Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-i

Chapter 1

The Purpose 

and 

Need for Action
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-1

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Document Structure

The Forest Service (FS) has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. 

This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the 

proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters: 

 Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the 

project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving 

that purpose and need. This section also details how the FS informed the public of the proposal and 

how the public responded. 

 Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more detailed 

description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and 

other agencies. This discussion also includes design criteria. Finally, this section provides a 

summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. 

 Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the Proposed Action and other alternatives. This analysis is 

organized by resource area. 

 Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies 

consulted during the development of the EIS. 

 Chapter 5. References: This chapter lists the references used throughout the document.

 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented 

in the EIS.

 Glossary: The glossary provides definitions of words and phrases used throughout the document.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in 

the project planning record located at the Sierra National Forest (SNF or Forest) Supervisor’s Office, 

1600 Tollhouse Road, Clovis, California.

1.2 Scope of the EIS Analysis

This EIS discloses the environmental effects of a proposal designed to improve forest resilience, reduce 

fuels, and achieve research needs in the Providence Unit and Bull Unit on the High Sierra District of the 

Sierra National Forest. Both units lie within the Kings River watershed, which has been of a focus of 

research efforts by the Pacific Southwest Research Station and others for the past 10 years. The 

Proposed Action (displayed in Chapter 2 as Alternative 5) would accomplish the following:

 Thin 1717 acres of conifer stands to reduce fuels and improve forest health.

 Treat fuels through mastication and/or burning on 2507 acres.

 Harvest timber for lumber and biomass on 1,569 acres.

 Thin 397 acres of plantations using both hand and mechanical methods.

 Reconstruct 6.3 miles of road and build 2.6 miles of temporary roads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-2

 Treat minor infestations of noxious weeds by pulling or applying herbicide via backpack 

sprayer.

 Amend Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines 74, 75, 76, 85, 86, 92, 109, 111,via nonsignificant, site-specific plan amendments in order to accommodate research in 

Providence and Bull Units (see SNFPA ROD, Appendix A).

This EIS covers impacts to 11 resources that were identified as being affected by the Proposed Action.

These resources include: air quality, aquatics, botanical, cultural, economic, fire and fuels, hydrology, 

research opportunities, soils, terrestrial wildlife, and vegetation. 

A separate, detailed, analysis of effects is not provided for transportation, recreation, and visual quality 

for the following reasons:

Transportation: Although there will be some road reconstruction (6.3 miles) and pre-haul maintenance 

(22.2 miles) these mileages are very small in comparison to the SNF National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS) which includes 2500 miles of roads. For the KREW Project less than one percent of the 

NFTS will be affected. Additionally, engineer approved design criteria have been included in all the 

alternatives to comply with Forest Service road maintenance and construction guidance. Road related 

impacts to resources such as soils and hydrology will be addressed in these resource sections. There 

will be no change to available access or cost associated with maintenance of the existing system as a 

result of the proposal or alternative. Additionally there will be no road decommissioning or change in

vehicle class.

Recreation: There are no established and maintained recreational facilities in the Providence and Bull 

Units and therefore any recreational impacts would be due to limitations on dispersed camping during 

treatments and drivers encountering logging trucks under some alternatives. Dispersed camping 

opportunities will still be available on hundreds of locations throughout the forest and the impacts will 

be short in duration – only one or two years compared to the 30 years covered by the project. Similar 

nearby projects (Dinkey North Restoration Project and Dinkey South Restoration Project) determined 

that fuels treatments would not affect the season of use, user patterns, ratio of day and overnight users, 

length of stay, nor the economic or social mix of users. Therefore effects on recreation would be 

temporary and minimal and there would be no change to current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) classes in the project area (LRMP Section 4.2) (USDA-FS 1992, 2001b).

Visual Quality: There are two major roads (i.e. Dinkey Creek Road and McKinley Grove Road) near the 

KREW Project Providence and Bull Units. Both the Dinkey Creek Road and McKinley Grove Road are key 

viewsheds that provide numerous viewpoints from where the public views the landscape and has high 

concerns for scenic values. Based on aerial photos and site reconnaissance, “walls” of trees or earth 

forms (hillsides, rock cliffs, rolling hills) enframe the views on the sides of Dinkey Creek Road and 

McKinley Grove Road directing the viewer’s attention inwards and screening views beyond the 

immediate foreground (0 ft to 300 ft). Therefore, there would be no negative effects to visual resources 

as the Providence and Bull Units would not be visible from key viewsheds: Dinkey Creek Road and 

McKinley Grove Road. This is common to all alternatives. In addition, the KREW Project would be in 

compliance with the Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) of Retention and Partial Retention as 

the vegetation and fuel treatments would achieve an open, park-like landscape setting dominated by 

large trees (LRMP Section 4.5.2.2) (USDA-FS 1992, 2001b). This open, park-like landscape setting would 

remain subordinate to the surrounding landscape and the management activities in the landscape would 

not be visually evident. The Providence Unit has a small section that would be visible from the Dinkey 

Creek Road, but several visual resources design measures maintain the Forest Plan VQOs of Retention 

and Partial Retention.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-3

Project Location

The project area encompasses a total of 3,620 acres and has two separate management units: the KREW 

Providence Unit (1,862 acres) and the KREW Bull Unit (1,194 acres) plus 563 acres in Teakettle 

Experimental Forest (where no treatments will occur) which is the experimental control for the Bull 

Unit treatment (Figure 1-1). The Providence Unit is off of the Dinkey Creek Road, adjacent to the 

Providence Creek Road (10S17) and borders private property as well as the Dinkey South Restoration 

Project. The Bull Unit is on Patterson Mountain adjacent to the Ross Crossing Road adjacent to the Ross 

Crossing Road (10S24) and includes part of the Teakettle Experimental Forest. The Bull Unit borders no 

private property. The actual footprint of the active management proposed is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 2; however, it covers only a portion of the aforementioned project area.

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

Bull Unit 

T 11 S, R 27 E, 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.

The Providence Unit is bound in the east by private land (Southern California Edison and the Exchequer 

subdivision) and the Dinkey North and South Restoration projects. The Providence Unit is bound in the 

west by the proposed Soaproot Fuels Reduction Project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-4

Figure 1-1 General KREW Project Location
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-5

1.3 Background

1.3.1 History

Forests of the Sierra Nevada have been impacted and changed over the past 150 years. The first major 

pressure came from sheep grazing in the 1800’s when sheepherders cleared areas of land for grazing by 

setting fires. This change in fire patterns associated with sheep grazing throughout the Sierras impacted 

the re-growth of conifer forests and other native plants. This activity is thought to have disturbed an 

open, old growth dominated landscape already maintained by frequent fires. With removal of sheep and 

active suppression of natural fires at the beginning of the 20th century, forests became dominated by 

shade tolerant conifers such as white fir. Stands became dense, and logging of the old forest led to a 

decline in the number and geographic extent of the large, old tree component of the forest. Logging 

practices during much of the 20th century tended to create homogenous, dense stands with little 

diversity across layers of the forest’s vegetation. Logging activities concentrated on removal of the large, 

valuable trees, reducing or eliminating this especially significant structural feature of the forest in many 

areas (Verner et al. 1992). Some sources suggest the historical (pre-1850) forest was more open and 

comprised of widely spaced, large diameter trees (Sudworth, 1900; Stephens, 2001; Stephens and 

Elliott-Fisk, 1998; Stephenson and Calcarone, 1999). A majority of these trees were pine species with 

fewer shade tolerant species (such as white fir and incense cedar), found in stands subject to frequent 

fire (Minnich et al. 1995; Barbour et al. 2002).

Recent research on historic stand structure and composition supports the idea that selective logging and 

fire suppression have reduced the number of large trees, increased the density of smaller trees, and 

shifted composition toward shade tolerant fir and cedar (North et al 2007). These changes increased 

the forest’s susceptibility to damage from insects, fire and other disturbances. 

Late 19th century and early 20th century descriptions of the pre-European settlement mixed conifer and 

pine stands in the Sierra Nevada indicate that forest structures were dominated by uneven-aged tree 

distribution (Dunning, 1923; Show and Kotok, 1924). Dunning and Reineke (1933) remark, “In 

relatively few sections of this large region are the stands uniform in age. All age classes are not present, 

as they would be in a true selection forest. Stands are usually made up of small even-aged groups, the 

ages of the groups differing by periods of 10 to 20 years.” 

Historically, mixed-conifer and other mid-elevation montane forests of the Sierra Nevada consisted of 

multi-aged stands that were dominated by clusters of intermediate to large-sized trees (North et al. 

2009). The historical forest was composed of several age/size classes, distributed in patches of varying 

sizes and shapes across the landscape. This is similar to the desired condition as described in the 

Proposed Action. Reconstruction of historical forests in the Sierra Nevada supports that trees greater 

than 24 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) dominated Sierra Nevada forests (Taylor, 2003). 

1.3.2 Management Direction

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 

(WUI). 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. As stated in the 2004 SNFPA 

ROD “This decision adopted an integrated strategy for vegetation management that is aggressive 

enough to reduce the risk of wildfire to communities in the urban-wildland interface while modifying 

fire behavior over the broader landscape ...... This decision replaces the standards and guidelines of the 

SNFPA 2001 ROD to ensure that fuels treatments will effectively modify wildland fire behavior. In 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-6

addition, the basic strategy is broadened to include other management objectives such as reducing stand 

density for forest health, restoring and maintaining ecosystem structure and composition, and restoring 

ecosystems after severe wildfires and other large catastrophic disturbance events” ( USDA-FS 2004b).

The Providence and Bull Units contain eight research watersheds that were chosen in 2000 by the 

Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) and the SNF. PSW has also been conducting California 

spotted owl research for 21 years and fisher research for 11 years in this area. 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 in the SNFPA 

2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b); reducing the risk of wildland fire to WUI across broad landscapes. In 

addition, objectives to restore and maintain ecosystem health were included. The KREW research was 

designed to address monitoring and research information needs (Section 1.3.3) described in the 

SNFPA’s Adaptive Management Plan (USDA-FS 2004b). (For more information about the SNFPA 

Adaptive Management Strategy see FEIS Section 1.3.3).

A network of land allocations, designated as part of the SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b), have an 

associated set of desired conditions, management intents, and management objectives. Land allocations 

that are found within the KREW Project boundary are described below: 

Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix (both Defense and Threat Zones). This land allocation 

encompasses 1,863 acres within the KREW Project boundary and is set in closest proximity to 

communities. Of this acreage, 880 acres are designated as Defense Zone and 983 acres are designated as 

Threat Zone. As defined in the SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b), Defense Zones designated in the 

project extend 1⁄4 mile from private property lines. Threat Zones designated in this project extend 1 1⁄4 

miles beyond the Defense Zone boundary. There are Forest-wide S&Gs for this land allocation. (S&G 4–

7, 9–12, 19–24, and 26.)

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA). This land allocation encompasses the entire 

KREW Project area. The SSFCA covers the known occupied range of the Pacific fisher in the Sierra 

Nevada. Desired conditions: Within known or estimated female fisher home ranges outside the WUI, a 

minimum of 50 percent of the forested area has at least 60 percent canopy cover. The Providence Unit 

contains one fisher den buffer within WUI. The SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) has set forth S&Gs 

for this land allocation that address protection measures for fisher densities as well as direction for 

projects proposed in SSFCA (USDA-FS 2004b, pgs. 61-62). In these S&Gs it is left to wildlife biologists to 

develop design criteria that protect important habitat structures within fisher habitat. Design criteria 

for the maintenance and protection of key habitat elements for Pacific fisher have been developed based 

the best available scientific information, issues raised during public scoping and S&Gs in the SNFPA 

2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b). These are listed in Chapter 2, Section 2.3.1.8 Design Criteria Common to 

All Alternatives (S&G 90.)

Fisher den sites include a 700-acre buffer consisting of the highest quality habitat (CWHR size class 4 or 

greater and canopy cover greater than 60 percent) in a compact arrangement surrounding verified 

fisher birthing and kit rearing dens in the largest, most contiguous forest stands available. Desired 

Conditions: Areas surrounding fisher den sites include at least two large (greater than 40 inches dbh) 

conifers per acre, and one or more oaks (greater than 20 inches dbh) per acre with suitable denning 

cavities. 

California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCA). 

There are three PACs and associated HRCAs within the Providence Unit (watershed P303 and watershed 

D102) and two HRCA in the Bull Unit (watersheds B201, B203 and B204). California spotted owl HRCAs 

encompass the best 600 acres of spotted owl habitat, all within national forest lands, in the closest 

proximity, and within 1.5 miles, to a territorial owl activity center. The best habitat is defined as (in 

descending order of priority) CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M and other stands with at least 50 

percent tree canopy cover (including hardwoods), including the 300-acre spotted owl PAC.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-7

California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) are designated for all territorial owls based on: 

(1) the most recent documented nest site; (2)the most recent known roost site when a next location 

remains unknown, and (3) a central point based on repeated daytime detections when neither nest or 

roost locations are known. PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands, and 

(2) encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact a unit as possible. Desired 

Conditions: Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant 

trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60-70 percent canopy cover; (4) some 

very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are 

higher than average.

The SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-2004b) has set forth S&Gs for this land allocation that address mechanical 

treatments conducted to meet fuels management objectives in PACs located in the WUI defense zones 

and in threat zones where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly 

compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels strategy designed for the PSW 

research project (USDA-FS 2004b, pgs. 59-61). These, as well as the remaining S&Gs for this land 

allocation, are incorporated into design criteria and are listed in Chapter 2, Design Measures Section 

2.3.1.8. (S&G 72–75, 77, 78, and 80 – no S&Gs for HRCA.)

Old Forest Emphasis Areas. This land allocation is designated in approximately 3,057 acres within the 

KREW Project boundary. Forest structure and function across old forest emphasis areas generally 

resemble pre-settlement conditions. High levels of horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the 

landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, 

varying in size, species composition, and structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 

0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species 

composition varies by elevation, site productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered 

canopies, particularly in older forests, provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and 

fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forest associated species. Where possible, areas treated to reduce fuel 

levels also provide for the successful establishment of early seral stage vegetation.

Mature forest habitat is described by California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) types 4M, 4D, 5M, 

5D, and 6 where outside of the WUI defense zones S&Gs are designed to maintain and enhance the 

structures associated with these forest types and the protection of the species habitat associated with 

these forest ecosystems (SNFPA ROD; USDA-FS, 2004b, pages 50-51). As such, S&Gs associated with 

wildlife species that prefer mature forest habitat are used as the S&G for this land allocation. These are 

incorporated into design criteria and are listed in Chapter 2, Design Measures Section 2.3.1.8.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA). For the purposes of this analysis this land allocation 

encompasses the entire KREW Project area because of the extensive stream network within the project 

boundary. Because of the large number of stream courses in the project area the land that would not be 

in this land allocation would be small isolated pockets which are difficult to analyze separately. The 

forest made the determination that since this land allocation adds requirements it would be appropriate 

to assume that the entire project area has this land allocation.

The S&Gs, specifically the Resources Conservation Objectives (RCO) from the SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDAFS 2004b), associated with this land allocation are incorporated into design criteria and are listed in 

Chapter 2, Design Measures Section 2.3.1.8 (S&G 91 and 92). RCAs are designated to protect water 

quality and aquatic habitat. The widths of the RCAs depends on the type of aquatic feature being 

protected and are defined in Table 1-1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-8

Table 1-1

Stream Type RCA Width

Perennial Streams

300 feet on each side of the stream, measured 

from the bank full edge of the stream

Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes ephemeral 

streams)

150 feet on each side of stream,

measured from the bank full edge of the stream

Streams in Inner Gorge Top of inner gorge

Special Aquatic Features(e.g. fens, bogs, springs, 

seeps, etc.) or Perennial Streams with Riparian 

Conditions extending more than 150 feet from 

edge of streambank or Seasonally Flowing 

streams with riparian conditions extending more 

than 50 feet from edge of streambank.

300 feet from edge of feature or riparian 

vegetation, whichever width is greater

Other hydrological or topographic depressions 

without a defined channel.

RCA width and protection measures determined 

through project level analysis

These land allocations (management areas) are associated with specific desired conditions and 

associated Standards and Guidelines (S&G). S&Gs provide management direction for project planning 

and implementation. At the project level, these S&Gs are used in conjunction with desired conditions, 

management intents, and management objectives for the relevant land allocation to determine 

appropriate treatment prescriptions (SNFPA ROD; USDA-FS 2004b) and degree of variability across 

alternatives. S&Gs constrain the range of treatment alternatives available. 

The research area treatments were originally part of the larger Kings River Project which was 

discontinued in 2009. However, research in the Kings River area is still guided by a 2002 inter-agency 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by both the Station Director (Pacific Southwest Research 

Station (PSW)) and Regional Forester (FS) and the KREW study plan

(www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/water/kingsriver. Research in the Kings River project is designed 

to fill important information gaps and answer monitoring questions about the response of ecosystems to 

active forest management. Supporting research by the PSW is a primary goal of the Sierra National 

Forest. 

1.3.3 Adaptive Management, Monitoring and Research

“Management outcomes cannot be assured where there is great uncertainty. Monitoring and research 

are our primary mechanisms of information acquisition and new understanding. Coupling research and 

management in a disciplined and transparent adaptive management strategy is the most coherent and 

efficient means to reduce uncertainty wherever possible. Research in support of land management 

generates new information to address key information gaps in various areas, such as: (1) the 

fundamental workings of ecosystem processes,... (3) the development and testing of various 

management approaches, ... (5) the development and validation of ecological indicators, checkpoints 

and thresholds (SNFPA 2001).” 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. The KREW was 

designed to address several Sierra Nevada key information gaps and some cause and effect monitoring 

needs as described in Appendix E for soil productivity; fire and fuel treatments; and aquatic, riparian, 

and meadow ecosystems.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-9

“The complexity of the mosaic of ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada, combined with our relatively 

immature understanding of these systems, suggests a wide array of information needs. Key information 

gaps constitute the absence of basic scientific information that is creating a barrier to decision making or 

creating uncertainty about the foundation of desired conditions. Like cause and effect questions, key 

information gaps are associated with key areas of uncertainty and risk, but in this case, uncertainties 

and risks are associated with goals and desired conditions for each problem area, and basic information 

about the resources being managed (SNFPA 2001).”

Previous research on the effects of thinning and prescribed fire on coniferous ecosystems in the Sierra 

Nevada has focused primarily on changes within an individual forest stand. However less is known 

about physical, biological, and chemical responses to moderate thinning of trees and application of 

prescribed fire at a watershed scale. The KREW Project research component is a replicated, pairedwatershed research area for examining headwater streams in the southern Sierra Nevada, a region of 

significant water yield for the State of California. The KREW Project research addresses both basic and 

applied science questions pertaining to sustainable forest management under current and potential 

future conditions. The KREW Project research component is a formal research project and has a peer 

reviewed study plan that is periodically updated (http://www.psw.fs.fed.us/snrc/water/kingsriver). The 

FS has collected data at eight instrumented watersheds since 2003 on the following topics to meet 

KREW Project research goals:

Hydrology

Meteorology

Air quality

Sediment & turbidity

Soils & geomorphology

Water chemistry

Biology

o Stream macro-invertebrates

o Algae

o Riparian & upland vegetation & fuels

o Yosemite toad

The following are issues with high uncertainties or research questions that were identified in the 

Adaptive Management Strategy (Appendix E) referenced above as key information needs. KREW pretreatment and post-treatment data would help answer these issues

Key Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Information Gaps

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?

What are effective methods for monitoring stream flow on unregulated streams and sediment?

Key Soil Productivity Information Gaps

For soil quality, limited data from monitoring exists for thinning and restoration activities in the region. 

Little on-the-ground knowledge or experience in monitoring large-scale treatments, or defining the 

effects of such treatments, exists.

What are appropriate desired conditions as informed by “natural background” conditions for 

soil quality in the Sierra Nevada?

Does implementation of the recommendations in a landscape/watershed analysis result in 

maintenance and/or restoration of watersheds and soil health/productivity? (cause and effect 

monitoring question)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-10

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?

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

term) and affect soil health and productivity?

Does the use of mechanical fuel treatments meet soil quality standards for maintaining longterm soil productivity?
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-11

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The 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 that have been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. 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). 

Common forest restoration treatments, including thinning and underburning, 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. 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/snrc/water/kingsriver). Sierra waters are critical for the health and 

welfare of California and yet there has been minimal attention and resources dedicated to the 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://snri.ucmerced.edu). Research work in the KREW Project area 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). This 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: 

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.

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. 

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 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-12

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. 

This court order could require development of an alternative to the proposed action should the 

proposed action include harvest of timber in excess of that needed to meet fuel reduction objectives

1.5 Proposed Action

For a detailed description of the proposed action refer to Chapter 2, Alternative 5.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-13

The SNF, in collaboration with the Pacific Southwest Research Station, proposes to complete a land 

management project to achieve forest restoration goals. This project includes a research component to 

characterize headwater ecosystems and assess the response of these ecosystems to forest management 

practices. The forest ecological restoration management practices include treatments designed to 

reduce the effects of uncharacteristic wildfire, drought, invasive species and insect attack, while 

maintaining/restoring habitat for plants and wildlife species including sensitive species such as 

California spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and Yosemite toad. Post-treatment data would be collected upon 

completion of the forest restoration treatments. 

Forest stand treatments differ between stands inside vs. outside the KREW research area. Stands 

treatments within the KREW research watersheds are designed to test the limits of thinning and 

prescribed burning within headwater streams and watersheds. In some of the research units, 

treatments will occur within riparian conservation areas or other areas that are normally buffered to 

protect water quality and riparian vegetation. Treatments inside the research area remain as close to 

the original experimental design as possible. They include 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 2002. 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. 

Stands outside the KREW research areas will be treated following the recommendations of North et al. in 

2009 (General Technical Report 220 or GTR-220), using topographic variables (i.e., slope shape, aspect, 

and slope position) to determine appropriate stand density. 

Treatment acres are shown in Table 1-2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-14

Table 1-2 Treated Acres

aAll acreage totals are within plus or minus 2 acres; differences occur because of rounding of subcategories

bBurn treatment acreage is higher than will occur during the watershed research period. Tractor piles are created within 

thin only watersheds D102 and B201 but will not be burned until after the research period ends.

cThe control watershed for Bull is not included in these acres. The control is 563 acres within the Teakettle Experimental 

Forest (T003). 

Treat minor infestations of noxious weeds on less than 3 acres by pulling or applying herbicide via 

backpack sprayer.

The Proposed Action complies with the SNFPA 2004 ROD which states, “Trees 30 inches dbh and larger 

would be retained in all thinning projects” (SNFPA ROD; USDA-FS 2004c). The Proposed Action also 

meets the SNFPA 2004 ROD desired conditions that California spotted owl HRCA and SSFCA have at 

least 50 percent habitat cover. Eight site-specific forest plan amendments are included to allow 

deviation from LRMP Limited Operating Periods (LOPs), treatment restriction and sedimentation 

avoidance requirements that would otherwise impede research efforts. 

Location Treatment Acresa Treatmentb Acresa

Providence Management Unit (1,863 acres)

Area inside research area

(including the control P304)

657 657

Thinned 181 Burned 504

Not thinned 476 Not burned 153

Area outside research area 1,204 1,204

Thinned 740 Burned 694

Not thinned 464 Not burned 510

Grand total treated Thinned 921 Burned 1,200

Bull Management Unit (1,192 acres)

Area inside experiment 870 870

Thinned 496 Burned 848

Not thinned 374 Not burned 22

Area outside experiment 325 325

Thinned 250 Burned 247

Not thinned 75 Not burned 78

Grand total treated Thinned 746 Burned 1,094
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-15

1.6 Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need, the Responsible Official, the Sierra National Forest Supervisor, reviews the 

Proposed Action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the 

following decisions:

1. Whether to implement the Proposed Action, take action through an alternative combination 

ofactivities, or take no action at this time, and

2. Whether to approve eight non-significant plan amendments for this Project which (1) change several 

sensitive species LOPs; (2) allow vegetation treatment restrictions for specific sensitive species not to be 

applied in specific areas of the project; (3) allow relaxation of the sediment and aquatic and riparian 

species impact minimization requirements. (See Section 2.3.1.6 for more specific information on the 

proposed plan amendments.)

1.7 Public Involvement

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.

Public Involvement

The Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on October 14th, 2009. The NOI asked 

for public comment on the proposal to be received by November 13th, 2009. In 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 14th 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.

Public Comment Period: DEIS (45 days) 

The Draft EIS (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, CDs 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. 

Tribal Government and Native American Interests 

Tribal Governments and Native American Interests representing constituents in the project area were sent 

all public correspondence. 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.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-16

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.

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. 

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 described below (categorized by 

chapters in the FEIS):

Handling of Scoping Comments

Purpose and Need

Air Quality

i. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Economics

Vegetation/Silviculture

Research

i. Support for Research

ii. Need for Research

iii. Research Methods

Fire and Fuels

Soils

Wildlife

Botany

Aquatics

Riparian Impacts

Meadow Impacts

Alternatives

i. Additional Alternatives to consider

ii. Full Range of Alternatives

iii. Basis for Alternatives

iv. Support for Alternatives

Support of the Project

NEPA Sufficiency

Error and Edits Identified

Document Clarity
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-17

Management Direction

NFMA Violation

The IDT reviewed and responded to comments as categorized in the table. Comments were responded 

to individually (see Appendix I for the full set of comments and responses). 

1.8 Issues

Comments from the public and other agencies were used to formulate issues concerning the proposed 

action. No scoping comments were received from members or groups from the Native American 

community. The FS separated KREW Project issues into two groups: significant and non-significant 

issues. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to specific actions. 

Significant issues are issues with potentially significant impacts. The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed 

study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review 

(Sec. 1506.3)...” Significant issues are used to formulate alternatives to the proposed action, or 

prescribe mitigation and monitoring measures. They also may be used for analyzing environmental 

effects. 

A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as non-significant may be 

found in the KREW Project record located at SNF Supervisor’s Office. 

The FS identified two significant issues during scoping. These issues are used to develop alternatives as 

well as measure consequences between alternatives in Chapter 3. 

Issue#1 – Removing trees between 20 – 30 inches dbh could adversely affect some wildlife 

species.

This issue is tracked as an alternative considered in Chapter 2 and addressed in Chapter 3 under 

environmental consequences to vegetation and wildlife. Factors used to measure consequences include: 

• Stem area of trees (basal area) greater than 35 inches dbh after 30 years

• Number of trees between 20 and 30 inches before/after treatment

Increase in the number of large trees

• Potential wildfire and prescribed fire severity

Issue#2 - The proposed stand treatment could jeopardize the viability and habitat of the Pacific 

fisher, spotted owl, marten, goshawk, and Yosemite toad, and the short-term risks to aquatic 

management. 

This issue is addressed in Chapter 3. Factors used to measure consequences include: 

• Spotted owl - canopy cover and suitable habitat 

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

• Fisher - canopy cover and suitable habitat 

• Marten - canopy cover and suitable habitat

• Yosemite toad- presence and duration of toad breeding meadows 

The IDT identified an additional issue to be addressed:

Issue#3 - The use of herbicides/surfactant could harm people and wildlife. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-18

This issue would be tracked as an alternative considered in Chapter 2 and addressed in Chapter 3 under 

environmental consequences to aquatic species, human health and safety and wildlife. Factors used to 

measure consequences include: 

• Hazard to people and wildlife 

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

The SNF developed and considered alternatives to the Proposed Action based on comments received 

and identified significant issues.

1.9 Other Related Efforts

Data collected from 2004 - 2006 was utilized to understand the current conditions of the stands in the 

project area. The summarized geographic stand data is on file electronically at the HSRD Office in an 

Access database and in some brief reports with interpretation. The database and reports are 

incorporated in this EIS by reference. The information collected also gave the agency the ability to 

predict vegetation, fire, and wildlife response to the Proposed Action. 

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling was utilized to simulate tree growth and mortality. 

Modeling was completed to predict wildfire effects using programs named: BehavePlus, FlamMap, and 

FVS Fire and Fuels Extension. See the introduction to Chapter 3 for more information on modeling and

data collection. 

1.10 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: 

1.10.1 Corrections Applied to the FEIS 

Data Omissions – In cases where omissions in data were identified by the Forest Service or the public, 

those omissions were fixed in the FEIS. Where data pertinent to the analysis was identified between 

DEIS and FEIS it was included and analyzed. For example; visual resources related design measures 

were added; two additional plan amendments needed to facilitate research 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. The Global Change Research Act has been added to the 

Federal Conformity Requirement Section and a discussion of the California Global Warming Solutions 

Act of 2006 (A.B.32) has been added in the Air Quality Section. A discussion of climate change has been 

added to the Affected Environment. This discussion includes important Greenhouse Gases (GHG), carbon 

flow, the influence of forest and rangelands as carbon reservoirs and the role of wildfires on carbon 

emissions.

Corrections and Edits – Where typos or errors were identified they were corrected. 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 only trees up to 30 inches and below are being considered for removal under 

any alternative; roads data was corrected; typographic edits were made to the wildlife section 3-9. Snag 

data used in the analysis is shown in Table 3.10 of the Wildlife BABE. That table has now replaced the 

snag table in the DEIS (Table 3-9-8) to better summarize the BABE assessment. New Forest Service 

Manual direction on soils has been issued so references to the old direction were removed and correct 

citations added.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project

Chapter 1 1-19

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 CARs and SMZs; maps were added to show 

the project related roads; all maps in Chapters 1, 2 and the introduction to Chapter 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 EIS addressing regulatory compliance and impacts to irreversible 

and irretrievable resources; information was added to address 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. 

More text was added to Chapter 3 about research design and the effect of the alternatives on research. 

Figures 3-8-1 to 3-8-4 were added. Updated information regarding the fisher population was included in 

the KREW FEIS, such as: “... the two fisher research projects (Kings River and SNAMP) conducted from 

2007 through 2010 show that the fisher population is stable or possibly slightly increasing (Craig 

Thompson 2011, pers. comm.).” Clarification of the fisher occurrence information was added to Section 

3-9.3 of the FEIS and Section 3-9.4 contains a summary of that analysis. Section 3-9.3 of the FEIS has 

been updated with the great grey owl information that was originally in the BABE (Section 3.2) 

Clarification was provided in the FEIS (Chapter 2) for Wildlife Best Management Practice #7 

(WLDBMP#7). This clarifies the intent of the original language for this design feature. This clarification 

does not change the determinations made for the effects of the project, however it also helps give 

greater assurance of fisher den structure protection. Additional Figures and Tables have been added to 

Chapter 2 to clarify aspects of treatments proposed under each alternative. An LOP table has been added 

to the design features in Chapter 2 to summarize the various LOPs related to the project. Updated 

information has been added to the Fire and Fuels existing conditions section pertaining to the extreme 

fuel loading created by a severe winter storm in 2010.

Information Updates - The coarse woody debris (logs) section in the Wildlife Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE), including Tables 3.11 and 3.12 has been revised with 

updated information and that information has also been updated in the FEIS, including replacing DEIS 

Tables 3-9-9 and 3-9-10 with FEIS Table 3-9-9. The generic FVS description information provided in 

Appendix E has been deleted and replaced by stand by stand treatment tables. Project specific FVS 

description information can be found in the project record. 

 

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 FEIS were explained. The proposed alternatives were included in the Alternatives 

Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study, FEIS Section 2.4. Appendix I was created to display the 

Forest Service’s response to commenters. More information regarding the effects of Alternatives 2-4 has 

been brought forward from the BA/BE (Section 3.3.4 – Affects of Alternatives) to the FEIS (Section 3-

9.4) to make the FEIS a more clear and informative summary of the BA/BE analysis. This includes 

providing more of the BABE direct, indirect and cumulative effects information for Alternatives 2-4. 

Maps and statistics have been added on RCAs as requested by commenters. Existing trees per acre by 

size class were added to Appendix G as requested by commenters. Additional discussion of aquatics 

LOPs has been added in response to comments. Additional citations have been added in the Vegetation 

Section related to pollution, drought, insect and other stressors on trees as newer information is now 

available. A section on Greenhouse gas and CO2 modeling has been added to the Air Quality Section as 

requested.