Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 76 Goshawk LOP
The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #76 will read as follows:

76. "For northern goshawk PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting
vegetation treatments within approximately 4 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 health objectives and defined in FEIS Chapter 2,
Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW Project EIS, may occur in goshawk PACs from
July 1 to September 15 within the KREW Project boundary (the specific KREW Project
boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-1 & 2-2) during the implementation phase of this

project.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 85 Fisher Den Buffer LOP
The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #85 will read as follows:

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.” Vegetation treatments as designed to meet forest health objectives
and defined in_FEIS Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW Project EIS,
may occur in fisher den buffers_beginning June 15 (rather than the S&G standard of June 30),
within the KREW Project boundary (the specific KREW Project boundaries are shown in FEIS
Figures 2-1 & 2-2) during the implementation phase of this project.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 86 Fisher: Den Buffer Management
The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #86 will read as follows:

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 treat fuels if no other reasonable
alternative exists.” Vegetation treatments as designed to meet forest health objectives and defined
in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW Project EIS, may occur in Pacific
fisher densite buffer(s) within the KREW Project boundary research areas (the specific KREW
Project research area boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-] & 2-2) during the
implementation phase of this project.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 92 - Management Activities in RCAs and CARs

The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #92 will read as follows:

92. “Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and RCAs during environmental
analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level

16


Record of Decision

Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

|
|

: t a] Underbum

| Stands

Nt Watershed Boundaries

Cc] Unit Boundary

Bull Unit Underburn

1 Miles
[a or er

Figure 4. Bull Unit Understory Burning. Stand Plan_id numbers are shown.

10


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

form unhealthy stands prone to uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires, drought-induced
mortality, and increased outbreak of disease and insect infestation (Graham et al. 1999) (FEIS

Section 3-2.3.2).

Figure 9 shows that there is a 30 percent probability of a 1,000 acre fire and a 15 percent
probability of a 2,200 to 5,000 acre fire occuring including part or all of the KREW Project area
within the next 10 years. There is a three percent probability that a 13,712 acre fire would occur
on the Sierra National Forest, potentially in the KREW Project area, within the next 40 years.
(Ballard and Bahro 2006) (FEIS Section 3-2.3.2).

10000:

Burned Are

—S— 10 Years —@-— 20 Yeas Years —@— 40 Yeas =U Years

Figure 9. Forest Risk Due to Loss to Fire.

I consider the research component of the KREW Project to be of high importance. It is vital that
forest managers have scientific information on which to base decision-making. The KREW
Project is a unique opportunity to understand the effects of forest treatments on riparian areas as
well as gain important information on other key questions about water quantity and quality,
erosion and sedimentation, stream biologic health, soil health, and carbon storage and nutrients.
The quality of aquatic, riparian (near-stream area), and meadow ecosystems is directly related to
the healthy condition of nearby uplands in their watershed. 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 other long-term experimental watershed studies exist in the southern Sierra
Nevada to guide future land management. KREW Project research was designed to address the
needs of the SNFPA’s Adaptive Management Plan (USDA-FS 2004b) and achieve the following

objectives:

20


1.1 Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision on the Kings River Experimental
Watershed Forest Health and Research (KREW) Project on the Sierra National Forest (SNF or
Forest). The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the environmental impacts
associated with the Forest’s Proposed Action, a No Action Alternative, and three additional
action alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need and respond to issues raised by the
public.

Thave decided to implement Alternative 5. My decision includes prescribed fire and thinning
treatments on 29 stands in the project area with different thinning treatments inside and outside of
the research areas as well as a decision not to treat approximately 50 percent of the project area.
(Research areas include watersheds P301, P303, P304, D10Additionally my decision includes
regeneration and species composition strategies, noxious weed treatment, plantation maintenance,
brush removal, retention of fisher rest sites, road reconstruction and pre-haul maintenance as well
as construction of temporary roads. To allow the research component of the project to provide
needed information, my decision includes eight non-significant Land and Resource Management
Plan (LRMP) amendments which modify wildlife limited operating periods (LOPs), allow
treatments in wildlife denning areas, and allow for minor and localized stream sedimentation and
work in riparian conservation areas (RCA).

1.2 Background

The SNF LRMP was amended in 2001 by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA)
Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA-FS 1992, 2001b). In the 2001 SNFPA ROD Standards and
Guidelines (S&Gs) for project planning were to focus on the modification of fire behavior
through fuels treatments. These treatments were to have the highest priority in areas described as
Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix (WUT). In 2004, a Supplemental EIS (USDA-2004a) was
written to the SNFPA and a new ROD was signed (USDA-FS 2004b). This ROD replaced the
2001 decision in its entirety. This decision recommended an ecosystem approach whereby the
development and planning of projects would not only be based on fuels reduction treatments, but
would create an overall approach looking at all key elements within an ecosystem. However
WUI continued to be the highest priority area for treatments.

The KREW research was designed to address monitoring and research information needs
described in the SNFPA’s Adaptive Management Plan (USDA-FS 2004b).The collection of eight
research watersheds in the Providence and Bull Units (research area) were originally chosen for
investigation in 2000 by the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) and the SNF. (This is an
area where other research efforts have been occurring thus providing an overlap of baseline data
to be collected. PSW has been conducting California spotted owl research for 21 years and fisher
research for 11 years in this area.) In the research design, following management goals and
direction from the SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b), treatment areas for the KREW Project
were developed. These treatment areas were based on the basic fire and fuels strategy which
remained in the SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b); reducing the risk of wildland fire to WUI
across broad landscapes. In addition, this strategy was broadened to include the need to consider
and provide for other important objectives to improve forest health by restoring and maintaining
ecosystem structure and composition.

1.2.5 Location

The project area encompasses a total of 3,620 acres and has two separate management units: the
Providence Unit (1,862 acres) and the Bull Unit (1,194 acres) plus 563 acres in Teakettle

1


and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to
(1)” allow some “risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems” in the KREW project
boundary research areas (the specific KREW Project research area boundaries are shown in
FEIS Figures 2-1 & 2-2) during project implementation allowing research data to be gathered
“and (2)” allow “impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species”
in the KREW project boundary research areas (the specific KREW Project research area
boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-1 & 2-2) during project implementation.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 109 -Impact on Riparian Vegetation
The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #109 will read as follows:

109. “Within CARS, in occupied habitat or “essential habitat” as identified in conservation
assessments for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, evaluate the appropriate role, timing,
and extent of prescribed fire. Avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation prescribed fire may
back into riparian vegetation areas. Develop mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these
species whenever ground-disturbing equipment is used” except in research areas in KREW
project boundary (the specific KREW Project research area boundaries are shown in FEIS
Figures 2-] & 2-2) during project implementation allowing research data to be gathered.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 111 — Ignition of Understory Burning in Stream
Management Zones

The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #111 will read as follows:

111. “Design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of ground cover and riparian
vegetation in RCAs. In burn plans for project areas that include, or are adjacent to RCAs, identify
mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation. In determining which
mitigation measures to adopt, weigh the potential harm of mitigation measures; for example, fire
lines are a mitigation measure with potential harm that must be weighed against the risks and
benefits of prescribed fire entering riparian vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire
in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuel management
actions could be damaging to habitat or long-term function of the riparian community.” Ignition
of understory burning and related disturbance of ground cover and riparian vegetation in RCAs
would be allowed in KREW research areas as needed to meet the objectives of the research
design through KREW project implementation within the KREW Project research area
boundaries (the specific KREW Project research area boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-1

& 2-2).

1.3.6 Design Features and Best Management Practices Included in the
Decision

Based on their site specific review of each aspect of the project alternatives, resource specialists

identified design features and BMPs to reduce potential impacts caused by the various

alternatives. FEIS Chapter 2.3.6 describes and defines the actions. My decision includes

implementation of the project specific design features and BMPs shown in ROD Appendix A &

C respectively. These design features and BMPs minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts on

sensitive resources.

17


Commenters also raised concerns about impacts to the California spotted owl. The KREW
Project’s 500-foot buffer around spotted owl nesting trees will help protect nesting owls from
direct mechanical effects and the LOP precluding mechanical treatment from February 1 to June
15 will minimize noise disturbance. Owls will likely use other parts of their home range if
temporarily disturbed during treatments. Thinning and prescribed burning will retain a majority
of the forest structure and function immediately after treatments and is a relatively moderate
habitat modification as compared with the high risk of high severity wildfire that would remain
without treatment (FEIS Section 3-9.4.4). Any impacts will be short term, and habitat for the
California spotted owl will increase in the long term from the project.

Commenters expressed concern about the removal of large trees and the effect of removing trees
on wildlife habitat. My decision addresses large tree removal by retaining all trees 30 inches dbh
and above while only removing four percent of the 20 — 30 inch trees in the project area (4,000 of
the 53,000 trees in this size class across the 3,653 acres of the project — approximately one tree on
average per acre). These low levels of removal in the 20 — 30 inch tree size class allow the level
of treatment to have scientifically credible results while allowing the forest to continue to grow
large trees for habitat structure and to develop mature forest conditions (FEIS Section 3-11.4.5).
The analysis shows that treatment improves or is neutral related to habitat for sensitive species
compared to taking no action 15 years after treatment.

Commenters expressed a desire to grow large trees in the forest. My decision increases the
proportion of large trees (>35 inches dbh) over the 30 year analysis period by 5 - 9 percent in the
Providence Unit and the Bull Unit (respectively) (FEIS Section 3-11.4.5).

My decision increases the landscape heterogeneity after treatments and therefore increases the
forest’s ability to resist insect attack and remain healthy longer during drought and climate
change. Resistance of trees to density induced mortality and insect disturbance increases from 12
percent to 30 percent of treated acres in the Providence Unit and from 21 percent to 43 percent in
the Bull Unit (FEIS Section 3-11.4.5).

My decision also works toward meeting resource objectives related to the diversification of
natural forest species and forest heterogeneity by adding reforestation with pine, creating brush
openings, maintaining plantations and through noxious weed abatement. With these efforts pine
dominance increases by only one percent with white fir and incense cedar dominance decreasing
correspondingly; however, 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). Black oak will
be retained throughout the project.

The project has no detrimental effect on soils, cultural resources, and hydrologic resources (FEIS
Sections 3-10.4.2, 3-3.4.6, and 3-6.4.6). My decision treats three acres of noxious weeds and
includes abatement measures to preclude invasive weed species from being further introduced
into the project area. There will be no effect to water quality or human health due to the
glyphosate treatment proposed for weed and brush control (3-12.2). Air quality emissions meet
the General Conformity Rule and do not interfere with strategies employed to attain National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. The emissions from this project are considered to be regionally
insignificant (FEIS Section 3-1.5).

My decision may disturb sensitive plants such as Madera linanthus project wide, slender monkey
flower and golden annual lupine in the Providence Unit and short-leaved hulsea in the Bull Unit.

23


KREW
Desired Conditions vs Existing Conditions

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

"mee Trees perAcre>11" =======Desired Canyons === Desired Southwest

Figure 8 Number of Trees over 11 inches dbh in Each KREW Project Treated Stand (FEIS
Section 3-11.3.3).

Additionally the forest in its current condition is susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire which
can cause stand replacement. Fire is an important component of the forest ecosystem however
the fire conditions that were in effect prior to man’s involvement were typically low to the ground
and of moderate intensity. Current conditions in the KREW Project area would sustain a high
severity fire on 2,116 acres of the project area with crown fire possible on 71 percent of the
project area. Such fires would negatively impact natural resources and the public and firefighter
safety. High fire severity is commonly characterized by complete mortality of the vegetation, soil
damage, water pollution, ineffective suppression efforts with associated high financial costs, and
loss of life and/or property (FEIS Section 3-2.3.2).

The project area has missed multiple natural low-intensity fires (common before fire
suppression), possibly as many as 20. The lack of frequent mixed-intensity fires has caused
timber stands to become overstocked with fire intolerant trees and shrubs, converting it to a fire
susceptible forest type in which high intensity fires are more likely. Fire intolerant species tend to

19


Record of Decision

Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Table 2. Thinning Strategies by Stand (Plan_id).

Thinning Strategies

— __ Inside Research
Outside Research Watershed Watershed
oS : ae 5 Old
ae Neutral ee General Forest a

Canyon/ Aspect South/West | Forest Emphasis | No Grand
Plan_id Fisher Thin _ Thin Aspect Thin | Thin Thin Thin | Total
208 0 11 1 0 0 23 35
235 0 10 2 62 14 9 97
236 1 28 10 0 0 19 58
250 1 26 1 0 0 0 28
280 2 63 2 0 4 75
281 3 0 17 24 8 19 71
292 0 6 5 0 0 19 30
295 11 16 85 0 0 12 124
299 3 117 8 1 0 28 157
301 0 0 0 0 65 65
306 45 8 56 21 1 6 137
316 0 0 0 0 0 158 158
331 0 6 0 0 0 123 123
346 29 0 9 0 0 10 48
365 0 0 0 9 0 75 84
380 6 46 5 2 0 104 163
449 38 0 14 37 2 75 166
450 0 0 0 0 0) 84 84
499 44 0 0 0 0 28 72
796 0 0 0 0 0 411 111
811 6 7 55 40 15 12 135
838 14 3 7 71 16 42 153
961 0 0 0 0 0 98 98
962 11 18 52 18 0 2 101
964 0 3 43 59 0 10 115
965 0 21 0 4 0 68 93
1043 20 8 25 0 0 35 88
1056 0 0 0 15 0 78 93
1057 10 1 258 1 25 295
Grand if :
Total 234 401 & 400 623 57 | 1342 | 3057

Note: an additional 563 acres in the Teakettle Experimental Forest will not be treated as part of this
decision. (Watershed T003)

14


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

1.3 Decision

Based on consideration of the purpose and need for action, the issues, the LRMP and associated
amendments, current policies and regulations, the analysis of alternatives contained in the FEIS, public
comments received, and other information in the project record, I have decided to implement Alternative
5 which was the Proposed Action in the FEIS. (For a detailed discussion of all the facets of Alternative 5,
see FEIS Section 2.3.5 and 2.3.1 which are the actions common to all alternatives.) My decision is to
select Alternative 5 in its entirety, including the associated resource protection measures (design
measures) (ROD Appendix A), monitoring plan (ROD Appendix B) and BMPs (ROD Appendix C). I
believe that the selection of this alternative best meets all the components of the purpose and need;
responds to the issues; ensures natural and cultural resource protection; and results in ecological
restoration of the project area. Treatment maps (Figures 2 through 7) display the areas where differing
thinning prescriptions are being applied inside and outside of the research areas, where burning will occur
and the project related roads. No project activities will be done in wilderness or Inventoried Roadless
Areas.

To meet the project purposes and needs, I have made the decision summarized in Table 1 below. The
number of acres to be treated and the type of treatment are listed in Table 2.

Table 1 Summary of my Decision

Acti

Spotted Owl Nest Buffer 6 acres in Providence Unit

Thin

Plantation Thinning and 150 acres in Bull Unit (all mechanical) and 247 acres in Providence Unit

Maintenance (104 acres mechanical and 143 acres hand thinning)
Total 397 acres
Research Data Collection in Research Watersheds P301, P303, P304, D102, B201,

8203, B204 and T003 - thin only (D102 and P3041), burn only (B203 and
303), thin and burn (B204 and P301), and control/no activity (T003 and
P304)

Noxious Weed Treatment | 3 acres hand pulling or treated with glyphosate

Tree Removal Two Strategies Employed

Prescription +
pe Inside research areas:

Old Forest Thin
General Forest Thin
And outside of research areas:

Canyon/fisher thin
Neutral Aspect Thin
South/west aspect thin

DBH Limit of Trees
Removed

< 30 inch

Tree Removal —
Commercial and Biomass

748 acres in Bull Unit and 969 acres in Providence Unit

Total 1717 acres

No Tree Removal

1905 acres

Mechanical Mastication

136 acres in Bull Unit and 92 acres in Providence Unit

Total 228 acres



addition, as part of the public involvement process, the FS sent scoping letters to 215
environmental organizations, political representatives, tribal groups, governmental organizations
and interested citizens inviting comment and participation at the public scoping meetings. These
scoping letters were sent September 29, 2009. As part of the public involvement process, the
agency held two public scoping meetings at the SNF Supervisor’s Office, 1600 Tollhouse Road,
Clovis, on Wednesday October 14" at 3 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. and from 6:30 to 8 p.m. on the same
date at the SNF High Sierra Ranger District, 29688 Auberry Road, Prather, CA. The public
meetings were attended by approximately 15 individuals from the local and environmental
community. Four comment letters on the proposed action were received.

1.6.3 Public Comment Period: DEIS (45 days)

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was made available for public comment
beginning December 23, 2010. The document was available on the SNF website and hard copies
of the document, compact disks or letters of notification were mailed to 125 interested parties.
The DEIS Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on December 23, 2010.

1.6.4 Tribal Government and Native American Interests

Tribal Governments and Native American Interests representing constituents in the project area
were sent all public correspondence and have consulted on aspects of the proposed projects sinc
eth beginning of the overarching initial Kings River Project. The following offices received every
mailing:

American Indian Council of Mariposa County, Big Sandy Rancheria, Cold Springs Rancheria,
Chaushilha Yokuts, Dumna Tribe, Dunlap Band of Mono Indians, Haslett Basin Traditional
Committee, North Fork Mono Tribe, North Fork Mono Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria and the
Mono Nation, a non-profit organization.

A Tribal Forum presentation was held on November 11, 2010 to brief the tribes on the project and
entertain any questions and concerns. Cold Springs Rancheria Tribe, North Fork Mono Tribe,
Big Sandy Rancheria and Mono Nation representatives were in attendance. A comprehensive
power point presentation with maps and locations was shown. The Forest has discussed this as an
agenda topic at the above mentioned Forum however no formal request for consultation has come
forward at the time of the decision.

1.6.5 Public Comments on the DEIS

In response to the Forest’s request for comments during the DEIS comment period, 27 interested
parties submitted responses. The SNF documented, analyzed, and summarized public comments
using a process called content analysis. This is a systematic method of compiling and
categorizing the full range of public viewpoints and concerns regarding a plan or project. Content
analysis ensures that every comment is considered. Content analysis is intended to facilitate good
decision-making by helping the IDT to clarify, adjust, or incorporate technical information into
the FEIS. The process facilitates the Forest’s response to comments. Although only substantive
comments are required to be responded to in NEPA regulation, the forest chose to respond to all
comments submitted. One hundred and seventy five (175) comments were responded to and
these responses can be found in Appendix I.

29


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

the viability and habitats of spotted owl, marten fisher and goshawk would continue to
deteriorate. This alternative does not meet any aspect of the project purpose and need.

1.5.2 Alternative 2: Structural Restoration

Alternative 2 has a treatment strategy that emphasizes structural restoration using uneven-aged
management. Structural restoration involves mechanically treating stands before reintroducing
fire into the ecosystem when attempting to recreate historical forest conditions were more open
and comprised of widely spaced, large diameter trees (Stephenson 2001). With structural
restoration, stand characteristics would mimic historic forest conditions and subsequent fire
effects would also mimic historical fire processes. Without mechanical removal of biomass prior
to reintroducing fires, fire processes would eventually perpetuate the same uniform stand
conditions that currently exist, rather than encourage the mosaic of multi-aged and multi-
canopied forest structures of the historical forest.

Key Actions:
© Utilizes structural restoration prescriptions — General Forest Thin and Old Forest
Emphasis Thin;

e Limits the diameter of tree removal to <30 inches dbh;
e Implements fuels reduction treatments;

¢ Allows research based on the original research design determining effects from both
thinning and burning.

This alternative includes the thinning prescription on which the research design was originally
based and therefore it is the optimal prescription to meet the research need in the research areas.
This alternative is similar to the Selected Alternative in a number of ways. It fully meets the
research needs as the prescriptions inside the research areas are identical to those in the Selected
Alternative. It increases the number of large trees by the same percentage. It reduces the tree
density similarly. Percent canopy cover > 50 percent is very close and impacts to sensitive
species is very similar. Some differences include double the number of trees 20 — 30 inches dbh
removed and there is somewhat less high severity fire reduction.

I did not select this alternative because I believe that outside of the research areas the best
available science on restoring ecosystems should be used. I believe the GTR approach represents
the best available science in managing forest land and restoring forest resilience. See Alternative

4 description below.

1.5.3 Alternative 3— Non-Commercial Funding Alternative

Alternative 3 has a treatment strategy that reduces fuels hazards to meet fire behavior objectives.
Structural restoration is not an emphasis for this alternative. Alternative 3 is based on the 2001
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Framework which involves different thinning intensities
among Old Forest Emphasis Areas, wildland urban interface, and General Forest. Fuels
reductions are emphasized with a cautious approach to treating fuels in sensitive wildlife habitat.

Key Actions:
© Thins trees only to the degree needed to for fuels reduction ~ Defense Thin, General
Forest Thin and Old Forest Emphasis Thin;

26


dey Ausra | aunsiy

ez-01-0102 Anuoms Ww

sora
reuonen ous

“| Anuisin yefora

809'Pe:1 mewsonis
v a.
N yea
s11UA jueWeBeUEW, Zorg.
souepunog peysiavenn yeloies [——] oe _
sweags 9 sien
speoy Atepuoseg
spec panea
csomutit22—— gquauunineuy widens Suneitony 5
oe eee me oes suoneig eye @
=r, i swewnnsu| weens -y ;
a4 SIUOMNSUL JON OS } i
(May) SPaysi9zeyy jezuaULEdxy JeAry sBury anon grocer gman eee 29209 soruy



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

Experimental Forest (where no treatments will occur) which is the experimental control for the
Bull Unit treatment (Figure 1). The Providence Unit is located off of the Dinkey Creek Road,
adjacent to the Providence Creek Road (10S17) and the Bull Unit is located on Patterson
Mountain adjacent to the Ross Crossing Road (10S24)

The legal description of the project area is as follows (Mount Diablo Base and Meridian):
Providence Unit

Township (T) 10 S, Range (R) 25 E, portions of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25

T 10S, R 26E, portions of Sections 18, 19

Bull Unit

T 11S, R 27E, portions of Sections 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

The project area ranges in elevation between approximately 5,000 and 8,000 feet above mean sea
level.


1.3.4 Non-significant LRMP Amendments

My decision also includes eight non-significant plan amendments. Most of these plan
amendments are necessary to allow similar treatments to be done in a single season to meet the
needs of research for determining the impacts of the treatments. If treatments were done over a
longer period the research data would be much more difficult to interpret as changing hydrologic
and weather conditions over the longer time period would add additional variables to the data
interpretation. Plan amendments dealing with riparian areas were necessary to allow potential
disturbance to the riparian zone so meaningful data can be collected. For more explanation of the
need for each of the plan amendments see FEIS Section 2.3.1.6. Plan amendments for S&Gs 75,
76 and 85 (LOP S&Gs) apply for all areas within the KREW Project. The other plan amendments
(for S&G #74 & 92, 109 and 111 described below) apply only to the research areas associated
with the project. These areas include 658 acres in the Providence Unit (out of the 1,863 total
acres in the unit) and 866 acres in the Bull Unit (out of the 1,192 total acres in the unit) for a total
of 1,524 acres within the research area boundary out of the total 3,620 project area acres.

For all of the plan amendments displayed below, the amendment is shown in italics and
underlined. The rest of the S&G in quotes is retained as written in the SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS

2004).

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 74 Treatments in Spotted Owl PACs

The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #74 will read as follows:

74. “In 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 as needed to protect important
elements of owl habitat. “ Vegetation treatments as designed to meet forest health objectives and
defined in FEIS Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW Project EIS, may
occur in spotted owl PACs within the KREW Project boundary research areas (the specific
KREW Project research area boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-1 & 2-2) during the
implementation phase of this project.

Forest Plan Amendment for S&G 75 Spotted Owl PAC LOP
The Forest Plan amendment of S&G #75 will read as follows:

75. “For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting
vegetation treatments within approximately 4 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 FEIS Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail for the KREW
Project EIS, may occur in spotted owl PACs from July I to August 31 within the KREW Project
boundary areas (the specific KREW Project boundaries are shown in FEIS Figures 2-1 & 2-2)
during the implementation phase of this project.

15


¢ Increased knowledge about the processes of headwater streams, their riparian areas, and
associated watersheds and their response to forest management practices. The Kings River

watershed is uniquely positioned to allow researchers to examine watershed response to specified
forest management practices using research methods that include both treated and untreated
sample areas. Research in the Providence and Bull Units has been underway since 2000 to collect
data and measure baseline (pre-treatment) ecological conditions. Knowledge gained through
research in Kings River would be relevant to management of Federal, State and private forest
land. The area would be an excellent source of data to support the Southern Sierra Integrated
Regional Water Management Plan requested by the State. In June of 2009, the Sierra Nevada
Alliance highlighted the need to monitor, protect and restore Sierra Nevada headwater resources.
Concern over watershed health in these crucial drainages of California is shared by a wide array
of public interest groups in California.

« An instrumented research site to evaluate regional stresses such as air pollution and climate
change. Ecosystems are variable across space and time. The only way to quantify this variability
well is to have long-term (10 or more years) measurements on a set of environmental indicators.
Once the current (or natural) variability has been quantified, the effect of a management action
can be evaluated with regard to being within or outside that range of variability; this evaluation is
necessary to determine if an action has a significant effect. A forest responds to both local
activities (thinning, burning, roads) that occur on the National Forest and regional stresses such as
a changing climate and air pollution. In order to be able to sort out effects caused by local
activities from those caused by regional stressors, a long-term instrumented research site is
needed.

In achieving the aforementioned needs, the proposal must also address the following purposes:

Propose treatments in watersheds, and at locations, where baseline data and instrumentation is
already established. Considerable investment in gathering baseline data for the KREW study has
occurred. In order to capitalize on this data, treatments in the Providence and Bull units should conform
to the study plan for the KREW.

Provide site-specific plan amendments where necessary to allow research to proceed. When the
2001 SNFPA was implemented, it was envisioned that research would go forward in the Kings River
watershed, and that “variances” from the standards and guidelines would be needed. In order to carry out
the KREW research efforts such variances, or site-specific plan amendments, will be needed where
treatments conflict with standards and guidelines for Spotted Owls, Goshawk, Pacific Fisher and Riparian
Conservation Areas.

Include a detailed “non-commercial funding” alternative as ordered by the Eastern District Court
of California in [SIERRA FOREST LEGACY, et al., v. MARK REY, in his official capacity as Under
Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-00205-MCE-GGH]. The District Court ordered the FS
to “Include a detailed consideration of project alternatives, including a non-commercial funding
alternative, for all new fuel reduction projects not already evaluated and approved as of the date of this
Memorandum and Order.” Subsequent Regional Forester guidance concerning Judge England’s decision
indicates that the noncommercial funding alternative should be designed solely to meet the fuels reduction
purpose and need. In a noncommercial funding alternative, it is not permissible to cut timber for the
purpose of increasing economic returns beyond that needed to meet fuel reduction objectives.


* 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.

1.4.2 Striking a Balance

I believe that my decision strikes the best balance of providing the research opportunity, and
improving forest resilience and fire and fuels management in the KREW Project area while
protecting critical natural and cultural resources. My decision will allow research on stream
courses and the research watersheds, and cause reasonable impacts to the SNF’s natural
resources. Habitat protection for endangered, threatened, and sensitive species such as the red-
legged frog, Yosemite toad, California spotted owl, and Pacific fisher are addressed with design
measures and adherence to SNF LRMP, as amended to the extent possible. In some cases S&Gs
were project-specifically amended to accommodate the research design and implementation
requirements. In making these plan amendments I strove to minimize the scope both
geographically and temporally of the amendment. In shifting wildlife LOPs, I balanced the
potential impact to the wildlife with the timing necessary to accomplish the research objectives.

I chose different silvicultural prescriptions inside and outside of the research areas. The General
Forest Thin and Old Forest Thin silvicultural prescriptions which match the original experimental
design were selected inside the research watersheds to allow the maximum potential to derive a
scientific response from the treatments including in the riparian areas. This will allow the
researchers to provide the best possible information for future decision-making. Outside of the
research watersheds I chose to use the silvicultural prescription patterned after An Ecosystem
Strategy for Sierran Mixed Conifer Forests by North et al. in 2009 (GTR-220), which is expected
to maximize the ecological restoration of the forest. This prescription represents the 'best
available science’ on ecosystem management of mixed-conifer and yellow-pine dominated
ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada National Forests and is a combined landscape-level and stand-
level restoration strategy fostering forest heterogeneity and diversity across scales. I have
deliberately chosen to select the prescription that is best for research needs inside the research
area even if it may not be the best prescription for ecological restoration. I feel that the research
is of sufficient value to warrant the lesser heterogeneity and slightly higher stand densities due to
the prescription selected inside the research areas.

I understand the importance of sustaining fisher populations particularly as this project is situated
within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area. I carefully considered effects on the fisher
as part of my decision and balanced these with the other three project needs. The Forest plans and
designs our management to address the conservation of that species as well as other wildlife
species and other forest resources and uses. My decision may affect individual fisher but has
been determined not to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for
fisher. The forest thinning I have decided upon retains key components important to fisher
habitat including: the majority of the forest biomass including all large trees (>30 inches dbh) and
nearly all moderate sized trees 20-30 inches dbh, as well as all oak trees, and all large snags
unless deemed a safety hazard. Additionally my decision includes extensive areas (50 percent of

21


USDA
Ee |
United States

Department of
Agriculture

Forest
Service

Pacific
Southwest
Region

R5-MB-225
April 2011

Final Environmental
Impact Statement

Record of Decision

Sierra National Forest
Kings River Experimental Watershed Forest
Health and Research Project


Record of Decision

Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

HBB canyon/Fisher Thin
Neutral Aspect Thin

[J unit Boundary

CL _ _! Watershed Boundaries

Alternative 5 Bull Unit

0.25 05 1 Miles
fe es ee ee ee

Figure 2. Thinning Treatments for Bull Unit.


Hand Cutting

Total 148 acres

Mechanical Piling

269 acres in Bull Unit and 456 acres in Providence Unit

Total 752 acres

Hand Piling O acres in Bull Unit and 15 acres in Providence Unit
Total 15 acres
Lop and Scatter 340 acres in Bull Unit and 361 acres in Providence Unit

Total 701 acres

Fuel Treatment —
Understory Burning

824 acres in the Bull Unit and 730 acres in the Providence Unit

Total 1554 acres

Pile Burning

270 acres in Bull Unit and 470 acres in the Providence Unit

Total 740 acres

Fire Line Construction

6,755 feet in Bull Unit and 20,853 feet in Providence Unit for a total of
27,608 feet

Snags Retain all snags >15 inches dbh unless hazardous to public or worker safety
Temporary Roads 2.6 miles (0.8 miles reconstruction and 1.8 miles pre-haul maintenance)
NFTS Roads 3.1 miles reconstruction and 11.9 mi pre-haul maintenance in Bull Unit and

3.2 miles reconstruction and 10.3 miles pre-haul maintenance in
Providence Unit

Plan Amendments

8 non-significant plan amendments

Monitoring Plan Yes

Implementation

Design Feature Yes

Implementation

Reforestation Yes

Brush Outside of WUI Defense maintain brush in 10 percent of current openings.
(No herbicide use in Bull Unit.)

Pacific Fisher Habitat Maintain key fisher habitat elements such as large diameter (>24 inches)

decadent trees need by Pacific fisher for resting sites

Herbicide Use

Glyphosate used on 64 acres in Providence Unit (for plantations
maintenance and reforestation)



Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

e It represents a combined landscape-level and stand-level restoration strategy with
guidance on how to foster forest heterogeneity and diversity across scales; it also
provides general guidance on the development of desired conditions for mid-elevation
forests (e.g., heterogeneity across scales, stand diameter distributions).

e It specially addresses the habitat needs of Pacific fisher other late-seral associated
sensitive species such as California spotted owl.

e It also represents the most current scientific information (two printings of this GTR has
already been published and a 2nd follow-up publication is soon to follow).

I did not choose this alternative as it does not provide a uniform landscape treatment allowing for
a straightforward experimental response and therefore the value of the research may be lost. That
is arisk I am unwilling to take. The GTR- 220 prescriptions are more difficult to standardize and
may not produce a treatment effect which would not meet the need for gaining knowledge. The
research component of the project is focused on watershed effects. Alternative 4 (GTR-220)
treats head water streams differently than Alternative 2 (uneven-aged). This difference affects
what researchers want to measure and instrumentation used to measure it. The implementation of
no or limited tree removal in headwater streams under the canyon zone prescription design based
on the GTR-220 paper prevents or reduces the ability of the research designto gain meaningful
information in these areas.

1.5.6 Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national
environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative
that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the
alternative which best protects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources.

Based on my consideration of the factors listed above and the effects disclosed in the FEIS, T
consider Alternative 4 to be the environmentally preferable alternative. Many of the effects are
similar across the action alternatives; however, I believe forest heterogeneity and resilience would
be optimized under Alternative 4.

1.6 Public Involvement

Involving the public in this decision and incorporating comments has been crucial to making this
decision. (See Chapter 1, Section 1.7 and Chapter 4 in the FEIS.)

1.6.1 Historic Public Outreach

The research component of the KREW Project has evolved over time from originally being part
of the larger Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Project, then becoming part of KRP and
finally now as part of the KREW Project. These efforts over the years, involving PSW, SCE and
the SNF, provided many field trips over the years for local and environmental organizations to
view forest conditions and discuss issues. PSW provides at least one field trip a year to interested
publics to the KREW research areas.

1.6.2 Public Involvement
The Notice of Intent (NOD) was published in the Federal Register on October 14", 2009. The

NOl asked for public comment on the proposal to be received by November 13", 2009. In
28


e Limits the diameter of tree removal to <20 inches dbh;
e Implements fuels reduction treatments;

e Precludes meaningful research.

The alternative was not chosen as it would not meet the purpose and need for the decision as it
does not allow for meaningful research. There is insufficient thinning to produce a treatment
effect which would not meet the need for gaining knowledge.

1.5.4 Alternative 4— Ecological Restoration Alternative

Under Alternative 4, the Forest Service would manage forest health on the KREW units based on
the ecological restoration strategy presented in GTR-220, which emphasizes ecological
restoration as a guide for forest management treatments. Alternative 4 takes what is known
about ecological processes, how ecological processes influence forest structure under frequent
fire regimes, and applies a landscape strategy that creates heterogeneity (i.e., diversity in plant
size, type, and density). This would be achieved by creating a mosaic of density and structure
based on ecological processes influenced by aspect, slope position, site productivity, tree species,
and unusual micro-site conditions. This alternative would promote open stand conditions on
southerly slopes and ridge tops and dense stand conditions on northerly slopes, in canyons, and in
areas with Pacific fisher rest sites.

Key Actions:

* Utilizes ecological restoration prescriptions —- Canyon and Fisher Thin, Southwest Aspect
Thin, and Neutral Aspect Thin;

e Limits the diameter of tree removal to <30 inches dbh;
e Implements fuels reduction treatments;

e Allows research based on a different design than the original. Limits research
opportunity in the riparian zone as treatments are limited in that area.

The Forest Service currently supports this silvicultural prescription for the following reasons:

e It represents the ‘best available science’ on ecosystem management of mixed-conifer and
yellow-pine dominated ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada National Forests.

e It is consistent and supportive of the Region 5 leadership intent on Ecological
Restoration.

e — It specifically addresses climate change as part of the management strategy and
represents an adaptive ‘resilience’ and 'realignment' strategy for dealing with agents of
change.

e  Itrepresents an integrated strategy that is supportive of the Forest's desire to attain
integrated natural resource objectives (e.g., fuels, forest health, sensitive wildlife species).

e It is the best example of an adaptive management strategy in the Sierra Nevada that
incorporates science, research, and monitoring in a management strategy.

e It is supported by various groups interested in forest management in the Sierra Nevada.

¢ It is a flexible strategy that can be tailored for the needs, constraints, and existing
ecological condition of each province, forest, and project.

27


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

1.2.6 Purpose and Need

The Forest Service (FS) is currently directing land management activities towards ecological restoration
through intentional activities that initiate or accelerate the recovery of an ecosystem with respect to its
health, integrity and sustainability. Ecological restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of
resilience and adaptive capacity of ecosystems. Restoration focuses on establishing the composition,
structure, pattern, hydrologic function and ecological processes necessary to make terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions (Forest Service Manual
(FSM) 2010).

Forest restoration treatments, including thinning and understory burning, are designed to spur tree growth
and reduce fuel loads. Yet, there is much to learn about the impacts of these forest restoration treatments
on the environment. Cause and effect research studies are needed to validate forest restoration objectives.
PSW developed a research plan to investigate a treatment strategy intended to improve portions of the
Bull and Providence Units and to examine the short- and long-term effects of such treatments. (Here is
the link to access PSW’s research plan: www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snre/water/kingsriver), These Units
were selected to reflect common forest conditions in the southern Sierra Nevada to study treatment effects
on headwater areas, and to provide identified research needs.

Sierra waters are critical for the health and welfare of California and yet there are knowledge and
information gaps concerning protection and restoration of this headwater resource. The Sierra Nevada
Alliance reports that 75 percent of California’s rain and snow falls in the Sierra. This watershed provides
55 to 65 percent of California’s developed water. The desire for more knowledge about the headwater
resource is emphasized by financial support to KREW from the State of California, CalFed Watershed
Program administered by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and by a recent report
from the Sierra Nevada Alliance, ‘‘Investing in California’s Headwaters: The Sierra Nevada.”’ In
addition, the National Science Foundation, through their Critical Zone Observation Program and Major
Research Instrumentation Program, is funding University of California, University of Nevada, and
University of Wyoming scientists to perform research at KREW (https://snriucmerced.edu). Research
work in KREW also influenced the selection of this locale for the California domain site of the National
Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), a nationwide network of environmental monitoring facilities
(www.NEONInc.org). Neon’s California site focuses on climate change research.

This Proposed Action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the LRMP, and helps move the
project area toward desired conditions as described in the plan (SNFPA ROD; USDA-FS 2004b). Needs
for the KREW Project include:

e Restoration of forests in the Providence and Bull Units to a more resilient and sustainable
forest structure. Currently, forest stands are well above the zone of density mortality (lower
limit of self thinning) resulting in a decline in growth, vigor and resiliency thus increasing the
potential for higher rates of mortality. The SNF and PSW have been exploring ideas toward the
goal of restoring forest health in the Kings River watershed for more than a decade. The desired
long term condition of the forest in these areas is at significant risk of being impacted by various
factors including drought, air pollution, insect infestation, and severe wildfire.

e Reduced fire severity in the Providence and Bull Units, including reduced adverse effects to
air quality and public health associated with uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Fuel

reduction (in the surface and ladder fuels) is needed to protect human communities from
moderate/high intensity wildfires as well as minimizing the spread of wildfires. The associated
increased efficiency of firefighting efforts will reduce risks to firefighters, the public, facilities
and structures, and natural resources from moderate/high intensity wildfires.


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

1.3.7 Monitoring Included in the Decision

Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions and the accuracy
of analysis assumptions and conclusions. My decision includes the Monitoring Plan (ROD
Appendix B) and includes research monitoring, implementation monitoring, effectiveness
monitoring, aquatic species monitoring, wildlife species monitoring, watershed monitoring
(outside of research areas), cultural resources monitoring, soils monitoring and cumulative
watershed effect monitoring.

1.3.8 Best Available Science

I adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm in making this decision.
Tincluded all of the project design features and BMPs that I believe are necessary to avoid,
minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by the implementation of this decision to the
extent possible while still allowing a project that meets the research need. My conclusions are
based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review using the best available science.
The resource sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS identify the effects analysis methodologies,
reference scientific sources which informed the analysis, discuss responsible opposing views and
disclose limitations of the analysis.

1.4 Rationale for My Decision

My decision to actively manage and allow research on the KREW Project area by approving
Alternative 5 is based on consideration of the purpose and need for action, the issues, the LRMP
and associated amendments, current policies and regulations, the analysis of alternatives
contained in the FEIS, public comments received, and other information in the project record. I
considered the concerns expressed throughout this process relating to tree size and wildlife
impacts as well as the herbicide use proposed. My decision will include non-significant plan
amendments that are needed to allow implementation of the research design and otherwise is in
compliance with the SNF LRMP, as amended. Alternative 5 is expected to substantially reduce
the potential for high fire severity under all but the most extreme weather conditions, improve
forest resilience and contribute to the land management knowledge base.

1.4.1 Compelling Need for the Project

The KREW Project area is overstocked with trees with all of the 29 project area stands proposed
for treatment in the KREW Project area having tree densities too high for a sustainable resilient
forest. The forest density has increased in the era of fire suppression to conditions that are out of
alignment with the conditions for a healthy forest. With so many trees, the forest is under stress
due to over competition and will not be able to adapt and overcome stressors in the environment
such as drought, insect attack, air pollution, fire and climate change which will leading to more
dead trees than is desirable. We need to do something now to recreate resilient forest conditions
in the SNF. Figure 8 compares existing stand conditions and desired restoration conditions for
trees larger than eleven inches in diameter. The graph shows that existing conditions exceed the
average desired condition for tree numbers (FEIS Section 3-11.3.3).

18


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

My decision will not cause any plant species to trend toward Federal listing. Design features
were created to minimize impacts to these and other sensitive plant species.

The KREW Project economic analysis indicates that the project is economically viable. The
treatments prescribed were developed with regard to those activities necessary to achieve the
purpose and need of the project and not specifically to provide positive economic returns or
provide products to local mills or biomass consumption plants; however, budget considerations
dictate the amount of work undertaken by the Forest and the Forest endeavors to work efficiently
and effectively. In order to implement the types of projects considered in this analysis, an
economically viable infrastructure is necessary now and into the future. I considered the
maintenance of such an infrastructure was voiced as a concern by project commenters.

I feel that the results of the research will be valuable. I considered the support voiced by
numerous comment letters from scientific institutions who expressed support for the research as
designed and feel it is of high value. KREW research provides much needed data on Sierra
Nevada headwaters which are critical for California’s water supply and for understanding climate
change effects. Many biological, chemical, and physical variables will be measured in terrestrial
and stream environments as part of this project, so the results of this project will provide a
comprehensive view of fire and thinning impacts on a large array of natural resources in the
Sierra Nevada. The controlled burns and selective logging will be done at the scale of entire sub-
basins, the scale of interest to managers, and the results will reveal the responses of entire
watersheds to these manipulations. Because large-scale manipulations often engender numerous
long-term and indirect effects on the ecology of terrestrial and stream environments, this
experiment will allow a direct assessment of fire and logging management practices on ecological
systems at realistic scales.

Although I acknowledge that individual sensitive species may be impacted by the project, overall
the viability of sensitive species is preserved both at the project level and landscape level. The
benefits to the forest in resiliency; the benefits to the forest, the public and to worker safety from
reduced fire severity; and the benefit to the scientific community and to future decision-makers
outweighs the impact to these individuals in my mind. Additionally in the long run, habitat for
many forest species will be enhanced as trees grow larger, large trees are more numerous, and the
habitat is more heterogeneous making it a richer environment for wildlife. Iam aware of the
impacts to the environment and have decided that these impacts are acceptable in light of the
benefits.

1.5 Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected

In addition to the Selected Alternative, I considered four other alternatives in detail, which are
summarized below. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in Chapter 2
of the FEIS.

In addition to the Proposed Action (Alternative 5) - the Selected Alternative, the Forest Service
also evaluated the following alternatives:

. No Action Alternative — no treatments would occur, and currently approved actions
would continue. None of these actions are focused on meeting the need and purpose of this
project.

. Alternative 2 —Under this alternative stand treatments would concentrate on reducing
stand densities by harvesting trees up to 30 inches dbh according to the KREW Research Project
structural restoration management strategy.

24


Table of Contents

Kings River Experimental Watershed and Forest Health Project.
1.1 Introduction.
1.2 Background.
1.3 Decision...
1.4 Rationale for My Decision
1.5 Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected
1.6 Public Involvement.
1.7 Significant Issues.
1.8 Legal and Regulatory Compliance
1.9 Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities
1.10 Implementation Date
1.11 Contact Person......
1.12 References Cited in the Document.
Appendices..........+
A Design Measures
B Monitoring Plan

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Decision
Table 2. Thinning Strategies by Stand

List of Figures

Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Thinning Treatments for Bull Unit
Figure 3 Thinning Treatments for Providence Uni
Figure 4 Bull Unit Understory Burning
Figure 5 Providence Unit Understory Burning
Figure 6 Bull Unit Project Related Roads.
Figure 7 Providence Unit Project Related Roads
Figure 8 Number of Trees >11 inches dbh in Each KREW Project Treated Stan
Figure 9 Forest Risk of Loss Due to Fire..............

ii


Providence Unit Underburn

©] Underbumn
A [_] stanas
N J enttauncay
{ 1 a 1 ° a i mies rt Watershed Boundaries

Figure 5. Providence Unit Understory Burning. Stand Plan_id numbers are shown.

11


Providence Unit

ion Meadow Glenn Meadow
Forest Service Facity

Lost
Meadow

———- Roads
’ ~~ Streams
N [2] stands

025 «05 1 Miles: ' oh Watershed Boundaries

Figure 7. Providence Unit Project Related Roads.

13


Sierra National Forest
Kings River Experimental Watershed Forest
Health and Research Project

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official: Scott Armentrout, Forest Supervisor

Sierra National Forest
1600 Tolilhouse Road
Clovis, CA 93611

For Further Information Contact:

Judi Tapia, Interdisciplinary Team Leader
Sierra National Forest, Supervisor's Office
1600 Tollhouse Road

Clovis, CA 93611

(559) 297-0706 extension 4938

Abstract:

The US Forest Service, Sierra National Forest (SNF) has prepared the Kings River Experimental
Watershed Forest Health and Research Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
This FEIS analyzes the effects of four action alternatives and a no action alternative to begin
restoring fire-adapted forest ecosystems by creating an all-age, multistoried, more fire-resilient
forest. The project area encompasses a total of 3,620 acres and has two separate management
units: the Providence Unit (1,862 acres) and the Bull Unit (1,194 acres) plus 563 acres in
Teakettle Experimental Forest which is the experimental control for the Bull Unit treatments. The
project area is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the mountain community of Shaver
Lake and approximately 30 miles northeast of Fresno, CA. The project area is within the High
Sierra Ranger District, SNF, in Fresno County, CA.

This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result
from the Proposed Action and alternatives. The alternatives analyzed include the Proposed Action
(Alternative 5), the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), Structural Restoration Alternative
(Alternative 2), Fuel Reduction Alternative (Alternative 3), and the North General Technical
Report (GTR)/Ecological Restoration Alternative (Alternative 4).


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

the project area) of no thinning management. Over the short-term, there will be a relatively low
level of change in CWHR fisher habitat types as a result of thinning treatments and an increase in
total fisher habitat over the longer term. Fisher rest site groups will be identified and retained,
minimum canopy cover retention levels are established and protecting and enhancing habitat
heterogeneity at multiple scales will benefit fisher. 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).

Talso carefully considered effects on the Yosemite toad as part of my decision and balanced these
with the research need. Again my decision may affect individual Yosemite toads but has been
determined not to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for
Yosemite toad. I took into account that the number of adults is small (most meadows have less
than 20 adult toads) and the Bull Creek watershed occupied complex, which includes six Bull
Unit occupied meadows and two other occupied meadows, within dispersal distance of species,
appear to be reproductively isolated from nearest occupied sites beyond the project area. I also
considered that the SNF has located over 200 additional occupied breeding meadows since the
species determination as a candidate (2002). I factored in that alteration of the fire regime and
lodgepole pine encroachment has resulted in breeding habitat declines for this species. The
project has benefits related to these habitat declines. To provide continuing information on the
well being of the Yosemite toad population in the Bull Creek complex over project
implementation, I have decided to include the continuation of telemetry monitoring of adult
Yosemite toad movements as described in the Fish and Wildlife Service technical assistance letter
dated April 6, 2011 as funding is available. This information will add to an understanding of the
species ecology and risks associated with management actions within its habitat (FEIS Section 3-

74.6).

As mentioned above, protection of the Yosemite toad was an important consideration in the
development of the project and therefore I considered two alternatives recommended by
commenters. I considered a 500 meter buffer extending around the meadows in the Bull Unit. I
looked at maps developed displaying the 500 meter buffers requested and found that by
implementing the buffers the vast majority of the Bull Unit proposed for treatment would need to
be left untreated. This would preclude most treatment in the Bull research area, which serves as a
replicate for the Providence research, effectively precluding the research. I also considered 500
foot buffers around these meadows. These buffers would reduce the treatment area by 22
percent. As the Bull and Providence Unit research areas serve as replicates for the thin and burn
treatments they need to receive as similar treatment as possible to be comparable. During
research design, the buffer width was discussed among research and Forest staff and set at 100
feet from the edge of stream banks of the green edge of meadows. If Providence meadows
receive a 100 foot buffer and Bull meadows receive a different buffet, then effects on meadows
cannot be compared and no replicate exists. If treatment areas are reduced on both there will be a
large enough treatment area to potentially make the research non-credible. I carefully weighed
the value of the research and the impacts to the Yosemite toad. In light of the high value of the
research and the result that the species will not trend toward federal listing, I made the decision to
implement Alternative 5.

Tconsulted with the USFWS and considered the impacts to the red legged frog and consulted with
the USFWS on potential impacts to this species and two acres of potential breeding habitat. No
treatments are proposed within 300 feet of suitable breeding habitat and the analysis showed that
no direct effects from my decision are anticipated (FEIS Section 3-7.4.6).

22


The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the
basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status,
parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply
to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600
(voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)
720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper — April
2011


Record of Decision Kings River Experimental Watershed
Project

In the content analysis process, each letter receives a unique identifying number. All letters were
analyzed and each comment was categorized by specific topics or concerns. These categorized
comments were then given a unique number, which allows analysts to link specific comments
back to the original letter. The comments were then entered into a table. Comments to the DEIS
raised concerns and issues regarding the topics. The IDT reviewed and responded to comments
as categorized in the table. Comments were responded to individually (see FEIS Appendix I for
the full set of comments and responses).

1.6.6 Changes between the DEIS and the FEIS

Based on both public comment and Forest Service review, changes were made between DEIS and
FEIS. The following types of changes and clarifications were applied to the FEIS:

Corrections Applied to the FEIS

Data Omissions — In cases where omissions in data were identified by the FS or the public, those
omissions were fixed in the FEIS. Where data pertinent to the analysis was identified between
DEIS and FEIS it was include and analyzed. For example; visual resources related design
measures were added; two additional plan amendments needed to allow scientifically viable
research to occur were identified and a review of the significance criteria for plan amendments
was done with the result reflected in the FEIS; an explanation of lop and scatter was added.

Corrections and Edits — Where typos or errors were identified they were correct. For example;
statements made about the non-commercial funded alternative being considered but eliminated
were deleted as they were in error as Alternative 3 is the non-commercial funded alternative;
numbers used throughout the DEIS were re-verified and corrected as needed; a table in the
wildlife section could have been interpreted to indicate the removal of trees 30 inches dbh and
above. These tables were modified so that they are clear that trees up to 30 inches and below
only are being considered for removal under any alternative; roads data was corrected.

Clarifications — Public comment drove the clarification of items in many sections of the FEIS.
These clarifications ranged from adding a few words to help the reader more fully understand the
content and rationale of a section to expansion of summary and comparison tables. For example;
the Economic Section was revised and clarified, rows were added to Table 2-12 to respond to
comment regarding the need for expanded economic and research impact alternative
comparisons; Table 2-13 was added to provide clarification on the differences across alternatives
in Critical Aquatic Refuges and Streamside Management Zones; maps were added to show the
project related roads; all maps in Chapters 1, 2 and the introduction to 3 were revised to present a
clearer picture to the reader; a map was added to display the stand identification numbers to help
readers track these stands throughout the analysis; more information was added to thinning
strategy tables under each alternative to provide more information to the reader about these
thinning strategies; a section was added to the FEIS addressing regulatory compliance and
impacts to irreversible and irretrievable resources; information was added to address National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) compliance for each resource that did not previously address
this; the history section in Chapter 1 was reviewed and edited to respond to commenter concerns
expressed; clarification was made to the explanation of commercial tree removal.

Additions in response to Comments — Some commenters suggested that other alternatives be
analyzed within this EIS. These comments were evaluated and the reasons proposed alternatives
were not included in the EIS were explained. These alternatives were added to Section 2.4
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. Appendix I was created to display
the Forest Service’s response to commenters.

30


. Alternative 3 — the Non-Commercial Funded Alternative - Under this alternative the
upper diameter limit for harvesting is reduced to 20 inches dbh. This design is based on the 2001
Sierra Nevada Framework Programmatic Agreement and is designed to meet the fire and fuels
component of the purpose and need. The upper diameter limit for treatments in Old Forest
Emphasis thin areas would be reduced to 12 inches dbh. As part of the emphasis on fuels
reduction, the defense zone thin would remove trees up to 20 inches dbh.

. Alternative 4 - This alternative has a thinning prescription designed to create a mosaic of
density and structure based on ecological processes influenced by aspect, slope position, site
productivity, tree species, and unusual micro-site conditions based on GTR-220.

Aspects of the project were the same for all action alternatives including prescribed fire and
burning; brush treatment (with the exception that Alternative 3 does not include herbicide use);
noxious weed treatments (with Alternative 3 only treating noxious weeds by hand pulling and
does not include herbicide use); and roads actions. Alternatives 2 and 4 also include these aspects
regeneration and species composition strategies and specialized thinning prescriptions in Pacific

fisher habitat.
Talso considered five additional alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study:

Alternative 6 - No Plan Amendment Alternative Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife
Alternative 7 - Over-the-Snow Logging Alternative

Alternative 8 - Use of Fire Alone Alternative

Alternative 9 - 500 Foot Buffer Around Meadows Occupied by the Yosemite Toad

Alternative
e Alternative 10 - 500 Meter Buffer Around Meadows Occupied by the Yosemite Toad

Alternative

Information on why these alternatives were eliminated from detailed study can be found in FEIS
Section 2.4.

1.5.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to
guide management within the KREW Project area. This includes all ongoing activities with
existing decisions or permits: understory burning (as part of the SNF forest-wide prescribed fire
program), plantation maintenance, cattle grazing, recreation, and maintenance of recreation
residences.

The No Action Alternative provides a baseline for comparative analysis of the action
alternatives.

Key Actions:
e No fuels treatments;

e No forest health treatments;

¢ No research conducted.

Under this alternative, the forest health within the Project boundary would decrease and move
further away from desired conditions. On average, stand density would increase over time. The
current ongoing research would not be continued; the risk of catastrophic fire would remain; and

25


Alternative 5 Providence Unit

a Canyon/Fisher Thin
oo Neutral Aspect Thin
ee No Thin

South/West Aspect Thin
General Forest Thin

Old Forest Emphasis Thin
Plantations

Co Unit Boundary
e

Watershed Boundaries

Figure 3. Thinning Treatments for Providence Unit.


Record of Decision

Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Bull Unit

woo Roads 4
—ses Streams. N. A\ Powe
[EJ] sans \ N .
iL 7 Metershed Boundaries 0 0.125 0.25
[a \

Figure 6. Bull Unit Project Related Roads

12