United States Department of Agriculture

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Revision of the

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests 

Land Management Plans

Summary

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB-297-D May 2016
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or 

administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA 

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

NOTE: We make every effort to create documents that are accessible to individuals of all abilities; 

however, limitations with our word processing programs may prevent some parts of this document from 

being readable by computer-assisted reading devices. If you need assistance with this document, please

contact the Pacific Southwest Region Office at (707) 562-9121.

Cover Photo: Two bristlecone pines on the Discovery Trail in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest, Inyo 

National Forest
Summary: Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

i 

Contents 

Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction and Background....................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Need for Revising the Forest Plans ......................................................................... 3

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management and Smoke ..................................................................... 4

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity .................................................................................... 4

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas ........................................... 4

Issues and Alternatives................................................................................................................. 4

Issue 1: Ecological Resilience, Wildlife Habitats, and Wildfire .............................................. 4

Issue 2: Forest Resilience and Forest Density ......................................................................... 5

Issue 3: Fuels Treatments and Fire Management .................................................................... 5

Issue 4: Watershed Restoration ................................................................................................ 5

Issue 5: Protecting Aquatic Diversity ...................................................................................... 6

Issue 6: Recommended Wilderness ......................................................................................... 6

Issue 7: Smoke ......................................................................................................................... 6

Issue 8: Forest Products ........................................................................................................... 7

Alternatives Analyzed .................................................................................................................. 7

Alternative A: Existing Plan Direction .................................................................................... 7

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plans ................................................................................... 7

Alternative C ............................................................................................................................ 9

Alternative D.......................................................................................................................... 10

The Preferred Alternative........................................................................................................... 11

Decision to be Made .................................................................................................................. 11

Comparing Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 12

Comparison of Key Indicators ................................................................................................... 13

Tables

Table S-1. Comparison of how each alternative addresses the revision topics .............................. 12

Table S-2. Key indicators for each alternative at the landscape level, all national forests ............ 13

Table S-3. Key indicators for each alternative for the Inyo National Forest ................................. 14

Table S-4. Key indicators for each alternative for the Sequoia National Forest ............................ 15

Table S-5. Key indicators for each alternative for the Sierra National Forest ............................... 16
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

ii

Figure S-1. Vicinity map for the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

3 

Summary

Introduction and Background

The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests are managed by the Forest Service, an agency of the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Together, the three national forests encompass nearly 4.6 

million acres of National Forest System lands located at the southernmost extent of the Sierra Nevada 

mountain range of California (Figure S-1). Every national forest managed by the Forest Service is 

required to have a land management plan (also called a “forest plan”) that is consistent with the 

National Forest Management Act of 1976.1

 

Each national forests is currently being managed under its respective plan: the 1988 Inyo National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, the 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan, and the 1992 Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. The 

current plans have incorporated several amendments, including the 2001 and 2004 Sierra Nevada 

Forest Plan Amendments, the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species 

Amendment, and other local amendments. These three southern Sierra Nevada national forests began 

efforts to revise their forest plans in 2012 as part of a set of “early adopters” of the newly approved 

2012 planning regulations.2

 For the Sequoia National Forest, the Giant Sequoia National Monument 

management plan, approved in 2012, will remain unchanged in the forest plan revision and is not 

analyzed in this draft environmental impact statement.

Purpose and Need for Revising the Forest Plans

The existing forest plans are over 20 years old. Economic, social, and ecological conditions changed 

during that time; new laws, regulations and policies are in place; and new information based on 

monitoring and scientific research is available. The Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests are 

revising their existing forest plans to meet the legal requirements of the National Forest Management 

Act of 1976; to address changed conditions and provide consistent management direction (as 

appropriate) across the three national forests; to incorporate changes in law, regulation, and policy; 

and to use new scientific information. 

Through engagement with the public, tribes, and local, State and Federal agencies, we identified six 

emphasis areas as a focus for the need to change in revising the forest plans. Each emphasis area was 

considered as a potential revision topic. Revision topics are used in the environmental impact 

statement to organize the features of the alternatives and to compare and contrast the differences 

between alternatives. Three of the six emphasis areas dealing with acquired lands on the Inyo 

National Forest, tribal relations and uses, and benefits to people and communities were not considered 

as revision topics because plan direction did not change to respond to them across alternatives. We 

address the following revision topics because plan direction could change to respond to them across 

the alternatives.

 

1 16 U.S.C. 1604

2 36 CFR 219
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

4 

Revision Topic 1: Fire Management and Smoke

To reduce the risk of large high-intensity wildfires to communities and assets such as recreation sites 

and infrastructure; increase the ability to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives; and reduce 

smoke impacts to communities. 

Revision Topic 2: Ecological Integrity

To restore the resilience of vegetation and aquatic and riparian ecosystems to fire, drought, and 

climate impacts; restore wildlife and plant habitat and diversity; and reduce the risk of large highintensity wildfire impacts to species and wildlife habitat.

Revision Topic 3: Sustainable Recreation and Designated 

Areas

Provide sustainable and diverse recreation opportunities that consider population demographic 

characteristics; reflect desires of local communities, avoid overcrowding and use conflicts, and 

minimize resource damage; protect cultural resources; update direction for management of wilderness 

and wild and scenic rivers; and protect the values of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail.

Issues and Alternatives

The proposed action was distributed for public review in August of 2014, and the following issues 

were used for analysis to respond to public concerns expressed during development of the draft 

environmental impact statement. 

Issue 1: Ecological Resilience, Wildlife Habitats, and Wildfire

Issue Statement 1: The amount, type, and location of thinning to improve ecosystem resilience to 

large, high-intensity wildfires and to reduce the threat of wildfires to communities may not provide 

adequate habitat for wildlife species that use forests with large trees and dense canopy cover.

There is concern about the methods we propose to manage the forest (the type and extent of 

management activities), particularly mechanical thinning, for restoring ecological resilience that are 

included in the proposed action. Based on perceptions of current vegetation conditions and resilience, 

some people stated the proposal is too aggressive, while others stated the restoration proposal is not 

aggressive enough. Some believe the more active management approach using thinning of trees and 

removing fuels to restore ecological resilience will impact too much of the dense forest that provide 

wildlife habitats in the short-term. They prefer to use more prescribed burning and more carefully 

managed wildfires instead of mechanical thinning, and limit mechanical thinning to only when 

needed closest to communities. Others think only a more active management approach that 

substantially increase the areas thinned will reduce the impacts from large, high intensity wildfires 

and ensure that the forests are resilient to climate change. They believe that active management may 

have short-term impacts but is needed to provide long-term sustainability of wildlife habitat and other 

ecosystem services. 
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

5 

Issue 2: Forest Resilience and Forest Density

Issue Statement 2: The limitations on effectively treating enough areas to reduce the density of trees 

and the level of fuels because of concerns for wildlife habitats will leave too much of the forest at risk 

of loss or unacceptable damage from wildfires or insect attacks during droughts exacerbated by 

climate change. 

There is a concern that there are too many tightly packed trees in much of the current forests, which 

makes them susceptible to being attacked and killed by bark beetles and other insects when trees are 

stressed by droughts. The density of trees and high level of fuels that have accumulated also makes it 

easier for fire to spread quickly into tree crowns where it can kill more trees than would be expected 

under more natural conditions. Public concern is that overemphasizing wildlife habitat needs conflicts 

with the need to improve resilience and sustainability of the forest.

Issue 3: Fuels Treatments and Fire Management

Issue Statement 3: The amount of prescribed fire and managed wildfire used to meet resource 

objectives may not be sufficient to restore fire in frequent fire ecosystems. The amount of fire restored 

to the landscape may not be achievable without reducing existing fuels before treatment. 

There is general agreement by the public about the need to restore fire as an ecosystem function more 

widely on the forests. There is a concern that in most areas, unless existing fuels are reduced 

beforehand, it will be difficult to conduct prescribed burning because the fire will burn hotter than 

desired and will have too great a potential to escape control. There is also a concern that many 

prescribed burns may not be accomplished because fire managers would need to wait for optimal 

weather where the conditions for burning and risks are acceptable. Similarly, the concern is that 

wildfires that could be managed to meet resource objectives will continue to be suppressed unless 

there are strategic pre-treated locations to provide confidence that the fire can be safely managed 

without undue risks to communities or unacceptable impacts to resources.

Issue 4: Watershed Restoration

Issue Statement 4: The amount of watershed restoration in the proposed revised plans may not keep 

pace with the increased stresses to aquatic and riparian systems from drought and climate change. 

Many people are concerned that with climate change and drought, aquatic and riparian ecosystems are 

under increasing stress and in need of restoration to increase their resilience. Stresses include: 

• the threats of uncharacteristically large wildfires that affect large portions of watersheds and 

riparian areas, 

• decreases in available water and a resulting increase in water temperature due to increased 

forest density where more trees draw water to grow, and 

• drying of meadows and unique features like fens and springs. 

Since aquatic and riparian systems are an essential component to sustain ecosystem integrity, the 

concern is that without an increased pace and scale of restoration to address these stressors (the rate at 

which we actively manage resources across a given landscape), aquatic ecosystems will continue to 

degrade with less water and warmer water temperatures that may make it difficult or impossible for 

aquatic organisms to survive.
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

6 

Issue 5: Protecting Aquatic Diversity

Issue Statement 5: The proposed revised plans may not adequately protect areas of high aquatic 

species diversity.

We heard concerns that if we don’t identify and provide additional protection to areas of high aquatic 

species diversity, the areas may be adversely affected by the pace and scale of restoration. 

Maintaining and improving the resilience of these areas is an important adaptive strategy to address 

climate change.

Issue 6: Recommended Wilderness

Issue Statement 6: The proposed revised plans offer an opportunity to manage more areas as 

recommended wilderness to protect them from development for future generations. However, 

recommending additional wilderness areas in the proposed revised plans might unnecessarily prohibit 

and further geographically constrain management activities and uses, including tribal uses that 

would otherwise be allowed. 

The 2012 Planning Rule and Forest Service manual and handbook provide direction for inventorying 

and evaluating lands that may be identified as recommended for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. When we received comments on our proposal to revise the three forest plans, 

some individuals and groups identified areas to consider in the wilderness inventory and suggested 

they become recommended wilderness areas. The commenters asked that these or other additional 

areas be recommended for wilderness designation to protect the values that they attach to wilderness 

areas. Other people requested that no additional areas be proposed for wilderness designation because 

designation would prevent them from participating in the activities that they currently enjoy within 

those areas. Tribal groups, and traditional cultural practitioners expressed concern that their access 

may be restricted to sites where they gather resources and hold ceremonies if areas are managed as 

wilderness. There is also a concern that sacred sites and cultural resources may be damaged or 

vandalized if recreation use increases as a result of wilderness designation. Some commenters felt 

wilderness designation could limit management activities such as other forms of recreation that 

provide economic benefits to local communities or mechanical treatments to reduce the risks of 

uncharacteristic wildland fire, insect, and disease.

Issue 7: Smoke

Issue Statement 7: Increasing the amount of prescribed burning, and allowing the management of 

wildfires to meet resource objectives would produce more smoke that might impact human health and 

affect the tourism-based and resource-based economies of counties and rural communities. 

In recent years, very large wildfires in Sierra Nevada national forests have demonstrated that smoke 

can affect not only local communities but also communities far from the fire. Smoke can affect 

human health and recreation opportunities. These impacts may affect other uses of the forest and can 

be substantial for communities dependent upon a recreation-based economy. There is public concern 

that increasing the amount of prescribed burning and managing more wildfires to meet resource 

objectives will produce too much smoke that will affect human health and, if not carefully planned 

and managed, could affect local economies.
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

7 

Issue 8: Forest Products

Issue Statement 8: The amount of forest management activities and forest product outputs may not 

adequately contribute to sustaining local and regional industry infrastructure needed to accomplish 

restoration objectives. 

Many commenters emphasized the importance of economic and social contributions of the national 

forests to the surrounding communities. One concern is the importance of maintaining infrastructure 

(such as mills, roads, equipment, and skilled labor force) in local communities, so that the Forest 

Service can draw upon that infrastructure to accomplish restoration goals as well as contribute to the 

economic and social well-being of communities. 

Alternatives Analyzed 

We developed four alternatives to address the range of issues the public raised throughout the public 

involvement process. Alternative A would continue current management direction. Alternatives B, 

includes modifications to the original proposed action in response to the issues and alternatives C and 

D were developed around the issues to emphasize a more cautious approach and a more active 

approach. Alternatives B, C, and D include desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, 

suitability of lands, management areas, and designated areas—elements that are outlined and required 

by the 2012 Planning Rule and Forest Service directives. The three draft forest plans also identify 

goals and potential management approaches and include a forest plan monitoring program. 

Below we summarize the key concepts used in developing the alternatives. Table S-1 also provides a 

comparison of how the issues are addressed by alternative. The desired conditions are the same for 

alternatives B, C, and D. For vegetation, which has a range within the desired conditions, the 

alternatives would move toward different desired condition outcomes at different paces and scales.

Alternative A: Existing Plan Direction

Under alternative A, the forest plans for the Inyo National Forest (1988), the Sequoia National Forest 

(1988), and the Sierra National Forest (1992) and their amendments would continue to guide 

management with no changes. 

Alternative B: Proposed Revised Plans

This alternative represents our proposal for revising the forest plans and focuses on restoring natural 

resources and ecosystem health, and improving ecosystem resilience to climate change. We revised it 

from the original proposed action based upon our specialist knowledge and expertise to address 

public comments we received on our proposal to revise the plans and during our other public 

engagement activities. Alternative B responds to the issues, which are organized by revision topics as 

follows: 

• Fire Management. Alternative B replaces the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and threat 

zone with a risk-based community wildfire protection zone and general wildfire protection zone 

consistent with the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy.3 It classifies the 

non-wildland-urban intermix area into a risk-based wildfire restoration zone and wildfire 

maintenance zone. Strategically located fuel reduction treatments along roads, ridgelines and 

connecting areas with lower fuels would support larger landscape-scale prescribed burning. 

 

3 The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy is guidance for agencies to work collaboratively across all 

landscapes, using best science, to make meaningful progress towards three goals: resilient landscapes, fire-adapted 

communities, and safe and effective wildfire response.
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

8 

Resource objectives are defined when wildfires may be managed to maintain or move toward 

desired conditions. It includes forest plan components to conserve key characteristics associated 

with the ecological integrity of complex early seral habitat.

• Ecological Integrity. Alternative B replaces many prescriptive and restrictive activity-based 

standards and guidelines with descriptive vegetation-based desired conditions that describe 

resilient and sustainable vegetation conditions by major vegetation types and incorporates 

forest plan direction consistent with relevant findings and recommendations of the Fisher 

Conservation Strategy, Interim Recommendations for the Management of the California 

Spotted Owl and recently developed Sierra marten core habitat maps. On the Sequoia and 

Sierra National Forests, alternative B encourages concentrating treatments within larger areas 

called “focus landscapes.” The existing direction for the old forest emphasis area management 

area is replaced with forestwide old forest desired conditions to provide for the density and 

number of large and old live trees, snags, and down logs across the entire forest rather than in 

specific areas. 

In the wildfire restoration and wildfire maintenance zones there are restrictions on removing 

large trees (pine trees greater than 27-inch diameter and other trees greater than 30-inch 

diameter) for projects designed to reduce fuels or manage timber growth, with limited 

exceptions allowed for safety and equipment operability. Within the community and general 

wildfire protection zones, large trees may be removed as needed to address wildfire risks to 

communities and assets while still considering the overall desired conditions for large and old 

trees. This alternative includes forest plan components to conserve key characteristics 

associated with the ecological integrity of complex early seral habitat but considers the need to 

restore old forest and forest connectivity. 

Alternative B emphasizes restoration and resilience of sagebrush habitats important to greater 

sage-grouse on the Inyo National Forest. It continues management of riparian conservation 

areas and critical aquatic refuges and recognizes priority watersheds as areas to focus 

restoration and maintenance efforts. It adds new critical aquatic refuges on the Inyo and Sierra 

National Forests in watersheds with high aquatic diversity that complements the existing 

critical aquatic refuges. It continues to address habitat needs and contributes towards recovery 

of federally listed species managed under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative B replaces 

plan direction for Forest Service sensitive species with plan direction addressing ecological 

diversity and integrity to provide for the persistence of species of conservation concern. It 

recognizes the importance of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support 

ecological restoration.

• Sustainable Recreation and Designated Areas. Alternative B updates the recreation 

opportunity spectrum for changes in land ownership, to reflect existing management and to 

consider recommended wilderness areas and eligible wild and scenic rivers. It applies the 

scenery management system to replace the visual management system. It integrates 

consideration of recreation opportunity spectrum and desired scenic integrity objectives into 

restoration desired conditions and design criteria. This alternative identifies four additional 

areas (37,029 acres) as preliminary administrative recommendations for inclusion in the 

National Wilderness Preservation System on the Inyo National Forest. It also identifies new 

segments as eligible for consideration as wild and scenic rivers on the Inyo National Forest (44 

rivers or segments), Sequoia National Forest (12 rivers or segments), and Sierra National Forest 

(133 rivers or segments). It defines the management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic 

Trail to be up to one-half mile from the centerline of the trail. It recognizes the importance of 

partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support recreation opportunities. 
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

9 

Alternative C

This alternative addresses the issues of increased amount of recommended wilderness areas, 

protecting aquatic diversity, and improved ecological resilience by emphasizing the role of natural 

processes in forest restoration. Achieving desired conditions would rely more on restoring fire as a 

natural processes, such as using unplanned wildfire ignitions managed to meet resource objectives, as 

well as prescribed burning. Mechanical treatments (such as mechanical thinning, timber harvest, and 

fuels reduction) also occur in order to move towards social, economic and ecological sustainability, 

but acres suitable for timber productions would be less than those available in alternatives A, B, and 

D. Alternative C responds to the revision topics as follows: 

• Fire Management. The wildland-urban intermix defense zone of the current forest plans is 

retained and this alternative uses the same wildfire maintenance zone as alternative B. 

Alternative C combines the remaining forest area into a general wildfire zone. It emphasizes 

treatments close to structures in the wildland-urban intermix defense zone and limits strategic 

mechanical treatments to support increased amounts of prescribed burning. Resource objectives 

are defined when wildfires may be managed to achieve ecological restoration. Alternative C 

includes forest plan components to conserve key characteristics associated with the ecological 

integrity of complex early seral habitat.

• Ecological Integrity. The Interim Recommendations for the Management of the California 

Spotted Owl are implemented in full as are the relevant findings and recommendations of the 

Fisher Conservation Strategy and providing for the core habitat for Sierra marten. Alternative C 

retains and adds prescriptive standards and guidelines that guide projects to reduce potential 

short-term impacts to habitats for the California spotted owl, Sierra marten and Pacific fisher.

Hand treatments and prescribed burning are preferred methods of reducing fuels and treating 

vegetation. Mechanical treatments are generally limited to removing small trees. Limitations 

are placed on the amount of treatment in fisher habitats that can occur in any 5-year time period 

to reduce the potential impacts of treatment on breeding fishers. The old forest emphasis area 

management area would be replaced with forestwide old forest desired conditions to provide 

for the density and number of large and old live trees, snags, and down logs the same as 

alternative B. Restrictions on the removal of large trees (trees greater than 30-inch diameter) 

would be retained similar to the current forest plans, but expanded to include pine trees greater 

than 27-inch diameter and with clarified exceptions regarding removal of trees to provide for 

human safety and additional limited exceptions when needed to improve ecological conditions 

for at-risk species. This alternative includes more forest plan components to conserve key 

characteristics associated with the ecological integrity of complex early seral habitat than 

alternative B. 

Alternative C emphasizes restoration of sagebrush habitats like alternative B. It continues 

protection of riparian conservation areas like alternative B and increases the number of critical 

aquatic refuges by adding additional areas recommended by the public located in watersheds 

with high aquatic species diversity. It addresses the ecological conditions for at-risk species 

using primarily prescribed burning and management of wildfires to meet resource objectives 

instead of mechanical treatments. It replaces plan direction focused on Forest Service sensitive 

species with plan direction addressing ecological diversity and integrity to provide for the 

persistence of species of conservation concern like alternative B. It recognizes the importance 

of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support ecological restoration like 

alternative B.
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

10

• Sustainable Recreation. This alternative updates the recreation opportunity spectrum as in 

alternative B accommodating additional adjustments for additional preliminary recommended 

wilderness areas. It applies the scenery management system as in alternative B. It integrates 

consideration of recreation opportunity spectrum, scenic character, scenic stability and desired 

scenic integrity objectives into restoration desired conditions and design criteria like alternative 

B, but relies upon less mechanical treatments and more hand treatment methods and prescribed 

burning to move towards desired conditions. Alternative C identifies 24 additional areas 

(315,531 acres) as preliminary administrative recommendations for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System on the Inyo National Forest; 18 polygons (206,904 acres) on

the Sequoia National Forest; and 17 polygons (220,641 acres) on the Sierra National Forest. It 

identifies the same rivers or segments as eligible for consideration as Wild and Scenic Rivers as 

alternative B. It defines the management area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail to be 

up to one-half mile from the centerline of the trail as in alternative B but expands to include 

areas within iconic viewsheds along the trail up to 4 miles from the centerline of the trail. It 

recognizes the importance of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support 

recreation opportunities similar to alternative B. 

Alternative D

This alternative addresses the issues of increasing the pace and scale of treatments to actively improve

ecological resilience to wildfire and reduce smoke from future wildfires. It is designed to reduce 

forest density and increase forest resilience to drought, improve the sustainability of recreation, and 

increase the amount of forest products produced to better contribute to economic and social wellbeing. 

• Fire Management. Alternative D uses the same four risk-based wildfire management zones as 

in alternative B. It increases strategic treatments along roads and ridgelines to support larger 

landscape prescribed burning and to increase the opportunity to use these treated areas to 

manage wildfires to meet resource objectives. Resource objectives are defined when wildfires 

may be managed to achieve ecological restoration and over time the same as alternative B. The 

same direction to consider smoke impacts to communities applies here as in alternative B.

• Ecological Integrity. Alternative D applies similar direction as alternative B but generally 

doubles the amount of areas treated, treating more focus landscapes and more area within focus 

landscapes. It includes the same forestwide old forest desired conditions as alternative B. Some 

large trees (greater than 30-inch diameter) may be removed in any areas as needed to move 

towards desired conditions. Some additional flexibility is added to treatment more acres during 

the summer by changing the limitations on equipment use near California spotted owl nests. To 

accommodate the increased amount of areas treated in focus landscapes, additional flexibility is 

added to allow more target fisher habitats to be treated in any 5-year period than alternative B

allows. More prescribed burning would occur compared to alternative B, especially to maintain 

previously treated areas. Combined with more opportunity to manage wildfires to meet 

resource objectives, fire would be restored as an ecological process on more areas than any of 

the other alternatives. This alternative includes forest plan components to conserve key 

characteristics associated with the ecological integrity of complex early seral habitat but 

balances the need to ensure long-term restoration of old forests more than alternative B. It 

recognizes the importance of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to support 

ecological restoration like alternative B.
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

11

• Sustainable Recreation. Alternative D updates the recreation opportunity spectrum as in 

alternative B, but does not include new preliminary administrative recommendations for 

inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. It applies the scenery management 

system as in alternative B. It integrates consideration of recreation opportunity, scenic character 

and scenic character stability into restoration desired conditions and design criteria as in 

alternative B with more consideration of recreation opportunities and settings due to the 

increased pace and scale of restoration. Alternative D identifies the same rivers or segments as 

eligible for consideration as wild and scenic rivers as alternative B. It defines the management 

area for the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail to be up to one-quarter mile from the centerline 

of the trail. It recognizes the importance of partnerships and encourages more partnerships to 

support recreation opportunities similar to alternative B.

The Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B (the draft forest plans) has been identified as our preferred alternative for revising the 

Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests land management plans. This is based on public input, our 

analysis of the alternatives, and what we think responds best to the issues. The preferred alternative is 

not a decision, but it’s what we consider the best approach based on our analysis to date. 

Decision to be Made

Based upon the potential effects of the alternatives, each Forest Supervisor for the Inyo, Sequoia, and 

Sierra National Forests will decide whether to implement one of the alternatives as described above, 

to refine an alternative, or develop and use an alternative that combines the plan content of other 

alternatives to meet the purpose and need, or to take no action at this time. Each National Forest 

Supervisor will make an independent decision for their respective national forest. 
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

12

Comparing Alternatives

Table S-1. Comparison of how each alternative addresses the revision topics

Revision 

Topic Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Fire 

Management

Two distance-based 

zones around the 

wildland urban 

intermix: wildlandurban intermix

defense zone; 

wildland-urban 

intermix threat zone

Four risk-based fire 

management zones: 

community wildfire 

protection zone, 

general wildfire 

protection zone, 

wildfire restoration 

zone, wildfire 

maintenance zone

One distance-based 

zone around the 

wildland urban 

intermix: wildlandurban intermix

defense zone; 1 riskbased fire 

management zone: 

wildfire maintenance 

zone; remainder in 

general wildfire zone

Same as alternative B

Ecological 

Integrity 

Prescriptive 

vegetation 

management 

emphasis on shortterm retention of 

habitat for California 

spotted owl, Pacific 

fisher and Sierra 

marten. 

Vegetation and fuels 

management 

treatments prioritized 

in the wildland-urban 

intermix and 

elsewhere in a 

roughly geometric 

pattern of strategically 

placed area 

treatments; 

Emphasis on 

restoration towards 

specific desired 

conditions based on 

natural range of 

variation and habitat, 

concentrated in focus 

landscapes; 

strategically located 

treatments to support 

larger landscapescale prescribed 

burning and greater 

opportunity to 

manage wildfires to 

meet resource 

objectives. 

Focused restoration 

of sage-grouse 

habitat. 

Adds some critical 

aquatic refuges.

Emphasis on shortterm habitat 

protection for 

California spotted 

owl, Pacific fisher, 

and Sierra marten. 

Vegetation and fuels 

management 

treatments focused 

on the wildland-urban 

intermix defense 

zone; limited 

mechanical treatment 

elsewhere; emphasis 

on managing wildfires 

to meet resource 

objectives where 

feasible. 

Increased restoration 

of sage-grouse 

habitat. Adds most 

critical aquatic 

refuges.

Same approach as 

alternative B, but 

more focus on 

increasing the area 

treated to improve the 

long-term 

sustainability and 

resilience of forests 

and watersheds.

Sustainable 

Recreation 

and 

Designated 

Areas 

No additional 

recommended 

wilderness areas

Additional 

recommended 

wilderness areas 

identified on the Inyo 

National Forest only.

Additional 

recommended 

wilderness areas 

identified on all 

forests

No additional 

recommended 

wilderness areas
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

13

Comparison of Key Indicators

Based on proposed objectives, tables S-2 through S-5 on the following pages display the projected 

accomplishments for some key indicators for each alternative. The figures displayed for alternative A 

represent the existing condition that reflects the current forest plans, as amended. See volume 3 for 

maps of various indicators by alternative for each national forest.

Table S-2. Key indicators for each alternative at the landscape level, all national forests

Key Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Projected large fire 

size (percent change)

23 percent 

increase

12 to 17 percent 

increase

Similar to 

alternative A

3 to 12 percent 

increase

Vegetation outside of 

the natural range of 

variability (low and 

mid-elevations)

Very high Moderate (restored 

areas) to high

High Moderate

Overall resilience to 

climate change to 

maintain or enhance 

watershed conditions

Trend to worse 

conditions than 

present

Trend to slightly 

worse condition 

than present

Trend to worse 

conditions than 

present

Trend to slightly 

better condition 

than present

Smoke Emissions 60 to 90 percent 

increase

49 to 60 percent 

increase

49 to 90 percent 

increase

23 to 49 percent 

increase

Air Quality Adverse longterm and shortterm effectsBeneficial longterm 

effects/Adverse 

short-term effects

Beneficial longterm 

effects/Adverse 

short-term effects

Beneficial longterm 

effects/Adverse 

short-term effects
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

14

Table S-3. Key indicators for each alternative for the Inyo National Forest

Key Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Mechanical 

treatments (acres per 

decade) 

20,000 20,000 – 25,000 10,000 – 15,000 25,000 – 30,000

Prescribed burning 

(acres per decade) 

18,000 20,000 – 25,000 15,000 – 35,000 20,000 – 25,000

Estimated wildfires 

managed to meet 

resource objectives 

(acres per decade)

10,300 49,000 18,000 93,000

Riparian vegetation 

improved (acres per 

decade)

300 – 400 400 – 500 400 – 500 500 – 600

Meadows maintained, 

improved, or restored 

(number per decade)

3 – 5 5 – 10 20 – 25 5 – 10

Critical Aquatic 

Refuges (acres)

170,600 191,567 322,518 191,567

Sage-grouse habitat 

maintained, 

improved, or restored 

(acres per decade)

1,500 – 7,450 1,500 – 14,900 7,450 – 22,350 7,450 – 22,350

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 37,029 315,531 0

New Eligible Wild and 

Scenic Rivers (miles)

0 159.8 159.8 159.8

Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail 

Management Area 

(acres) 

116 39,973 130,350 22,052

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

Sawtimber

1 1 – 1.5 <1 1 – 5.3 

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

Fuelwood

6 – 8 6 – 9.5 4 – 7 9.5 – 14
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans

15

Table S-4. Key indicators for each alternative for the Sequoia National Forest

Key Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Mechanical 

treatments 

(acres/decade) 

9,000 9,000 – 15,000 2,500 – 4,500 20,000 – 30,000

Prescribed burning 

(acres/decade) 

8,000 5,000 – 15,000 2,000 – 6,000 10,000 – 15,000

Estimated wildfires 

managed to meet 

resource objectives 

(acres/decade)

31,000 83,000 41,000 145,000

Riparian vegetation 

improved 

(acres/decade)

300 – 400 500 – 1,000 300 – 400 1,000 – 1,500

Meadows maintained, 

improved, or restored 

(number/decade)

3 – 5 10 – 15 20 – 25 15 – 20

Critical Aquatic 

Refuges (acres)

188,843 188,843 248,393 188,843

New recommended 

wilderness (acres)

0 0 206,904 0 

New eligible wild and 

scenic rivers (miles)

0 75.9 75.9 75.9

Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail 

Management Area 

(acres) 

61 20,883 46,384 12,261

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

sawtimber

8 8 – 16 2 – 4 16 – 28

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

fuelwood

3 – 5 3 – 5 3 – 5 3 – 5 
Summary 

Summary - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Revision of the Inyo, Sequoia, and Sierra National Forests Land Management Plans 

16

Table S-5. Key indicators for each alternative for the Sierra National Forest

Key Indicator Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Mechanical 

treatments 

(acres/decade) 

35,000 35,000 – 70,000 9,000– 17,500 70,000 – 105,000

Prescribed burning 

(acres/decade) 

15,000 50,000 – 60,000 20,000 – 40,000 100,000 – 150,000

Estimated wildfires 

managed to meet 

resource objectives 

(acres/decade)

5,000 170,000 14,000 297,000

Riparian vegetation 

improved 

(acres/decade)

300 – 400 500 – 1,000 500 – 1,000 1,000 – 1,500

Meadows maintained, 

improved, or restored 

(number/decade)

3 – 5 5 – 10 10 – 15 15 – 20

Critical Aquatic 

Refuges (acres)

42,440 154,275 199,367 154,275

New Recommended 

Wilderness (acres)

0 0 220,641 0 

New eligible wild and 

scenic rivers (miles)

0 633.5 633.5 633.5

Pacific Crest National 

Scenic Trail 

Management Area 

(acres) 

42 15,033 86,631 8,084

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

sawtimber

25 25 – 50 5 – 10 50 – 80

Projected 10-year 

timber harvest 

volumes (MMCF), 

fuelwood

5 –7 5 – 7 5 – 7 5 – 7