31 

3-9-4 Pacific fisher home ranges and den buffer areas in the Providence Area 3.9-36 

 3-11-1 Proportion of tree species composition for each stand 3.11-9 

3-11-2 proportion of tree basal area by species for each stand 3.11-9 

3-11-3 Percent brush cover for each stand by species 3.11-10 

3-11-4 Percent brush cover found in open canopy areas for each stand 3.11-11 

3-11-5 Graphical representation of landscape heterogeneity resulting in ecological restoration 3.11-16 

Final Environmental Impact Statement  Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Table of Contents  xv 

3-11-6 Reference conditions for tree numbers greater than 11 inches and the desired conditions for tree numbers 3.11-19 

3-11-7 Desired conditions vs. existing conditions 3.11-20 

3-11-8 Prescribed burn severity past prescribed fire projects 3.11-43 

3-11-9 Comparison of desired and post conditions treated for all stand employing Alternative 2 3.11-46 

3-11-10 Comparison of desired and post conditions treated for all stand employing Alternative 3 3.11-55 

3-11-11 Comparison of desired and post conditions treated for all stand employing Alternative 4 3.11-61 

3-11-12 Comparison of desired and post conditions treated for all stand employing Alternative 5 3.11-66 

3-11-13 Comparison of acres with tree canopy cover greater than 50 percent for post treatment and after wildlife for all alternatives 3.11-68 

3-11-14 Insect and tree density resilience over the analysis period 3.11-69 

3-11-15 Comparison of percent basal area of trees with over 35 inch dbh for a forty year period in the Providence and Bull management areas for all proposed alternatives  3.11-71 

3-11-16 Effects of fire severity on tree mortality post mechanical treatments for all alternatives 3.11-73 

3-11-15 Change of heterogeneity based on the coefficient of variation for canopy cover 3.11-75