Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. 3-8 Research Introduction Affected Environment

Transcription

1 3-8 Research Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Introduction The following section provides information to assess the consequences on the information able to be developed and analyzed as part of the research design based on each of the alternatives. The ability to obtain watershed information related to vegetation treatments is an important aspect of the purpose and need. As discussed in Chapter 1, KREW was designed to provide high-priority information called for in R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy (SNFPA 2001, 2004). This section will provide the direct effects to the research outcomes for the KREW Project. Since the decisions made on the KREW Project will directly and immediately affect the Pacific Southwest Research Station s (PSW) ability to implement the research design there are no indirect effects. As the KREW research is the only research dependent on the treatment design in the project area, there will be no cumulative effects on research. PSW does conduct long-term fisher and California spotted owl monitoring in the project area Affected Environment Why the Research is Important The quality of aquatic, riparian (near-stream area), and meadow ecosystems is directly related to the healthy condition of nearby uplands in their watershed. Ecosystems are the combination of living and nonliving things dependent upon each other to survive. FS scientists believe that these ecosystems are the most altered and impaired habitats of the Sierra Nevada primarily because of dams and diversions, overgrazing, roads, logging, and physical alteration that occurred in prior decades. However, no longterm experimental watershed studies exist in the southern Sierra Nevada to guide future land management. Work began on KREW in 2000 with data collection starting in October KREW is designed to address both basic and applied science questions and to have sufficient data to apply a diverse set of models to evaluate various management practices and address issues like climate change. A better understanding of processes and variability of headwater stream ecosystems is of interest to science. People and agencies that manage forest lands are interested in evaluating the effects of forest management practices (prescribed fire and mechanical tree thinning) to restore forests to a healthier condition. Chapter Research 3.8-1

2 KREW Research Goals Measure the range of low and high values (natural variability) for selected characteristics of stream ecosystems and their associated watersheds. Provide an instrumented research site to evaluate stresses to forests from air pollution and climate change and to support computer modeling. Evaluate the effects of forest management for ecological restoration (prescribed fire, mechanical thinning, and tree harvesting). Maintain a patchwork of vegetation types and ages that mimic, to the extent possible, the historical distribution of vegetation resulting from frequent, low-intensity fires common before European settlement of the West. Some Questions to be Answered for Forest Managers The FS identified high priority issues for research during the development of the Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for the Sierra Nevada (Appendix E, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2001, 2004). The KREW was designed to address many of these information gaps; a few examples are given here. What is the effect of fire and fuel reduction treatments (i.e., thinning of trees) on the riparian and stream physical, chemical, and biological conditions? Does the use of prescribed fire increase or decrease the rate of soil erosion (long term versus short term) and affect soil health and productivity? How adequate and effective are current stream buffers (areas on both sides of a stream with restricted uses) at protecting aquatic ecosystems? Methods and Design Location, Data Collection, and Collaborators Two sites are instrumented with four watersheds each: the Providence site (in the Providence Unit) between 4,900 and 6,800 feet (approximately 1,500 and 2,100 meters) elevation and the Bull site (in the Bull Unit) between 6,700 and 8,200 feet (approximately 2,000 and 2,500 meters). They both contain mixed-conifer forest. Watersheds range in size from 100 to 300 acres (40 to 120 ha)--a size that can be consistently treated. Data have been gathered for at least a 7-year reference period after which fire and mechanical thinning treatments would be applied. After the treatments, data should be gathered for at least 5 years to evaluate change. Each site has a control watershed that receives no treatments, a watershed that is burned, a watershed that is thinned, and a watershed that is both burned and thinned. A design with a control and before and after treatment data is a strong research design for a watershed-scale comparison. We are interested in evaluating the integrated condition of the streams and their associated watersheds (i.e., physical, chemical, and biological characteristics). Chapter Research 3.8-2

3 Physical measurements include upland erosion, turbidity (suspended sediment), stream temperature, streamflow, channel characteristics, and weather conditions. Chemical measurements for stream water, shallow soil water, precipitation, and snowmelt include nitrate, ammonium, and phosphate (primary biological nutrients); chloride; sulfate; calcium; magnesium; potassium; sodium; ph; and electrical conductivity. Biological measurements include stream invertebrates (like dragonflies and mayflies), algae, and riparian and upland vegetation (herbs, shrubs, and trees). Yosemite toads are also being studied at the Bull Creek site. Baseline data were collected starting 1 October 2002 for the Providence site and 1 October 2003 for the Bull site. Two weather stations are installed and operating at each site. Streamflow, turbidity, temperature and weather data are collected every 15 minutes. These data are transmitted using FS radios from field sites to computers in the Fresno office. Vegetation and soil data were collected for the first time in Yearly measurements of chemistry are made for shallow soil water and precipitation at 460 points in the eight watersheds; vegetation and physical soil measurements are made at a subset of these points. Stream and snowmelt chemistry are done every 2 weeks. Measurements of soil erosion from upland slopes and roads were started in More detail on the research design can be found in the KREW Research Study Plan ( A large collaborative research effort in the KREW Project area began in 2005 with funding from the National Science Foundation. The Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) ( The Southern Sierra CZO is a community platform for research on critical-zone processes across the rain-snow transition in the mixed-conifer forest of the Southern Sierra Nevada. Operating at the watershed scale, CZOs are natural laboratories for investigating the processes that occur at and near the Earth's surface and that are affected by fresh water ( These interconnected processes impact everything from the production of soil to the evolution of biosystems. However, little is known about how these processes are coupled and at what temporal and spatial scales. Currently seven universities are collaborating at KREW through the CZO effort (University of California at Berkeley, Davis, Merced, Irvine, and Santa Barbara; University of Nevada at Reno; University of Wyoming) and some international collaboration has begun. While none of these collaborators are depending on a specific treatment design, several of them are interested in being able to evaluate before and after treatment periods. The KREW design also helped attract the National Ecological Observatory Network (also funded by the National Science Foundation) to establish future instrumentation in the area ( The State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, funded instrumentation and data collection at KREW from 2005 through 2010 under the provisions of Proposition 50 (Agreement ). State funding focused on water chemistry, vegetation, stream invertebrates, stream algae, and water turbidity. The State funded KREW because there was little data on the headwater systems in the southern Sierra Nevada, and more data were needed on the effects of contemporary forest management activities. The KREW final report to the State can be found on the KREW web site. Sampling Design In 2000 to 2002, when the research sampling design was being established, not all of the details of the land management treatments were known. However, expected and desired characteristics of these Chapter Research 3.8-3

4 treatments were developed in detail by PSW and SNF staffs over several years. For example, treatments were desired within Streamside Management Zones (thinning and understory burning) and within Riparian Management Areas (understory burning only) to provide research data for management decisions on restoration and management of headwater riparian areas. Another example is that mechanical treatments should be reasonable and standard practice but intense enough to expect an effect might be able to be measured for indicators such as stream sediment and nitrogen release. Scientists also wanted the data to be useful for management on all forest lands federal, state, and private. Deciding on a sampling design is always a tradeoff between a large number of samples, which provides more statistical power and therefore more confidence in results, and the time and cost per sample. Dr. Hunsaker made all KREW sampling decisions in consultation with other scientists (see KREW Research Study Plan (a PDF) at Jim Baldwin, a PSW statistician, was involved. The KREW Study Plan was peer reviewed by scientists not with the Forest Service. Once a research sampling design is established and sampling begins, it is not changed. The KREW research is a before and after treatment design with controls. Such a design provides the most confidence in correctly detecting effects from the treatments, especially if many years of data are collected before the treatments as KREW has done. The control watersheds provide a way of better understanding variability during the experimental years and identifying change or variability caused by something other than the treatment, for example weather. The Bull and Providence sites are replicates; therefore the treatment type, intensity, and timing should be as similar as possible both within a watershed and between its replicate for the treatments being evaluated: thin only, understory burn only, and thin and understory burn. Ideally replicates are identical; while this can happen in a laboratory, it is not entirely possible at a landscape or watershed scale. However, the Bull and Providence research watersheds were selected with similarities in mind and for many characteristics are very similar: perennial streams, soils, vegetation, topography, and precipitation amount. All treatments of the same type (thin or fire) need to occur in the same year within and between KREW Units. Within each watershed there is a riparian study; therefore, treatments within the riparian areas must also be consistent within a watershed and between its replicate. The integrity of the research design depends on consistency of treatments across the research landscape and places more constraints on the treatment implementation than occurs for a standard forest project. Several non-significant Forest Plan amendments are required to ensure the integrity of the research design (see Section ) most of these are the shortening of a LOP so that both the treatment (thin or burn) and the installation of measurement devices can be completed before October 1 when the Water Year begins for the KREW research. Precipitation events are also likely to occur in October, and any effects caused by these need to be measured; it is important to capture the first large rain events after a treatment since these are likely to drive the most substantial short-term effects for aquatic ecosystems. The other reason for amendments is to be sure understory burns occur in a reasonably consistent manner in riparian areas. Terrestrial Sampling: The sampling design for terrestrial measurements is based on a uniform grid of 150 meters (492 feet); however, the small watersheds of P304 and B201 have the spacing set at 75 m (246 ft) in the northsouth direction to provide for enough sampling points (Figures and This provides a total of 477 sample points with at least 40 to 50 points in each research watershed (Table 3-8-1). Since treatments will not cover 100% of a watershed, the expectation is that at least half would be treated and thus no watershed would have fewer than 20 points that are treated. Measurements for vegetation, fuels, soil physical and chemical characteristics, and nutrient fluxes are based on this uniform grid. Chapter Research 3.8-4

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

6 Figure Permanent grid points for sampling of treatment effects on terrestrial characteristics of the Providence Unit research watersheds. Chapter Research 3.8-6

7 Table Number of research sampling points established to evaluate effects in riparian and upland portions of each research watershed. Watershed Code Upland Sampling points Riparian Sampling transects P P P D B B B T Total Treatment location is governed by landscape, but the intensity of mechanical treatment is governed by the alternative. Understory burning is the same for all alternatives, but within the research watersheds fire needs to be ignited as much as is reasonable to cover the entire research watershed. Since the establishment of the permanent research sampling points, both public opposition and economics have reduced the amount of vegetation that would be removed (smaller tree sizes for thinning, no helicopter logging) so the sample size for mechanical treatment effects will be lower than originally planned. The number of points that are expected to be treated by fire is as originally planned. Many scientists such as Dr. Lee MacDonald (Colorado State University), Dr. Dale Johnson (University of Nevada), Dr. Roger Bales (University of California Merced), and Dr. Scott Cooper (University of California Santa Barbara) expect minimal negative effects on runoff and sediment from the mechanical treatments and support the need for the proposed intensity and extent of the treatments to provide the most science value. Riparian Sampling: Since streams are linear features on the landscape, the uniform grid does not provide an adequate sample for riparian areas. Riparian transects were located at regular intervals, ranging from five to ten transects per stream channel, depending on the length of the channel. Because channel length is also quite variable on KREW watersheds (595 to 3,170 m), the number of transects were assigned proportional to the length of the steam, with five transects assigned to the watershed with the shortest channel, ten assigned to that with the longest channel, and the remaining receiving 5 to 10 transects, depending on channel length (Table 3-8-1, Figures and 3-8-4). Transects were placed perpendicular to the stream channel, starting at the bankfull edge, and extending 20 m (65.6 ft) into the upland. The first transects on a stream start 200 m (656 ft) from the base of the watershed (flume location) and are placed moving upstream at 200 m intervals It is common to sample using transects that are perpendicular to the stream channel when characterizing riparian areas because the community changes frequently with varying lateral proximity to the channel. The location of transects rotates from one side of the stream to the other proceeding upstream, so as to sample opposing aspects of the watershed. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2001) contained an Adaptive Management Strategy (Appendix E) that highlighted both cause and effect monitoring needs and key information gaps ; the 2004 SNFPA adopted the strategy from Appendix E (see Section of this EIS). The KREW riparian research was designed to address the following two questions about treatments in riparian areas. Key Aquatic, Riparian, and Meadow Information Gaps Chapter Research 3.8-7

8 What width and range of treatments for riparian buffers (including those proposed in the S&Gs) are most effective in maintaining and restoring aquatic, riparian, and meadow physical, chemical, and biological conditions? Fire and Fuels Cause and Effect Monitoring Questions What is the effect of fire and fuel treatments in riparian zones and near ephemeral streams on the riparian and stream physical, chemical, and biological conditions? Sierra Nevada riparian areas, like their associated watershed uplands, are in need of restoration because of fire suppression. The KREW riparian research design was based on the need to restore headwater riparian areas, to get data to answer the questions listed above, and the existing guidance/standards for forest management on federal, state, and private riparian lands. The Forest Service Handbook (Sierra National Forest Supplement No. 1, August 1989) defines a Riparian Management Area as all areas within a horizontal distance of 100 ft from the edge of perennial streams or lakes when the side slope is less than 30 percent. Vehicle use is prohibited within these defined areas; but vegetation can be cut and dragged out. The Water Course and Lake Protection Zone for Class I streams is 75 ft and for Class II streams is 50 ft when the side slope is less than 30 percent (California Forest Practice Rules 2011). For a Class I watercourse in the Sierra Nevada, the State allows commercial thinning in the Inner Zone between 30 to 70 ft from the stream, but no trees can be removed within 30 ft of the stream. Although the KREW research streams are headwaters (first and second order streams), they flow all year (perennial). The KREW riparian research was designed to evaluate the thinning of trees to within 50 ft of the stream side using the same silviculture prescription as the general forest thin, while maintaining the exclusion of vehicles from the edge of the stream to 100 ft upslope. While this riparian treatment is more restrictive than that allowed by the State of California, it would still be informative to State regulators. If a substantial sediment, nutrient, or invertebrate effect is detectable under the KREW treatments, then a similar or more substantial effect can be expected under State Best Management Practices for riparian areas. For KREW, if a stream runs through a meadow, the Riparian Management Area starts at the outer edge of the meadow. Thus the 100 ft vehicle exclusion starts from the green edge of the meadow (not the stream edge within the meadow) and extends into the upland forest. Low intensity, prescribed fire is allowed to back into riparian areas under the Sierra Nevada Framework (2001, 2004). To ensure a low-intensity fire treatment occurs in the research riparian areas, fire can be ignited but not within 5 ft of the stream or within obviously green riparian vegetation. This decision was based on three years of riparian vegetation monitoring for KREW which shows that the influence of these perennial-stream microclimates on nearby vegetation only extends from 1 to 3 meters (3 to 10 ft) upslope of the stream edge. There are 56 established riparian sampling transects (Table 3-8-1) in KREW (15 of these are controls that receive no treatment). Each transect extends 66 ft from the edge of the streamside. For mechanical treatments, 16 feet of this transect can have vegetation removed from it but receives no disturbance from vehicles. The remaining 50 ft of the transect (going towards the stream) is used to monitor indirect effects from any adjacent thinning. The entire transect can be exposed to understory burning, but the 5 ft adjacent to the stream (or obviously green riparian vegetation) would not have fire ignited in it. Chapter Research 3.8-8

9 Figure Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation of the Bull Unit research watersheds. These sampling locations are displayed with the thinning treatments of Alternative 4 to show that these sampling locations would not receive a consistent thinning treatment. Chapter Research 3.8-9

10 Figure Permanent transects for sampling of treatment effects on riparian vegetation of the Providence Unit research watersheds. These sampling locations are displayed with the thinning treatments of Alternative 4 to show that these sampling locations would not receive a consistent thinning treatment. Chapter Research

11 New Information and Questions To Be Answered The KREW research was designed to address a diverse set of questions about forest management and develop new information about Sierra headwater streams and their watersheds. In Section the management questions and information gaps that KREW can address from the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Strategy are described. In the KREW Research Study Plan three conceptual models (stream discharge, soil loss, and vegetation) are provided to illustrate how the many measurements that KREW takes are interrelated. The physical, chemical, and biological measurements that are made for the KREW experiment are listed in Appendix A. For each of the measurements in Appendix A, a similar set of questions can be answered; only some examples are provided here to note be overly repetitive. The KREW research has a good pre-treatment (baseline) data set of eight years of data with high, average, and low precipitation years (Water Year 2003 through 2010). A powerful and unique aspect of KREW is the inclusion of the T003 watershed in the Teakettle Experimental Forest. This watershed has not been disturbed by roads or timber harvest and therefore provides data on the natural range of variability for measurements such as stream sediment load, flow during precipitation events of different magnitudes and types, invertebrates, and algae. The uplands of this watershed provide data on soil physical properties, nutrient cycling, and carbon storage for an undisturbed watershed. The other seven watersheds in the KREW research have been disturbed by standard forest management activities such as roads and timber harvesting. Therefore, their pre-treatment data are representative of the current range of variability for managed watersheds where many characteristics have recovered from the last timber harvest that occurred 15 to 20 years ago. Measurements taken after the treatments (thin or burn) would then be compared back to the pre-treatment range of variability. If a post-treatment measurement for a characteristic is within the range of variability established by the pre-treatment data for that stream or watershed, then the measured effect would likely be considered to be neutral or not significant. Another way a stream physical or chemical characteristic can be evaluated for significance during the post-treatment period is to see if the biological stream indicators, invertebrates or algae, experience a significant change. Soil condition and erosion are used here as examples of the type of new information and questions that KREW can answer. A similar process can be applied to other measurements listed in Appendix A. KREW collects annual sediment loads for each stream; from these data an annual erosion rate (lbs/acre) can be developed for each watershed. The eight years of pre-treatment data now provide a current range of variability for the seven managed watersheds and a natural range of variability for T003, the undisturbed watershed. The erosion rate for T003 falls in about the middle of the current range of variability for the managed watersheds. The first year or two after a treatment is when the most the erosion (effect) is expected to occur; however, erosion is very dependent on precipitation intensity. The plan is that KREW will collect data for at least five years after a treatment so that short-term (1-2 years) and long-term (3-5 years) periods can be compared to the pre-treatment range of variability to determine the significance of a change. Scientists expect there to be an increase in the erosion rate after treatments, but the magnitude of the change, the duration of the change, and how fast the rate returns to baseline (if it does) are not known. The Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model has been calibrated for KREW and can predict this, but KREW data would help verify WEPP for the southern Sierra Nevada. Because there are thin only, burn only, and thin and burn watersheds, we would be able to determine the proportion, magnitude, and timing of erosion that comes from a thin treatment, a burn treatment, and a combined thin and burn treatment. The control watersheds (where no treatments Chapter Research

12 occur) provide a check on unusual or extreme conditions that occur (rain-on-snow events, drought, extreme temperature, gradual climate change, etc.) and are important for evaluation of a positive, neutral, or negative effect from a treatment. Other important soil conditions such as compaction, depth of organic (litter) matter above mineral soil, mineral soil carbon and nitrogen concentrations can all be evaluated in a similar manner for pre- and post-treatment data at KREW. Stream invertebrates and algae will be given as another brief example of the types of questions that KREW can answer. Invertebrates and algae are biological indicators for a change in stream or riparian condition. Just because a change can be measured in a physical or chemical parameter of stream water, like sediment load or nitrogen concentration, does not mean that change has a significant effect (positive or negative) on the biological condition of the stream. For stream invertebrates, measurements like the number of individuals of a genus (e.g., mayfly, dragonfly) or the proportion of sensitive types are used to evaluate the condition of a stream. For example, if the sediment load of a stream increases substantially, it is expected that the proportion of invertebrates that are sensitive to sediment will decrease. If that decrease in sensitive invertebrates is substantial and continues for several years, then the condition of that stream would be degraded. Again, post-treatment data would be compared to the pre-treatment data for a stream and would be evaluated for the various treatments. Treatments in riparian zones could be expected to increase sedimentation, increase water temperature, or reduce large woody debris, at least in the short-term. While we might or might not be able to measure a significant change in each of these parameters, if we see a significant negative change in the invertebrate population then we would likely conclude that one or more of the stream physical conditions have caused this invertebrate degradation. As stated before, the T003 undisturbed stream data will be very useful for assessing ecological condition. No watershed-scale, experimental data (cause and effect) of the intensity that KREW is designed to measure exists for headwater streams and invertebrate and algae communities in the Sierra Nevada. The last example given will be about the role KREW plays for climate change in the Sierra Nevada; 55 to 65 percent of California s developed water comes from small streams in the Sierra Nevada. The Providence Unit of KREW currently receives precipitation as both rain and snow, while the Bull Unit is snow dominated. Scientists believe that the lower elevation research watersheds currently serve as a surrogate for how higher elevation watersheds will function with climate change (predicted to be 1 to 2 degrees C (similar in degrees F). KREW monitors streamflow on 10 streams and weather conditions at four locations. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funding the Southern Sierra Critical Zone Observatory which has added many measurement sites of soil moisture at several depths and snow depth on the Providence research watersheds. NSF has also funded a transect of flux towers that measure weather conditions from the base to the top of the forest canopy; one of these towers is located in the Providence Unit at P301, and one is north of the Bull Unit. NSF's National Ecological Observatory Network will add more flux towers to this research area with a transect extending from the valley up to the crest of the Sierras; they selected this location to study climate change also. Through collaboration, an intense network of both climate and hydrologic instruments is in place to address climate change in the southern Sierra Nevada. Currently the average temperature across the 600-m (1,970 ft) average elevation range was only 1 to 2 degrees C warmer in the lower versus upper elevation research watersheds. The annual precipitation is 75-95% snow at the Bull Unit versus 20-50% at the Providence Unit. Measurements indicate that about one third less water would flow in the streams from high elevation headwaters in the southern Sierra as Chapter Research

13 temperatures increase 1 to 2 degrees C. Peak discharge lagged peak snow accumulation on the order of 60 days at the higher elevations and 20 to 30 days at the lower elevations. Climate change is expected to result in earlier runoff, and the KREW pre-treatment data indicate the number of days that shift might be in the future. The amount of water in these headwater streams is controlled by climate and vegetation (amount and type). The KREW forest restoration treatments would be very useful in determining if management of vegetation at the proposed levels makes any significant difference in the amount and timing of stream flow for snow-dominated versus rain-and-snow watersheds Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action Direct Effects Since no land management activity occurs under this alternative, this alternative does not meet the objectives of the KREW research which is to quantify effects of land management activities for forest restoration. No new research information would be provided for R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy Alternative 2 Uneven Age Management (Structural Restoration) Direct Effects This alternative has the mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments that the KREW sampling was designed to evaluate restoration of a patchy, uneven-aged forest structure. The KREW design was done in , and data collection started in Ideally for research, a consistent treatment is performed across the entire watershed landscape; however, in reality this does not happen because of the variability in the landscape. The research sampling occurs either in the stream, near the stream edge, or on a uniform grid with 492-ft (150-m) spacing across the landscape (see sampling design in Section ). The tree thinning (as measured by the upper diameter limit for removal) is the same on upland and riparian areas for both the General Forest Thin and the Old Forest Emphasis Thin. For this alternative, the degree of mechanical thinning is expected to be substantial enough to detect a change in the indicators being monitored by research. For example, the amount of biomass (trees and shrubs) being removed may lead to an increase in stream flow or an increased pulse of nitrogen in stream water for a few years after treatment. Ideally at least half of the sampling grid points within a treated watershed will have vegetation removed, soil disturbed, or fire applied to them; the sampling design determines the level of confidence that can be applied to a measured change from before and after a treatment. Substantial new research information would be provided for R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy Alternative 3 Fuels Reduction Direct Effects This alternative does not strive to restore a patchy, uneven-aged forest structure and therefore does not meet the objectives of the KREW research. This level of mechanical thinning is not expected to either remove enough biomass or treat a high enough (50 percent or more) proportion of the landscape to Chapter Research

14 detect, with confidence, a change in the indicators being monitored by research. Limited new research information would be provided for R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy Alternative 4 North GTR (Ecological Restoration) Direct Effects While this alternative does strive to restore a patchy, uneven-aged forest based on landscape attributes, the inconsistent treatment (upper diameter limit for tree thinning) of upland and near-stream areas is in conflict with the KREW sampling design. Specifically, the upper diameter limit for tree thinning is 12- in dbh in canyon areas and 30-in for other thinned areas. Loss of both sampling points and vegetation transects would reduce or eliminate our ability to detect, with confidence, a change in the indicators being monitored. This is especially of concern for the KREW near-stream (riparian) restoration study objectives. The KREW design established riparian vegetation sampling transects every 656 ft (200 m) along streams in 2002 (see riparian sampling in Section ). These transects were measured for three years ( ) to establish a pre-treatment vegetation composition. As discussed previously for other alternatives, the removal of any of the established sampling areas from a consistent mechanical treatment does not meet the objectives of the KREW research. The number of riparian sampling transects is given in Table 3-8-1, and Figures and illustrate that there would be inconsistent treatments given to both riparian transects and the terrestrial sampling grid (Figures and 3-8-2). Some new research information would be provided for R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy, but not about riparian vegetation Alternative 5 Proposed Action Direct Effects This alternative meets the objectives of the KREW research because within the research watershed boundaries an uneven-aged management strategy (Alternative 2) is used for the mechanical treatments and no near-stream areas are removed from consistent mechanical treatment (see sampling discussion in Section and under Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 of this section). This alternative has the mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments in the research watersheds that the KREW sampling was designed to evaluate. The KREW design was done in , and data collection started in For this alternative, the degree of mechanical thinning is expected to be substantial enough to detect a change in the indicators being monitored by research. Substantial new research information would be provided for R5 s Adaptive Management Strategy Comparison of Alternatives Based on the explanations above, Alternatives 2 and 5 fully meet the research objectives, while Alternative 4 meets most objectives and Alternatives 1 and 3 do not meet research objectives. See Table Chapter Research

15 Table Summary of Alternative s Ability to Meet Research Objectives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Meets Research Objectives Does not meet Fully meets research objectives Does not meet research objectives Meets research objectives in large part except for riparian areas Fully meets research objectives Degree of Thinning to Achieve Scientifically Viable Experimental Result No Thinning Sufficient Thinning to result in ground disturbance and scientifically sufficient response Insufficient Thinning to result in ground disturbance and scientifically sufficient response Sufficient Thinning to result in ground disturbance and scientifically sufficient response Sufficient Thinning to result in ground disturbance and scientifically sufficient response Sufficient Sampling Area to Achieve Scientifically Viable Experimental Result No Area Treated Sufficient Sampling Area Sufficient Sampling Area Insufficient sampling area due to reduced treatment in riparian areas Sufficient Sampling Area Chapter Research