Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-1

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3-8 Research

3-8.1 Introduction

The following section provides information to assess the consequences on the information able to be 

developed and analyzed as part of the research design based on each of the alternatives. The ability to 

obtain watershed information related to vegetation treatments is an important aspect of the purpose 

and need. As discussed in Chapter 1, KREW was designed to provide high-priority information called for 

in R5’s Adaptive Management Strategy (SNFPA 2001, 2004).

This section will provide the direct effects to the research outcomes for the KREW Project. Since the 

decisions made on the KREW Project will directly and immediately affect the Pacific Southwest Research 

Station’s (PSW) ability to implement the research design there are no indirect effects. As the KREW 

research is the only research dependent on the treatment design in the project area, there will be no 

cumulative effects on research. PSW does conduct long-term fisher and California spotted owl 

monitoring in the project area.

3-8.2 Affected Environment

3-8.2.1 Why the Research is Important

The quality of aquatic, riparian (near-stream area), and meadow ecosystems is directly related to the 

healthy condition of nearby uplands in their watershed. Ecosystems are the combination of living and 

nonliving things dependent upon each other to survive. FS scientists believe that these ecosystems are 

the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra Nevada primarily because of dams and diversions, 

overgrazing, roads, logging, and physical alteration that occurred in prior decades. However, no longterm experimental watershed studies exist in the southern Sierra Nevada to guide future land 

management. Work began on KREW in 2000 with data collection starting in October 2002.

KREW is designed to address both basic and applied science questions and to have sufficient data to 

apply a diverse set of models to evaluate various management practices and address issues like climate 

change. A better understanding of processes and variability of headwater stream ecosystems is of 

interest to science. People and agencies that manage forest lands are interested in evaluating the effects 

of forest management practices (prescribed fire and mechanical tree thinning) to restore forests to a 

healthier condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-2

KREW Research Goals

• Measure the range of low and high values (natural variability) for selected characteristics of stream 

ecosystems and their associated watersheds.

• Provide an instrumented research site to evaluate stresses to forests from air pollution and climate 

change and to support computer modeling.

• Evaluate the effects of forest management for ecological restoration (prescribed fire, mechanical 

thinning, and tree harvesting).

• Maintain a patchwork of vegetation types and ages that mimic, to the extent possible, the historical 

distribution of vegetation resulting from frequent, low-intensity fires common before 

European settlement of the West.

Some Questions to be Answered for Forest Managers

The FS identified high priority issues for research during the development of the Monitoring and 

Adaptive Management Plan for the Sierra Nevada (Appendix E, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment 2001, 2004). The KREW was designed to address many of these information 

gaps; a few examples are given here.

• What is the effect of fire and fuel reduction treatments (i.e., thinning of trees) on the riparian and 

stream physical, chemical, and biological conditions?

• Does the use of prescribed fire increase or decrease the rate of soil erosion (long term versus short 

term) and affect soil health and productivity?

• How adequate and effective are current stream buffers (areas on both sides of a stream with restricted 

uses) at protecting aquatic ecosystems?

3-8.2.2 Methods and Design

Location, Data Collection, and Collaborators

Two sites are instrumented with four watersheds each: the Providence site (in the Providence Unit) 

between 4,900 and 6,800 feet (approximately 1,500 and 2,100 meters) elevation and the Bull site (in the 

Bull Unit) between 6,700 and 8,200 feet (approximately 2,000 and 2,500 meters). They both contain 

mixed-conifer forest. Watersheds range in size from 100 to 300 acres (40 to 120 ha)--a size that can be 

consistently treated.

Data have been gathered for at least a 7-year reference period after which fire and mechanical thinning 

treatments would be applied. After the treatments, data should be gathered for at least 5 years to 

evaluate change. Each site has a control watershed that receives no treatments, a watershed that is 

burned, a watershed that is thinned, and a watershed that is both burned and thinned. A design with a 

control and before and after treatment data is a strong research design for a watershed-scale 

comparison. We are interested in evaluating the integrated condition of the streams and their associated 

watersheds (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological characteristics).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-3

• Physical measurements include upland erosion, turbidity (suspended sediment), stream temperature, 

streamflow, channel characteristics, and weather conditions.

• Chemical measurements for stream water, shallow soil water, precipitation, and snowmelt include 

nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate (primary biological nutrients); chloride; sulfate; calcium; 

magnesium; potassium; sodium; pH; and electrical conductivity.

• Biological measurements include stream invertebrates (like dragonflies and mayflies), algae, and 

riparian and upland vegetation (herbs, shrubs, and trees). Yosemite toads are also being 

studied at the Bull Creek site.

Baseline data were collected starting 1 October 2002 for the Providence site and 1 October 2003 for the 

Bull site. Two weather stations are installed and operating at each site. Streamflow, turbidity, 

temperature and weather data are collected every 15 minutes. These data are transmitted using FS

radios from field sites to computers in the Fresno office. Vegetation and soil data were collected for the 

first time in 2003. Yearly measurements of chemistry are made for shallow soil water and precipitation 

at 460 points in the eight watersheds; vegetation and physical soil measurements are made at a subset 

of these points. Stream and snowmelt chemistry are done every 2 weeks. Measurements of soil erosion 

from upland slopes and roads were started in 2003. More detail on the research design can be found in 

the KREW Research Study Plan (http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/water/kingsriver).

A large collaborative research effort in the KREW Project area began in 2005 with funding from the 

National Science Foundation. The Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (CZO)

(https://snri.ucmerced.edu/CZO). The Southern Sierra CZO is a community platform for research on 

critical-zone processes across the rain-snow transition in the mixed-conifer forest of the Southern Sierra 

Nevada. Operating at the watershed scale, CZOs are natural laboratories for investigating the processes 

that occur at and near the Earth's surface and that are affected by fresh water (http://criticalzone.org). 

These interconnected processes impact everything from the production of soil to the evolution of 

biosystems. However, little is known about how these processes are coupled and at what temporal and 

spatial scales. Currently seven universities are collaborating at KREW through the CZO effort 

(University of California at Berkeley, Davis, Merced, Irvine, and Santa Barbara; University of Nevada at 

Reno; University of Wyoming) and some international collaboration has begun. While none of these 

collaborators are depending on a specific treatment design, several of them are interested in being able 

to evaluate before and after treatment periods. The KREW design also helped attract the National 

Ecological Observatory Network (also funded by the National Science Foundation) to establish future 

instrumentation in the area (http://neoninc.org).

The State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, funded instrumentation and data 

collection at KREW from 2005 through 2010 under the provisions of Proposition 50 (Agreement 04-

186-555-0). State funding focused on water chemistry, vegetation, stream invertebrates, stream algae, 

and water turbidity. The State funded KREW because there was little data on the headwater systems in 

the southern Sierra Nevada, and more data were needed on the effects of contemporary forest 

management activities. The KREW final report to the State can be found on the KREW web site. 

Sampling Design

In 2000 to 2002, when the research sampling design was being established, not all of the details of the 

land management treatments were known. However, expected and desired characteristics of these 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-4

treatments were developed in detail by PSW and SNF staffs over several years. For example, treatments 

were desired within Streamside Management Zones (thinning and understory burning) and within 

Riparian Management Areas (understory burning only) to provide research data for management 

decisions on restoration and management of headwater riparian areas. Another example is that 

mechanical treatments should be reasonable and standard practice but intense enough to expect an 

effect might be able to be measured for indicators such as stream sediment and nitrogen release. 

Scientists also wanted the data to be useful for management on all forest lands—federal, state, and 

private. Deciding on a sampling design is always a tradeoff between a large number of samples, which 

provides more statistical power and therefore more confidence in results, and the time and cost per 

sample. Dr. Hunsaker made all KREW sampling decisions in consultation with other scientists (see 

KREW Research Study Plan (a PDF) at www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/water/kingsriver); Jim 

Baldwin, a PSW statistician, was involved. The KREW Study Plan was peer reviewed by scientists not 

with the Forest Service. Once a research sampling design is established and sampling begins, it is not 

changed.

The KREW research is a “before and after treatment design with controls.” Such a design provides the 

most confidence in correctly detecting effects from the treatments, especially if many years of data are 

collected before the treatments as KREW has done. The control watersheds provide a way of better 

understanding variability during the experimental years and identifying change or variability caused by 

something other than the treatment, for example weather. The Bull and Providence sites are replicates; 

therefore the treatment type, intensity, and timing should be as similar as possible both within a 

watershed and between its replicate for the treatments being evaluated: thin only, understory burn 

only, and thin and understory burn. Ideally “replicates” are identical; while this can happen in a 

laboratory, it is not entirely possible at a landscape or watershed scale. However, the Bull and 

Providence research watersheds were selected with similarities in mind and for many characteristics 

are very similar: perennial streams, soils, vegetation, topography, and precipitation amount. All 

treatments of the same type (thin or fire) need to occur in the same year within and between KREW 

Units. Within each watershed there is a riparian study; therefore, treatments within the riparian areas 

must also be consistent within a watershed and between its replicate. 

The integrity of the research design depends on consistency of treatments across the research landscape 

and places more constraints on the treatment implementation than occurs for a standard forest project. 

Several non-significant Forest Plan amendments are required to ensure the integrity of the research 

design (see Section 2.3.1.6) most of these are the shortening of a LOP so that both the treatment (thin or 

burn) and the installation of measurement devices can be completed before October 1 when the Water 

Year begins for the KREW research. Precipitation events are also likely to occur in October, and any 

effects caused by these need to be measured; it is important to capture the first large rain events after a 

treatment since these are likely to drive the most substantial short-term effects for aquatic ecosystems. 

The other reason for amendments is to be sure understory burns occur in a reasonably consistent 

manner in riparian areas. 

Terrestrial Sampling:

The sampling design for terrestrial measurements is based on a uniform grid of 150 meters (492 feet); 

however, the small watersheds of P304 and B201 have the spacing set at 75 m (246 ft) in the northsouth direction to provide for enough sampling points (Figures 3-8-1 and 3-8-2. This provides a total of 

477 sample points with at least 40 to 50 points in each research watershed (Table 3-8-1). Since 

treatments will not cover 100% of a watershed, the expectation is that at least half would be treated and 

thus no watershed would have fewer than 20 points that are treated. Measurements for vegetation, 

fuels, soil physical and chemical characteristics, and nutrient fluxes are based on this uniform grid. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-5

Figure 3-8-1. Permanent grid points for sampling of treatment effects on terrestrial characteristics of 

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

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-6

Figure 3-8-2. Permanent grid points for sampling of treatment effects on terrestrial characteristics of 

the Providence Unit research watersheds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-7

Table 3-8-1. Number of research sampling points established to evaluate effects in riparian and upland 

portions of each research watershed.

Watershed

Code

Upland

Sampling points

Riparian

Sampling transects

P301 44 7

P303 60 6

P304 39 5

D102 54 7

B201 45 5

B203 63 8

B204 72 8

T003 100 10

Total 477 56

Treatment location is governed by landscape, but the intensity of mechanical treatment is governed by 

the alternative. Understory burning is the same for all alternatives, but within the research watersheds 

fire needs to be ignited as much as is reasonable to cover the entire research watershed. Since the 

establishment of the permanent research sampling points, both public opposition and economics have 

reduced the amount of vegetation that would be removed (smaller tree sizes for thinning, no helicopter 

logging) so the sample size for mechanical treatment effects will be lower than originally planned. The 

number of points that are expected to be treated by fire is as originally planned. Many scientists such as 

Dr. Lee MacDonald (Colorado State University), Dr. Dale Johnson (University of Nevada), Dr. Roger Bales 

(University of California Merced), and Dr. Scott Cooper (University of California Santa Barbara) expect 

minimal negative effects on runoff and sediment from the mechanical treatments and support the need 

for the proposed intensity and extent of the treatments to provide the most science value.

Riparian Sampling:

Since streams are linear features on the landscape, the uniform grid does not provide an adequate 

sample for riparian areas. Riparian transects were located at regular intervals, ranging from five to ten 

transects per stream channel, depending on the length of the channel. Because channel length is also 

quite variable on KREW watersheds (595 to 3,170 m), the number of transects were assigned 

proportional to the length of the steam, with five transects assigned to the watershed with the shortest 

channel, ten assigned to that with the longest channel, and the remaining receiving 5 to 10 transects, 

depending on channel length (Table 3-8-1, Figures 3-8-3 and 3-8-4). Transects were placed 

perpendicular to the stream channel, starting at the bankfull edge, and extending 20 m (65.6 ft) into the 

upland. The first transects on a stream start 200 m (656 ft) from the base of the watershed (flume 

location) and are placed moving upstream at 200 m intervals It is common to sample using transects 

that are perpendicular to the stream channel when characterizing riparian areas because the 

community changes frequently with varying lateral proximity to the channel. The location of transects 

rotates from one side of the stream to the other proceeding upstream, so as to sample opposing aspects 

of the watershed.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2001) contained an Adaptive Management Strategy 

(Appendix E) that highlighted both “cause and effect monitoring needs” and “key information gaps”; the 

2004 SNFPA adopted the strategy from Appendix E (see Section 1.3.2 of this EIS). The KREW riparian 

research was designed to address the following two questions about treatments in riparian areas.

Key Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Information Gaps
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-8

What width and range of treatments for riparian buffers (including those proposed in the S&Gs) 

are most effective in maintaining and restoring aquatic, riparian, and meadow physical, 

chemical, and biological conditions?

Fire and Fuels Cause and Effect Monitoring Questions

What is the effect of fire and fuel treatments in riparian zones and near ephemeral streams on 

the riparian and stream physical, chemical, and biological conditions?

Sierra Nevada riparian areas, like their associated watershed uplands, are in need of restoration because 

of fire suppression. The KREW riparian research design was based on the need to restore headwater 

riparian areas, to get data to answer the questions listed above, and the existing guidance/standards for 

forest management on federal, state, and private riparian lands. The Forest Service Handbook (Sierra 

National Forest Supplement No. 1, August 1989) defines a Riparian Management Area as all areas within 

a horizontal distance of 100 ft from the edge of perennial streams or lakes when the side slope is less 

than 30 percent. Vehicle use is prohibited within these defined areas; but vegetation can be cut and 

dragged out. The Water Course and Lake Protection Zone for Class I streams is 75 ft and for Class II 

streams is 50 ft when the side slope is less than 30 percent (California Forest Practice Rules 2011). For 

a Class I watercourse in the Sierra Nevada, the State allows commercial thinning in the Inner Zone 

between 30 to 70 ft from the stream, but no trees can be removed within 30 ft of the stream. Although 

the KREW research streams are headwaters (first and second order streams), they flow all year 

(perennial). The KREW riparian research was designed to evaluate the thinning of trees to within 50 ft 

of the stream side using the same silviculture prescription as the “general forest thin,” while maintaining 

the exclusion of vehicles from the edge of the stream to 100 ft upslope. While this riparian treatment is 

more restrictive than that allowed by the State of California, it would still be informative to State 

regulators. If a substantial sediment, nutrient, or invertebrate effect is detectable under the KREW 

treatments, then a similar or more substantial effect can be expected under State Best Management 

Practices for riparian areas. For KREW, if a stream runs through a meadow, the Riparian Management 

Area starts at the outer edge of the meadow. Thus the 100 ft vehicle exclusion starts from the green 

edge of the meadow (not the stream edge within the meadow) and extends into the upland forest.

Low intensity, prescribed fire is allowed to back into riparian areas under the Sierra Nevada Framework 

(2001, 2004). To ensure a low-intensity fire treatment occurs in the research riparian areas, fire can be 

ignited but not within 5 ft of the stream or within obviously green riparian vegetation. This decision 

was based on three years of riparian vegetation monitoring for KREW which shows that the influence of 

these perennial-stream microclimates on nearby vegetation only extends from 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10 ft) 

upslope of the stream edge.

There are 56 established riparian sampling transects (Table 3-8-1) in KREW (15 of these are controls 

that receive no treatment). Each transect extends 66 ft from the edge of the streamside. For mechanical 

treatments, 16 feet of this transect can have vegetation removed from it but receives no disturbance 

from vehicles. The remaining 50 ft of the transect (going towards the stream) is used to monitor 

indirect effects from any adjacent thinning. The entire transect can be exposed to understory burning, 

but the 5 ft adjacent to the stream (or obviously green riparian vegetation) would not have fire ignited in 

it.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-9

Figure 3-8-3. Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation of the Bull 

Unit research watersheds. These sampling locations are displayed with the thinning treatments of 

Alternative 4 to show that these sampling locations would not receive a consistent thinning treatment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-10

Figure 3-8-4. Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation of the 

Providence Unit research watersheds. These sampling locations are displayed with the thinning 

treatments of Alternative 4 to show that these sampling locations would not receive a consistent 

thinning treatment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-11

New Information and Questions To Be Answered

The KREW research was designed to address a diverse set of questions about forest management and 

develop new information about Sierra headwater streams and their watersheds. In Section 1.3.2 the 

management questions and information gaps that KREW can address from the Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Strategy are described. In the KREW Research Study Plan three conceptual models 

(stream discharge, soil loss, and vegetation) are provided to illustrate how the many measurements that 

KREW takes are interrelated. The physical, chemical, and biological measurements that are made for the 

KREW experiment are listed in Appendix A. For each of the measurements in Appendix A, a similar set 

of questions can be answered; only some examples are provided here to note be overly repetitive. 

The KREW research has a good pre-treatment (baseline) data set of eight years of data with high, 

average, and low precipitation years (Water Year 2003 through 2010). A powerful and unique aspect of 

KREW is the inclusion of the T003 watershed in the Teakettle Experimental Forest. This watershed has 

not been disturbed by roads or timber harvest and therefore provides data on the natural range of 

variability for measurements such as stream sediment load, flow during precipitation events of 

different magnitudes and types, invertebrates, and algae. The uplands of this watershed provide data on 

soil physical properties, nutrient cycling, and carbon storage for an undisturbed watershed. The other 

seven watersheds in the KREW research have been disturbed by standard forest management activities 

such as roads and timber harvesting. Therefore, their pre-treatment data are representative of the 

current range of variability for managed watersheds where many characteristics have recovered from 

the last timber harvest that occurred 15 to 20 years ago. Measurements taken after the treatments (thin 

or burn) would then be compared back to the pre-treatment range of variability. If a post-treatment 

measurement for a characteristic is within the range of variability established by the pre-treatment data 

for that stream or watershed, then the measured effect would likely be considered to be neutral or not 

significant. Another way a stream physical or chemical characteristic can be evaluated for significance 

during the post-treatment period is to see if the biological stream indicators, invertebrates or algae, 

experience a significant change.

Soil condition and erosion are used here as examples of the type of new information and questions that 

KREW can answer. A similar process can be applied to other measurements listed in Appendix A. KREW 

collects annual sediment loads for each stream; from these data an annual erosion rate (lbs/acre) can be 

developed for each watershed. The eight years of pre-treatment data now provide a current range of 

variability for the seven managed watersheds and a natural range of variability for T003, the 

undisturbed watershed. The erosion rate for T003 falls in about the middle of the current range of 

variability for the managed watersheds. The first year or two after a treatment is when the most the 

erosion (effect) is expected to occur; however, erosion is very dependent on precipitation intensity. The 

plan is that KREW will collect data for at least five years after a treatment so that short-term (1-2 years) 

and long-term (3-5 years) periods can be compared to the pre-treatment range of variability to 

determine the significance of a change. Scientists expect there to be an increase in the erosion rate after 

treatments, but the magnitude of the change, the duration of the change, and how fast the rate returns to 

baseline (if it does) are not known. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model has been 

calibrated for KREW and can predict this, but KREW data would help verify WEPP for the southern 

Sierra Nevada. Because there are thin only, burn only, and thin and burn watersheds, we would be able 

to determine the proportion, magnitude, and timing of erosion that comes from a thin treatment, a burn 

treatment, and a combined thin and burn treatment. The control watersheds (where no treatments 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-12

occur) provide a check on unusual or extreme conditions that occur (rain-on-snow events, drought, 

extreme temperature, gradual climate change, etc.) and are important for evaluation of a positive, 

neutral, or negative effect from a treatment. Other important soil conditions such as compaction, depth 

of organic (litter) matter above mineral soil, mineral soil carbon and nitrogen concentrations can all be 

evaluated in a similar manner for pre- and post-treatment data at KREW.

Stream invertebrates and algae will be given as another brief example of the types of questions that 

KREW can answer. Invertebrates and algae are biological indicators for a change in stream or riparian 

condition. Just because a change can be measured in a physical or chemical parameter of stream water, 

like sediment load or nitrogen concentration, does not mean that change has a significant effect (positive 

or negative) on the biological condition of the stream. For stream invertebrates, measurements like the 

number of individuals of a genus (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly) or the proportion of sensitive types are used to 

evaluate the condition of a stream. For example, if the sediment load of a stream increases substantially, 

it is expected that the proportion of invertebrates that are sensitive to sediment will decrease. If that 

decrease in sensitive invertebrates is substantial and continues for several years, then the condition of 

that stream would be degraded. Again, post-treatment data would be compared to the pre-treatment 

data for a stream and would be evaluated for the various treatments. Treatments in riparian zones 

could be expected to increase sedimentation, increase water temperature, or reduce large woody debris, 

at least in the short-term. While we might or might not be able to measure a significant change in each 

of these parameters, if we see a significant negative change in the invertebrate population then we 

would likely conclude that one or more of the stream physical conditions have caused this invertebrate 

degradation. As stated before, the T003 undisturbed stream data will be very useful for assessing 

ecological condition. No watershed-scale, experimental data (cause and effect) of the intensity that 

KREW is designed to measure exists for headwater streams and invertebrate and algae communities in 

the Sierra Nevada.

The last example given will be about the role KREW plays for climate change in the Sierra Nevada; 55 to 

65 percent of California’s developed water comes from small streams in the Sierra Nevada. The 

Providence Unit of KREW currently receives precipitation as both rain and snow, while the Bull Unit is 

snow dominated. Scientists believe that the lower elevation research watersheds currently serve as a 

surrogate for how higher elevation watersheds will function with climate change (predicted to be 1 to 2 

degrees C (similar in degrees F). KREW monitors streamflow on 10 streams and weather conditions at 

four locations. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funding the Southern Sierra Critical Zone 

Observatory which has added many measurement sites of soil moisture at several depths and snow 

depth on the Providence research watersheds. NSF has also funded a transect of flux towers that 

measure weather conditions from the base to the top of the forest canopy; one of these towers is located 

in the Providence Unit at P301, and one is north of the Bull Unit. NSF's National Ecological Observatory 

Network will add more flux towers to this research area with a transect extending from the valley up to 

the crest of the Sierras; they selected this location to study climate change also. Through collaboration, 

an intense network of both climate and hydrologic instruments is in place to address climate change in 

the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Currently the average temperature across the 600-m (1,970 ft) average elevation range was only 1 to 2 

degrees C warmer in the lower versus upper elevation research watersheds. The annual precipitation is 

75-95% snow at the Bull Unit versus 20-50% at the Providence Unit. Measurements indicate that about 

one third less water would flow in the streams from high elevation headwaters in the southern Sierra as 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-13

temperatures increase 1 to 2 degrees C. Peak discharge lagged peak snow accumulation on the order of 

60 days at the higher elevations and 20 to 30 days at the lower elevations. Climate change is expected to 

result in earlier runoff, and the KREW pre-treatment data indicate the number of days that shift might 

be in the future. The amount of water in these headwater streams is controlled by climate and 

vegetation (amount and type). The KREW forest restoration treatments would be very useful in 

determining if management of vegetation at the proposed levels makes any significant difference in the 

amount and timing of stream flow for snow-dominated versus rain-and-snow watersheds.

3-8.3 Environmental Consequences

3-8.3.1 Alternative 1—No Action

Direct Effects

Since no land management activity occurs under this alternative, this alternative does not meet the 

objectives of the KREW research which is to quantify effects of land management activities for forest 

restoration. No new research information would be provided for R5’s Adaptive Management Strategy.

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

Direct Effects

This alternative has the mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments that the KREW sampling 

was designed to evaluate—restoration of a patchy, uneven-aged forest structure. The KREW design was 

done in 2000-2002, and data collection started in 2003. Ideally for research, a consistent treatment is 

performed across the entire watershed landscape; however, in reality this does not happen because of 

the variability in the landscape. The research sampling occurs either in the stream, near the stream edge, 

or on a uniform grid with 492-ft (150-m) spacing across the landscape (see sampling design in Section 

3-8.2.2). The tree thinning (as measured by the upper diameter limit for removal) is the same on upland 

and riparian areas for both the General Forest Thin and the Old Forest Emphasis Thin. For this 

alternative, the degree of mechanical thinning is expected to be substantial enough to detect a change in 

the indicators being monitored by research. For example, the amount of biomass (trees and shrubs) 

being removed may lead to an increase in stream flow or an increased pulse of nitrogen in stream water 

for a few years after treatment. Ideally at least half of the sampling grid points within a treated 

watershed will have vegetation removed, soil disturbed, or fire applied to them; the sampling design 

determines the level of confidence that can be applied to a measured change from before and after a 

treatment. Substantial new research information would be provided for R5’s Adaptive Management 

Strategy.

3-8.3.3 Alternative 3 – Fuels Reduction

Direct Effects

This alternative does not strive to restore a patchy, uneven-aged forest structure and therefore does not 

meet the objectives of the KREW research. This level of mechanical thinning is not expected to either 

remove enough biomass or treat a high enough (50 percent or more) proportion of the landscape to
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-14

detect, with confidence, a change in the indicators being monitored by research. Limited new research 

information would be provided for R5’s Adaptive Management Strategy.

3-8.3.4 Alternative 4 – North GTR (Ecological Restoration)

Direct Effects

While this alternative does strive to restore a patchy, uneven-aged forest based on landscape attributes, 

the inconsistent treatment (upper diameter limit for tree thinning) of upland and near-stream areas is 

in conflict with the KREW sampling design. Specifically, the upper diameter limit for tree thinning is 12-

in dbh in canyon areas and 30-in for other thinned areas. Loss of both sampling points and vegetation 

transects would reduce or eliminate our ability to detect, with confidence, a change in the indicators 

being monitored. This is especially of concern for the KREW near-stream (riparian) restoration study 

objectives. The KREW design established riparian vegetation sampling transects every 656 ft (200 m) 

along streams in 2002 (see riparian sampling in Section 3-8.2.2). These transects were measured for 

three years (2003-2005) to establish a pre-treatment vegetation composition. As discussed previously 

for other alternatives, the removal of any of the established sampling areas from a consistent mechanical 

treatment does not meet the objectives of the KREW research. The number of riparian sampling 

transects is given in Table 3-8-1, and Figures 3-8-3 and 3-8-4 illustrate that there would be inconsistent 

treatments given to both riparian transects and the terrestrial sampling grid (Figures 3-8-1 and 3-8-2). 

Some new research information would be provided for R5’s Adaptive Management Strategy, but not 

about riparian vegetation.

3-8.3.5 Alternative 5 – Proposed Action 

Direct Effects

This alternative meets the objectives of the KREW research because within the research watershed 

boundaries an uneven-aged management strategy (Alternative 2) is used for the mechanical treatments 

and no near-stream areas are removed from consistent mechanical treatment (see sampling discussion 

in Section 3-8.2.2 and under Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 of this section). This alternative has the 

mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments in the research watersheds that the KREW sampling 

was designed to evaluate. The KREW design was done in 2000-2002, and data collection started in 2003.

For this alternative, the degree of mechanical thinning is expected to be substantial enough to detect a 

change in the indicators being monitored by research. Substantial new research information would be 

provided for R5’s Adaptive Management Strategy.

3-8.4 Comparison of Alternatives

Based on the explanations above, Alternatives 2 and 5 fully meet the research objectives, while 

Alternative 4 meets most objectives and Alternatives 1 and 3 do not meet research objectives. See Table 

3-8-1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 3-8 - Research 3.8-15

Table 3-8-2 Summary of Alternative’s Ability to Meet Research Objectives

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Meets 

Research 

Objectives

Does not meet Fully meets 

research 

objectives

Does not meet 

research 

objectives

Meets research 

objectives in 

large part 

except for 

riparian areas

Fully meets 

research 

objectives

Degree of 

Thinning to 

Achieve 

Scientifically 

Viable 

Experimental 

Result

No Thinning Sufficient 

Thinning to 

result in 

ground 

disturbance 

and 

scientifically 

sufficient 

response

Insufficient 

Thinning to 

result in 

ground 

disturbance 

and 

scientifically 

sufficient 

response

Sufficient 

Thinning to 

result in 

ground 

disturbance 

and 

scientifically 

sufficient 

response

Sufficient 

Thinning to 

result in 

ground 

disturbance 

and 

scientifically 

sufficient 

response

Sufficient 

Sampling Area 

to Achieve 

Scientifically 

Viable 

Experimental 

Result

No Area 

Treated

Sufficient 

Sampling Area

Sufficient 

Sampling Area

Insufficient 

sampling area 

due to reduced 

treatment in 

riparian areas

Sufficient 

Sampling Area