Greys Mountain Restoration Project DEIS Executive Summary

The Sierra National Forest (SNF), Bass Lake Ranger District (BLRD) proposes to restore ecological 

structure and function to create a resilient landscape that can better withstand future disturbances and 

continue to provide sustainable ecosystem services for future generations. To accomplish this goal, the 

SNF BLRD proposes several restoration objectives aimed at promoting native biodiversity and ecosystem 

resilience in the Greys Mountain Project area. The Greys Mountain Project would restore the ecological 

processes and forest heterogeneity through a series of prescribed fire and thinning treatments aimed at 

reducing ladder fuels and dead and down fuel loads. Another objective is to create a network of 

landscape area treatments and defensible fuels profiles near key transportation corridors to reduce the 

intensity and rate of spread of wildfires across the landscape and near communities. Proposed treatments 

also would improve stand resistance to drought, insects, and disease by reducing inter-tree competition 

and improving tree vigor. Montane meadow restoration would be accomplished in targeted hydrologic 

systems through a combination of treatments, including improvements to degraded hydrologic features, 

encroaching conifer removal, and noxious weed management. Proposed treatments would restore 

culturally-significant vegetation and protect important historic and cultural resources threatened by 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire. 

The area affected by the proposal includes 9600 total project boundary acres within the Willow Creek and 

Fresno River watersheds, in the Southern Sierra Nevada. The project is immediately north of the 

community of Bass Lake, California and south of Soquel Meadow, east of Nelder Grove Historical Area 

and west of Graham Mountain. Vegetation types include ponderosa pine plantations, mixed conifer, true 

fir, and hardwood species, as well as areas dominated by brush/shrubs, herbs and grasses (meadows), 

rock, and steep slopes. 

This action is needed, because under the amended SNF-LRMP (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

[SNFPA], Record of Decision [ROD], USDA-FS 2004), an ecosystem approach to project development 

and planning is recommended. Where there are significant departures from the desired condition or 

potential for a loss in key ecosystem functions, opportunities for management actions to address this 

departure were developed. An emphasis on the inter-relationship of the major functional program goals 

was placed on these opportunities. Of particular concern was the Willow Creek watershed with its highly 

departed ecological condition and its importance in providing valuable ecosystem services and 

community benefits to meet the ecological, social, and economic needs of the public. 

Current forest conditions, due to past management activities (including harvesting operations, fire 

exclusion/suppression, housing development, etc.) have been changed from one where fires were of 

frequent, low/ moderate intensity to infrequent, high intensity. Owing to these changes, forest stands have 

become less diverse, more homogenous, and more susceptible to uncharacteristically severe wildfire and 

drought. Current forests stands are typified by an overabundance of shade-tolerant conifer species in the 

lower and mid-level canopies of the forested stands. Other areas have converted from forested stands to 

brush/shrub species. This overstocking of conifers has led to a decline in forest health and high 

susceptibility of loss from insects, disease, wildland fire, and climate change.

A variety of wildlife species are highly dependent on conditions provided by functioning and intact 

ecosystems, including, Pacific fisher, California spotted owl and Northern goshawk., These species are 

highly susceptible to habitat loss and fragmentation caused by wildfire, insect and disease outbreaks, past 
logging practices, and changing climate. Although there is inherent uncertainty (due to gaps in 

information) surrounding habitat management of these sensitive species, , the vulnerability of these 

habitats to future stressors can be reduced through the implementation of ecological restoration treatments 

focused on improving ecosystem resilience, retaining key habitat structures (large live trees and snags), 

and restoring important forest characteristics (heterogeneity, fire-resilient tree species).

 Alternative 1 – No Action. Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would 

continue to guide management of the project area. No ecological restoration activities would be 

implemented to accomplish the purpose and need. 

 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action. Treatment areas within the project area boundary were 

delineated to include those areas where some form of treatment was necessary to meet the purpose 

and need. First, treatment areas were designed to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires in 

and around WUI. Treatment areas near key transportation corridors and within the defense zone 

of the WUI were designed next. Treatment areas were further designed to meet several additional 

ecological restoration objectives: (1) restoration of forest structure and composition (forest 

heterogeneity and biodiversity is promoted using prescribed burning and mechanical thinning) (2) 

fire and fuels management(treatments are designed to reduce ladder and surface fuels that occur 

within the lower and limited mid-level canopy); (3) wildlife habitat and watershed restoration 

(enhancement and retention of key habitat structures, meadow restoration), (4) forest health and 

ecological resiliency (overstocked stands are thinned in the lower- and mid-level canopy to 

promote resilience to changing environmental conditions resulting from insects, disease, wildfire, 

and drought; and (5) invasive species management (eradication or containment of noxious weed 

populations). 

 Alternative 3 – Lower and Limited Mid-level Canopy Treatments, All Treatment Areas. In 

Alternative 3, treatment areas would remain the same as in Alternative 2, treatments within these 

areas would include only those needed to reduce the surface and ladder fuels (within the lower 

and limited mid-level canopy levels) needed to achieve fire and fuels objectives. Under 

Alternative 3 there would be no additional treatments (i.e. additional thinning in the mid-level 

canopy) to fully address stand density and forest health objectives. 

This alternative would receive treatment only to achieve fire and fuels objectives and limit treatments to 

mechanical clearing of ladder and surface fuels and prescribed burning.